U.S. Continues Opposition to Kyoto Environmental Treaty 1580
fenris_23 writes "The AP is reporting
that President Bush has reiterated his opposition to the Kyoto Treaty despite President Putin's acceptance of the treaty and recent scientific evidence directly linking greenhouse emissions to arctic warming. 'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality."
I missed that one (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Mixed opinions (Score:4, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty
Re:kyoto is not good for the US (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Don't you just love Bush and his short-termism (Score:3, Interesting)
A more stable economy? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:American Jobs (Score:2, Interesting)
just seed the oceans with iron (Score:3, Interesting)
2. phytoplankton boom
3. phytoplankton die and sink to ocean floor
repeat and rinse
presto: millions of tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestered to the deep
but no, some think it's better to talk intractable complicated pointless blame game politics when there is a quick and easy technological fix
Re:Hopefully (Score:4, Interesting)
Normally I'd include "mentally unable", but for some reason that hasn't stopped this particular president.
External forces like treaties and trade don't usually directly affect the President to the level that would be needed to call for his impeachment. Bush would have to have a stance so heinous that most other nations would completely cease trading with us in order to really cause enough trouble motivate the people to call for his removal. The problem with this is that our economy has been very important to other countries internationally. This can be seen easily back to 1929 when our economy's tanking took Europe, and a large portion of the rest of the world, straight to the crapper. The Middle East, for example, can't afford to cut off oil sales to the U.S. any more than we can afford to immediately cut them off as a supplier, we consume so much that they would be in as much trouble as we would.
I'm getting tired of how the Government constantly makes short-term changes to deal with long-term problems, somewhat blocking the problem until it rears its' head again. We could set the example for what a country can do for the world, but we don't.
I guess that I'm still just a little peeved by the election results.
Re:a good thing? (Score:5, Interesting)
First and foremost, it will reduce our dependence on oil - a huge win for America, considering that 12 presidents havent managed to do so.
Second, it puts the biggest producers first, and the "little guys" who will be hit the hardest financially a close second - the little guys still get moved up to Annex 1 in time, resulting in everyone having the same rules.
Third, as you said, it gives us an easy transition method - we can buy credits from other countries, allowing us to reduce the impact of transition, and ALSO increasing the speed of those smaller countries reaching annex I status.
All in all, its a team-work oriented approach to getting everyone on the same rules, as fast as posisble, while still being reasonable.
All in all, very good for America - less reliance on oil, less pollution, less health problems, new jobs (green technologies), and a better standing in the international community.
Re:Yay for the US. (Score:3, Interesting)
Frankly, I'd much rather accept the voluntary constraints of the treaty than the involuntary constraints that will be imposed by the effects of global warming. Admittedly, nothing on this menu is truly appetizing, but if we don't choose from column A (treaties and effective laws to reduce CO2 emissions), nature will choose for us from column B (flooding, loss of arable land, economic depression, famine, etc.).
Not that I think it, or any other effective measure to reduce CO2, has a snowball's chance in Hell in this -- or any other recent or forseeable -- administration anyway.
Re:Jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
What?? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sorry; this is a quote from the Kyoto Treaty? Funny that a google search [google.com] doesn't bring up the text of the treaty. Sure, you're thinking, that's because google censored them under pressure from the John Kerry campaign, but try this search [google.com] and plenty comes up. Nothing about paying third world countries for the right to pollute though. Funny, the phrase "third world" doesn't even appear in the treaty.
Now can someone please explain what is insightful about the above?
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Why the 2012 implementation date for Kyoto? (Score:2, Interesting)
The answer, of course, is that many of the politicians who have signed on to Kyoto have done so for short term political gain. It makes everyone feel good that something is being done, while they don't actually have to do anything painful.
If push comes to shove and people are actually forced to curtail their lifestyle in 2012 in order to comply with the protocol, then you will see those people dropping out of it. After all, there are no penalties for dropping out. So, if you have to choose between spending billions of dollars to reduce C02 production, or buy CO2 credits from Russia for billions of dollars, or drop out and keep your money, which one will the voters choose?
The only way that Kyoto will be complied with is if technology improves (e.g. more fuel efficient vehicles and energy production) to the point where painful choices are not required. And that improvement will happen regardless of Kyoto.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:5, Interesting)
I am quite happy to give nations like India greater allowances for some time, to allow them to build their economy and industry up to a greater level. I'm not surprised to hear Americans say they are unwilling to do that though (even though as an EU member citizen I'm happy to make greater sacrifices because I know we can afford it, and I think the vast majority of EU members think the same way).
