Kyoto hypocrisy, what did you expect?

From the New York Times:

• The pressure, he says, should be on the United States, which generates a fifth of the world's greenhouse gases

From the Chicago Tribune:

• Trenberth said the Kyoto treaty's effectiveness was diminished by President Bush's rejection of it in 2001. That took the nation with the most emissions--about a quarter of the world total--out of the process.

From the Los Angeles Times:

• Nearly eight years after it was negotiated, the Kyoto Protocol to curtail greenhouse gases believed to cause global warming goes into effect today without the participation of the country that produces roughly a fourth of the world's heat-trapping exhaust: the United States.

Each of these stories paints the United States as the world's biggest polluter, but notice how the figures they use are aggregated. Out of all the pollution, we are responsible for 25% of it.

Now, think back to the tsunami relief efforts. Remember Jan Egeland who said our contributions weren't enough because the per capita rate versus our GDP was too low?

Let's compare apples to apples for a moment. In the whole world, America is the single largest philanthropist and is the single largest source of greenhouse gases. Doesn't that make sense?

What would the reaction be if we cut our emissions and/or bought our emission credits by closing the government funded art museums, AIDS research facilities, and welfare offices? No more ships and planes to Africa loaded with food and medicine. No more money for Palestinian relief efforts. No more hospitalization and schooling for illegal aliens.

What's the real reason behind the leftist agenda pushing America into global environmental treaties? Why won't the media report the story fairly and in appropriate context? Do these leftists think a Marxist America will be able to provide assistance to the world, more so than the quasi-capitalist America that exists today?

From the Washington Post:

• Australia and the United States have refused to join. Bush administration officials said the treaty would hurt the economy and is ineffective and discriminatory because large, rapidly industrializing countries such as China and India escape the limits. Moreover, they say, many countries, including Japan and several in the European Union, are unlikely to meet their emission-control targets and will have to buy "credits" -- most likely from Russia, which will have plenty to sell because many of its industrial plants shut down during the economic meltdown in the 1990s.

This leaves the United States with two choices if we were to sign onto the treaty:
1.Meet the emission standards and guarantee India and China "catch up" to us economically, or
2. Pay Russia for the privelege of remaining the global economic leader.

It looks to me like the Kyoto treaty is another front for global communism.