Flawed science? So far, I haven't seen any specific references to flawed science. All I've heard is, 'Russia's Academy of Sciences concluded that the Kyoto Protocol "has no scientific foundation.' What exactly is flawed with Kyoto, and if so, why didn't the Russian academy of sciences propose any suggestions to improve Kyoto?

The adam smith institute blog claimed: "Viewed over the past 100 years, the increase in global temperatures may appear significant. However, over a longer period it becomes obvious that global temperatures vary a great deal - largely as a result of natural phenomena. The current global temperature is lower than has been observed at other times in the past 1000 years." But what about the sudden global mean temperature increase over the past 100 years, the thawing of large sections of ice in antarctica and the arctic circle. Can scientists afford to gamble our future on the possbility that it is simply a random process? Earth has a lot of history, and people can correlate today's temperature to the temperature thousands of years ago, but why is it that everyone wants to ignore the past 100 years and how that has effected climate change? Is it any coincidence that this climate change begins to occur as countries just begin to become heavily industrialized, as vast tracks of forest are cut down, as environmental conditions are eroded? Or is this false science too? Just what is is the litmus test? With the amount of data environmental data that has been collected over the past 100 years, where is this "natural phenomenon" that is causing global climate change?

Also: "Illarionov pointed out that there is a strong link between wealth creation and environmental protection. "Kyoto harms economic growth, perpetuates poverty, and would undermine everyone's ability to achieve a cleaner, healthier environment. Therefore, the most important policy for environmental protection is creating the right conditions for economic growth. Kyoto has the opposite effect and is therefore environmentally harmful." Where does draw the bottom line? Admittedly, for true environmental change to occur, economic growth is difficult. Economic growth depends on population growth, habitat loss, increased production (which inevitably means increased raw material and power consumption) followed by increased consumption. But is economic growth guaranteed if Kyoto isn't adopted? Who's to say. Is economic growth necessarily impeded with the introduction of Kyoto? For a treaty that hasn't been ratified by a majority of energy consuming nations, I fail to see how it can create poverty. If Illarionov is truly interested in poverty, perhaps he should attack third world debt from exorbitant interest rates from the IMF/creditor nations.

Kyoto isn't a perfect plan. But such a radical concept in reducing carbon emissions is bound to have its flaws. The critics of kyoto fail in providing a sustainable solution. Corporate self-regulation is a fantasy. When companies hire Public Relations groups like Burson Marsteller, Powell-Tate, and Ketchum PR to brand envioronmentalists as "eco-terrorists" or create false grassroots organizations like "The Global Climate Coalition" or "British Columbia Forest Alliance," you know that something is up. why would corporations deliberately try to hide or decieve information from the public? With the amount of false information being paraded by public relations firms about "truth" on behalf of corporations, people have to question whether global climate change (and for that matter, environmental change) might be caused by a society that consumes too much.

It's not just climate change. The sudden rise in global temperatures coincides with dwindling fish stocks, loss of forest cover, severe droughts in some regions, massive floods in others. For all the economic growth that the United States (and the rest of the world) claims to have benefitted without Kyoto, the United States has a permanent unseen underclass of 40 million people, has a society where it is increasingly difficult to survive as in the middle class, and a growing income gap, with some figures noting a staggering 157% increase in wealth for the top tiers of society with middle class income rising only a modest 10% . Economic growth can be touted as a major reason to circumvent Kyoto, but in long run, to what degree will economic growth benefit society if the upper echelons accumulate the wealth while society as a whole is left with a raped environemnt? Climate change is just a small facet of a larger polyhedron of gradual environmental destruction. If the world isn't ready for Kyoto, then another viable solution needs to be proposed, but if its watered down like EPA standards in the US, maintaining our global climate is destined to failure. People can quote the eccentricity of climate change over the past millions of years, but that doesn't deny human impact. Antarctica did not develop in a couple of hundred years; the very existance of polar ice caps and huge continental masses of ice are a testament to the fact that major climate change doesn't occur suddenly without some catastrophe or major change on earth.

Illarionov says that a treaty requiring a reduction of CO2 emissions would “be a blow against basic human freedoms and human rights” . The basic human right to produce emission of gases potentially dangerous to the environment? That is pure lunacy.

Absolutely. That's like saying that it's a basic human freedom to dump mercury and industrial pollutants into rivers. Its just that a more direct link can be drawn between these activities and long term harm. It IS pure lunacy.