Kyoto Protocol enters in action
 

Is it worth it without the world's biggest polluter participating?
Is it worth it AT ALL, or will it fade away as a "good on paper, but just doesn't work" project after a while?
Time will tell, but I have doubts...

I'm more worried about the pass it gives China for polluting as much as we do.

It's way better than what was in place before. ...Oh, yeah. That'd be nothing. It's just too bad that more countries aren't involved in it.

KP does nothing to stop the pollution by the worlds largest countries, India and China. Why should the US sign on, weaken our economy more, when there are no provisions for a third of the world's population?

I'm glad this thing never went through in the US.

Yeah this is one forgien policy the US has that I can agree with, I wish Canada had never gotten involved in this half-baked idea. Sure it has good intentions but could not have been more poorly implemented.

Others have beat me to it.

The fact that the treaty would give China and India a pass is the real problem, as they stand to be the biggest polluters (China uses coal extensively for the production of power...more so than the US if I remember correctly. Their coal plants do not have even remotely the same emission controls our plants have.)

What are you? A bunch of babies?
"Those countries pollute, we should be able too as well!"

Why not be a role model and do your part? If more and more countries join in, in the long run it will be better for everyone. People has to stop thinking short term...

It is not a matter of being "a bunch of babies", it is the matter of very real economic impact on those implimenting such standards.

In other words, China and India would be allowed the economic benefits of NOT curbing their emmissions while the United States would pay the cost of controlling theirs.

The treaty isn't a level playing field as it stands.

I wonder just how much of a difference we humans have made in the Earth's climate. It seems that the planet has been warming up and cooling down many times throughout it's history with no help from us. The land my house now sits on was a glacier not so long ago.

Pollution is not really the primary concern for the KP. It's more about curbing American economic power. If it were really about pollution, China and India would be included and sub Saharan African countries and other third world countries would not be permitted to slash and burn their forests and savanna land.

Agreed, but when we point that out, we're a "bunch of babies".

As well as right wing selfish scumbags who care nothing for anything but themselves.

If we are so concerned about India and China, why not make all signatories impose some sort of tarrif on any goods imported from nations that are not signatories to the accorrd.

Level the economic playing feild as far as being able to import cheaply produced goods.

Why?

I mean, even if India and China were willing to agree to it (which I seriously doubt) why not include them in the treaty?

That seems to be the best, most straight forward solution to me.

But to agree with was was previously stated, I think several nations saw this as a good way to curb the US, which is the real reason they weren't included.

You're missing the point. The treaty claims that this is the way to curb pollution. How are taxes going to curb pollution in the third world countries that slash and burn?

What I am suggesting is that the protocol is a good first step in terms of getting nations (and by the extention people in general) to start thinking about the impact they are making on the global climate, etc.

People here (and elsewhere) are complaining that since India and China have not signed on it give them an unfair advantage of those nations that have signed on...

An economic advantage that could be partially leveled by the signatory nations agreeing to impose tariffs on imports coming in from non-signatory nations. Suddenly cheap goods from China become just as expensive as those made in nations who have agreed to keep their emmissions in check.

The revenues generated could be used to further the reduction of green house gas emmisions or to help pay for the hospital bill of those who are dying from inhaling all these pollutants...

You make a good point and I see what you're saying, but if that's the case, why not do it now and include the USA? They won;t do it, because this is not about pollution. In fact, I'm willing to wager that if something like this does come to pass, it would be ONLY the US that gets the tariffs slaped on.

And BTW, who are all these people that you say are dying because of this?

It would be great to see the US come on board but that won't happen for any number of reasons. The biggest reason being that the US doesn't like to be told what to do. Meanwhile, the US doesn't appear to be doing *anything*.

There are all sorts of stats relating to the number of people who are dying around the world from deaths related to the quality of the air they breathe... of course there are an equal number put out by corporations who claim there is no way to really pin these death on air quality... much like the tobacco issue... too many other factors to actually point a finger at air quality.

That said, try living in Bangkok or Jakarta... the air there is toxic... We in the west aren't that far behind.

If there are all these people dying from pollution, and the US is one of the biggest polluters there is (according to the libs, of course), how do you explain that women in this country have a life expectancy of 83.3 year, the highest in the entire world?

Maybe that is the republican information?

