Should the US have ratified the Kyoto Protocol?
- Yes, and I am American
- No, and I am American
- Yes, and I am not American
- No, and I am not American
0 voters
Should the US have ratified the Kyoto Protocol? The current administration has received a lot of bad press in foreign circles, especially in Europe, for refusing to ratify the treaty. From an objective standpoint, the protocol has flaws. First, developing nations (notably China and India) are excluded from the standards of the protocol. President Clinton himself said that developing nations should be required to reduce their carbon emissions before the US binds itself to the treaty. Second, many European nations who signed the protocol failed to meet their own targets. Third, the treaty’s main emphasis is on carbon dioxide produced by burning fossil fuels, and fails to consider other emissions like sulfur.
On the other hand, the treaty may be a positive first step. While it is a good point that developing nations shall not be excluded from reducing emissions, it is not quite fair for developed nations to use this reasoning to exclude themselves when they were the ones who contributed the most to C02 emissions in the first place.
The current administration was right in its emphasis on improving technology to combat climate change. But saying that adhering to a global climate pact would damage the US economy is highly debatable. Would an improved environment enhance productivity and profits?