The rest of the world has a very low opinion of the US now (not because of GWB, but because you were so collectively retarded as to re-elect him, not because he's Republican, just because he's the wost president the US has ever had). You guys can do what you like now, other people have ceased to care what Americans think or do. The sad truth is America no longer has any real friends in the international community.
Note I say that as someone who has been a big fan of the US for along time and is both pro-globalisation, and was in favour of the invasion of Iraq (because it meant disposing Saddam). I'm not a typical 'anti-American/anti-capitalist' left wing loonie. I just think the US has simply burned too many bridges now, the re-election of GWB was seen mind bogglingly stupid (especially given that in the end he was found to have lost the popular vote by 900,000 votes in the first election). The rest of the world looked on last week and thought "WTF?".
I've been to North America many times, as far west as San Fransico, as far east as New York, as far south as Cape Kennedy and as far north as Canada. I will not being going back though. The requirements to be finger printed and iris scanned are the most over the top in the western world. Law enforcement is comparibly officious and oppresive and the people are highly insulated with very limited knowledge of the world in which they live. I think Americans are lovely people, just staggeringly poorly informed.
This is not intended as a flame or troll, it's very tragic, but really I honestly don't think people care if you sign up or not anymore, because as a nation you've made it quite clear you don't give a damn about 'the free world' (or those who are not free), just yourselves.
It's also tragic that in such a close election you never the less have a Republican House, Republican Senate and Republican Supreme Court, along with the divisive final term Republican president (politically empowered to do what ever the hell he likes, even though the result was so close). The system is fubard and Americans don't seem to even notice or admit it to themselves, let alone care. *sigh*.
Re:It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway... (Score:3, Interesting)
There are several good reasons to sign a treaty even if it won't be ratified. For one thing, the senators become accountable for every treaty they vote against. So, for instance, when Senator Martinez comes up for re-election, his opposition to Kyoto can be made into a campaign issue.
It also clarifies the administrations position on the treaty, and can turn it into a national issue. If there is a large public outcry in favor of the treaty due to a ratification controversy, it might compel some senators to change their votes.
It can also buy "political capital" in the international community. If other countries see that the president supports a treaty, even if it doesn't get ratified, fewer doors will close to the president.
With this president, too, the story is a bit different. Bill Frist doesn't have enough political strength to run the senate as a force separate from the president (unlike, say, LBJ). Bush's policy pretty much sets the agenda for this Senate nowadays.
I'll Be Among The First To Drown (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, I live in The Netherlands, and half my country is below sealevel. Actually, I live exactly at sealevel. In other words-- I'll be the first to drown as soon as global warming really kicks in.
Bush simply refuses to look at things from a different viewpoint. for him, it's black, or white, grey does not exist. The US are the biggest poluters in the world; them NOT signing the Kyoto treaty is simply unacceptable. You Bush-loving people probably all live high and dry near the Great Divide. That's all fine and such, but lemme tell you, the world doesn't end at the Mexican and Canadian borders.
If Bush just had slightly more intelligence, he'd sign the damn treaty. He hides behind comments like "We will loose jobs if we sign etc."-- perfectly knowing that nonsense statements like that bribe the American audience.
I'll seriosuly be pissed off as soon as I start to get wet feet around here.
Re:kyoto is not good for the US (Score:5, Interesting)
Lost jobs? (Score:1, Interesting)
Bush just doesn't want to do anything that would cost large corporations a cent.
Re:Amazing (Score:3, Interesting)
This is a troll, but I'll bite.
The Kyoto protocol was specifically designed to hamper american economic dominance, is it such a wonder that we didn't sign it? I'm probably more of an environmentalist than most of the environmentalists, but give me a break. A treaty that places tight restrictions on CO2 coming from developed countries, but no restrictions what so ever on developing countries like China is really going to just result in dirty industries moving to china where they can get away from all pollution controls. There's no reason to ask the US taxpayers to actually pay for an outsourcing of thier jobs when the net result will actually be to increase worldwide pollution, now is there.
If the treaty had reasonable constraints on all countries, then the US should sign it, but a treaty that seeks to move dirty industries from the US (and EU, though to a lesser degree) where they at least have to watch their sulfur and NOX emissions to a country like China where it's the wild west, should not be signed by the US or anyone else.