CIA factbook (probably the most partisan liberal source?) says that the estimate of female life expectancy of USA is 80,36 and that there is lots of countries with higher values (Finland, the land of knives and booze = 81,89).

Sorry, just nitpicking. ;)

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, International Programs Center, International Database, Gender and Aging: Mortalit and Health, 1B/98-2.

North and South America
Male Female
Argentina 70.9 78.3
Brazil 59.4 69.6
Costa Rica 73.5 78.5
Cuba 73.0 77.9
Mexico 68.6 74.8
United States 72.9 83.3


;)

I had to google because you didn't provide a link, is it this:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0774532.html

That has a title Life Expectancy at Birth for Selected Countries: 1950 and 1998. Means seven year old data. The CIA fact book, on the other hand:

total population: 77.43 years
male: 74.63 years
female: 80.36 years (2004 est.)

Now we can argue which source is more reliable. :)

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing here, but either way, how can you explain the LE rate in the US while claiming the we are the biggest polluter and causing all sorts of premature deaths?

I wasn't going to explain that as I only corrected your outdated information. I do think that the logic behind that comparison is a bit flawed though, but that is an argument I don't want to take part, at least not now.

And about being the biggest polluter, I think it in this case refers to CO2 emissions, which are not directly harmful (as in killing people) but that they contribute to the climate change. Note that I didn't post the original post saying that people are dying because of pollution. Even though I wouldn't be surprised if even in my rather small (in US scale, that is) home city, car exhaust fumes get rather unbearable on rush hours. Probably nothing compared to cities like Los Angeles etc.

Now when you think about it, notice how the female life expectancy is degrading there...? Maybe it is the pollution? ;)

Some examples...

http://healthandenergy.com/pollution_kills.htm

http://www.cnn.com/NATURE/9908/30/air.pollution.enn/

http://www.globalhealth.org/news/article/2603

http://www1.worldbank.org/devoutreac...nly.asp?id=218

Well the world isn't fair, never has been and never will, that's just something you have to accept. Of course I see where you are coming from, and I agree that both China and India should do their part as well.
Still, the US is a big polluter (Maybe not as big as China and India, I don't know about that) and should try to limit their emmissions no matter what other countries are or are not doing. In the long run that is what's best for everyone. I like my ozone where it is thank you very much.

Developed countries account for three quaters of the world's greenhouse gas emissions while constitutuing one quater of the world's population.

http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou.../items/278.php

If each country were given a quota of allowable emissions based on population (rather than 1990 emission levels), then developed countries would currently be far in excess of this quota, while India for example, would only use one third of it's quota. This extra share could then be sold off to developed countries that are above their quota. If this were the case then the developed world would be hit far harder than is the case under the current kyoto protocol.

Developed countries have created the problem by their emissions over the last 2 centuries, following the "polluter pays principle" (whoever broke it, should fix it) these countries should contribute the most in fixing the problem.

Developed countries are more in need of an increase in emissions to improve their standard of living (to escape poverty), while an increase in emissions in an industialised country only leads to an unessecary, and unsustainable increase in the standard of living.

The Kyoto Protocol ensures the first steps are taken to reducing the enhanced greenhouse effect, and does so in a way which goes easy on developed countries.

reference: Peter Singer and Tom Gregg, How Ethical is Australia?, 2004

I am a big supporter of having us sign that thing. That said.

Will this do anything? No it won't.

The exclusion of developing nations like China and India (and us) make it effectively nil.
But it is all we have right now. It's a good first step towards actual teeth in a commitment to reducing CO2 levels. Maybe one day soon we can get together with the rest of the industrialized world and impose a tariff against nations that refuse to reduce. But that won't happen unless the USA is a part of the process.

FLSTF: What the sun does and what we get out of it are two different things. We are getting farther away from the sun (on average) for several thousand years now and will continue this for thousands more. It's part of an ellyptical to circular cycle that our planet has. The math says we should be cooling off. Reading the carbon concentrations in our atmosphere, our current temperature shift gels with the stated energy absorption properties of carbon.

I don't doubt that pollution is not a good thing for many reasons. But from what little I have read the Earth appears to have been through some tremendous temperature swings in the past. The last book I read speculated that it was a warm up period that caused the desert areas to bloom and allowed our ancestors to walk out of Africa.

