In article .com>, Allen Seth Dunn wrote:

> Those third world manufacturing centers are growing at a fast pace. If
> the United States and other industrialized, non-third world countries
> have to cut emissions, doesn't it only make sense to expect developing
> countries to stop the problem in their countries BEFORE the problems in
> those countries are greatly multiplied? If Kyoto is so correct about
> the dangers of global warming, that treaty should pressure EVERY
> country to reduce emissions, not just the ones where heavy industry has
> been around the longest. To do otherwise, is hypocritical.

Furthermore, if the desire is to protect the environment, why make a
policy that only further encourages manufacturing to locate to nations
where the straightforward 'you may not poison the river' environmental
protections do not exist? If the desire was to protect the environment,
the desire should be to locate manufacturing in the USA, Europe, Japan,
and any other nation with strong environmental protections.

After all, for gobal warming (should the premise be correct), it doesn't
matter where the CO2 comes from on the globe. However, for more typical
environmental damage such as dumping sludge in rivers and spewing toxic
gases, it matters a lot.