A far more effective policy would be to put a global price tag on CO2 emissions, and then hold EVERY country responsible, using the UN and WTO to fine those that failed to pony up their fraction of the costs. That would actually make sense, but to say it's forbidden here, but if you move over some imaginary line, then you're free to pollute all you want, that's just stupid.
Yet another chance to bash the President (Score:4, Interesting)
John Freakin Kerry was also one of the senators to also sign this resolution.
Re:That's an excuse and you know it (Score:4, Interesting)
Not if "something" hurts our economy while doing nothing to curb global greenhouse gas emissions.
Globalization and the current incarnation of the Kyoto Protocol should be mutually exclusive. If we don't apply the same pollution-control standards to *all* WTO countries, then the multinationals will just move their manufacturing operations to the countries where the Kyoto standards are weakest so that they can keep producing as much CO2 as they feel like.
I'm all for preventing global warming, but the Kyoto protocal is worthless unless the same standards apply to everyone.
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Interesting)
President Bush is right: the Kyoto treaty is bad business for America. We have a future of cleaner living through technology ahead of us, but Kyoto is not it. Furthermore, go google a search for "global cooling article" and you will see that 30 years ago the "scientists" who are now predicting global warming were back then predicting global cooling.
Resist Kyoto (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem with the premise of Kyoto is that Co2 is not pollution in any sense of the word, but a natural part of organic life and human economic activity, at that. Dumping uranium in the artic sea, that is pollution. Oil spills in the coastal areas, that is pollution. Heavy metal emmissions from coal power plants, thats pollution. But dang, dont ever come and tell me that it's pollution when i take a breath of air. And keep your mitts out of my wallet while you're at it, thank you so much.
Re:To review... (Score:3, Interesting)
Bush has said the same thing:
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.
The USA uses 40% of the world oil supply... (Score:5, Interesting)
And the US has only 4.6% of the world's population.
Kyoto or not, its time to buy smaller cars less often, take public transit, and carefully consider the effects of overconsumption. In the past three years, I've traded my SUV in on a Toyota Echo, taken the bus/train to work nearly every day, and started to buy gently used stuff on eBay.
It was actually pretty easy - And I was able to pack an extra $18,000 into the bank. I suppose I'm my own little "Mini Kyoto."
Of course, my behaviour is bad news for corporations like GM and many manufacturers - but its better for me.
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Interesting)
I thought Bush's "moral stands" were exactly the opposite -- what is popular but not right. Esp. the gay bashing bit. I thought he did it for popularity sake even though for sure he had to know that such a constitutional ammendment would not fly, but he went through the trouble of trying anyway. I was always under the impression that he did whatever things Karl Rove tells him to do just so he could be popular with his core base supporters.
Actually there are at least two others. (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually there are (at least) two others. But I'm sure the eco-fascists (not to be confused with actual environmental scientists) would be opposed to them as well.
One is space solar power: Orbital solar collectors and milimeter-wave downlink to rectennas. It's actually price-competitive with fossil fuel plants (despite a flawed NASA study) and will get moreso with the development of private orbital capacity. (Bullshit about birds cooked in flight has already been issued.)
The other is to seed the South Pacific with a bit of iron compounds so the algae bloom will suck down megatons of CO2 and sequester it in the deep ocean for time measured in kiloyears, and continue with fossil fuel until, say, the necessary fusion breakthroughs occur or the eventual price rises make other alternatives attractive.
It seems odd to see them whine on one hand about too much CO2, and then whine on the other hand that people would *gasp* actually consider using a CO2 free source of electricity.
Hear hear!
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:5, Interesting)
People may be bitching about China, India and Russia, but if all the factories GM, Ford, GE and so on are building there will be completed China will definitely hit its pollution limits before the end of this decade and they know it. Even so, they have signed it. I have my own hypothesis on why - to twist the hands of the same GE, GM, Ford, VW, etc to move there modern technology, not to become the scrapyard of the world. There are many things you can say about Chinese "communists" (quotes intended), but one thing you can't say is that they are stupid.
Re:Actually there are at least two others. (Score:3, Interesting)
I honestly don't get the opposition to nuclear power. Is it Chernobyl? A maldesigned reactor with a significant operational gaffe that occurred over a matter of hours.
Nothing that we know about is as practical as nukes. Nuclear power must be used with care, but we can't take past mistakes and ban it forever. Obviously we didn't ban cars forever because of the Pinto, or jet planes forever due to the Comet.
