Kyoto

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Jack31081

The governments may have changed their opinions, but the general public still sees America as the evil polluting giant that doesn't give two shits about the environment, all because we rejected Kyoto. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the way Kyoto tries to achieve its goals, I'm just stating what other people think of us.

People have always hated America despite Kyoto. Can you give me a poll of worldwide opinion regarding your statements? And if people hate the US for not signing something that is massively flawed and promotes colonialism, then so be it. Kyoto is just something to make their populations complacent and focus on the US instead of their own country.

What I find ironic is that people are criticizing the US for not signing Kyoto when Bush has pledged about 2-3x more reduction than Kyoto requires, as well as billions allocated to climate research and technology, not to mention other programs such as mentioned above. Will there be a reduction under Bush? I don't know (probably not that much), but saying it is basically the same as signing Kyoto!

I don't think it should be signed just for popularity.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Jack31081

The governments may have changed their opinions, but the general public still sees America as the evil polluting giant that doesn't give two shits about the environment, all because we rejected Kyoto. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with the way Kyoto tries to achieve its goals, I'm just stating what other people think of us.

People have always hated America despite Kyoto. Can you give me a poll of worldwide opinion regarding your statements? And if people hate the US for not signing something that is massively flawed and promotes colonialism, then so be it. Kyoto is just something to make their populations complacent and focus on the US instead of their own country.

What I find ironic is that people are criticizing the US for not signing Kyoto when Bush has pledged about 2-3x more reduction than Kyoto requires, as well as billions allocated to climate research and technology, not to mention other programs such as mentioned above. Will there be a reduction under Bush? I don't know (probably not that much), but saying it is basically the same as signing Kyoto!

I don't think it should be signed just for popularity.

We're on the same side of the fence here. I'm just stating facts. I'm not saying America should have signed it. I'm not saying Kyoto is the only reason other countries think America 'sucks'. I also don't think that America should have signed it "just because". All I'm saying is exactly what was in my posts.

 

[0roo0roo]

if it were serious it would have instituted population control on poorer nations and those that keep multiplying at unsustaintable rates. but well.. its not serious.

 

[Monkey muppet]

So let me get this striaght:

The idea is to reduce "greenhouse gas" emissions by 5.2% by 2012.

141 countire have signed up - which account for 55% of the emissions

The UK has set it's own target of 20% for 2010 and within the past five years has lowered their emissions by 12.5%.

US has 4% of the worlds population but producing 25% of the worlds Co2 emissions.

My opinion on this would be that the US are being selfish for everyone else having to put up with thier arrogance "it would not be an economically viable option (to sign up)". Let me understand this then; The UK has beaten the Kyoto individual country requirements and have their own (higher) targets to reach. But yet the Pound (sterling) is ONE of the strongest currencies ATM.

could anyone explain this to me?