Leitmotiv environmental organizations, political weapon against the United States, the Kyoto Protocol has often was waved with evident bad faith, particularly in Europe. But what's exactly what international treaty? Essentially it is to reduce by 5.2% emissions of greenhouse gases by 2012 compared to 1990. In 2001 when George Bush refused to resubmit the treaty to ratify it sparked the ire of good conscience in Europe. But consider that in 1997 the treaty before the Senate was rejected 95 to 0 against lanes under the Clinton administration. And no matter that at the time not one of the 177 other signatory countries had ratified the protocol (ratification by the EU on May 31, 2002). Before America to devote gémonies few details.

-- The Kyoto Protocol is only a partial solution to address CO2 emissions. The report by the British economist Nicolas Stern believes that the emissions must be divided by 4 in 2050 while the Kyoto Protocol and the European Union hold a factor of 2.

-- Apart from Central Europe and Eastern Europe, where carbon dioxide emissions have decreased (-37%) since 1990, due to economic collapse, those of other industrialized countries increased by 11%.

-- The developing countries starting with China, refuse any quantified. But in relation to global growth from issuance of these players is growing. And their fuel efficiency remains very poor.

-- In Canada emissions have increased by nearly 30% since 1990, and the government is considering a way out of the Kyoto Protocol. Conservatives have presented a law to this effect on October 19 this year.

-- Spain, Greece and Italy are almost certain to fail their first goal.

-- 17 European countries including France have been denied their proposal CO2 quota to Europe (PNAQ2).

-- The United States is committed to gradually reduce their emissions. This change occurs at the state level in respect of the federal government's policy. The Massachusetts appealed to the Supreme Court on the issue, while California has just signed on the Kyoto protocol.


In view of these facts, we are in a position to lecture in the USA? If Europe is actually develop the advantage of the problems associated with CO2 it is clear that our commitments are far from being met. Of course the United States is behind us, but they are not alone, why does one hears so few cases referred to the Canadian or developing countries? The USA pollute, but they also produce 25% of goods and services on this planet. Use of this international treaty as a tool for anti-americainisme still dangerous. In this information war we are not exempt from all blame. Pointing the USA is not going solve the problem of emissions of greenhouse gases. Mais serait-ce aussi une stratégie de diversion ?