The Russian Duma votes for ratifying the Kyoto agreement.

(x-post)

We are cunts.

All either party want is for either the "developing countries" to be covered by the protocol, or for the target to be linked to GDP. Based on current estimates and rates of production, India will overtake the USA in gross production of said gasses within 20 years - yet they are not included in the protocol. Neither are China, who are huge producers and are increasing at a similar level. Why is this?

Interestingly, Australia are one of only two countries (Iceland are the other) who are supposed to increase their gas production under Kyoto, so this isn't as simple an issue as being upset about being 'punished'.

It clearly isn't just about developing nations either. Even a revised Kyoto Protocol would not be expected to get through the senate, though pleasingly McCain apparently supports the protocol (how long til he realises he is in the wrong party?). One of the reasons for exempting developing nations is that they couldn't afford to comply with the protocol without putting their nations is serious danger. The objection the US has is that they would have to roll back levels to their 1990 level (never mind the annoying use of 'roll back' - reduce would do just as well. The timeline of history doesn't have to be an ever increasing emission of pollutants) and this would damage business. It goes against free market principles, and anyway, the right just doesn't believe in the 'greenhouse effect' or anything else that will cost them money.

The only countries who have made any progress at all against Kyoto targets are ones with economies that have collapsed (such as the constituent parts of the former USSR) or have invested heavily in nuclear power (such as Japan).

Which one would you prefer your own country to adopt?

*At the moment, many developing countries have no resources to impose or regulate the treaty anyway.

*Whenever environmental issues in the developing countries are brought up by the industrialized countries of the North, the developing countries accuse the North of being hypocritical: they've gotten rich by exploiting their own environment as well as the developing contries themselves - yet now they they want to restrict the countries of the South from developing the same way they did. Obviously this argument is not altogether rational, but it's a very touchy issue in North-South relationship.

What I'm trying to say is that, at this point the developed countries of North - who still produce the vast majority of the world's pollution - need to set an example instead of hurling the accusations back on the developing countries. When the pollution levels of the South start to come even close of our levels (as they undoubtedly will), then the argument for them reducing pollution comes more valid. We don't live in an ideal world, so we have to settle for political compromises.

Whether Bush or Kerry, Kyoto must do without the US, too.

He has for political purposes in Michigan.