I'm just wondering if we are not blowing this thing out of proportion. The Earth will go through it's ice ages and warm up periods no matter what we do. During the last ice age the glaciers were as far south as where I live on the Ohio River. I think that if we think that our activities can have a major impact on these things we may be kidding ourselves.

aKula,

This is a well constructed argument and I will second it. Some sort of paragmatism should be in order. China and India most certainly should not be left off the hook. They have exhibited strong desire to be global leaders - with leadership comes responsbility and they should have seized this chance to "one up" the US by taking the lead on this.

A good sound environmental policy doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. I believe it can be mutually beneficial. World Bank IMF should offer great incentives in capital investiture in environmentally-friendly infrastructure. In other words, try and take the "it costs too much" argument away.

I don't know about global warming but I do have enough common sense to not "pee & poop" in the drinking water. We should all do our part in creating a clean and safer environment to live in.

In LA, the latest studies have shown the pollution as being a primary contributor, source of asthma in children contributing to skyrocketing health costs and sick days which reduce funding in our schools. (Funding for schools in LA are based on attendance due to delinquency problem) One could argue, that hurts our economy. Many times a year, the pollution shuts down our famous beaches hurting the tourism economy. Economic costs can go both ways.

The main problem is that politicians and human beings in general are tied to the short term. We are remarkably weak and unwilling to plan for the future. A common sense approach to a "green earth" policy should not be a pariah in this country nor should it be a dirty word.

I like how afew people on this forum have resorted to the grade school mentality...If they didnt have to do it why should we?
Take some initiative, set a good example, you are the most powerful country in the world, grow some balls, and step up to the plate and do a good thing for the environment. rude comment removed

flstf: according to all measurables we should be entering a scheduled cooling off period, but because of our CO2, we are reversing it.
If you don't think we have much of an impact, you should look up how much of an increase in CO2 we are directly responsible for in teh past 300 years.

May we assume that you support hte US taking the lead in promoting freedom throughout the world too?


Didn't think so...

I would certainly expect the US to take the lead in promoting freedom by setting an example... This is a different thing than the US taking the lead in imposing freedom by making an example.

Big Difference.

So you believe that freedom is an "imposition"? :confused:

In the context of Iraqi freedom? Yes.

It is not one nation's job (mission?) to force another sovreign nation to be "free". The logic behind that sort of thinking is the exact same as the Soviet's imposing Communism on the nations of the iron curtain.

For the moment , let's drop the international legal terms and deal with basic humanity.

I don't feel it's an impostion to help people who want to be free. Freedom is man's natural state, and I feel that free nations have a moral obligation to help unfree people become free. It wasn't very long ago that liberals believed this as well.

Can we forget Iraq and just war theory for just this one thread people?

It is so infrequent that ANYONE gives a damn about the environment. When people are willing to discuss it I sort of treasure the moment.

Yeah, sorry about the temporary hijack.


BTW, I thought this thread was about the KP, not the enviroment?

China and India are developing countries. Developing countries are not bound to reduce emissions. Their emissions on a per capita basis are far below those of the west. Countries such as these require an increase in emissions to reduce their level of poverty.

full text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...Climate_Change

Once these countries are no longer 'developing', their future emission level growth will be limited.

So then, it comes down to:

If some countries are allowed to pollute and others aren't, does it in fact, give one an advantage over the other? Is it measurable or is it just speculation?

I disagree with the contention that pollution is necessary for growth. Although China and India do not pollute as much as say, the US (largest polluter), it's still not a great idea to just let them pollute freely.

I believe that they have a perfect opportunity (and many developing countries for that matter) to put into place good environmental policies that do NOT have to necessarily be uncompetitve or contstraining economically.

Because they are developing, there is still a lot of room for infrastructure building. Since it is in a sense, building from scratch, it should be easier to build a "cleaner, greener, leaner" factory, power plant etc... simply because you don't have to tear an older, existing pollutiing one. Yes, it may be a bit more expensive (I'm assuming) but I believe it should be better in the long run. Studies (sorry, I don't have a source handy, I'm just recalling from memory) in our own country show that green or smart buildings, solar power are all "profitable" in the long run. I don't believe it is a ero-sum game. People argue that environmental policies create job loss. I would argue that new industries are created in its place.

I don't know about global warming, but I do care about breathing clean air and drinking clean water. It really should be simple and based on common sense. Don't pee in the drinking supply or don't dump your garbage in there either. Prevention is far less costly than trying to clean it all up.

That can't be right... Under what criterea are China and India defined as developing?

