>>>>>One of our erstwhile members here keeps bashing the US for not subscribing to the Kyoto accord.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yep, it's the UN and the One World gang. I believe we are doing much better these days as far as pollution (think Pittsburg in the early 20th century vx today). Sure we are consuming a lot of resources, but I don't imagine it will be too much longer before our alternative fuels start kicking in. There are a lot of promising technologies out there just over the horizon.
>>>
>>>Well, that's been true for decades, but nothing much has happened.
>>>
>>>>As for Kyoto, from what I've read, we don't need it. We can do better ourselves.
>>>
>>>I don't understand this. Kyoto is a set of targets. If you can do better than the Kyoto targets then what was the big deal about signing on?
>>
>>Money. It wasn't worth the money to sign. Those that signed it probably spent millions, if not billions, to satisfy Kyoto's quota, but with very iffy results.
>>
>>>If the Kyoto targets were going to hurt the U.S. economy, then how can you do even better than those targets without utterly destroying the economy. What am I missing here?
>>
>>See above.
>>
>>But I'm no expert.
>
>Sorry, maybe I'm dense, but if it was going to cost millions or billions to meet the Kyoto targets, are you suggesting that the U.S. can do better than the Kyoto targets without spending money?

>Targets are just targets. Either they can or they cannot be met, but to say one can better them while at the same time arguing that they are to onerous sounds supremely silly to me.

Why put your name on something that doesn't work and cost bookoo of $$$? THAT would be silly.