Quite often one hears that Bush won’t sign onto Kyoto. But I learned on the Glen Beck show and since verified that Clinton signed on in 98 but withheld submission to the senate because of an adverse Republican senate.
Why can’t the now democratic senate just ratify it. Is there a constitutional protocal that requires the president to formally submit an international agreement for ratification ?
Gore signed, not Clinton, and the Senate passed a resolution 95-0 prior to Gore signing that they would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless certain conditions were met. (The conditions were not met, but Gore signed anyway)
It’s unlikely that any Senate, Democratic or Republican, would actually ratify the Kyoto Protocol any time in the next 30 years. It’s not a very good piece of legislation, and I think rational environmentalists are holding out for something better.
Bush not signing onto Kyoto is mostly a talking point rather than an actual travesty. You’ll note that the speed at which countries ratified Kyoto is generally dependent on how much economic growth they had from 1990-1998. Several nations were already in compliance, by virtue of having been in recession for the 90’s - they ratified first. The holdouts are all the countries who had a lot of growth, and don’t understand why they need to make 20-30% cuts in their economy while other countries do nothing.
Practical answer: there are not enough votes to ratify. It requires 67 votes, Kyoto may get, oh, maybe 20, tops.
Technical answer: yes, a treaty is sent to the Senate in a formal process that involves various bits of paper. The Senate cannot act until the treaty is received, and Kyoto was never submitted to the Senate.