The Kyoto Protocol was first written in 1997, why do AGW believers blame Bush for not signing it?
I keep seeing answers from Anthropogenic Global warming believers that sound like they blame President Bush for not signing it. If my memories still serves me correctly wasn't Bill Clinton the President and Al Gore the Vice President in 1997?
True President Bush was reluctant to go along with the idea that Global Warming was being caused or effected by human activities, but in the end he agreed with them and talks became more productive.
I know most everyone hates George W Bush, but who among you would want the job?
And is so hard to understand that it would be hard to accept any policies where countries like China and India, who are starting to over take the US in Green House Gas emissions, are exempt. (These emissions also include other major air pollutants too.)
2008-01-03T05:11:13Z
Beej-186 - Thanks for the input, I completely forgot about the fact that 50% of California's air pollution is from China. And once you mentioned it I had one of those light bulb moments. I had in an answer once commented about California's Air Pollution problem, due to the winds coming off of the Pacific Ocean and the Rocky Mountains to the East trapping the Air Pollution due to a valley like effect. So that makes perfect sense that 50% of the air pollution comes from China.
2008-01-03T05:22:11Z
I see you all are going to make it hard on me to pick a best answer. With that I would like to thank both J.S. and Beej-186 for their wonderful contributions to this question.
beej_18632008-01-02T23:13:46Z
Favorite Answer
Those that hate President Bush fall into two categories, those in the United States that want more control over people's everyday lives (all of us use energy outside and inside our private homes), and those in foreign countries envious of the United States.
The Kyoto Protocol was specifically designed to harm only the United States, or to harm the United States far more than any other nation on Earth.
During the 1990's Europe and Japan were in economic recessions, while the US economy was booming (and energy use that goes with all economic activity). Europe could far more easily obtain the goals set than the US - without the US launching itself into a recession soley to meet the treaty.
In Germany, its average energy output shot down during the reunification and the collapse of the USSR put their energy use down. This is why the output levels of 1990 are used, and are still used. The Treaty will never be signed by Europe or Russia if any year after 1990 is used as a basis to reduce emissions. During the reunification of Germany, the East German factories that were inefficient and wasting money were shut down. The same thing occurred in Russia. And those shutdowns counted as emission reductions so much that Russia still makes a billion dollars every year in carbon credits. They are now able to build factories that are like their western counterparts now.
The hate George Bush because George Bush will not sign a treaty that will launch the US into a recession, if not a depression.
I find it funny as someone answered earlier that China will reduce their emissions if the US signs the Treaty. Every year, China needs to find work for 25 million new workers. For the last 50 years, the US has been in a state of democracy, and protects human rights, but China hasn't followed the example of one Western country in any regard to human rights or democracy. China knows that it is the cause of 50% of the pollution that exists in California as their pollution is carried by winds across the ocean, and the cause of 80% of the acid rain and acidic waterways and lakes in the Western US and Canada. They have done nothing to avert that. To say China will deprave themselves of economic growth simply because the US decides to stop its growth is nothing more than a fantasy.
The Kyoto Protocol has been signed. Bush refused to ratify it-which makes a signature more or less symbolic. Basically the Kyoto Protocol was stuck in bureaucratic red tape as the Clinton administration and US Congress were setting a time table for US businesses to adapt and also waiting for key developing countries to also sign.
Having the number 2 and 3 polluters exempt is an indication that the Kyoto Protocol was just another attempt to fool everyone into believing we were serious about tackling pollution. Number 1(the US) was not exempt, of course, but how about number 4-10? Why do they have to suffer while two of the top three get a pass? Does the fact that India and China are 'developing countries'(all forward-moving countries can be said to be developing) somehow diminish or remove the harmful effects of their pollution? Do we really need to have some foolish, halfway treaty to reduce our emissions on our own? If we are serious, and if all the coastal cities are doomed to be deluged, why are we exempting a large chunk of the pollution? Why not make everyone subject to the same rules?
On the subject of the US having to lead the way; with China and India fighting so hard to get their exemptions, I seriously doubt they would follow any lead. Nope, they will continue to happily pollute the atmosphere as long as they can get away with it. If a treaty nerfs other economies and gives them competitive advantages, so much the better. So long as they don't have to play ball.
Since the first Kyoto Protocol a lot of progresses have been made in climate science. The certainty of human involvement and the severity of the possible consequences if not taking enough actions has evolved. Almost every country in the world now understands the importance of cooperating in this issue and this includes China and India. As things evolve and the emissions of greenhouse gases continues to rise it's true that we need to put more pressure on developing nations to, but everyone needs to understand that in China and India there is still a high percentage of people who doesn't even have electricity in their homes. Yes, their emissions is rising, but they have huge populations who still lives in poverty.
The talk about that cutting greenhouse gases would hurt the American economy badly is in my opinion probably mostly just excuses to protect oil interests, and a way to convince people that the current policy is the best for its citizens. Since 1990 Sweden has managed to cut our emissions with almost 9% and still maintain a good economic growth. The task to successfully continue this mission would be much easier if all countries followed the same rules. For countries to see the biggest emitter in the world ignore powerful actions is having a very negative impact on other nations willingness to act.
You're right, I wouldn't want the President's job, but George W Bush did and I think as a leader for maybe the most powerful nation in the world he has a huge responsibility for how the future of this planet will look.
"Clinton/Gore never submitted the Kyoto Protocol to the Senate for ratification. (They were well aware that the Senate’s Byrd-Hagel resolution against any Kyoto-like protocol had just passed unanimously in July 1997.)" http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv26n4/v26n4-review.pdf
Regarding Bush: "The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide[69]). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he believes are present in the climate change issue. Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
'This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.'"[70] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
Bush Backs Away from Carbon Dioxide Pledge http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200103/NAT20010314c.html
"(CNSNews.com) - President Bush is backing away from a campaign pledge to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The decision, sure to please Republican conservatives and the coal industry, has angered environmentalists, who never liked Bush to begin with.
In a letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) on Tuesday, President Bush said he takes global warming 'very seriously' but that mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions would lead to higher electricity prices by forcing more utilities to shift to natural gas from cheaper coal.
Bush reportedly is abandoning his campaign pledge under pressure from Republican conservatives. Some of those conservatives said it looked like Bush, by supporting carbon dioxide reductions, was backing the controversial U.N. Kyoto climate treaty, which requires industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels.
Although the United States signed the treaty in November 1998, the Senate has not ratified it."