The Kyoto protocol, even if fully acomplished, would not do anything but reduce 0.2 C the foreseen figure of 2.1 C of increase of temperature in the next 100 years. So it seems the problem is bigger, and maybe we are losing the picture.

I think the proper way to analyze the problem is under the
chaos theory. We have a complex chaotic practic problem with an inmensily huge complex system which is the planet's climate. We can foresee up to certain degree, but the fact is that we are and have been putting lots of trash into the
system for a long time.

Chaotic systems such as climate (the Chaos Theory has its origin by a meteorologist) are sensitive to small changes. When certain amount of changes take place, the whole system
tends to change in often unpredictable ways. The thing is that over certain point, there is no easy way back, less when we deal with a big complex system we hardly understand.

If the Kyoto protocol was acomplished, and the planet's
climate "only" rose 1.9 C, we would be in the same problem,
actually worse, because we may have gone to far, and probably the causes and interests responsible for CO2 emisions will be untouched.

My idea is that we must not only focus on determined companies, or protocols achievments, because the problem is
bigger and "global"...

We should drive attention to cities trnansport policies, to
the tirany of motor vehicles, to the serious damages that
oil bussines does to the enviroment and to indigenous people, in few words we should realize that the problem is
bigger and complex, should realize that some radical decisions and actions should be taken in order to stop the
greenhouse effect.

I have read and used some data from an article published in
"the economist" by bjorn lomborg, Denmark, who seems to be a full-time paid priest of the oil lobby ("he once held what he calls left wing Greenpeace views")

In few words he argues that enviroment is better than ever, it is more costly to implement Kyotos protocol than not to, and other series of pseudo-cientific adulterated arguments... For example:

"more food is now produced per head of the world's population than at any time in history. Fewer people are starving"

F***, This is an economist! and this is the crude reality:

WHAT food?
HOW is that food distributed?
HOW is distributed the benefit of producing that food ?
what effects cause this production?
WHERE are the people actually starving?

etc etc