×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

U.S. Continues Opposition to Kyoto Environmental Treaty

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the give-a-hoot-don't-pollute dept.

United States 1580

fenris_23 writes "The AP is reporting that President Bush has reiterated his opposition to the Kyoto Treaty despite President Putin's acceptance of the treaty and recent scientific evidence directly linking greenhouse emissions to arctic warming. 'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

1580 comments

Jobs (0, Troll)

Cody Walpole (814615) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748166)

Well I guess that about says it. Either you're against polution or against jobs. Take your pick.

Re:Jobs (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748222)

Either you're against polution or against jobs.

It's not "pollution". It's our survivial. How much would you like to pay for your water? And how much would you like to spend on preventing and treating skin cancer and other diseases? People tend to think of "The Economy" as the only thing that matters. We may be all dying, but "we have more jobs". What about quality of life?

We need less people in the world. That way we won't need to pollute too much.

Re:Jobs (3, Insightful)

dhakbar (783117) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748246)

You ask: "What about quality of life?"

Tell me this... how good can someone's life be if they are jobless in a capitalist society such as our own?

Re:Jobs (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748304)

how good can someone's life be if they are jobless in a capitalist society such as our own?

The present form of "Capitalism", just as ALL "isms" that appeared in the History of Humanity will go away. If we screw up the world, on the other hand, Humanity itself may go away.

Okay.... (2, Insightful)

__int64 (811345) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748230)

They why the TAR does he support outsourcing!?

What a fucking guy, this president...

Re:Jobs (4, Funny)

MikeXpop (614167) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748236)

No, you don't understand the mindset:

You're either for the loss of jobs, or your for the creation of jobs. Now which are you?

Let's compare false dichotomies... (0, Troll)

numbsafari (139135) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748283)

I agree that the "against pollution or against jobs" dichotomy is screwed up.

But then, so is the "for Kyoto or for pollution" dichotomy.

The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions. Kyoto is a payoff to third-world dictators disguised as "environmental policy".

What is says is "if you're a third world country you can produce as much green house gasses as you want, if you're an industrialized nation you have to pay third world countries for the right to produce green house gasses."

What would the net result be? Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle. Better yet, let's take money out of the US economy where people work hard to create value for the world and give it to some third-world dictator. Good idea.

Now, I realize that you'll tear apart my argument because "George Bush is evil" and "the US economy doesn't create any value to the world." Obviously those aren't valid arguments any way you slice it. First, George Bush has nothing to do with Kyoto being a bad idea. He's also hardly the only person in the US that opposes it. Also, if you don't think the US economy does anything good for the world, you have a very limited viewpoint. We aren't saints, but we're hardly devils.

Re:Let's compare false dichotomies... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748331)

The Kyoto treaty DOES NOTHING to reduce green house gas emissions.
...
Let's build more factories in Brazil so we can further destroy the Amazon jungle.

Funny that you said this. Check your facts -- Brazil has REDUCED green house gas emissions BECAUSE of the Kyoto protocol.

Re:Let's compare false dichotomies... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748341)

no damnit, george bush is evil and he is to blame for everything wrong in the world including the cloudy day today. :)

Re:Jobs (1)

mjgeiger (659695) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748303)

Is it me, or is this guy just plain stupid. Maybe it is my technical background, but why, oh why, do we have to put up with another 4 years of his crap.

I'm sure he'll love the jobs created.... (5, Insightful)

hta (7593) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748169)

in the dike-building industry based on sea-level change, for instance......

It's is a SHAM. (1, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748170)

This treaty doesn't hold India or China to the same levels that the USA and EU are held to.

If they want the treaty to be approved it has to treat everyone the same, this one doesn't.

Re:It's is a SHAM. (5, Insightful)

Eggplant62 (120514) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748213)

India and China aren't currently producing the same amount of greenhouse gasses that USA and EU are currently producing. It's like comparing apples to oranges. India could never meet the USA's output due to its size; China isn't developed enough yet to produce, and with the steps that are being taken by China, they may never become as great a greenhouse gas producer as the US.

