>>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>That's not the point. Kyoto is targets. If the U.S. can meet, in fact exceed, those target without spending themselves into submission, then how does signing on to Kyoto bankrupt you? Where in Kyoto does it say, "You must spend billions of dollars"? Kyoto says, "You must meet these targets". The fact that apparently the U.S. can better those targets without spending billions baffles me if they say they can't even meet them without wrecking the economy. The logic of this doesn't bother you at all?
>
>The money, resources and effort it would've required to attempt to achieve the targets can be better appropriated toward looking at other technologies, alternative fuels, fuel cells, etc. The requirements of Kyoto would've put such a burden on our energy companies to meet the targets that it would've ended up costing the entire economy as those costs are passed on. It was decided that it would be better to invest further money in research and development rather than attempt to meet some arbitrary targets that may or may not even help in the long run.

That sounds like you're saying that the Kyoto targets could not be met. In that case, John's comment, that started all this, that the U.S. can do better than Kyoto doesn't make any sense. Clearly, the U.S. is not planning to meet the Kyoto targets, and certainly is not going to do better.

If I were to tell you that I will not agree to lose 20 pounds by next week because it would mess up my metabolic system too much, but don't worry because I intend to lose 30 pounds by next week; what would you say to me?

I was never arguing about the decision to opt out of Kyoto. I was only questioning the statement that the U.S. cannot agree to Kyoto because of damage to the economy, but don't worry, the U.S. will do better than Kyoto.