RE: Kyoto. There is a lot of evidence that Kyoto would do little good and a lot of harm.

Even the gloomiest of environmentalists concede it wouldn't shift temperatures by much more than a trifle, even if completely enforced. Furthermore, Kyoto exempted from its strictures the "developing" countries, such as China and India, which are seeing toxic emissions grow at an exponential rate.

It should also be noted that, on current trends, America would be required under the Kyoto accord to reduce CO2 emissions by more than 40% in a decade. Apart from locking half the country's cars in the garage for the next 10 years and instructing Americans to stop breathing, it's hard to see how that could possibly be done--without massive economic damage.

If you weigh the consequences of plunging the United States into an energy crisis (and potential economic collapse) against the unknown consequences of a theory that has yet to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, then any politician will have to hesitate.

This would explain why, not only did both parties (Democrat and Republican) in the Senate oppose ratification, but why not one country facing any actual obligations under this energy suppression decree has ratified it.