What the fuck with all this fairness shit? Live ain't fair, neither are greenhouse gases. Let's get on the stick about it and work out differences *later*!

Re:It's is a SHAM. (2, Insightful)

PoprocksCk (756380) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748250)

"India and China aren't currently producing the same amount of greenhouse gasses that USA and EU are currently producing."

Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol. If we want this thing to get signed, the US has to be on its side, period.

If they're not producing the same amount of greenhouse gases than the USA or the EU, then adopting the Protocol should not be too big a deal for them, and they should be able to handle it.

Re:It's is a SHAM. (5, Insightful)

ickle_matt (122935) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748340)

Well if that's true, then I would argue that that's all the more reason for them to be included in the protocol. If we want this thing to get signed, the US has to be on its side, period. If they're not producing the same amount of greenhouse gases than the USA or the EU, then adopting the Protocol should not be too big a deal for them, and they should be able to handle it. Er, they both ratified it a couple of years ago, as have 124 other countries. For some reason the USA continues to believe that it doesn't have to be responsible for picking up the mess it's making, unlike most of the world who're quite happy to deal with what they produce...

Re:It's is a SHAM. (3, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748265)

Please check where most of the worlds factories are now being build and understand that giving the countries a pass is stupid and will result in the treaty not working.

You should also check the current cancer rates and water pollution rates in china. It is much worse than any place in the USA has been in 20+ years.

Re:It's is a SHAM. (2, Insightful)

Angostura (703910) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748319)

Much as I feel for the Chinese and their local pollution problem, the U.S is exporting its current pollution problem across the planet.

That's an excuse and you know it (4, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748245)

It's an excuse to sit back and do nothing. So what if all countries aren't held to the same levels? Surely doing *something* is better than doing nothing at all.

So developed nations have to cut back more than developing nations? Well guess what - we pollute more than they do.

Re:That's an excuse and you know it (1, Insightful)

DAldredge (2353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748291)

Please read up on the pollution and dumping problems china has. While you are doing it research the ship graveyards in India.

IT's much worse in those countries because they have no effective pollution control laws at all. Don't fuck up the USA and EU's economy simply to give China and India bigger advantages than they already have.

But this is /. where thinking is an endangered species

Re:It's is a SHAM. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748262)

India and China are still developing nations. It doesn't hold for them as they are catching up with the US and the EU which have been creating polution for hundreds of years.

So much for the so-called "leader of the free-world" .

Re:It's is a SHAM. (5, Informative)

iamsure (66666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748298)

China has ratified it, and *will* be held to the same standards (Annex 1 country) within the decade - probably sooner.

India has also ratified it, but is not yet an annex 1 country. As more countries join in, more countries will commit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty

It is a sham, but China need not be a problem. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748309)

I agree that the treaty is a sham. China will soon, if not already, emit far more pollutants and CO2 than the USA. Unlike the Americans, the Chinese are not constrained by conscience. The Chinese view is "screw the environment; if any goes wrong, someone else should take care of the problem".

You see the same shocking attitude in a recent survey of computer companies [svtc.org] . The Chinese companies (e.g. Acer) received failing grades on supporting the environment. Sun Microsystems, which is dominated by former and current Chinese H-1B workers, also received a failing grade.

Nonetheless, China is about to experience a dramatic decline in its population -- due to AIDS. The single strongest catalyst for the spread of AIDS is an inferior culture, characterized by lying, arrogance, and bigotry. After the number of Chinese declines to barely 100 million, there will be too few Chinese to damage the environment.

So, the American government should ratify the Kyoto treaty.

American Jobs (4, Insightful)

thewiz (24994) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748176)

'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

If that's the case, why does the President support off-shoring American jobs? Sounds like he's speak out of both ends of his a$$ to me.

Re:American Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748223)

Odd. I thought an ass had merely *one* opening.

Re:American Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748299)

Wow, you're a sharp one. Here's a less subtle one for you:

You're a fucking idiot.

Re:American Jobs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748305)

Modbot logic: if ( insult(conservative) == TRUE) score++;

Re:American Jobs (1)

Drakin (415182) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748322)

Easy, Cannaughton made a mistake...

he for got to add "Unless he came up with it, or is getting a large enough kickback"

Slashdot: Leftism for Nerds (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748180)

Stuff that matters to hippie freaks. This place is now indymedia lite.

