Why hasn't the USA signed the Kyoto Accord on greenhouse gas limitations?
454260
George Bush is the first and only answer. He refuses to accept valid scientific evidence that the world's climate has changed drastically and means future catastrophes are in store. He has only two agendas: get as rich as he can by accepting huge sums of money from the oil companies, and becoming a world dictator. No matter what he says his intentions are to destroy and control all of the Arab nations.
2662
The Kyoto Protocol is unfair and misleading. America would have been very heavily taxed and it's economy slowed down greatly if it had signed. The rest of the world argued that the US should pay the lion's share because it contributes more pollution than anyone else. What everyone disregards is that the US also produces more than anyone else. It's all proportional. It also excluded developing countries with no environmental policies whatsoever from contributing. If any country in the developing world had an economy as productive as the US, they would produce far more pollution than the US does. The Kyoto Protocol was a blatant and transparent attempt to hurt the US economy in the name of a problem that nobody has even been able to confirm.
17705
because it only affects the US.  Never mind we out produce everybody.  The Kyoto Protocals don't do anything for the alleged global warming.  If there is such a thing how could humans stop it?  Stop volcanoes from exploding? In school they taught us about weather cycles, that included several ice ages. In the seventies they were worried about global cooling.
25965
Bush assumes it will put US at risk of loosing the edge in industrial production.\nThe agreement will put stricter restrictions on emissions from various industries in america.\nTo adhere to the standards america needs to upgrade a large number of industries.\n\nAnother reason is these agreements will be fully implemented in usa but the other third world countries does not have the financial power or expertise to implement it. So the third world countries will be polluting and producing cheap products while US will be investing in new technologies and creating expensive products.\n\nBut in the long run US will reap the benefits if it signs the environmental agreement, as we have only one earth.
293797
I had a website addressing this very issue. We have many options available to us presently, but as long as their is a dollar in fossil fuels neither government nor corporate America is going to move in that direction. If you would like to be a mirror for the site let me know and I will get it back up!
145826
It really sucks.  I just watched a report on 60 Minutes about this subject and we are in deep trouble.  They showed a picture of the arctic in 1979 and one just taken six months ago.  It is unbelievable how much ice has melted in just 26 years.  The most noted authority on this catastrophe said that even if we were to stop putting greenhouse gases into our atmosphere, it wouldn't change the fact that our global temperature will still rise.  It probably wouldn't rise quite as fast, but it will still happen because of all the gases we have already emitted.  We can only sove this problem collectively as a human race and not separately as nations.
1085632
It is too early to tell but with Global Warming the chances are getting better and better!\nBut it would be pretty weak.
1037989
Isn't global warming enough?! Because of this ice bergs are melting which mean animals will die. Air is becoming thinner which means we can die.  Global warming IS something to worry about!\n\nwww.stopglobalwarming.org
460489
You're asking the right questions there, but unfortunately there's no easy answer.\n\nFor such a treaty to be more effective, it would have to include real sanctions for those who do not abide by its rules. Nations, however, are still reluctant to agree to such limitations and interference in domestic affairs. In the US, for instance, there are strong industrial lobbies that would not hesitate to withdraw their support for the administration that adhered to treaties that hurt their businesses.\n\nStudies have shown that the damage done to the environment is beyond its capacity to heal. On the other hand, nobody can force a nation to do anything, because that is a line that should never be crossed. Nobody wants another world war, especially nowadays, as such a full-scale war would definitely include nuclear arsenals and weapons of mass destruction.\n\nSadly, economic interests still dominate international affairs today. What policy makers have to realize is that the damage done to the environment will affect the economies that they were so eager to protect.
872079
The climate system varies both through natural, "internal" processes as well as in response to variations in external "forcing" from both human and non-human causes, including solar activity, volcanic emissions, and greenhouse gases. Climatologists agree that the earth has warmed recently. The detailed causes of this change remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus identifies greenhouse gases as the primary cause of the recent warming. Outside of the scientific community, however, this conclusion can be controversial.\n\nAdding carbon dioxide (CO2) or methane (CH4) to Earth's atmosphere, with no other changes, will make the planet's surface warmer; greenhouse gases create a natural greenhouse effect without which temperatures on Earth would be an estimated 30 °C (54 °F) lower, and the Earth uninhabitable. It is therefore not correct to say that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding carbon dioxide or methane to the Earth's atmosphere will, absent any mitigating actions or effects, result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of carbon dioxide and methane will be, when allowing for compounding or mitigating factors.\n\nOne example of an important feedback process is ice-albedo feedback. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere warms the Earth's surface and leads to melting of ice near the poles. As the ice melts, land or open water takes its place. Both land and open water are less reflective than ice, and so absorb more solar radiation. This causes more warming, which in turn causes more melting, and the cycle continues.\n\nDue to the thermal inertia of the earth's oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects, the Earth's current climate is not in equilibrium with the forcing imposed by increased greenhouse gases. Climate commitment studies indicate that, even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at present day levels, a further warming of perhaps 0.5 °C to 1.0 °C (0.9–1.8 °F) would still occur.
