Kyoto Protocol ... GW Bush

[ecivon]

The only reason the US offers for opposing the Kyoto Protocol is based on economic concerns and not on any scientific basis warning of disastrous environmental concerns for not taking drastic steps to reduce pollutants.

This is pure b*llshit!!! By implementing more effective controls at eliminating pollutants it would create new industries, jobs and strengthen the economy.

After all, Bush commented on why he favored opening up ANWR that what was the big deal? He saw nothing 'attractive' in the wildlife refuge so in other words why would it matter?

[Phreak101]

This is not news, this is opinion. Post this crap elsewhere.

[ecivon]

This is not news, this is opinion. Post this crap elsewhere.

The Kyoto Protocol, the environment and Bush are not current events in the news?

[Phreak101]

The Kyoto Protocol, the environment and Bush are not current events in the news?

Yes they are, and by all means please post news articles about NEW events regarding them. But your (very slanted) opinion about the matter adds nothing new to what we already know. We had to put a stop to that kind of thing because of the arguing (we had a politics forum but it was removed). We tried to bring it back but no avail, so we take spewing of opinions rather seriously around here b/c we don't wanna lose this forum too.

FYI

[Logan13]

The only reason the US offers for opposing the Kyoto Protocol is based on economic concerns and not on any scientific basis warning of disastrous environmental concerns for not taking drastic steps to reduce pollutants.

This is pure b*llshit!!! By implementing more effective controls at eliminating pollutants it would create new industries, jobs and strengthen the economy.

After all, Bush commented on why he favored opening up ANWR that what was the big deal? He saw nothing 'attractive' in the wildlife refuge so in other words why would it matter?

Yes it is old news, Australia is refusing to do it as well. China and India would not have to obide by it, acoording to the protocol. Given the fact that it was voted 95-0 against in the U.S. Senate, it's obvious that there is little support for it in Congress as well. It is not just Bush, and obviously not just Republicans.......

[Logan13]

The only reason the US offers for opposing the Kyoto Protocol is based on economic concerns and not on any scientific basis warning of disastrous environmental concerns for not taking drastic steps to reduce pollutants.

This is pure b*llshit!!! By implementing more effective controls at eliminating pollutants it would create new industries, jobs and strengthen the economy.

After all, Bush commented on why he favored opening up ANWR that what was the big deal? He saw nothing 'attractive' in the wildlife refuge so in other words why would it matter?

I have provided a link and excerpt from a Dissident Voice artical, which by the way is a VERY Liberal publication. Please investigate further before pointing fingers. If you wake up tomorrow and discover that you are out of kool-aid will you blame Bush for that as well?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/July06/Frank18.htm


...It was the winter of 1997 when Vice President Gore, who was in direct control of Clinton’s environmental policies, flew to Japan to address the international delegation about the US position on the Kyoto Protocol. Gore and Clinton had just come off an election victory and it was time to pay back the big oil and gas companies who had handed over $6 million to their party the year before.

Gore warmed up his attentive audience by affirming that Clinton and the US public believed the Earth was in peril and that all global citizens must act swiftly to save it. But in typical Gore doublespeak, he declared the United States would not support the agreement because it did not ask enough of developing nations, even though the US is the leading polluter in the world.

As Gore put it then, "Signing the Protocol, while an important step forward, imposes no obligations on the United States. The Protocol becomes binding only with the advice and consent of the US Senate.”

Gore soon returned to Washington only to reiterate his message that the Clinton administration would not put the Kyoto Protocol before the Senate. "As we have said before, we will not submit the Protocol for ratification without the meaningful participation of key developing countries in efforts to address climate change," he said.

It was at that moment when Clinton and Gore ruined any chances of the Kyoto Protocol being honestly debated in Washington. Later in November of 1998, Gore "symbolically" signed the accord, likely to appease his environmental pals like the Sierra Club’s Carl Pope, a close friend.

But the Vice President’s tepid gesture couldn't have carried less weight. The Clinton administration, with Gore's guidance, refused to allow the Republican controlled Senate to decide on the Kyoto Protocol for themselves. Gore advised Clinton not to send the Protocol to the Senate to be ratified. The blame could have burdened the Republican Party, not the Democrats and the Clinton administration. But instead the buck stopped with Al Gore and Bill Clinton. Predictably, President Bush followed their lead.

And there you have it. It was Mr. Global Warming himself who first tried to kill off the Kyoto Protocol.

[Kärnfysikern]

This is not news, this is opinion. Post this crap elsewhere.

yupp. ecivon it is more or less a rule of this board to include some news article with all discussions since it is a news section. The forum we had for purely discussion about politics, religion ect is gone.

So you nudge in a article whenever you want to discuss a topic

[Kärnfysikern]

Yes it is old news, Australia is refusing to do it as well. China and India would not have to obide by it, acoording to the protocol. Given the fact that it was voted 95-0 against in the U.S. Senate, it's obvious that there is little support for it in Congress as well. It is not just Bush, and obviously not just Republicans.......

Well it is shit that the number one and number 2 biggest co2 producers are not willing to bring down polution. I dont think china and india should get away totaly, but they should not be regulated as strictly either. We as developed nations have the capability to change, we can not demand that from china and india.

The technology and alternatives need to be developed and mastered in europe and america so we can sell it cheaply to india and china. We can not just say "china and india isnt doing it" and then try to pretend we have no responsibility. It has to start in our countries.

[Phreak101]

yupp. ecivon it is more or less a rule of this board to include some news article with all discussions since it is a news section. The forum we had for purely discussion about politics, religion ect is gone.

So you nudge in a article whenever you want to discuss a topic

Just like buying IGF is for "research purposes" We meatheads are so ingenious

[Kärnfysikern]

Just like buying IGF is for "research purposes" We meatheads are so ingenious

you mean it aint for research?

[Phreak101]

you mean it aint for research?

Of course it is, it is used to research how many girls I get because I'm so shredded from using it!