Jobs?! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748182)

"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job"

He doesn't need any treaties for that!

Financial Benefits (5, Insightful)

fembots (753724) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748183)

Are there reports done on the financial benefits (eg in medical bills) of Kyoto Treaty?

And why must reducing gas emission equate to job loss? Couldn't companies be more efficient instead?

In IT outsourcing, which costs a lot of jobs to foreigner countries, there are suggestions [slashdot.org] that with the increased exports to other countries, outsourcing probably isn't so bad after all.

--
Play iCLOD Virtual City Explorer [iclod.com] and win Half-Life 2

Fishing anyone? (5, Funny)

Ledora (611009) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748184)

Think of all the fishing jobs this will create when we have that much more water!

Re:Fishing anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748339)

The only way to fix it is to flush it all away.
Any fucking time. Any fucking day.
Learn to swim I'll see you down in Arizona bay.

Pretty high threshold! (1)

SnapShot (171582) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748185)

Not a single lost job. That's a pretty high threshold for a policy or treaty. I guess free trade agreements are off the table for the next four years.

kyoto is not good for the US (0, Flamebait)

AmigaAvenger (210519) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748186)

the sole purpose of the kyoto treaty is to cripple the US economy. it does NOT put restrictions on developing nations, they are able to pollute as much as before, but the US must drastically cut out. so of course everyone but the US is going to agree to it!

Re:kyoto is not good for the US (0, Flamebait)

Peden (753161) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748228)

Are you saying that every other country, except the US ia a deveolping country? ....and how hard can it be to save a little on the CO2? Insulate your houses, be more energy effecient, but I guess Kyoto does give Exxonn-mobile and friends a hard time, so no wonder he' against it.

Re:kyoto is not good for the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748259)

it does NOT put restrictions on developing nations,

Excuse me. My country (a "developing" nation) had to reduce pollution A LOT. We are doing our part. Do you know what you are talking about?

Re:kyoto is not good for the US (2, Interesting)

lederhosen (612610) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748266)

Actually I belive the trading quotas for polution is based on the polution levels when the treaty was writen. That would give US *big* quotas, much bigger than EU for example, but i could be wrong.

Re:kyoto is not good for the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748267)

the sole purpose of the kyoto treaty is to cripple the US economy.

I thought Bush's primary objective was to cripple the US economy. He's doing a great job of it.

Re:kyoto is not good for the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748275)

And how much of the world's pollution is caused by the states? Quite a bit, at least when compared with developing countries.

Re:kyoto is not good for the US (4, Informative)

Angostura (703910) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748302)

Nope. The sole purpose of Kyoto is to attempt to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gasses. These gasses are are likely to cause the type of severe environmental degradation which will cause real problems for your children and my children.

The problem is where to set the 'proper per-capita' output for carbon dioxide. As you may know, the U.S produces by far the most CO2 per citizen.

Some background from the UK environmental agency may help illustrate some of the curbs that Europe put in place, at the same time that the U.S kept belching the stuff out. It is left as an exercise for the reader to find out how much C02 China and India put out per capita.

"By 1992, the world's governments had signed up to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. In the treaty, industrialised nations aspired to stabilising their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.

Most failed. By 2000, US emissions were 13 percent higher, though the European Union had made a small reduction, mainly through cuts in Britain and Germany.

In 1997, in a bid to strengthen their commitments, most nations signed the Kyoto Protocol. This time industrialised nations agreed to an average cut in emissions of 5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. But, individual targets ranged from an 8 percent cut in the EU, a 7 percent reduction in the US and an 8 percent increase allowed in Australia.

After the deal was signed, the EU agreed to reallocate its entitlements so countries like Ireland and Spain could increase their emissions, while Britain and Germany compensated by making higher cuts. The UK has promised to reduce emissions by 12.5 percent below 1990 levels by 2012."

It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway.... (5, Insightful)

aslagle (441969) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748189)

Because it won't pass Congress. You know, that body that has to ratify any treaty? Clinton didn't sign it either, for the same reason. Why sign something you know won't be ratified?

