So if Bush* all of a sudden decided to accept the Kyoto treaty do you think the Senate

would ratify it? Remember the last time it was brought up, when Clinton submitted it, the Senate rejected it unanimously....Has it changed much over the years?

that not a single Dem voted for it?

countries while letting countries like China and India pretty much off the hook.

would need to be re-worked before it can come up for any kind of consideration by our country again, although I guess most of the rest of the world has since signed on.

Times have changed. But that would hinge on Dubya accepting the treaty, so it'll never happen.

Although the Senate did pass a "sense of the Senate" resolution that indicated they would unanimously reject it. From wikipedia:

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),<66><67> which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.<68> The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA)<69>, demonstrated a potentially large loss to GDP from implementing the Protocol of up to 4.2% (EIA).

I also knew the Senate had unanimously rejected it. I did not know it had not officially been submitted by the Administration but the question is still valid. Would the Senate today ratify it do you think?

The facts about Global Warming have become much clearer in the last decade (although they were plenty clear in 1998). I don't think many Senators would want to vote against something that tries to address the problem.

I also don't expect bush to back it - have your heard something indicating that he might?

separate questions

to make it sound like the whole thing was a loser. It was due to come back after the clean up of the language but then Bush came in and drew a line in the sand that no Republican would dare cross.

Media knows that but always uses the shorthand argument.

"So let us press forward. Let us resolve to conduct ourselves in such a way that our children's children will read about the "Spirit of Kyoto" and remember well the place and the time where humankind first chose to embark together on a long-term sustainable relationship between our civilization and the Earth's environment. In that spirit, let us transcend our differences and commit to secure our common destiny: a planet whole and healthy, whose nations are at peace, prosperous and free; and whose people everywhere are able to reach for their God-given potential." - Vice President Albert Gore, Dec.8, 1997, Kyoto, Japan