Re:So ? (Score:5, Interesting)
The atmosphere's mass is 5 × 10^18 kg. Assuming it takes 1000 joules to raise the temperature of one kilogram of air by one kelvin, the the energy is 5 × 10^21 joules.
Energy released by Tsar Bomba, the largest nuclear weapon ever detonated: 2 × 10^17 joules.
So, 25,000 Tsar Bombas, enough to fight a global nuclear war several times over.
My heat capacity calculations are probably off a bit. Feel free to correct me.
Plan B? Contraction and Convergence (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Financial Benefits (Score:2, Interesting)
What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada 450,000 jobs?
There are no studies to support this number. Industry lobby groups continue to use it for scare purposes.
There may be a drop in total employment in conventional energy production in Canada, but this is a trend that has been underway for several years. According to Natural Resources Canada, the energy sector employed almost 81,000 fewer workers in 1998 than it did in 1990.
However, a shift of investment away conventional energy production into other activities is likely to create more jobs. With 20 per cent of capital investment by Canadian businesses, the oil, gas and electricity industries produce just 2 per cent of the jobs. The Communications Energy & Paperworkers Union, the Alberta Federation of Labour, the Canadian Auto Workers, and the Canadian Labour Congress all publicly support the Kyoto Protocol.
In other sectors, many analysts see a net gain in employment. In fact, the Canadian economy is projected to grow by 30.4 per cent by 2012, from $1 trillion to $1.315 trillion if we meet out Kyoto targets. For more information, read the Tellus Institute's report, The Bottom Line on Kyoto [davidsuzuki.org].
What about industry claims that Kyoto will cost Canada tens of billions of dollars?
Most of the so-called "costs" of Kyoto will be related to investments in energy efficiency, with payback times of a few years or even months. These investments will be made when it is normal to make them - that is, when it is time to purchase new and better industrial equipment, motor vehicles or home furnaces.
Such investments in energy efficiency since 1970 have produced net cost savings for Canadian consumers of more than $50 billion, and the annual savings amount is rising.
A well-executed emissions reduction program can provide all kinds of benefits to industry. These include
* energy savings;
* reduced energy dependency;
* a better competitive position through efficiency;
* an improved capacity to innovate, and a chance to market new processes and technologies in a global market;
* better relations with local communities as industries clean up the air and show leadership on the environment..
Further, any discussion of costs and benefits needs to consider the costs of doing nothing about climate change and air pollution. We are already absorbing the high costs of inaction - including droughts, floods, more extreme weather events, and impacts on natural resource industries. As well, fossil fuel air pollution imposes immense human and financial costs related health impacts. In other words, taking action to reduce energy use has substantial economic benefits in many areas of our lives.
Why is the U.S. opposed to Kyoto?
The U.S. has opposed or opted out of many international initiatives in recent years. The convention on land mines and the international war crimes tribunal are prominent examples.
With Kyoto in particular, the current U.S. administration has expressed fears similar to those of Alberta: that reducing the burning of fossil fuels will reduce the incomes of oil and coal companies. In its energy plan, the Bush administration continues to rely on fossil fuels. It is not seriously challenging the status quo despite the costs of climate change and air pollution.
The Bush administration has adopted a weak plan to encourage industries to reduce emissions, assuming an 18 per cent increase in emissions by 2012. The good news in the U.S. is that many states are taking steps to cut emissions, including California, New York, Michigan and Massachusetts. Read a releated report from the Pembina Institute called How Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol will Benefit Canada's Competiti
Re:"Hard" Kyoto numbers (Score:2, Interesting)
Nuclear plants in modern day are relatively safe. The only catastrophic disaster so far is Chenoboyle, which is a result from stupid engineering (the safety system controls the reactor, which boils the water, which drives the turbine, which power the safety system... anyone see a problem here?).
Does anyone know why Russia wants Kyoto? (Score:3, Interesting)
Step 2. Sign Kyoto.
Step 3. Profit [wikipedia.org]
The US leading us all (Score:3, Interesting)
I wish I could speak from higher moral ground here, but my own country just re-elected John Howard. Still, from over here it looks like you guys have a democracy in name only, and the big interests (corporate america) are the only ones with any real say anymore.
I know most US Slahdoter's are good people who recycle, plant trees and drive efficient cars (maybe even walk, cycle or ride a mototbike). I feel somewhat sorry for you. We seem to be in the similar boat over here.