Re:It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway... (1)

Geoffreyerffoeg (729040) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748220)

Clinton didn't sign it either, for the same reason.

Al Gore signed it, so technically, the US is a signatory to the treaty. It was wisely never sent to the Senate for ratification; it wouldn't have possibly passed.

Re:It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway... (1)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748261)

Why sign something you know won't be ratified?

Because it's the right thing to do and so it at least has a chance of getting ratified.


-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]

Re:It doesn't matter if he would sign it anyway... (5, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748279)

Why sign something you know won't be ratified?

To publicly lend it your support. To persuade people and businesses to take steps on their own, even if it won't be legislated for. To show everyone that no matter what the rest of the government thinks, *you* consider it important.

I could go on, but you get the idea; doomed to failure or not, sometimes it's worth standing up to be counted. That's if you believe in it, of course. If not, then no, of course you wouldn't sign.

FP! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748191)

FP! FP!

Burn baby burn!

This begs the question: (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748196)

Is the fate of the environment now in the hands of the US?

Re:This begs the question: (1)

LewsTherinKinslayer (817418) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748247)

Is the fate of the environment now in the hands of the US?

No. The fate of the enviroment is already a sealed deal. Look to any rapidly industrializing nation, such as China.

Job Loss? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748197)

You mean the jobs lost by hiring over seas workers to develop the technology necessary to meet kyoto? You mean the jobs lost at home with workers having to help provide services to allow companies to meet kyoto? You mean the jobs lost because of the opening of a new market specifically trading pollution thus allowing companies to profit from not polluting and thereby dedicating resources and employing people to work for green house gas emisions?

Sounds like the same "logic" that President Bush has been using for while.

Don't you just love Bush and his short-termism (1, Insightful)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748198)

President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,'

In contrast to the fifty million jobs our children will lose? I mean I'm sure our kids will love to watch New York disappear under a few metres of water.

Simon.

Re:Don't you just love Bush and his short-termism (2, Interesting)

drgonzo59 (747139) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748293)

Then it will become the American Venice. And everyone will go there to catch gondola rides, then go back to Europe to go back to work and run the world.

Re:Don't you just love Bush and his short-termism (1)

Zangief (461457) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748314)

But think of all the jobs created by reconstruction!!

global warming (2, Informative)

iezhy (623955) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748199)

well i guess all real estate he onws is more than 60 meters above sea level - so he just doesnt care

I missed that one (2, Interesting)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748200)

Can someone please explain the rationale behind the loss of 5 millions jobs if Kyoto was adopted excuse.

This man is unbelievable. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748206)

'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job,'

This is yet another reason why this man (and by extension, increasingly America) is reviled the world over. How can one job be more important than the environment? It's a truly ludicrous statement.

Re:This man is unbelievable. (1)

myram (641949) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748306)

'President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job,'

This is yet another reason why this man (and by extension, increasingly America) is reviled the world over. How can one job be more important than the environment? It's a truly ludicrous statement.

Of course jobs are more important than preserving nature! it's not like you can EAT natu... uh, wait :)

So he supports.... (2, Insightful)

Bruha (412869) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748207)

Huge taxbreaks to corporations that allow them to offshore even more jobs while at the same time justifying losing american jobs through the Kyoto pact as a excuse to not join it..

Bush must think were all stupid..

Re:So he supports.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748281)

The thing about stupid people is that they think everyone's as dumb as them.

Re:So he supports.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748338)

Well, he's right that at least 58 million of us are.

By rejecting the Kyoto treaty he's putting a "single American job" ahead of survival of our species.

"Well, we've got jobs, just no place to work."

Hell, kyoto treaty would CREATE jobs because SOMEBODY has to clean up the mess we've made.

Jobs (4, Insightful)

ReverendHoss (677044) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748211)

Out of curiousity, how many jobs would be created in research, production and implementation of green technologies?

If you're going to defend outsourcing by pointing to the number of jobs created by the cheaper goods, shouldn't you also point out the green-inspired jobs, and the savings in health care from cleaner air?

