Home

Bush v. Gore on the environment: the Kyoto Protocol

Fri, 09/15/2000 - 06:24 — charlie.collins

I am a member of the Audubon society and admittedly pro environment. That being said. this months Audubon magazine has a very informative interview type question and answer section with Bush and Gore concerinong environmental issues. Being environmentally conscious I think these are very important issues, and in general a barometer for the overall direction of each candidate.

There are of course myriad environmental (and otherwise) issues, but one if the paramount ones is global warming (or the great "hoax" as some would call it.) Global warming is a scientific FACT (polar ice cap temperatures are rising astronomically, ozone layer depletion, median temperature range changes, greenhouse gasses, etc, etc, etc, all FACTS.) A new proposal called the "Kyoto Protocol" is aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions internationally by a conservative 5%.

While it is only one of the environmental issues the Kyoto protocol is again very important. Business, economy and other issues are also important, but lets face it, breathing is a good thing and often it is required (even for businesses, corporations and "private landwoners".)

Note the Kyoto responses from each candidate:

Do you support the Kyoto Protocol, under which developed countries would reduce greenhouse-gas emissions by 5 percent compared with 1990 levels?

  • Gore: I am proud of my role in negotiating the Kyoto Protocol--a historic first step in the effort the world must undertake to curb the tremendous threat to our way of life that climate change presents.
  • Bush: Efforts to improve our environment must be based on sound science, not social fads. Scientific data shows that average temperatures have increased slightly during this century, but both the causes and the impact of this slight warming are uncertain. Changes in the earth's atmosphere are serious and require much more extensive scientific analysis. I oppose the Kyoto Protocol; it is ineffective, inadequate, and unfair to America because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance.

    The responses to these questions are clear (whether or not any ACTION will be is certainly unclear), one of the candidates is ready to deal with reality and facts, and DO SOMETHING, and one is claiming "social fads" are not an issue. Clear answers to important questions as far as I am concerned. I will refrain from editorializing, make your won choice, but make it with awareness of the candidates motives.

    Check out the article (linked) in its entirety, there are several interesting sections, good job Audubon and thanks to both candidates for taking the time to answer the questions.   Election 2000 Face Off: Audubon