Should the USA tru its government sign the " Kyoto Protocol"?
143632
Yes, I don't get why people don't understand the idea of "better safe than sorry", even if global warming isn't proved yet we should cut down emissions now before it's too late.
1016844
Mission Impossible:  HONESTY AND TRUE REPRESENTATION PLEASE.  As far as issues goes, lets see if the pres. can have the balls to say YES there really is GLOBAL WARMING!!  Not necessarily do anything about it but at least acknowledge it does exist would be nice.
304630
i think that both the countries stand to gain from this deal.\n\nagreed that both of them had to make some compromises in order to make sure that the deal goes through, but that itself speaks volumes about the commitment of both countries towards non-proliferation and peaceful use of n-tech.\n\n\n\n\nindia gets enough n-fuel and reactors to meet the demands of an energy hungry nation.\n\nwhereasn at the same time the US makes sure that india's nuke tech is used only for peaceful purposes and there is more transparency in their program.\n\nmoreover it will reduce the demand for fossil fuel in the near future and will help to reduce pollution and greenhouse gases.
1014143
Probably. www.votetoimpeach.org---sign it soon.
771374
The climate has been changing since the earth's begining, so no. \n\nHuman activities are contributing to a faster rate of change, but there is nothing practical we can do about it. \n\n Adapt to the new world.  We will never be able to reduce emissions fast enough- India and China are just getting started with industrialization on a large scale (using coal power, primarily) and unless the whole world goes to nuclear power there is no other viable option for stopping climate change before it is too late.   (and nuclear power is still a bad word in environmental circles)\n\nSad but true
639031
All I know is that the US should stay out of it, and not interfere at all.  Let them figure it out fro themselves.
124725
Probably.  But if the US doesn't, God will.
789346
Peace is always an option. If we have equal respect for all people and stop coveting other people's oil money, there can be peace. The US govt has made its share of mistakes and needs some correction.
204534
You can't stop it.  Global Warming is US policy.  And most ignorant people agree, if you don't like that, move!
1013590
The Kyoto Accords are actually less stringent than those proposed by several large US corporations. The reason the US has opted out of the Kyoto Accords is primarily because the accords call for a standardized implementation across all industries, which would be 1) extremely expensive; 2) not really reduce the overall emissions. The Kyoto Accords would not credit industries or companies that have already implemented more advanced and beneficial pollution cutting measures, and do not allow for a phase out period for industries to gradually close older, less environmentally friendly plants.  While it seems that America is ignoring environmental policy by not following Kyoto, the overall level of pollution will be reduced by not signing on. Also, the cost savings can be used to help retrofit some existing plants, and build new more environmentally friendly ones while adding jobs to the US economy.
2662
The Kyoto Protocol is unfair and misleading. America would have been very heavily taxed and it's economy slowed down greatly if it had signed. The rest of the world argued that the US should pay the lion's share because it contributes more pollution than anyone else. What everyone disregards is that the US also produces more than anyone else. It's all proportional. It also excluded developing countries with no environmental policies whatsoever from contributing. If any country in the developing world had an economy as productive as the US, they would produce far more pollution than the US does. The Kyoto Protocol was a blatant and transparent attempt to hurt the US economy in the name of a problem that nobody has even been able to confirm.
749534
Currently according to the National Academy of Science in Washington DC, the U.S. uses up about 25% of the worlds energy recourse's, yet is responsible for 35% of the world's greenhouse gases due to a larger animal crop then most countries (cows make lots of methane) As for the nuclear test, the U.S. no longer does them. The U.S. is not concerned about the environmental effects of North Korean Nuclear tests as it is about the weapons getting into the hands of terrorist. The government of North Korea is not a very stable government, run by a dictator, and the U.S. is afraid that they may use the weapon as a way to hurt South Korea, Japan, China, or other Asian countries. At this point, they are not afraid of North Korea hurting the U.S. which is why they are trying to talk to North Korea not using a military solution. (which most likely would not work anyway without China's support). \nYes America is the biggest producer of greenhouse gases, and President Bush did back out of the Kimono agreement, but hopefully soon we will elect someone with more concern about the environment.
759368
Bush and his cronies are not very good at diplomacy or cooperation.  It's not surprising that the rest of the world would not be happy with a country that's taken such a "my way or the highway" stance.  After all, we haven't signed the Kyoto treaty, we won't talk to countries we don't like, we call the UN names and bully them while refusing to pay our dues (uh, that predates the Bush era, but still), we've got people who claim that the Geneva Conventions are "quaint", and we've decided that's it's perfectly okay to wage pre-emptive strikes on sovereign nations without UN approval, which is something that's been a huge no-no ever since WWII.  Frankly, we've not been good world citizens, largely because of the Bush administration.  I think the world hopes the Dems are like their colleague, Bill Clinton, who is, if nothing else, very good at making friends.
614766
OH HELL NO! Never. Mexico govt. would never go for it...they'd lose too much power. U.S. is better off with out them.
967772
Don't be fooled by these responses. One above even claims that Australia is the only one complying, well Australia is not even a member of the treaty. Bush has many constituents and among one of them is carbon-based fuel industry that is the biggest polluter sending tons of pollution to the environment. Perhaps, instead of focusing on why he doesn't participate, we should focus on why he withdrew from the previous commitment made by the Clinton administration, it is clear they saw the threat of global warming. It's failure to understand that many of our problems today will have to be solved by our children tomorrow what keeps people from focusing on the real problems. Most just worry about their "today" taking tomorrow for granted; it is an egocentric and very selfish point of view. I'd rather sacrifice a little bit of the economy for a world in which my children don't have to wear gas masks or pay 100 dollars for a glass of drinking water. They (Bush and his cronies) just think we can clean up the earth when it all becomes a mess, and in a matter of seconds reverse the damage of what has taken millions of years to become an equilibrium. It is intelligent design what has created those "unintelligent minds" that oppose world conservation.
471038
As a quick and blunt answer I would say they need America's money. There's probably other reasons too, but these guys from Kyoto get caught up in little things that this is the answer that hits my cynical mind first.
408299
Yes. They should continue it, despite US "Aggression"\n\nIt is not right for the US to dictate who can have nuclear technology in the world...especially when they are the only ones to have ever used nuclear weapons on people.