The ironic argument against global warming action (or... insufferable)

The Republicans make the argument that the Kyoto climate change treaty is "unfair" to the United States and the other developed countries because we would have to make larger cuts in CO2 emissions than "developing countries" like China and India. The argument behind the Kyoto reductions was that the developed countries should make proportionally larger reductions because (1) we emit more, and (2) we have a technologically sophisticated economy, available capital, and we should be able to change our processes more easily.

The Republicans, and the energy industry that owns them, have made the argument that Kyoto is going to hurt America because it is going to put stiffer regulations on our industry. It is going to affect our companies more because our companies will have to spend more on energy related processes to abate CO2 emissions. Our government(s) are going to have to tax and spend more to accomplish CO2 reductions also. Well, those double talkers are the same Wall Street bastards who are moving our manufacturing to India and China and are...hurting America!

Insufferable!

I think there's as much chance as a polar bear making it to the 22nd Century, as the US has of even acknowledging climate change, let alone doing something about it, while Bush and his oil cronies are in power.

Here's a short advertisement that's shown here in the UK, from the British government:

http://www.climatechallenge.gov.uk/multimedia/film.html

Any chance of the Bush Administration making something similar? No, I didn't think so!

while I think GHG's are by far the most pressing global environmental issue, I don't think a ton of American CO2 is better or worse than a ton of Indian CO2. If GHG's are going to be regulated by caps, they should be proportional to population.

I'd rather see GHG's regulated by a global tax, with member states recieving a chuck of this tax revenue in proportion to their population.

I would fix that proportion after 10 years, to avoid encouraging population growth.

> ... I don't think a ton of American CO2 is better or worse than a ton
> of Indian CO2. If GHG's are going to be regulated by caps, they
> should be proportional to population.

... hence a ton of American CO2 *is* worse than a ton of Indian CO2
simply because it requires far fewer Americans to produce "their" ton
than it does Indians (or, in fact, any other country in the world).

It's also far easier for "an American" to reduce CO2 output than it
is for "an Indian" so the reward/penalty balance should be adjusted
in that respect too.

An american may make more CO2 emissions than a bangladeshi, but he also is more productive.

Regardless of the source each unit of GHG is as harmful as the next, and should incur the same penalty.