You are correct about the President not having the power to make treaties...only Congress has the power to do so. Of course the President can make recommendations to Congress. This particular treaty has provisions that are not good for the US and it is the responsibility of duly elected leaders to protect the interests of the US and not of 139 other countries...so they are doing the job that they were elected to do.

Doesn't matter.

Somehow they can find a way to blame President Bush and US for anything wrong in their lives.

They also have some that deactivate themselves after a slected period of time.

:Oh crap :Oh crap

Explain how per-capita stats would apply in this matter.

Thats what I call stucked in the trash.....
Should the rest of the world pay for it?

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

has your stupid ass even bothered to read the kyoto plan to know why we rejected it? or do u just like running yer mouth with only 1/2 a story? Kyoto plan is a fucking joke and will barely even make a dent in lowering emissions. It's a miracle most of the people who post here survived birth

We Amercians get it... if we don't choke you with our emissions... we'll kill you with our mines.


What point are you trying to make?

i knew this thread would be about that

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.