considering its GLOBAL warming, yes the whole world is responsible. U can blame us if you like because we have working electronics and indoor plumbing, but the fact remains, its a GLOBAL issue, and we do more here to curb emissions then 98% of the rest of the world anyway.

50 green houses :)

He said you can't compare the US to other countries because of the population difference.

Not sure if that stat is right but I dont think those contries dont have as much pollution because they want to save the enviroment. After all millions of Indian's die of disease and starvation as their government and corporations look on and dump pesticides, sewage and disease into the rivers.

So it's ok to ruin the world's environment, as long as you're making money?

Lots of posts all saying the same thing... botom line here is...

- Most of the goods and services produced on Earth are from the US. Which directly translates into more pollution than any other country in the world.
- Without the mass production that goes on within the US, the entire world will fall behind in technology...
- ...and of course without mass production the rich can't get richer (i say fuckem on that note:321GFY)


This is a double-edged sword issue:
- If you sign the treaty, the US is commiting to decreasing its Imports/Exports business = less money & technology = less defense.
- If you DON"T sign the treaty then you keep on the same pace of burning a hole in the ozone layer. BUT, the technology that creates this pollution will hopefully be able to resolve this issue later down the road.

Bottom Line
Damned if you do, Damned if you don't!



Although some countries hate the US becasue we police the earth, without the US, this world would be in anarchy. Nevertheless, the lines to get into the USA are backed up across every ocean on earth! Where's the love :kisskiss

Per Capita meens shit

This is looked at totally the wrong way. The U.S makes 25% of the worlds emissions, but only have 5% of the worlds population, so everyone always says that they should only make 5% of the worlds emissions.

But that?s the wrong way of looking at it. The U.S makes 25% of the world emissions but makes well over 25% of the world wealth. So if it needs to make more than 25% of the worlds emissions to make more than 25% of the world wealth then that?s ok.

Countries like china and India make far more emissions compared to the amount of wealth they create. For a simple equations of emissions to wealth the U.S are actually doing quite well

That is not what he said..." population and the industries ".

Wrong. Try again.

What they don't tell you guys on CNN, and what I'd be willing to wager 99% of you don't know, is that this isn't really about industry. The United States military is the world's largest polluter by far.

He said "You can't compare the US to Britain or even India. Between it's population and the industries located here, no country can compare."


I said "He said you can't compare the US to other countries because of the population difference"

Therefore I posted the idea of per-capita stats which is entirely relevant.

Why do you have a problem with the per-capita stats? It's just another tool to analyze things

Wow, now that's ignorance in it's natural habitat. shhhh everyone be quite or we'll scare it away.

Tell us more about how you do more to "curb emissions" than "98% of the rest of the world". No links to foxnews or the white house website please.

Its not only a question of production. But also consumption. If you look at oil the average US citizen consume far more than average in other countries. Compared to Scandinavia; yes oil prices are high, very high, but then consumption is also lower. And yes, stop pollution cost money. A lot. Some people are willing to pay. Some are obviously not.

Why don't you tell us how it feels?

Easy to say "NO"...back it up! You're wrong! Do some research...

I do not have a problem with per capita stats...I have a problem with misquoting what someone said...which is what you originally did. What he said is true...there is not any comparison between "its population and the industries located here, no country can compare".

Why don't you explain how "Most of the goods and services produced on Earth are from the US" when the US is only 21% of the world GDP?

"Most" would be 51% or more.

He has a problem with anything that shows America in a negative light. Oh yeah, and he can barely count to ten, so don't expect much from him.

Posting per capita stats was entirely relevant. Is it the only stats you should look at? No. Is it a good tool to help analyze? Yes.

I was adding a tool to the discussion.

The per capita stats were exactly what the discussion called for. So I posted it.

It's better to try to do something about it than just throw your hands in the air and say "Oh well. Too late.... we think. So lets continue like before".

The US has stringent controls inplace...compared to the majority of the world...which said majority has little to no controls in place. Could the US do better...yes...will they do better...yes...when...at our own speed...thank you very much.

The per capita stats make America look better than what was being discussed in this thread before I posted them.

At least the per capita stats rank America as the #5 worst polluter, and not #1 in overall pollution.

If this was really a problem, clinton would have fixed it in the eight years he was president. I mean, he didn't spend all eight years on gettting gays to be able to stay in the mlilitary.

I do not. I do have a problem with people such as yourself...that have a blind hatred of the US...posting misinformation...Richy boy.

Once again you are uninformed.

The Kyoto agreement EXCLUDES the participation of emerging third world nations which are putting more pollutants into the air every day, and who have almost NO environmental controls on their industry. The United States, among other countries (but primarily the U.S.) are being asked to expose themselves to heavy financial liabilities in order to fill the coffers of non-U.S. interests.

In short, the Kyoto accord is nothing but a very large multinational Entitlement Program designed like a good old fashioned speed trap for the purpose of grabbing cash from developed nations and transferring those funds to less developed nations while not asking those less developed nations to abide by the same rules.

On another note....

