The US needs to be a world leader in multi-lateral initiatives. They used to be. They have forsaken that route, to the detriment of everyone, in order to attempt to establish global hegemony, and the continuation, into the future, of US military, economic, and political dominance of the world (this is roughly in *their* words - I can provide actual quotes, if you'd prefer).
The simple fact is, they don't have enough money for Kyoto. Really, they don't have enough money for their military, or much of anything for that matter. More's the pity that they feel the need to spend TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars on missile defense systems, and new nuclear delivery systems (wait for it).
Nevertheless, it would be HELPFUL for the rest of us if the US came up with some sort of SOLUTION to the PROBLEM of greenhouse gas emissions contributing to global warming, rather than just poo-pooing what everyone else says.
The industrialized nations have historically led the way in terms of global initiatives - the UN, the ICC - all global, multi-lateral initiatives were developed by western industrialized nations, and most of them by the US. At one point, America thought that this was the way to perfect a *real* new world order. This is very reasonable and predictable. They must continue to do so.
To force non-industrialized nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions without a well-developed industrial infrastructure in place is foolish. And beside the point, frankly. Developing nations are not expected to become the world's leading emitters for thirty to forty years. This is plenty of time for the current industrialized nations to clean up their own acts, and have shown the way for the rest of the world, multilaterally.
Which is the way it used to be.
Finally, to put a few lies to rest:
- Russia is NOT allowed to increase emissions. As they are judged to be undergoing the transition to a market economy, they are allowed to *maintain current levels*, but not increase them.
- The United States must cut emissions by only seven percent, while MOST of the signatory countries must cut by eight percent. This accord is NOT anti-American. In fact, many of the ones who helped develop it were American. There were several provisions put in place at the behest of the Americans.
- It is almost certain that the current drastically increased level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is attributable to the industrial revolution, not to the increase in global population. Meaning that WE are the culprits, not a billion people in China.
- The problem has already been "initiated". We must cut *current levels* of greenhouse has emissions, not prevent future increased emissions. Kyoto deals with this.
Once again, the industrialized world should put its house in order before asking the developing world to do so. Kyoto actually deals with BOTH at the same time (by permitting industrialized nations to receive credit for financing emission-reducing projects in developing nations). Again, is it the BEST we could come up with? Almost certainly not. To wait around for the "best" solution all the time is fruitless and counter-productive.
(By the by, I have yet to see any scientific postings, any links to any studies, advocating the ANTI-Kyoto stand, or maintaining that "global warming" is just "junk science". I suppose I shouldn't hold my breath.)
