quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
On Kyoto: I'm firmly of the opinion that the rejection of Kyoto was to appease Californian voters and American industry.[/QUOTE}

The Senate rejected Kyoto almost unanimously, meaning that Senators from every state rejected it. Why would, for example, Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy need to appease California voters?

[quote]G-man points out that China and India are let off the hook as developing nations, and this is true. Their argument is that strict pollution controls would stifle their economic development. I don't know that I agree with that, given I suck in polluted air floating south from the properous Guangzhou province every day. Some pollution regulation would go a long way.
Exactly. When nearly everything we own is "made in China," the idea that China is "developing" and should be exempted is ludicrous. The fact that China is exempted is further evidence that this treaty is simply some sort of anti-US rule.

quote:
In any event, the US, as the world's principal polluter, has no excuse of being a developing country.
No, but they have the 'excuses,' or more accurately 'reasons' cited previously: that the treaty would be ineffectual at everything except crippling the US economy and sending millions to the unemployment line.

If, as you say, Europe and Japan are implementing Kyoto then let's wait and observe things for a few years. Let's see if they actually cut emissions and let's see how their economy is effected. Then the United States can make an informed decision.