1079169
The realities of the oil crunch and energy-hungry nations have forced many countries into a potential global conflict. We can't back away from it but we could limit it by producing alternative sources of power. While the US sanctions the war in Iraq (as a source of black gold),it condemns China for seeking the same in African countries...by peaceful means! The American government has been led by wealth over many years,and the current administration is not an exception. Perhaps we should require a different document....not of independence but a curriculum vitae of elected officials as well as proof of their financial dealings.
747148
With all due respect, I am not sure if you understand how carbon trading works.  \n\nSome nations that comply with the Kyoto Treaty distribute the right to have a certain amount of emissions.  The classic example is the power industry, which commonly burns fuel-oil or coal to generate electricity.  Different plants have different carbon emission levels depending upon their fuel type, efficiency of the plant and recaputre systems (e.g. CO2 scrubbers).\n\nIn this case, a power plant would be give some carbon emission rights, which they can use up by generating electricity (and the resulting pollution) or not generating electricity and selling the excess carbon emission right to somebody else.  The exchange (e.g. LSE, Chicago Board) want to be the clearing house for the emission rights.  \n\nWhile I applaud your green thinking, you as an agricultural farmer, would not come into the carbon trading equation.
10249
actually, this is one problem that has actually been helped by government.\n\nan international agreement known as the montreal protocol signed in 1988 has restricted the use of ozone depleting chemicals like chlorofluorocarbons, methyl chloroform, methyl bromide and the like.  atmospheric monitoring has shown that the levels of these chemicals in the atmosphere has started to turn over and decline.\n\naccording to the NOAA report on ozone depletion published in 2002, "Chemistry-climate models predict that springtime Antarctic ozone levels will be increasing by 2010 because of projected decreases of halogens in the stratosphere.  A return to pre-1980 total column ozone amounts in the Antarctic is expected by the middle of this century."\n\nso, in other words, we only have to keep doing the right thing and not using the chemicals which we know deplete the ozone, and the earth will heal itself by 2050.  cool eh!
338613
I would have phrased to question as:\n\nwho was the first country stupid enough to sign the kyoto pact?
46917
hmmmm,They have this super computer and are pumping all the parameters of the earth into it. I was told it is classified but the results have been that if things stay on track, like the US being energy and polluting pigs, that we have less than 250 years untill there is very little life left on the planet, and animals can no longer live on the surface out in the open. The government which is basically controlled by the large corporations do not want this information public, they need us to continue to consume. Jim at www.xoffice.com
1076095
Yes but it would take a some time and a lot of effort and money invested into alternative sources in energy . We know that we have the capabilities with hydro electric wind solar and nuclear energies but they need more time and effort the only problem is with global warming Do we have the time?
810600
Many possible solutions have been proposed to stave off global warming, should it actually be occurring. Some are very practical, while others are grandiose, to say the least. What is certain is that as the world's population continues to grow and developing nations develop, the world's need for space and energy will continue to grow. The need for space will accelerate deforestation. The need for energy will almost certainly increase the rate of fossil fuel burning. Listed below are a number of proposed "solutions" to combat global warming.\n\nThe simplest solution is an old one: conservation. Each gallon of gasoline releases 8.64 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere (source USEPA). Each kilowatt of electricity generated by a coal-fired plant produces about 1.4 kg of CO2 (source USEPA). Use less = emit less. The USEPA estimates that energy-saving appliance standards in the U.S. will have reduced national electricity consumption by 3% by the year 2000. This reduction will offset the need for 31 large power plants. A 625 MW coal-fired plant (serves about 425,000 homes) emits 1 million tons of carbon each year. The best part about conservation is it also saves you money. Again, the USEPA estimates that consumers will save more than $140 billion by the year 2030 with energy-saving appliances.\n\nPlant a tree. Forests cover 10 billion acres worldwide and sequester 1 trillion tons of carbon. The IPCC estimates that 850 million acres could be made available for planting trees. These trees would take up 60 to 90 billion tons of carbon by the year 2050. Unfortunately, this is only 12 to 15% of projected emissions during this period. Moreover, trees mature and stop rapidly consuming carbon. They are cut down, burned, or decay, which releases their stored CO2. So trees are a temporary partial solution at best. However, if these trees were used for lumber or paper products, their carbon would be stored for much longer periods of time. This might give the next solution time to work.\n\nThe oceans. The oceans already hold 36 trillion tons of carbon and absorb an additional 10 GtC from the ocean surface components each year (see Carbon Cycle). The ocean surface currently absorbs 2.5 GtC from the atmosphere, or roughly 40% of anthropogenic emissions. Given time, the oceans will probably absorb human-induced emissions, just not as fast as we are currently producing them. Proposals have been made to pump power plant emissions directly into the deep ocean. It would probably work, but would be extremely expensive