Why doesn't Bush participate in the Kyoto Protical?
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.
690333
As Governor, and before as a business leader, President Bush had travelled several times in an official capacity to negotiate in Mexico. With economic, political and immigration issues, as well as the oil interests on both sides of the Rio Grande, this was necessary.\n\nHowever, according to my memory from 2000, George Bush did not have any official foreign visits to any other countries.
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.
957714
Bush,his father, and friends have been in the oil business for decades.  They are all in it for the money, and have a long history of stopping anything that is an alternative, the Rife Microscope for one.  If it is not oil, coal, natural gas etc., you can bet Bush will do anything in his power to oppose it.
1098970
It may not be.  Support for President Bush's administration comes mainly in the arena of his efforts to prosecute the war on terror.  That one issue alone has defined his time in office.  There have been mistakes, misjudgements, and he hasn't seen a spending bill that he didn't like.  He's grown government faster than most Democrats could have thought possible, which is saying a lot.  He has made efforts in providing additional funding for disabled people, education (although no child left behind is a really bad program), and, believe it or not the environment.  War time presidents are often consumed with the second guessing and bad press regarding the war that they are on the constant defensive.  So, even though I do support the effort in prosecuting the war on terror (I think that the threat was identified early enough that President Clinton could and should have handled it in the 90's) I don't think that this administration is one of the best.  But compared to Clinton's willingness to deploy the military every time he thought it would make a good photo op, I think George is doing the best he can.
687246
Not the Republicans, they don't believe in Global Warming and pollution. They have actually allowed the emissions to double in the last 6 years because the deregulated the pollution control guidelines. Bush hates America.
238586
Global warming does not exist so he could'nt have done anything anyways!!
106378
I am not sure of Mr. Bush's thoughts on the subject but most republicans deny it is happining. They say it is just a cycle and that it will take care of itself. Some left wingers think the is to satisfy special interest because of the republicans lack of invironment laws to address it. In all actuallity I think that if we don't do something soon to turn the tide we are going to poison the world to the point that there will be no turning around.
511198
I know that it's hard to understand.  Why President Bush, if he claims that Iraq has nuclear weapons, won't go to places like China or North Korea.  But the reason is because those poor countries don't have oil.
592252
Interestingly enough, I would probably initiate a lot of the programs GW Bush talked about but never followed through on.\n\nFor example, after 9/11 we had a unique opportunity to unify the world behind efforts to 1) fight terrorism, 2) reduce oil dependency, and 3) create an "army" of volunteers, not soldiers. GW Bush had the right idea when he spoke about initiating a required volunteering program for all citizens (in his State of the Union in 2002, I believe). This type of program would not only offer assistance to both domestic and foreign people who need it most, but also give all Americans a better idea of what it's like to live like the "other half." What better way to fight terrorism than to stop it at its roots of poverty and violence?\n\nIn addition, after 9/11 we could have passed a real energy policy that would drastically increase investment in alternate fuels and energy sources and require far better gas efficiency in all vehicles. These changes would reduce our dependency on oil and help curb global warming at the same time. And we would once again be a leader in technology and advancement in the world.\n\nI likely will not be on a ticket in 2008, but maybe someone who will be will take this advice!
525518
USA corps see $$$$$$$$$$$$$ Through the smog and don't care, bush gets paid by them.\n\nHope this helps.\n\nGood Luck.\n\nP.S. P.M. Talks Mostly crap. Talk is cheap but he is not, nor is his wife, according to charity groups.
318795
He probably would have been paying attention rather than going on vacation and been able to prevent 911. You heard about the terrorist attack at the turn of millennium? Oh you didn't; that's because Clinton was paying attention and it never happened. Gore wouldn't be ranked as one of the worst presidents in history. He would be proactive about preventing global warming and being so dependent on fossil fuels. In a word Gore is proactive. The Bush administration has been reactive.
539367
Bush has not surrounded himself with wise counsel. He has a ton of "Yes" people around him, and that is the sure sign of a fool. War takes up all the budget, and that leaves very little for domestic issues. Another sure sign of a fool.
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.
1125603
President Bush was put in a situation that no President has been in in a long time (Pearl Harbor)--when the United States was attacked on their own soil. We take for granted that we are surrounded by the ocean and idiots (Canada, Mexico, and Cuba, for example.) We had to send a message to the world that the United States will not sit around and be attacked. While the gas prices have jumped considerably since his Presidency started, it isn't entirely his fault. He has tried to drill in Alaska for oil but the Democrats will not let him. While he may have a big stake in the gas and oil industry, he certainly doesn't need the extra money from it. I would say that for all that he has had to deal with he has done a tremendous job.
703926
The answer to your second question is bananas, covered in oil.  Bush has already stated that America has to be less dependent upon foreign oil but he didn't go any further.  Any other president would have suggested that the American government would sink billions immediately into wind,solar, nuclear and alternative sources of alcohol based fuels to lessen the dependency.  But since Bush and his buddies are all oil guys he had to figure out who was the most important, his friends or your fuel bills.  Hey his friends need to heat their homes too so he picked them.
1050184
Why not? He got nothing else to do. Blank Bush tells him what to do all the time.\nEnjoy it Tony, soon you would not be able to sleep ( that is if you got a conscience ).