[peacetreefrog]

Good. More and more, reducing GHG gas emissions politically or through any sort of international agreement looks like a pipe dream.

I think Kyoto is a good example. Take (liberal and environmentally enlightened) Canada -- their Kyoto target was 6% reduction (compared to 1990 levels) in emissions by 2012. Did they come close to meeting it? No, instead they were on track to be 25% over their 1990 emissions and dropped out in 2011 in order to avoid paying billions in fines.

It's even more depressing when you consider that even if Kyoto HAD been fully implemented (by every country), it wouldn't have done enough actually stop global warming.

IMO, basically any political/collective effort is doomed to fail, even if the alternative is disaster. It's going to take something like this -- carbon/albedo reduction/capture technologies that can be implemented by smaller groups of people (not nation states) and probably will be if things get really bad.

[christophclarke]

The issue with the Kyoto Protocols (and most multilateral agreements) is that there is no recourse from the international community for leaving the agreement. The only enforcement is for members, and there is no penalty against not being a member or real economic benefits for being a member.

There is a place for international agreements, but only if structured properly and flexible enough to change with the timescale they are meant to mature in.

[rcMgD2BwE72F]

Would you also suggest to give up all kinds of nuclear weapons non-proliferation agreements because the NPT isn't 100% successful?