Hypocrisy (5, Insightful)

cmason32 (636063) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748212)

President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job ... unless it's tax breaks for corporations that move jobs overseas.

Re:Hypocrisy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748297)

Don't forget about the jobs lost for not taking part in the new kyoto economy. Trading pollution is both benefical and profitable!

Solution (2, Funny)

anagama (611277) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748215)

Tie bush to rock near the ocean. Let ocean take care of the problem. Granted, probably is a good idea to tie him so his head is down and feet in the air for two reasons. First, he'd probably float like a bobber "head up", and secondly, it will take a little while for the oceans to rise - best to solve the problem sooner.

Re:Solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748269)

With all that hot air, you'll need a few boyscouts to tie the knots.

Bush is really the king of insight (3, Insightful)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748221)

President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,
What a savvy answer to the sucking sound of jobs fleeing to India...

Bigger issues at hand (0)

CyberThalamus (822198) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748224)

There are much larger issues at hand than the environment. If we engineer a machine that can hold sentience--other issues fall away dramatically. A robust cyberthalamus would perhaps decide to just toss Earth into the sun and live in space. The obstacles to this are Bush's religious policies on stem cells, and perhaps worse environmental types who disrupt studies on non-human primates.

The time frames of the singularity mean that global warming shouldn't be too much a problem. Harassment by unemployed people may be worse.

Kyoto and a new Economy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10748225)

The purpose of Kyoto to create a new market in pollution. This new market using the means of capitalism to make it competitive to run a clean business (clean in the sense of lack of emissions). Obviously government regulation can only go so far but as we have seen with other markets, once something becomes profitable then others will take part. If not polluting is profitable others will take part and it will create more jobs simply requiring people to provide solutions.

Amazing (3, Insightful)

SorcererX (818515) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748226)

I find it very sad that USA still refuses to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Even Russia managed to ratify it recently. I think it's time for USA to take responsibility for all the global pollution it causes and admit the long term consequences. But I guess it's too much to ask of the "land of the free" to try to deal with the problem in a sensible way instead of ignoring it.

Re:Amazing (-1, Troll)

NetJunkie (56134) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748333)

We'll do it when others do it. Get India and China on the list and we'll talk. If we have restrictions and they don't, guess where manufacturing will go even faster? I bet they won't ratify it after that either.

Yay for the US. (0, Flamebait)

Daimaou (97573) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748232)

The Kyoto protocol is something that any right-thinking sovereign nation would and should avoid like the plague.

I'm all for being clean and being worthy stewards of the Earth and all, but the US can come up with their own plans for doing so (and do by the way). It makes no sense at all to proffer up even the smallest amount of our sovereignty to a global treaty such as this one.

Thank all that is good our elections worked out the way they did or the US would be signing this document of idiocy.

Re:Yay for the US. (1)

theM_xl (760570) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748336)

Sovereignty doesn't enter into it. Signing Kyoto is merely agreeing to do something - the method isn't specified. Nobody is *forcing* the US to do anything, as evidenced by the fact that they're not signing, hence no sovereignty whatsoever is given away. I'm sure the US can come up with their own plans. Kyoto, in fact, would COUNT on it having that kind of capability. And if you believe that all the nations that did sign the treaty aren't right-thinking, I'd say the only idiocy here is yours.

It really makes you think... (5, Insightful)

tkrotchko (124118) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748237)

Let me just understand...

We're okay exporting jobs in the name of "global competitiveness", but we're not okay getting rid of jobs in the name of protecting the environment?

the hicks who voted him are far from the coast (0, Flamebait)

jini (153221) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748238)

I hope that you guys all go down in the sinking ship with GWB, if the sea levels rise there will be plenty more jobs in construction...

Mixed opinions (1)

Goalie_Ca (584234) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748241)

I realize that kyoto is practically worthless without india or china jumping on board but the US needs to be responsible in developing next gen power sources.

It should be blatantly obvious that when bush says it'll cost a job, it will cost his friends/family :P Everyone knows that next-gen fuel sources will create jobs and patented technology as well as lessen the dependance on foreign oil. I'm not a tree hugger but i really think that the world needs to start smartening up when it comes to the environment.

