| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | brownie (2)
06/27/2006 | Treaty or no treaty, over the past 30 years the area commonly referred to as "the middle of no where," you know with the trees and stuff, has changed alot. And not for the better. Somebody had better do something. Fast.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Jar-Jar Binks (16)
05/17/2005 | Sign it and enforce it immediately regardless of opposition. We need to care for our beautiful nature instead of building more businesses that stink up the earth. Anyone opposed to the treaty is a callous corporate pig!
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Daccory (15)
10/09/2004 | Surely if you wanted to be sure the planet was well looked after, and you felt the Kyoto treaty was flawed in some way, you'd go back to the table and renegotiate it, not withdraw from it. 164 countries signed the treaty and the biggest polluter of them all, the USA, did not. That's why it's burden appeared so large, because it has more pollution to clear up. Maybe there needs to be a brand new agreement covering every country's concerns, and more effort from India, Russia and China to manage their emissions, but we should all work to do something that we can benefit by. Why don't we all get back to the drawing board?
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Flick01 (71)
09/18/2004 | Any agreement that puts the majority of the burden on the United States while at the same time does not hold certain foreign countries accountable for their pollution will never, and should never, be ratified.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | EschewObfuscation (65)
09/17/2004 | I'd say, You morons couldn't even get Clinton to sign it, and you want me to? Sorry, gentlemen, I have work to do. Good-bye.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| lincolnsandcadillacs (4)
07/23/2004 | I would refuse to sign or honor it. Global warming may be happening, but the earth has been warming for the last 300 years. However, the causes of global warming is based on junk science. There is no way to effectively prove that carbon dioxide emissions has contributed. More than one scientists have disputed the causes of global warming. Not only would the Kyoto treaty cost billion$, it would most likely be ineffective.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Thoth (0)
05/31/2004 | The Kyoto Treaty shows it's true intent (that of emasculating the economies of the U.S., Great Britain, Russia, Japan, & Australia) by EXCLUDING China from the emissions limitations. Mainland China is the third largest emittter of greenhouse gases! Do you seriously want your energy policy controlled by the dictators of 3rd world countries?
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Jaws (10)
02/02/2004 | The Kyoto Treaty sounded nice. I'm going to sound bigoted for saying this but I think that the only countries who can be trusted are the english speaking countries and a few prominent European allies. The former U.S.S.R. regieme never lived by any nuclear arms control decree they signed.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Poison Tongue (0)
01/27/2004 | I'd sign it and enforce it, I'd even try and go farther than what it was asking. I wouldn't even need the Kyoto treaty, I'd do what I could to improve the environment on my own. To neglect the environment is to ask futur generations to pay the price for our greed and lack of concern for the earth.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| 1-9 OF 9 | View All |
