Personal tools

Argument: Kyoto Protocol is too costly a symbol

From Debatepedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Parent debate

Supporting quotations

Sterling Burnett. "Was U.S. wise to reject Kyoto treaty on climate change?". National Center for Policy Analysis. 1 May 2005 - "even as the champagne corks popped, Kyoto’s apologists were quietly admitting that the treaty would not prevent global warming, stating its importance was largely ‘‘symbolic.’’ After eight years and tens-of-millions of tax dollars spent: Kyoto is, indeed, an expensive symbol!"

Problem with the site? 

Tweet a bug on bugtwits