Only Joy at a Bush victory... (Score:1, Interesting)
To all the poor people who voted for Bush because he supports a "moral America" and "shares your values," just watch as you get poorer and I, the already rich liberal, get wealthier under Bush. Thank god for my massive stock options; at least I'll be rich while my country goes to hell.
God Bless America.
Re:Actually there are at least two others. (Score:3, Interesting)
Apart from those fundamental issues, there is also the question of the amount of fuel that we can economically obtain. If we switched coal and oil power plants (not to mention transportation) to nuclear, how long would the fuel last? I've heard numbers in the range of only about 10 to 15 years. That's at least one order of magnitude to low to be a useful suggestion. Anything more than that would require the usage of breeder reactors.
Russia and Canada (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't care about global warming. It is global cooling that would be a problem.
Anyhoo, before people worry about manmade greenhouse gases maybe they should first try to cap all the volcanoes...
This is the typical attitude of AU and US citizens (Score:4, Interesting)
The same attitude is in Australia as well. People will vote for what will benefit themselves, not what benefits everyone.
Civilization is uncivilized.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:2, Interesting)
So your comment is entirely correct about the Bush administration being hypocritical. No suprises there. Move along, move along.
Re:Jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
It's about one group legally pushing their morality on all others.
The women in Nevada's legal brothels who are making $500k per year have all the self-esteem and self respect that anyone else does.
Drugs are lucrative for those who sell them, but they have strong dependencies and ruin lives. They are dangerous for those who take them and for those who live around them.
It is drug prohibition that causes most of these problems. If drugs were legal and controlled the quality would be higher. Much fewer overdoses. They'd also be cheaper, fewer addicts would be robbing others to pay fot their habits.
If drugs were legal, there wouldn't be obscene profits involved and no drug dealers would be having shootouts over territory.
Prohibition is more of a problem than the drugs.
I don't even smoke weed, but I don't give a fuck if you want to. Your body, your money, your choice.
LK
That's funny... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yet, Bush doesn't even notice the job losses due to outsourcing.
Let's think about this a bit - does Bush really care about jobs?
No - he just doesn't want his big business friends to pay for decent pollution prevention standards.
*This* is why I'm trying to move to Canada.
Re:"Hard" Kyoto numbers (Score:3, Interesting)
It's clear that oil isn't "running out" anytime soon but it will only get more expensive. The majority of the US coal supply is high sulfer bituminous coal and that can only be made to burn so cleanly. Products from it can largely substitute for oil but that isn't cheap either. Bring on the pebble bed and sodium reactors. Oh, and in case it was missed the first time....fuck hippies.
We must lose our obsession with the automobile. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Actually there are at least two others. (Score:3, Interesting)
Your numbers are WAYYYY off. No reputable source will claim anything less than 100 years, and it's stretching reality to claim that it's less than 1000 with even the bare minimum of care.
Uranium is more common than Tin, and it doesn't take very much to produce a lot of energy. The cost of the Uranium itself is a rounding error in the cost of the electricity from nuclear power, consequently the market could tolerate HUGE prices for it and still be just fine. Yeah, at the rediculously low current prices of Uranium, we only have maybe 100 years worth of supply, but at reasonable prices (prices where perhaps 1/3 of the price of electricity comes form the price of Uranium) that number would be at least in the thousands of years.
Re:Actually there are at least two others. (Score:3, Interesting)
So far, that is way too bloody expensive to be practical.
And the consequences of doing such a thing, even if it was practical? Algae blooms are known to disrupt and kill other forms of sea life. Compared to this, nuclear power is far more practical and immediately usuable, with virtually no impact on the environment, thats why proponents of it are slowly gaining ground despite the eco-fascists.
Re:The USA uses 40% of the world oil supply... (Score:3, Interesting)
-fred
You forgot emmissions trading (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Jobs (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who believes that (and I know you aren't one of them from the contents of your post) should read Peter Singer's recent book "The President of Good and Evil" - I'm just reading it for the secod time. Singer's basic theme is, if I understand him correctly, that Bush is morally bankrupt, as his moral statements have no internal consistency or external justification.
Re:It's is a SHAM. (Score:2, Interesting)
Of course, all this assumes that those countries which are subject to third-world limits in the treaty don't suddenly get subjected to first-world limits prior to taking on the industrial production burden described in the above message. It also depends on whether or not the first-world countries are already under the third-world limits, since if they're not then a first-world country signing the treaty will probably yield a net win even if the economic activity goes to a third-world country that has also signed it.