I thought they weren't party to Kyoto because, like the US, they don't like being beholden to the rest of the planet...

OK, now you're begining to understand what the KP is all about. Like I mentioned earlier, it has nothing to do with pollution and everything to do with curbing US economic power and overall power.

I would really like to believe otherwise... can someone in support of Kyoto defend this, please?

I know you would, but sometimes us right wing, gun totin' rednecks are right

;)

Very interesting...

http://www.teriin.org/news/terivsn/i...missions_a.gif

yes India and China are big emmiters BUT when you look at their numbers per capita... they are much lower... I can see why Bush rejected this but also why the achitects of Kyoto have done this...

The US as the biggest polluter on the block clearly has the most to lose...

That said, the US, as a "world leader" really needs to take the initiative here... I think they are missing an opportunity to lead by example...

Per capita pollution???

Come on

Why is that so hard to fathom?

You have a total amount of CO2 emmisions and you have a population...

You don't find it interesting that the US, Brazil, Germany and Japan with very high emmissions have a fraction of the population of nations like India and China? I'm not saying those two nations will not increase over time or that they shouldn't be considered Annex 1 nations...

I am saying that I can now appreciate where Bush is coming from as well as the other side of the arguement.

Simply put there is a lot that could be done by everyone... the fact that the US wants status quo is just wrong... The fact that these two nations are not held accountable (for now... the literature suggests some Annex 2 nations will have to conform to targets in the next few years) is wrong.

I don't think the pollution numbers are in dispute. It's no secret we (US, major industrial countries) are huge consumers and polluters (producers of waste).

However, I think the main problem is that people believe the Kyoto Protocol would be economically debilitating. I disagree. It may produce an initial capitalization cost to correct factories etc but over the long run there should be better results. Additionally, by the same argument, I think China and India should most definitely participate as well as the two most populous and developing countries.

I actually think of it as an opportunity. As a leading country in technology and innovation, we could be exporting our expertise in helping China and India build "green" and "smart' facilities. Moreover, we can also invest or help them set up more enironmentally sound sources of energy. There is also an opportunity for Halliburtn here: I think they have some sort of haz-mat disposal or toxic clean up division. They can be busy for the next 2 decades cleaning up the environment all over the world. Perhaps we could see this as an ecoomic opportunity. China and India could be induced to investing in these environmentally friendly policies with cheap loan incentives from the World Bank or IMF (As developing countries they would qualify). The rest of us can further encourage responsible environmental policy further with favorable trade policies.

I dunno, something like that. I just don't think it's all doom and gloom.

Alot of what you say assumes that China and India would have any desire to change their current procedures. And why do countries with economies the size of China and India deserve cheap loans from the World Bank? If anything the US should get cheap loans to convert because they pollute the most, and hence loose the most under kyoto.

And really, without China, India or especially the US i really think kyoto will have a minor effect.

I think per-capita pollution might not be the right metric for measuring, but I'm not sure what it would be replaced with. The only thing I could think of would be pollution per acre/sq. mile but that would skew in favor of low population density countries (and would probably put Japan at the top for polluters).

Personally I'm not that worried about the environment, I think if something really critical is about to happen technology will find an answer. But admittedly I also have a very short-term view of the problem.

Yeah, we can't do that. We have skew the data to make the US look like that the pollution it creates is causing asthma for the Creator himself. After all, this is about punishing the USA.

How would the kyoto protocol 'punish' the USA. It would be bound to reducing emissions by 7% from what they were in 1990. All other industialised countries are reducing by an average of 5.2%.
full text: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol

Why aren't developing countries included in this reduction of emissions?
1. Even after the reduction of emissions by the industrialised countries the developing countries emissions per capita will still be much lower.
2. If an emissions per capita system were in place the developing world could sell carbon credits to the industrialised world. This would lead to either no reductions anywhere (and huge profit for the developing world) or reductions in the industrialised countries (to reduce the cost of buying carbon credits) and reductions in the developing countries (to increase their profit from selling carbon credits). Either way, in such a system, the industrialised countries will be 'punished' by having to buy carbon credits from the developing countries. Hence such a system isn't in place.
3. An increase of emissions is required to to escape poverty more rapidly.

Including developing countries in the '1990 emission system' would be unfair as outlined in points 1. and 2. above.

