The Kyoto protocol has always been held up as a moral "hands up" , "this country is willing to help" standard rally to signal a countries intent to fight co2 emisions. It's up to the signatories to then follow through with carbon reduction schemes as they see fit.
Maybe you should reread this statement. You seem to have forgotten where you stand. Or maybe you just didn't know that the US did sign it. Either way your bias is nauseating.
TheAussieReaper wrote:
Kmarion wrote:
The US did sign Kyoto. What they haven't done is ratify it. I guess you could say we are following through with it as we see fit .
As a U.S. presidential candidate, George W. Bush promised to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Shortly after he took office in 2001, Bush withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol and refused to submit it to Congress for ratification.
Instead, Bush proposed a plan with incentives for U.S. businesses to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions 4.5 percent by 2010, which he claimed would equal taking 70 million cars off the road.
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, however, the Bush plan actually would result in a 30 percent increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels instead of the 7 percent reduction the treaty requires. That’s because the Bush plan measures the reduction against current emissions instead of the 1990 benchmark used by the Kyoto Protocol.
So in your opinion does Bush support reducing emissions or not? He didn't put Kyoto to congress. The signing was meaningless. What did happen though is the US set the bar so low that any reductions, excluding perhaps China, are the lowest anywhere on the globe. Even Russia has ratified Kyoto.
But go back and look over the fact that Bush wanted to pressure China into signing Kyoto by not ratifying it himself, that he is really supportive of reducing global warming by cutting emissions
voluntarily by businesses and that the cuts that are in place are lower than the standards set by 160+ nations across the globe.
Kyoto was put to congress and rejected in
July 1997. (S. Res. 98).
Recognizing the lack of support for the Protocol on Capitol Hill, however, President Clinton never submitted it to the Senate for ratification, a step necessary for it to take effect.
In fact Clinton approved and signed into law appropriations bills for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001 that included language
prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from using its funds to "issue rules, regulations, decrees, or orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol".. until the Protocol is ratified by the Senate and entered into force under the terms of the treaty (P.L. 105-276 Conference Report 105-769, P.L. 106-74 Conference Report 106-379, and P.L. 106-377 Conference Report 106-988).
Bush has had several acts passed that encouraged CO2 Reduction. Including tax credits for developing green technology, mandating higher mpg targets, tax breaks for people who buy hybrids, etc.. So yea, he does support a reduction. You admitted the uselessness of Kyoto and told me it is just a symbolic agreement. By signing it we said "this country is willing to help", but try imposing equal equal targets on everyone. It is pretty damn obvious that you only want to look at things in a manner that suits your overtly biased opinion. Jesus, have you seen what China and India's CO2 levels have done since they
signed and ratified Kyoto. Give me a fucking break...lol. No, you can keep your self aggrandizing feel good document to yourself.