The United States is not obligated to behave like the rest of the world. Nor is any other nation. The United States came into being as the one nation on earth where people could rise to the level their talents could take them, worship freely, and have a say in their own government. While imperfect, the system is based on a flexible, living constitution that is the ultimate expression of individual rights and liberty in a world that had not to that point recognized the common person's right to be anything other than a subject or a slave. On that foundation, the United States has risen to a position of leadership in the world not by following the example of other nations, but by setting the example for other nations.

If you're going to make wild statements like the one which is the title of this thread, at least try to have SOME idea of what you're talking about.

global warming is simply a theory, with evidence for and against... and the argument that humans are the cause is also not proven. bush believes this and obviously the rest of the government does too. so to say the united states refuses to act like the rest of the civilized world doesn't mean we are wrong. :321GFY

Hear...hear...points well made...but of course will not be accepted by the US bashers.

I will repeat that the US has stringent controls...where as the majority of the countries have little to no controls.

compared to the 'evidences' of WMD, that argument is not good :1orglaugh

give me hard facts why the us should bother signing it?

Because most of the pollution comes from US. Its that simple.

they may be the largest "polluter" but there's no proof that this is causing global warming. do some research before believing everything the media is forcing on you.

That's a simplistic and weak answer.

Get the blinders off pal. This is a Global economy. The United States operates under a trade deficit which to most other nations would be catastrophic. That equates to a huge net OUTFLOW of wealth from the industrious US workforce to the rest of the world.

If you're going to belittle the importance of economics, you better at least have a dim grasp of the point being made, yeah?

No, but globally it is. Why should some countries prevent it and others not?

You didn't answer the question. You just freaked out. Good job.

The US has controls...the majority of the countries have few or no controls...so apply your question to the majority of the countries on the earth.

He did not freak out...and you do not deserve any applause for your attempt at misdirection.

What controls?

Yes, he did, and he didn't answer the question. He also tried to suggest things which I never even mentioned.

By the way, I would never belittle the importance of economics. I love economics and economic growth.

Emmision/industrial pollution controls. The US has stringent controls...particularly when comparing the US to the overwhelming majority of the countries on this earth...said countries having few to no controls.

k there are two things to say about that:
- The poor countries does not have controls, because they can't afford anything. And they really dont produce much, except from having natural ressources.

- The rich countries can control it. However, those countries who already have invested a lot in preventing pollution do not need stringent controls. Why? Because they dont pollute.... You only need heavy controls if your factories pollute, right? Another thing here is the 'accepted' levels of pollution. Yeah, there can be controls, but if the accepted levels is too high compared to other nations, you are still polluting more.
Taking the scandinavian as an example, they are far below the accepted levels in the older Kyoto pact. Should we pollute more, just because we are 'allowed' to, and others do? No, thats wrong.

Controls are one thing, but what they control is another.

Since you asked... people, particularly children are being killed and maimed daily in Vietnam for a start.

There is no arguement over the existance of mines - not just from the US, but other countries as well. The slight difference is most of these countries are acknowledging the problem and acting on it.

What has the number of troops got to do with land mine removal? If mines need removed - someone has to do this. What's the point?? The greenback again? :-)

Amtrak has been a loser since inception

Utter garbage - some would call it pig shit :-)

Almost all counties in the industrialised world have far more pollution controls than the US - there is not even any comparison.

There sure ain't one single piece of research/survey produced so far to begin to support your absurd post - this shows the complete opposite. Tho I'd expect you to argue black is white anyway.

Are you going to argue that 5% of the world's population in the US have entitlement to use around 25% of the planet's resources next??

You are amazingly ignorant of the "overwhelming majority of the countries on this earth" King - ya just demonstrated that very well.

Pointless .. I got better shit to do.

global warming has increased the earth's temp by how much over what period of time?

If only the Earth would stop it's rotation so that the shit produced by each country woud be theirs ...

Then the US could produce as much as it wants, I couldn't careless ... A big smoged US ... :winkwink:

Over the last 100 years the temperature on Earth has risen by about 0.6°C. Although this rise in temperature may not sound like very much, it has already caused changes to our climate and if global warming continues there could be dramatic effects.

Do a bit more research before bashing those who wish not to participate. You, and most of the rest of the anti-American world, failed to see one BIG flaw in the Tokyo plan, 3rd world countries are exempt; including China and India. What does that mean? It means corporations will just move their pollution causing industries to those countries. Hurting those who follow these rules. So 140 countries just screwed themselves and gave China and India more jobs.....

you are ignoring the realities at hand. The EU is not and cannot meet their obligations and if you know anything about the Kyoto Accords and the costs of compliance, it makes no sense to the USA to even consider it. Its just a tolken "feel good" effort so that the misguided and shortsighted hippies of the world will shut up for a while. The big EU countries cannot even honor their own financial obligations and agreements with the EU.

No multi trillion dollar economy is going to plunge itself into economic darkness and financial ruin just because countries who matter less in the game of global economics can more easily comply... or did you think there was no cost of compliance?

Its just a shift of pollution, not a solution.