There is alot of poverty in India and China (particularly in the rural areas) that is why they are developing countries.
China is on rank 94 in the HDI ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDI ) while India is on rank 127.

2004 HDI report: http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2.../hdr04_HDI.pdf

But... the US is *both* the greatest polluter *and* the greatest polluter per capita...

The US *looks* bad without anyone doing anything... I'm the first to admit that Canada is right up there as well and something needs to be done... That the Bush administration wants to put off solving anything in the short term is *no* surprise... The administrations increasing debt just mirrors this desire to put off todays problems for other generations to solve.

I think history will judge the US, India and China negatively for their collective inactivity...

It's not just about reduction or clean up but about prevention as well. It's good policy in my opinion.

But, the reason why China and India should want to be on board (yes I know this is normative) is because quite simply, environmental issues are finite in the sense that they also desire clean air and clean water as well as satisfying energy and consumption demands. Resources are limited.

EX: If you insist on chopping down the forest for subsistence, sooner or later there will be no forest left to chop down. Then what? Now, I'm actually not opposed to chopping down the forest, I'm for a good, practical policy that makes sense (i.e - planting trees and rotation).

It's the same with fishing (and rights). Why kill your own industry by overfishing and polluting to depletion? It makes no sense. It's like killing the goose that laid the golden eggs.

So, in relation to emissions, if we are to believe that there are certain costs associated with poor air quality, then you have a quantifiable measure to evaluate the cost benefit of implementing an environmental policy such as the Kyoto Protocol.

For example, in LA, poor air quality has been shown to reduce worker productivity and contribute to the rising costs of healthcare. (Sorry guys, I don't have the report reference handy and I'm too lazy to google). It would seem that reducing emissions and the associated costs would yield real tangible benefits.

Therefore, if India and China were to look at their enormous populations and the task of providing an environment or infrastructure, clothing, feeding, employing, etc, they would see that a long term plan would be necessary to maintain stability and prosperity. Short term benefits are politically popular but may not be the best solution for the state. By planning for the long term, they can ensure some stability, prosperity and balance for their respective populations.

akula,

I don't understand #3.

QUOTE: 3. An increase of emissions is required to to escape poverty more rapidly.

Why does it have to be this way? actually, I think that may very well be the main point.

If the asumption is that emissions standards create economic advantages, then what is the rational? Why does that necessarily hold true? How would reducing emissions hurt one's economy?

Bear in mind, cost benefit entails not just economic costs but opportunity and accounting costs as well.

EX: My old school (SMC) made quite a bit of money recycling waste on campus to supplement the school's budget.

EX: When I didn't have health insurance, I spent $3500 in hospital visits because something I should of went to the doctor for escalated tenfold and cost more. Since I defaulted on the hospital visits, the taxpayers picked up the bill (sorry guys). Now that I have health insurance, I get regular preventative care and haven't been to the hospital in over two years.

Also, because I get regular dental care, instead of waiting to the last minute and needing $1000s in oral surgery.

Preventative remedies do pay off in the long run. Having clean air and water will go a long way in reducing health care costs and other associated costs like damaged crops form acid rain, loss of top soil form over-fertilization (dustbowlers). Cost of clean up is way more than prevention.

I'll just note that the 'per-capita' comparison is BS, IMO.

What matters is totals.

That per-capita comparison makes China and India look much better than actual and the US worse since the US has a smaller population than either (by approximately 1/5 of each or 1/10 of both.)

The reason that India and China are not included is indeed that they are developing countries. They simply cannot afford yet to produce under those standards. The US administration says implementing the standards would give the US a disadvantage. But the US economy is so far ahead that it will take the developing countries decades to catch up.
I like the idea of putting tariffs on goods from polluting countries that could afford more ecological production but don't do it.
And I honeslty cannot believe that you think US live expectancy has anything to do with air quality. Maybe a little, but medical service and nutrition play the major role there. If it would be so easy to say, India pollutes air, so Indians die and that is their problem. This huge hole in the ozone layer over Australia for example was not caused by Australian boomerang factories. Those people down under don't die from skin cancer because it is their fault. Global pollution caused the ozone layer to break over that part of the world because *insert intelligent metereologic comment*.

The KP is just an idea, a step, a start. But if the US do not take part then nothing is getting better and I better think about that whole having children part...

So Iceland should be entitled to pollute just as much as China and the USA?
Maybe you could factor in land area, but then again Australia shouldn't be able to pollute as much as Europe.

