[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.

[Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit]

So one is left to ask what is the point?

The point is to create the incentive to develop the technology or put the current technology on the ground that is only economically viable when fossil fuels are more expensive.

Supply and demand are actually already doing this.

Your are correct that the rapid emissions growth of India and China will negate all reductions of Kyoto.

The theory of course, is that the build-up of greenhouse gasses was caused by industrialized countries and that it would be unfair to penalize developing countries at this point.