The U.S. knew that the manifestation of this would hurt the economy and privately owned companies. Many other developing countries broke their allegance for the same reason. The U.N. would have slown down the economies of many countries.

Some would also say that the Kyoto Protocol was inadequate and the rules should have been stricter. Some scientists were demanding 50% reduction in Greenhouse Gases, which would destroy many more economies and more countries would have left the agreement like the U.S., Australia, and so many more. When this agreement comes to an end in a year, some countries would like to mae the rules harder and because of those threats many more countries have threatened to leave the agreement, including Russia.

Though all of this opposition, the Kyoto Protocol was set up to help the environment by lowering the greenhouse emissions and maing other rules that were recommended in the Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992 and other reports written by different UN departments. They are trying to promote a cleaner environment but with such strict laws all at once, they lose the interest and desire of many "Rich Countries" and lose their potential for hitting their goal. They need all countries to agree on the Protocol or they will lose their support. And logically, who is better to manage a country a third party or the country itself.