kyoto agreement
By 4ftfingers
@4ftfingers (1310)
January 13, 2007 3:22pm CST
most people probably know what the kyoto agreement is by now but if you weren't sure it's an agreement for countries to ratify a protocol commiting to reduce their emissions of five green house gasses and co2. they can also engage in emissions trading if they have to increase their emissions. it covers over 160 countries and 55% of the worlds green house gas emissions. there are only two countries that won't sign it. these are: australia, they believe they are doing enough already to cut emissions. they also say that with the amount china emitts, there would be no point cutting theirs so they don't see why they should cut theirs. the other country is.. oh who could it be, yes that's right the USA, the biggest baddest emitter of them all. i mean fair play to them. they argue that china is the second biggest emitter and they don't have to do jack sh*t about cutting their emissions. but when you consider that by the year 2000 the whole of east asia were on a level a little above europe and russia of about 800 million metric tons of carbon dioxide a year and america and canada had double that, 1.6 billion metric tons a year, there is a bit of a difference. that doesnt excuse the rest of the world's high share. but being the 'only super power' and all, you'd think america would like to step in and set a good example. they are about saving the world at the moment, after all. the bush administration argues that signing up to reduce emissions would damage the ecconomy, so they'd rather do litterally f*ck-all about it. i say they're doing nothing, i suppose that's a bit unfair, they did release a 'climate action report' in 2002. it would be nice to see if anything comes of that. in the mean time, if you are an expert on the issue of global warming and you live in the US, don't try to report on the dangerous effects of global warming because the bush administration will only try to surpress you, just as they did to the National Ocieanic and Atmospheric Administration's findings that global warming caused by emissions is contributing to the frequency and strengths of hurricanes. Ofcourse, this isn't in the public's interest so government officials blocked the release of these findings which had been published on a fact sheet
1 person likes this
5 responses
@junaranas (197)
• Philippines
14 Jan 07
It is very ironic that the US did not sign.What's going on with the US?
1 person likes this
@Zebrochka (333)
• Brazil
16 Jan 07
Lets consider every new "Catrina" as a the USA payment for not taking care of ecologic issues - and that is fare
no, the UNfare detail is that the polar bears are also paying for men´s stupidity with their lives
1 person likes this
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
18 Jan 07
It has nothing to do with the Bush administration! The article, research it cites, or author are not Bush! It wasn't made by Bush supporters, at Bush's request, or to give to Bush!
For christsakes, it was 1997 when the US didn't sign it! The bill in Congress to reject "protocols" like this (it was aimed at Kyoto) was started by (and named after) DEMOCRATS! Clinton himself didn't even submit it for ratification! It was the Clinton administration that found it would cost too much and therefor disregarded it. Bush's opinion is that it is simply hypocritical, which it is!
Why is everything Bush's fault with you?
1 person likes this
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
17 Jan 07
i just think it's hillarious. anything that could harm the US ecconomy, the bush administration try to dissprove. something as blatent as global warming for god sake!
@Bartolin1980 (98)
• Ireland
17 Jan 07
What's funny is how Bush and his cabinet develop chronic deafness when they are faced with the facts of their abuses- either that or they take out the Patriot Act mentality and claim that all debate based on reason is unpatriotic if it conflicts with their interests
On a side note- I wonder whether Bush knows where Kyoto is or whether he would be able to pick out Japan on a map of the world.
@gifana (4833)
• Portugal
19 Jan 07
Bartolin. What's funny is why Ireland is divided on a religious issue and the Irish were killing Irish and British subjects left and right and yet the Irish governments seem to do be doing very little to put things right. It is easier to criticize others cause you are on the outside looking in....but it is a far different picture when you are inside and looking in neither direction.
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
17 Jan 07
i wouldn't put it past him. it was bad enough when he called pakistanis 'pakies' lol.
but i think my favourite bushism has to be the one that goes 'fool me once... shame on.. shame on you.. a fool me... can't get fooled again' everytime i see that makes me laugh
1 person likes this
@gifana (4833)
• Portugal
19 Jan 07
Before you start pointing fingers at Bush and the US government I suggest you start looking at Blair and his labor government. Then compare. And don't tell me that Blair is a puppet of Bush.
There is so much involved in international politics that it is very difficult for the average person to understand all the intricacies involved. I majored in political science and international relations in college and I still can't figure it all out.
Just because Bush is the head of the US government doesn't make him the most powerful man in the world...as some people are prone to announce. The president only has one third of the US power and he many times is inhibited from carrying out his programs because of the US Congress. If you want to point a finger then make it all inclusive and do not break it down to one.
Our government is not perfect by any stretch of the imagination. After all, we are only a little more than 200 years old. But what we have done in thise 200 some odd years far surpasses any other country that has survived for centuries. Just because you don't like what they do is not sufficient evidence that our system is not the best in the world. There is no other country in the world that can hold a candle to our form of government...it has lasted more years than any other. We don't change governments on the whim of the president to absolve Congress like so many other countries do. The only thing that chances every four (or eight) years is the administration of that government. The government stands intact until such times as our Constitution is amended to do other wise.
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
19 Jan 07
i don't think any government's attitude seems to be even near enough a good example, so few actually put the effects on environment as a greater priority than their own ecconomy. but the US (and im talking about eithere democrats or republicans here) don't even want to put their name to any kind of negotiation on the matter. at least other governments are keen to even talk about the issue.
it's a higher priority for them to 'save the people of iraq' than to save the whole future of the world. and i don't mean that to sound cheesy and over the top. it just proves where their priorities lie.
do you see what im saying? what kind of example is that setting
@MrNiceGuy (4141)
• United States
14 Jan 07
A lot of countries are regretting signing the Kyoto Agreement. I believe Australias PM just made a comment on how they shouldn't have signed on to it, maybe it was Canada though. They just thought it wasn't worth the economic hit for the negligible help it actually gave.
It isn't working and it really isn't worth doing. If it were brought up again with these kind of results, no one would join it.
1 person likes this
@4ftfingers (1310)
•
14 Jan 07
oh right. yeh must be canada because, like i said, australia hasn't agreed to anything yet. what other countries have said they regret signing?
1 person likes this