Re:Mixed opinions (3, Interesting)

iamsure (66666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748263)

China ratified it, and will become an annex 1 country (bound by its terms) within the next decade - probably sooner.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty

A single American job (4, Funny)

Blair16 (683764) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748242)

"President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job"

By that he means his.

You lose some and you win some (2, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748251)

You will inevitable lose some jobs, but you will also gain some jobs, but that isn't as obvious.

Stupid me is comparing the public transportation here in Sweden with the public transportation in the US, especially railway commuting, where I have seen that the railways in the US in general aren't used much, and are often single-track rails and are often in need of improvment.

(Flamebait :-> )

so let's get this right... (1)

advocate_one (662832) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748255)

he opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job... yet his corporate backers are busy offshoring as much as they can

a good thing? (1)

Pandaemonium (70120) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748285)

Doesn't the Kyoto Treaty have a clear bias for third world countries with growing industrialization and economies, ie China?

If I remember right, I thought that under the treaty, we (US) would be restricted to all hell, and China would be able to double or triple it's greenhouse gas emissions output.

Is this right?

Re:a good thing? (1)

Dr Kool, PhD (173800) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748307)

Yes, that's right. And desolate countries with no industrial production would be allowed to sell their "pollution credits" to other countries.

Bottom line is that this treaty is BAD FOR AMERICA.

Re:a good thing? (1)

iamsure (66666) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748324)

China ratified it, and will become an annex 1 country (bound by its terms) within the next decade - probably sooner.

We wouldn't be restricted to all hell - we'd have over a decade to move to a reasonable level of emissions, just like every other annex 1 country.

As more countries join and ratify, more will become annex 1 countries, and more will be under the same restrictions we are.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty

To review... (4, Informative)

bullitB (447519) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748292)

This entire US/Kyoto debacle started in 1998 when Al Gore decided to sign the treaty even after the entire US Senate voted in 1997 (well, okay, it passed 95 to 0) to say they wouldn't sign any climate protocol without certain details changed. Knowing this, the Clinton administration didn't even submit the treaty for ratification.

Knowing all this, it is unreasonable to expect any administration to again resubmit the treaty for ratification, especially when US green gas emissions have gone up a bit since 1998. For what it's worth, John Kerry not only voted in favor of the 1997 resolution, but also made it clear he would not push for Kyoto ratification were he to be elected. (His campaign did criticize the Bush administration's decision to not resubmit the treaty for ratification in 2001-2004, however)

amazing and brain dead (0, Flamebait)

avandesande (143899) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748301)

You guys are nuts, we jump through hoops so developing countries burn it instead? this is the most brain-dead idea i have ever heard.

FUD ? (4, Funny)

Etyenne (4915) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748315)

President Bush strongly opposes any treaty or policy that would cause the loss of a single American job, let alone the nearly 5 million jobs Kyoto would have cost,' said James Connaughton

How does Kyoto would make the US lose 5 millions jobs ? I would tend to believe the opposite : increased energy efficiency would make American industries more competitive and help fix the trade deficit.

But who am I to oppose the American people God-given right to burn fossile fuel like there is no tomorrow ?

A more stable economy? (2, Interesting)

prestwich (123353) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748321)

You would think that signing up for cutting green house gasses could push towards a less oil-oriented economy; surely in these days of rising oil prices and the dodgy areas of the world involved in supplying some of it that being less dependent on oil might produce a more stable economy.

At least he didn't moon the UN yet (1)

CGP314 (672613) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748334)

Nice to see that Bush is off to such a good start making friends in the international community in his second term : \


-Colin [colingregorypalmer.net]

just seed the oceans with iron (2, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 9 years ago | (#10748344)

1. seed the middle of nowhere in the south pacific with iron

2. phytoplankton boom

3. phytoplankton die and sink to ocean floor

repeat and rinse

presto: millions of tons of atmospheric carbon dioxide sequestered to the deep

but no, some think it's better to talk intractable complicated pointless blame game politics when there is a quick and easy technological fix ;-(
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...