So whether or not it really ends up being a net win versus a net loss depends greatly on how the rules get applied and, of course, whether or not the signatories play by the rules of the treaty. It also depends on how the third-world countries are developing. If they skip coal and oil-powered plants and go directly for nuclear, then clearly their emissions per economic output unit will likely be much less than that of the U.S. despite their third-world status.
Worship the economy (Score:3, Interesting)
On the face of it, worshipping the economy is not entirely stupid... money drives everything... and that good old invisible hand will just make everything turn out dandy.
But you must look at the reality of it. Corporations are more powerful than governments; corruption is rife; the environment get screwed along with everything else that has an orifice that's not surgically closed.
But the "right-wing" feels that the invisible hand meant to take care of the environment as well. It doesn't, and they are fooling themselves. In the effort to make more money for shareholders, who bare no responsiblity, corporations cut costs by pushing them onto what are euphemistically called "externalities". They are real world costs that never hit the books, usually for the simple reason that people don't measure them.
There is a good reason why people in high places don't want damage to the environment measured in $$$ terms... it cut's into their millions... despite the fact that they already control an enormous amount of wealth.
For example, take fishing in the North Atlantic. Marine biologists were warning about fishing trawlers since the 70s, but the "damage to economy" argument stopped any regulation of the trawlers until the 90s. The reality was that only a few people made a lot of money (the fishermen made the same as always). The amount of waste was amazing, the warning and studies were always there, and people ignored the scientists (and still do) as they scream devastation. Finally, when one of the most abundant species on Earth was near extinction, a moratorium was put on fishing. Now people still fish, and the North Atlantic Cod isn't making any miraculous rebound, and in some places are still depleting further.
The damage to the economy was severe and chronic. Millions of livelihoods were affected by the moratorium. The investors from the 70s walked away with their millions, and left the rest in poverty. That is an externality. That is what worship of the economy leads to.
Kyoto Problems (Score:3, Interesting)
It always amazes me to see people jump on the Kyoto bandwagon.
The US SHOULD NOT sign the Kyoto protocol. Not only does it not hold most of the worst pollution producing countries [frontlineonnet.com] in the world [geocities.com] to ANY standard what-so-ever, but it also puts the US at a significant disadvantage compared to not only China but the EU [harvardmagazine.com].
To top it off, the Kyoto protocol is estimated to have negligable impact [austinreview.com] on global warming, even with Perfect compliance by all nations ratifying it.
Koyoto treaty fundamentally flawed (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Jobs (Score:2, Interesting)
Incorrect, he signed a number of treaties, they were just either not ratified, or rejected by GWB. He (Clinton) didn't have support of the senate which was and still is Republican controlled.
"The United States ratified the 1989 U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child on February 16, 1995. However, in 2000 when the U.N. attempted to pass the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts, the United States raised strong objections and still refuses to ratify it. President Clinton signed the Protocol in May 2000, but the Republican-dominated Senate did not ratify it, raising the objections that the treaty undermines the rights of parents and is unfair to the U.S., since the U.S. currently recruits and deploys 17 year-olds for service. The Bush Administration is taking no action on ratification."
http://www.clw.org/control/bushunilateral.html [clw.org]
"On Dec. 31, 2000, Bill Clinton signed the Rome agreement creating an International Criminal Court. He waited until almost the last permissible moment to affix the United States to the agreement even though he did not, he said, agree with its contents."
"President George W. Bush, recognizing the consequences of treating the U.S. signature so frivolously, has instructed the State Department to make clear the United States has no intention of being bound by the signature by informing the United Nations of the decision."
http://www.cei.org/utils/printer.cfm?AID=3312 [cei.org]
"The current treaty at issue is the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, first opened for signatures in 1996. This multilateral agreement bans all nuclear tests above and below the Earth's surface. The treaty also established a worldwide monitoring system to check air, water and soil for signals that someone set off a nuclear explosion. While President Clinton signed the treaty, in 1999, the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it."
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/nucleartreaties.h
"Although President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, mandating a reduction in carbon emissions to below 1990 levels by 2012, a 2001 State Department memo rejected the protocol on the basis that it would harm the US economy and exempt developing countries from reduction requirements. Of industrialized states, only the US, Australia and Israel haven't ratified the protocol. The US did ratify the UNFCCC, but has not complied"
http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/un/2003/treaty
Likely there is more (thats enough for today, but I see a recurring theme). It seems pretty much like his hands were tied.