Environmentalists have hailed the Russian parliament's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change as a huge step forward.
Russia's lower house, the State Duma, voted 334-73 to approve the treaty, meaning enough nations have signed up to bring it officially into force.
European Commission President Romano Prodi stated: "The United States should not abstain from the one fight that is crucial for the future of mankind"
The US, world's biggest polluter, pulled out of the treaty in 2001.
Isn't it time the United States ànd Australia ratify the Kyoto treaty ?
If Russia can do it certainly the US and Australia can do it. Don't you think so ?
What are your thoughts ?
Originally posted by ivanhoeI reckon the US can't. The oil and industry bosses are too strong. They'll lose a lot of money and they won't let the politicians do that.
Environmentalists have hailed the Russian parliament's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change as a huge step forward.
Russia's lower house, the State Duma, voted 334-73 to approve the treaty, meaning enough nations have signed up to bring it officially into force.
European Commission President Romano Prodi stated: "The United States s ...[text shortened]... o it certainly the US and Australia can do it. Don't you think so ?
What are your thoughts ?
Australia though? What on earth are they doing that pollutes the world? Is it all the barbeques?
Bush says its in national interest not to sign the treaty.Each nation is sovereign and has independence in deciding its affairs.But where do you think one should draw the line between national interests and the interests of the world.Are not the interests of the world too in national interest.I mean is'nt an environmentally safer world in the best interests of a nation.
Originally posted by druidraviKerry is against Kyoto as well. The two halves of the U.S. Corporate Power Party agree on this issue.
Bush says its in national interest not to sign the treaty.Each nation is sovereign and has independence in deciding its affairs.But where do you think one should draw the line between national interests and the interests of the world.Are not the interests of the world too in national interest.I mean is'nt an environmentally safer world in the best interests of a nation.
Originally posted by bbarrEven if the U.S. were to sign Kyoto, there's no guarantee that it would change anything. Canada has signed it, but from what I can tell we are still a long way off from meeting the goals set out in Kyoto. Unfortunately, the costs of meeting the targets set out in Kyoto are real and immediate, whereas the benefits are hard to quantify and impossible to measure in the short term. This means that any government with a 4 or 5 year term (most countries fall into this category, I believe) would have to take a beating from industry sector lobbyists and spin doctors without being able to point to tangible benefits when they are trying to get reelected.
Kerry is against Kyoto as well. The two halves of the U.S. Corporate Power Party agree on this issue.
Originally posted by shavixmirJohn Howard got a call from George Bush. And the Aussie Prime Minister, who aspires to be the US' "deputy sheriff" fell into line.
I reckon the US can't. The oil and industry bosses are too strong. They'll lose a lot of money and they won't let the politicians do that.
Australia though? What on earth are they doing that pollutes the world? Is it all the barbeques?
What do Texan cowboy boots taste like, Johnnie?