Is it time to kill the Kyoto Protocol? Prop. 87?

Has the Kyoto Protocol become a joke?

In the next 20 years, energy demand is supposed to rise significantly and most of that growth is expected to come from China and India - two countries largely unaffected by Kyoto. How can this make sense?

Global warming advocates, such as Al Gore, claim we have to act right now or it might be too late. Still, even if all of the world, except China and India, began to meet their Kyoto requirements, the world would still fail because China and India would more than cover the difference and global warming emissions would still be far too high.

China, already the 2nd largest contributor of global warming gases, is seeing massive increases in global warming pollution every year. Yet, China is building a new coal power plant on average EVERY 3 days. At this rate, China cannot be given a free pass for another decade if a Kyoto type plan is going to be effective.

Quite simply, Kyoto was a good P.R. campaign that helped raise awareness of the global warming problem, but it is already meaningless, and it is time to move on.

Even in Europe, where global warming is widely accepted, the majority of countries are failing to meet their emissions requirements. Unfortunately, at this point in time, carbon caps are seen as too expensive in the short term and too costly to economic growth.

Inevitably, the world will have to think beyond Kyoto. Carbon caps, while a great idea, simply won't be enough. Technology and innovation are not only integral, but the keys to success.

More important, greater appeal has to be made to the consumers of the world.

In places like California, Proposition 87 claims to fight some of these problems by blaming the oil companies and taxing them for the problem.

Please. I guarantee loophole after loophole in 87 will ultimately lead to nothing - not even cheaper fuel - just the waste of billions of dollars. Propositions are about politics. If Democrats so strongly believe in this campaign why not ask the Democrat-controlled California Congress to do something?

First and foremost consumers have to change. Driving flex-fuel guzzling SUVs instead of gas-guzzling SUVs isn't going to change anything, except for maybe the final destination of energy profits.

In California the focus should be on fuel efficiency and getting every day people to participate in that battle. Big oil might be a problem in California, but a bigger problem is all the big Hummers, Expeditions, Tahoes, etc. filled with only one occupant 90% of the time clogging the freeways.

How does 87 or Kyoto address that?

Giving people excuses and someone to blame is simply counter-productive. The problem with 87 and Kyoto is that they require no action from the people. The people simply aren't part of the solution. Yet, it is only by rallying the people that real change will be achieved.

Of course blame is always easier than responsibility, and it makes for better partisan politics.