Well, this is biggest financial fraud in the history of mankind. And all of it benefits the tiny sets of people who trades in carbon credits. For that, worldwide economical shackle doesn't seem bad doesn't it? :)

It worked pretty fast too. It's 74 degrees (F) on the front porch at 10AM in the middle of February. They should have passed the global warming act a long time ago.

YAWN.

The moonbats here in the states are all blaming BushChimpHitler for failure to sign.

They all have forgotten that Clinton signed the silly thing, but congress threw the sorry fucker out and refused to ratify....

It means nothing; after 2010 most nations will opt out (according to Bailey at least*). So, in five years, it will be a worthless piece of paper.

*Since he has better sources than me, I won't be too incredulous about such a claim.

Link to Ron Bailey's most recent article on the matter:

http://www.reason.com/rb/rb021605.shtml

I thought Clinton *didn't* sign it because of Congress turning it down...

No, Clinton did sign it, perhaps because he knew that the Senate would certainly not ratify, perhaps not.

His 'no-effect' signing did however make AlGore and the greenies happy.

Still it's remarkable how 150 countries signed this piece of nonesensical superstition.
They should all read this book:

Kyoto is not a waste, from the perspective of those who want it. It was explicitly designed as "the thin end of a wedge". It's much easier to tighten controls than to first implement them.

Won't happen, though. The political will for that died with the '90s.

The U.S. has never withdrawn from Kyoto. President Bush, like President Clinton, has declined to send the Kyoto Treaty to the Senate, but the U.S. remains a party to international treaty conferences and the Bush Administration has not removed the U.S. as a signatory to the Kyoto Treaty.

As you have all mentioned, Kyoto has little chance of success.

So much of what is put forward by interest groups in regards to global warming etc. is obviously pseudo science.

But (hypothetically)

What if there was a clear causal link between say heavy industry/pollution and global warming/hole in the ozone? And that this global warming would have catastrophic results for humanity.

The air/ozone pollution problem would essentially be a 'tragedy of the commons' (am I right in assuming this?)

How would those of the Libertarian perspective cut emissions from industry if this was found to be necessary? (links to articles would suffice).

Is China still exempted from cutting emissions to the degree that other nations are?

Yes.

Andy Mo: the answer to your question is in Alex's original article; a libertarian response to this commons tradgedy is to look for private, entrepreneurial solutions. Rather than calling for the State to cut and impede existing 'dirty' technologies, what we want are new and 'clean' technologies.

Hi Mike, looking at Alex's original essay.

What forces would drive an individual/company to develop clean technologies?

Since air/ozone can be treated as the 'commons', why would individuals buy the more expensive 'clean air' model?

Andy Mo: the other libertarian response would be for those who suffer harm as a result, to sue such a hypothetical climate-alterer for damages. A minimal government which doesn't play favourites makes it harder, not easier, to push away "negative externalities".

However, this would require the scientific link between polluter and damage to be proven to a jury in court, which is probably why it hasn't been attempted. The evidence simply isn't strong enough.

What forces would drive an individual/company to develop clean technologies?

One of the most powerful forces in the known universe - the profit motive.

Since air/ozone can be treated as the 'commons', why would individuals buy the more expensive 'clean air' model?

I dunno. Why don't you ask all the people who buy more expensive dolphin-safe tuna, organic foods, hybrid cars, bottled water, etc. ad infinitum.

Dev, in the United States a treaty is not a treaty until the Senate ratifies it. The President can sign anything he wants and he can even align administration policy to go along with something he's signed, but a treaty does not have the force of law unless and until the Senate ratifies it, and in this case, the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which passed 95-0 against the treaty, told Clinton not to bother submitting the document; it was dead on arrival. For all the screeching about Bush's pulling out of Kyoto, the fact remains that no US administration would have submitted the thing and no Senate would have ratified it. All Bush did was what Clinton did informally: toss the treaty into the trash; for all his green talk, Clinton had no more intention of letting Europeans slow down the American economy than Bush has.

Andy Mo, Two words: Carbon Sequestration. Google it.

Here is a compelling perspective on Kyoto.