Russia pariliament voted for it 139-1, now all it needs is the expected signature of Putin himself.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/200...yoto041027.html

 

seriously i highly doubt the US will ever ratify this which is a shame

To the rest of the industrialized world, minus us and Australia.

 

90 day from ratification, the treaty will come into force.

 

Within a year I anticipate a treaty member nation will determine that the US' continued greenhouse emmission rates are a detriment to their trade in one way or another and we'llk have WTO threatening us with sanctions unless we voluntarily tag along with Kyoto.

 

In retrospect, cutting back to -5% of 1990 emmissions viv a vis Kyoto 2 (version 1 put it at -12%) sill probably seem a lot less painful.

So, was the 1 dissenting vote taken out into the street and shot?

So, was the 1 dissenting vote taken out into the street and shot? 

That guy's vote was affected by his lunch

 

Edited October 27, 200421 yr by Texsox

That guy's vote was affected by his lunch

 

That's why Russia is backing the treaty. Vodka is a much better cold weather drink, and they'd have to switch to mai tais or something if global warming got hold of the place.

The treaty would definately have to be modified quite a bit before the US steps in. As of now the treaty has too many flaws and it would be detrimental to agree to it, imo.

 

However, I do like the idea behind the treaty, but some gaping holes have to be fixed before I'd ratify it.

The treaty would definately have to be modified quite a bit before the US steps in. As of now the treaty has too many flaws and it would be detrimental to agree to it, imo.

 

However, I do like the idea behind the treaty, but some gaping holes have to be fixed before I'd ratify it.

Even Clinton realized that. That's why he never sent it to the Senate.

We missed the chance at ratifying it and having any input on implementation - at best we will be signatories after the fact to keep WTO off our backs when they deem that we're responsible for 33% of some coastal nation's lost trade revenue when sea level rise destroys their economy in onne way or another, and we are the only ones not being proactive about addressing the problem.

 

Such global litigation may seem far fetched, but when we joined WTO we agreed to be held to their decisions. That cost us as much as $1 million a day (levied, I don't know if we paid), when we were judged to be unfairly excluding crtain shrimp imports because those member nations were using unrestricted fishing practices we don't agree with. I agreed with the US position on that ban, but joining WTO really tied our hands and any member nation that accuses us of hurting their commerce or trading unfairly is listened to.

 

So imagine when global climate change destroys certain economic sectors of various at-risk nations. And, unlike the cigarrette company arguments of 'prove it was our crap that caused your cancer,' environmental monitors are getting good at tracing the origins of pollutants having global-scale impacts.

 

It will become a huge, crushing economic burden on us. And it will serve us right. We had a chance to lead the world by example but the Administration was short-sighted and in the pockets of industry and we f***ed it up. The clean technology existed, but industry said it would hurt them too much economically to install it. The original 12% reduction was too little, and the 5% reduction of Kyoto 2 is a near-joke. But we decided to not even do that.

The WTO is an increidlby corrupt organization, imo. Their are so many flaws in it that I can't even begin to go into it. Once again, its an organization whose ultimate goal is a good one, but the way they enforce different things and the way certain things happen it still doesn't result in the proper outcome, imo.

The WTO is an increidlby corrupt organization, imo.  Their are so many flaws in it that I can't even begin to go into it.  Once again, its an organization whose ultimate goal is a good one, but the way they enforce different things and the way certain things happen it still doesn't result in the proper outcome, imo.

I could not agree more. There need to be limits to free trade - oxymoron though that is. When we don't like fishing/farming/social/whatever practices of a country, we should be free to express our dissatisfaction with our decisions to trade with thm or not. Now under WTO, we may have legitimate reasons for not wanting to do bisiness with a country for those reasons, but under WTO it onnly comes down to us restricting free trade and we are sanctioned.

The treaty would definately have to be modified quite a bit before the US steps in. As of now the treaty has too many flaws and it would be detrimental to agree to it, imo.

 

However, I do like the idea behind the treaty, but some gaping holes have to be fixed before I'd ratify it.

What kind of gaping holes are we talking about Jas, not that I don't believe you its just that you didn't give any examples, maybe a link would be cool.