Debate of the Day 7: Should the US have signed the Kyoto Protocol?

Hehe this is an easy one.  Abso-friggin'-lutely!  Can't totally blame Bush on this one though - Clinton and Gore should have done a lot more to get Congress to ratify it when they signed it in 1997, and Congress should have done so.  In fact, I think every senator voted against it.

Of course, at the time the scientific evidence supporting man-made global warming wasn't as strong as it was today, but I certainly think it was strong enough to ratify Kyoto anyway.  The concerns were that

1. It would constrain US economic growth.
2. It gave countries like China and India a 'pass' not to reduce their emissions.

I don't think #1 is necessarily true, if we were smart about it.  In order to reduce emissions, you need to invest in alternative energy, build new infrastructure, which creates new jobs, etc.

#2 is a lame excuse because we got rich by emitting greenhouse gases, so I don't blame developing countries for wanting developed countries to lead the way in reducing emissions.  Obviously China and India will have to follow suit in the near future, but we need to lead the way.

about #1.. not exactly true...BUT in Bush's admin is was certainly true. The oil hog he is, he has no intention of enhancing green technology, business. He just wanted to go swimming in black gold.

States are encouraging it more so than ever. The Feds will follow.

Like Clinton said in his Global Initiative, we need to centralize it.

Sticking to Dana1981's #1 and #2...  :-)

#1)  AT THE TIME, I can see how those in government would feel that the "West" was being singled out - and without nearly the evidence that we have today regarding global climate change, were suspicious of the effort...  Now with the info we have today, plus the massive surge in technological progress regarding alternative green sources of power - in addition to the evidence that there is economic growth linked to industries like wind, solar, etc., there is really no current excuse to not sign the bill.

#2)  Politically this is sticky.  Many in government do not like the US to lead when such large producers like India and China can basically continue to ramp up their economies with different rules.  Makes the playing field uneven, and with constituents losing jobs to "China", I can see elected officials being afraid to vote for such a thing.  I think they should vote for it, and tell these other countries that the next agreement will include them - and that this new "protocol" is giving them fair warning to start changing their practices now so they are ready when the world leaders meet again for a new set of emission standards...

As much as I think they should vote for it, it is also frustrating that the emission increases by India and especially China will have negated all of the savings of the other signers even before 2012... We are better off as long as the signers come thru with their emission goals - which is uncertain - but the balance of the large producers of GHG need to be in on the next round of agreements.

Sorry but I couldn't disagree more. If we decide to lamely pursuit this then why have the US subject to UN interference with the way business is conducted. We are a sovereign nation and let us decide how and when we do this. To do otherwise is yet another step toward Globalization a.k.a. Socialism.

We have enough of that with the current President.

FYI the Kyoto Protocal was just an international agreement for the participating countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a certain amount.  How each country accomplishes these emissions reductions is entirely up to them.  There is nothing socialist about this whatsoever.

Here is the definition of socialism if you're interested.