I agree that China should build clean factories (not likely to happen though), the thing is when a country develops into an industrialised one factories that emmit pollution will be built, increasing total emissions. (Even if the factories are efficient, though in most cases they aren't. I agree this should change.)

Well the numbers also show the total amount of emmissions... China and India are in the top ten BUT the US, regardless of whether or not you look at per capita is STILL higher than the rest...

Hell it's higher than the European Union combined...

Yes, China and India have higher populations... a reason we should be concerned about the spead of mass consumerism in those nations... imagine how bad they will be if they continue to increase their output on the same gowth pattern?

They should be held accountable... if not by the accord then by trade tariffs...

Again, the whole this will damage our economy, is BS... the US has the opportunity to be a world leader here and they are squandering that... of course the current administration can't afford to take any economic hits... they need all the treasure they have for other things...

The problem is that you can't quantify other costs associated pollution but a business can quantify the cost of reducing pollution. There might be benefits, but from a business perspective it's a risk. Also, this is a big problem with political science-the business doesn't absorb all the costs of pollution, but would absorb all the costs of preventing it. There is no incentive for them to reduce it.

As for China and India, I don't think either is that concerned with providing stability and quality of life for their people. Otherwise they wouldn't allow the working conditions that allow for both countries to be making their current economic gains.

I personally think that technology will compensate for any percived problems, if the need is that dire (i've been told that that is a blue environmentalist view). That's why enviromental issues are personally low priority. However, I admit in the future things could change.

The economic hit is real-there are real, quantifiable costs associated with reducing polluting ommissions. Also, businesses will relocate to India, China, or any other place where emmisions standards are lower if America were to drastically change their current policies.

Earlier I said I don't feel that per-capita is the best metric, but I don't know offhand of a better one. I suggested one earlier, but I don't know if it's really any better.

And as for tariffs, if they could be implemented I would be heavily in favor of them. But it's currently extremely difficult to have tarrifs implemented in the "global economy". Although if countries were to levy heavy tarrifs against China and India, I personally think those countries would have little recourse (they both heavily export and have very little importing, so threats of counter-tarrifs would probably be ineffective).

There's the rub... as long as we continue to use GDP as an indicator of the economic health of nations we will be behind the proverbial 8 ball...

We need a new indicator folks...

I'm getting hot just thinking about it...or...maybe I'm getting cold. Whatever!!!!!

I know there is this theory, but I cannot think of the name right now. I read about it, it's kinda ols but was never really developed further.
It basically said that every country has certain emission rights. If it would want to exceed those, it could purchase rights from another country, but at an exorbitant price. In the long term it would be cheaper to upgrade factories.
Again, main problems: how to measure? How to supervise? How to fine? Neutral head organization?
Would probably never work because we can't even agree on an international court for war crimes.
They talked about this theory in that book called One Trillion Dollars where this poor guy inherits this money that his great great great great grandfather one deposited.

You guys are really horrouble people.
How can you guys even suggest keeping half of the world's population in poverty as an alternative to slowing american's pollution problem?

Well, good luck on fighting this uphilled battle, you have 141 nations as oppoents.

I wouldn't call you that. I would call you unreasonable and self-centered.

The U.S. is entirely industrialized. There is nothing the world gains by giving the U.S. a temporary pass as is being given to China and India. Neither China nor India are nearly as industrialized as the U.S., they have a lot of catch up to do. The process of catch up and the result once they become more industrialized is a stronger global economy. The purpose of their temporary pass is to provide them with incentive and means to do what the U.S. has already done.

The U.S. did it first and it has enjoyed the benefits of it and will continue to enjoy the benefits of having been first. Now it is time for other countries, including the two with the largest populations, to do it.

The difficulty you are having accepting the inherent fairness of that scenario is that you do not think of this on terms of a global issue. And let's be clear - we are talking about the global environment and how policy on the global environment affects the global economy. The U.S. has already done the most poluting and the U.S. has reaped the benefits of their unchecked polution policies. The world has been negatively affected. It is now time that other countries receive benefits. That the U.S. will then need to accept some negatives is simply the pendulum swinging back.

And my feeling is that the U.S. will eventually find itself in a position where it must join the treaty. As the world economy begins leveraging the treaty, the U.S. will find itself left out in the cold.

Well put Manx. Could not agree more.