[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

We're 29.1% above our Kyoto target. Achieving that target is the point of Kyoto.

Actually that is not the "point of Kyoto" that is the "target of Kyoto".

The "point" of Kyoto is to put a price on carbon and thereby change the 300 year momentum that economic growth leads to increase in emissions and create a dynamic in which those emissions would begin to fall.

This is to be achieved by placing a price on carbon that would make technologies that did not release carbon, or were more energy efficient, more economically competitive.

Whether or not you believe in AGW, understanding what the Kyoto Protocol was about is not that complicated. This woman doesn't really understand anything. She starts out with a point and tries to bend the facts to fit them. She could easily be a liberal.

[AFPhys]

Putting a price on carbon is as stupid as putting a premium on “natural” foods. Absolutely pointless. The article states the case very well.

[HenpeckedCon]

The only “point of Kyoto” was to damage the US economy by transferring our wealth to the 3rd world. Germany insisted the base year be 1990 with good reason. They knew if they got rid of the pollution spewing plants in the DDR they could emit “greenhouse gasses” at will. The whole global warming scam was started by a Canadian Marxist by the name of Maurice Strong, who even though he made millions as a capitalist, hates capitalism and especially the US. I was stationed in Germany for 2 years. There are huge differences between our countries. Mainly, the availability of public transportation. The US is a much larger country and we need our cars to live, I never had a car the years I was in Germany. From reading your comments, the propaganda in Europe is working.

[Roy Tucker]

The "point" of Kyoto is to put a price on carbon and thereby change the 300 year momentum that economic growth leads to increase in emissions and create a dynamic in which those emissions would begin to fall.

Ah, but two producers, China and India, will not be charged anything for their carbon emissions under Kyoto. Their increase in emissions offsets any savings dictated by hitting Kyoto's targets (which by the way the signatories are not doing as a whole). So one is left to ask what is the point?

And while I will grant you that CO2 emissions have risen I am not convinced there is a very good correlation between increased CO2 and the warming of the earth. Unless one can explain the Medieval Warming Period prior to any industrialization. Plus, if there were a direct correlation, the earth would be warmer now than it was in 1998 which it is not.

[Old Professer]

The whole notion of such schemes rests on the fantastic foundation that there is yet to be found an element that burns as readily and is as abundant as carbon itself; all else is a game of hide-and-seek.