>I have no idea what you mean about equating "make our environment better" with being a hunter and fisherman. Can you explain?


If a person likes to hunt and/or fish, this requires that the environment be as pristine as possible. Polluting the resources kills off the fish and game, therefore reducing your opportunity to enjoy fishing and hunting. So, if you are a hunter and/or fishermen, it is in your best interest to want a clean environment. Having said that, I also balance that with the notion that not all oil exploration is a bad thing. Remember how the Alaskan pipeline was going to destroy the Caribou migratins? Didn't happen! You can see the Caribou migrating every year, just like always. I don't advocate wide open development in our wilderness, but I think more could be opened up to benefit the country, while protecting the resources (as was done with the pipeline).

As for Kyoto, I still say it's the tail trying to wag the dog. The US should be aware that other countries are not playing fairly (imagine that).

Here's an excerpt from an article that reveals how the UK is underreporting their emissions. Lies, damn lies and statistics (you know):

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg19025574.000&print=true


"Now two teams that have monitored concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere say they have convincing evidence that the figures reported by many countries are wrong, especially for methane. Among the worst offenders are the UK, which may be emitting 92 per cent more methane than it declares under the Kyoto protocol, and France, which may be emitting 47 per cent more."

So to say the US is the worst offender, where do you get your data? Who do you trust?