on the commie pinko agenda behind kyoto: <fowarded> Consider the hidden social-policital-engineering implications of Kyoto:
On the same basis that the US is "richest", "most benefited" by Kyoto protocol would be China. China would be unlimited in greenhouse emissions. Other "undeveloped" countries would likewise be unlimited.
Now what would that do? I believe the general term is "jurisdiction shopping", high greenhouse emitting industries would not stop operations, they would simply liquidate in, say, the USA, and relocate in China or India. Couple this with the lax or non-existent *other* environmental restraints in those kind of countries, and the environment would seem to be more at risk than before.
This suggests an ulterior motive for Kyoto -- the devil, as always, being in the details. Suppose the protocol were simply "all countries must limit CO2 to this level: and give some level per capita." or even "each country must burn less than X tons per person-year" [or better, per square mile]. This has an element of equity about it, even though it may have some problems. This might be termed "an environmental policy". Presumably the level would be set at something that is obtainable by developed countries without their collapse into hunter-gatherer tribes. But this kind of policy can be hijacked by Communists, socialists and "environmentalists". So the trashy countries are *exempted*. China, India, Africa, whatever, can do whatsoever they please. This is no longer an "environemental" policy, it is a political/social engineering policy, whose goal is to effect the transfer -- without the benefit of market forces -- from decent countries to ratty countries. (Substitute "developed" and "pre-developed" if you please). To countries whose own nationals, given free will, will not invest their substance in.
So what has happened? We have effected the loathsome "levelling" agenda of the pinkest Commie {hence the watermelon designation). We have moved capital against the force of the market, so the resulting industries will be less efficient than before. (Capital will be destroyed in the process, too). The overall world yield on capital will go down, i.e. things will become scarcer (part of the watermelon agenda, BTW), there will be social pressures for Communist solutions in formerly advanced countries.
Once things stabilize, it is reasonable to assume that the industries moved to China etc will emit more greenhouse gases than before, for the same tonnage product.
There may be a change in capital investment to industries that do not emit. But again, non-market forces are at work. Unfortunately, high energy density is a characteristic of modern industry and methods.
So Kyoto results in environmental degradation and economic dislocation. This is part of the socialist agenda. </backwarded>