Imagine there was a US election coming up. Would the Kyoto protocol be a considered issue? Would candidates address it in any of their manifesto's.

I'm trying to establish how important this issue is to the average american?

Do all the supporters of the Bush administration agree that the the US should refuse to sign up because it would/could damage the Economy? Especially given the US' deficit. Has the issue had much covergae in the States?

For those who check my other thread, you'll know why I'm asking this.

___________________
I LIKE MUSIC

The Kyoto Protocol calls on most developed economies (including that of the US) to reduce CO2 emissions. If a means of production cannot be found to maintain current levels of production while reducing CO2 emmissions then, yes, the economy is bound to suffer in some way and this is why the Bush administration has refused to ratify it.

I have problems forming an opinion on this issue to be honest. While I do believe that there is more than enough evidence to indicate that global warming is an issue that we should be taking steps to irradicate, I'm not convinced that the Kyoto Protocol is the answer. On the one hand, the environmentalists will argue that the emission reductions will not be enough to curb the pattern of global warming and from the other side there is the argument that the economic costs of implementing the agreement will far outweigh any environmental benefits. In other words - if both sides are right - we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

If you're writing this as part of the Bush campaign strategy, then I believe that it is an issue that can very easily be framed (rightly or wrongly) as an instance of Americans surrendering a degree of their economic advantage for a small environmental gain. I don't know what the feeling of the average American citizen is, but I'd imagine that they'd be reticent to have their terms of economic production dictated to them by the global community.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

I personally care about this issue, though the environment is not an issue that got much attention from voters in the election. Kerry did discuss it and there was a question regarding Kyoto in the Presidential debates, but it did not seem to have much effect on the outcome nationally. Democrats did make some gains in the Western U.S. in elections, including victory in a governor's race, by discussing the environment and trying to connect its relevence to hunters and fishermen, who usually vote Republican.

I think the U.S. in the long term could join Kyoto with some economic benefits by investing more in the research of alternative fuels and pollution controls that would allow us to reduce levels of pollutants while maintaining productivity at a reasonable cost.

The current administration really has no interest in joining Kyoto or trying these means, as they pass legislation like the "Clean Skies Act" to fool people into thinking they support reducing pollution, when in fact, the bill actually increases the level of pollutants allowed by businesses in many cases. Same in the case of "Health Forrests." I just read an op-ed article on Friday that sounded like it must have been written by someone paid by the Bush administration, claiming that "Clean Skies" is effecitive in reducing pollutants like mercury, which is an outright lie. On top of that, they're also finding loopholes that are allowing them to begin some of the early stages of drilling for oil in ANWAR.

In the future, we'll have to see how well the new strategy works of candidates trying to show how environmental policies affect people's daily lives to give the issue better context.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

Kyoto is of minimal importance, and it's always instructive to remember how the Senate voted on it in 1997 (including Sen. Kerry): 95 against, 0 for. The environment is an issue in itself, but Kyoto specifically is not.

___________________
FLUSHED THE JOHNS!

like imokruok said, no Kyoto is not an issue.

No major politician is arguing for it.

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

quote:

Originally posted by Yoepus like imokruok said, no Kyoto is not an issue. No major politician is arguing for it.

no, russia or europe for example has no major politicans.

quote:

Originally posted by imokruok Kyoto is of minimal importance, and it's always instructive to remember how the Senate voted on it in 1997 (including Sen. Kerry): 95 against, 0 for. The environment is an issue in itself, but Kyoto specifically is not.

The thing is that we really need to start moving toward reaching some of the goals of Kyoto, even if we do it on our own. Right now the EPA seems to stand more for Environmental Pollution Agency and even Christie Todd Whitman resigned her post, largely due to frustration with administration policy. Bush had a horrible environmental record as governor of Texas and it has continued with him. Kyoto or not, much more needs to be invested in cleaner, alternative methods that can be affordable for industry. Even global warming pollutants aside, mercury exposure is showing to be a growing problem asociated with birth defects and disease, such as autism.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by St_Andrew no, russia or europe for example has no major politicans.

Hey you said it not me

___________________
SAVE ZIONIST MUSTARD: BUY ZIONIST KETCHUP!


Click here to support the free mustard alliance.

I'm not really into politics but I picked up a bit about this on the news today.

Why is it that we all sign this agreement to try and help reduce the affects of global warming, and yet the biggest sinner of them all is exempt and nobody seems to put pressure on bush to get involved.

I find it grossly unfair.

quote:

Originally posted by chesco I'm not really into politics but I picked up a bit about this on the news today. Why is it that we all sign this agreement to try and help reduce the affects of global warming, and yet the biggest sinner of them all is exempt and nobody seems to put pressure on bush to get involved. I find it grossly unfair.

there is a lot of people putting pressure on Bush but he doesnt care

has anyone seen "The day after tomorrow " ? .. Although it is fiction, it does bring a true messege behind it all.. it does give a big kick in the ass to the US president ( or should I say vice president in terms of movie ) .

I was listening to this.. I just hope that companies will take action independently if the US gov't dont do anything about it.

when things done in Unity you can move mountains..

___________________
Upcoming:

Michael Andrews Feat. Gary Jules - Mad World (Grayed Out Mix)

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade The Kyoto Protocol calls on most developed economies (including that of the US) to reduce CO2 emissions. If a means of production cannot be found to maintain current levels of production while reducing CO2 emmissions then, yes, the economy is bound to suffer in some way and this is why the Bush administration has refused to ratify it.

The problem with the Bush administrations refusal to ratify Kyoto IMO, was that it said it wouldn't sign anything that would hurt the US economy. That's a clear prioritization which taken to the extreme would mean that no matter what global disaster may be caused by CO2 emmissions then we will not see the Bush administration take any steps whatsoever to prevent that, unless some hitherto unknown approach to limiting global heating is discovered. I find that the real problem with Bush's refusal - if it only was the Kyoto accord in itself, then so be it, but the refusal to sign it was categorical I think.