Should global corporations' manufacturing operations in developing nations be exempt from climate treaties?

No.

But we've got to sweeten the pot, by utilizing a kind of 'you-can-attract-more-bees-with-honey plan, that encourages nations such as China and India to skip the kind of "energy adolescence" phase we suffered through and shift ASAP to more modern, cutting-edge technology and energy sources. There's got to be give and take on this.

Kyoto is an imperfect agreement, but will stand in history as a decent first attempt to get the ball rolling. Now it's time for countries like the U.S. to reestablish the leadership role it has worn so well in the past, and help to facilitate agreements that allow China some "catch up" time without exonerating them for the bad choices of the last few decades. This is an awkward stage for all, being in this predicament, with China now having the muscle that it does. Yes, the picture that now exists is all out-of-sorts, but I think in the next couple of years that agreements can be improved. That's not necessarily saying a lot, but I think it's plain to see that exemptions aren't going to work for anyone, in the long run, and that's what this game is about.

They don't approve of you. They think that they ought to have more money, and that the best people to give them more money are the Americans. If you pander to them, they will conclude that they were right, and will expect a lot more. They would preferably like to be richer than you are. You may notice that some of the 'developing nations' such as Uganda, Zimbabwe, etc. are not in fact developing, but have reverted to political savagery. No you should not give them money, and no you should not 'fix' your CO2 emissions, because there is no valid reason to do so. I am not strong enough on the constitution to be able to say whether the President is abusing his executive power, but I suspect he is not. This conference is largely about increasing the prestige of the people who take part in it (that and begging of course). It would diminish the Presidents domestic image if he were to do anything which exceeded his powers at this conference, so he probably won't. What is most likely to happen, is that the money you already give no-account ghetto countries in the sun as foreign aid, will be renamed and passed off as climate change money. It will all still end up in the pockets of rich foreign crooks anyway, but that is the way a bribe works.

According to the reports of The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC reports) we must reduce world wide emissions of carbon dioxide to less than one tenth of what they are today.

There is no possibility that we could achieve that if developin countries are given exemptions for the use of fossil fuels.

The only way that target can be reached is a world wide ban on the use of fossil fuels that is enforceable and with no exemptions for developing nations.

We have a problem. If we were to attempt to achieve the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to levels that will stop Global Warming, the result would be that all of the economies of all of the nations of the world would collapse.

We would have word wide poverty, starvation and death.

It appears that our choices are to figure out how to live with Global Warming or accept world wide poverty, starvation and death.

Alternaives such as solar power from solar photovoltaic cells, wind power and biofules have been proposed.

However electricity produced by solar photovoltaic cells has a cost of production that is over 10 times the cost of electricity prodiced by fossil fuels.

Wind power is not reliable, because when the wind does not blow or when it blows too hard you have to shut down the wind turbines and you get no electricity production.

Biofuels are grown on farmland and compete with the production of food for human consumption.

We do not have alternative sources of energy that are affordable for the majority of the people who live on the planet earth.

Wealthy elites can afford to pay ten times as much for electricity produced by solar photovoltaic cells, however most people cannot afford electricity from that source.

Wind power is too unreliable to support our populations.

Biofuels increase the cost of food and make food not affordable for poor people.

This is the clearly defined purpose behind Kyoto. Even a partially blind person with a reasonable education can see this, just remember even Al Gore was against Kyoto and campaigned in congress to keep it from passing. The reason the secondary effects of the predatory speculation brought down the worlds economy in the drastic fashion it has is those countries that had implemented or started to implement Kyoto collapsed completely instead of only partially like those who had not.

YES

NOT saving the planet since before the religion of Global Warming was concocted.

that's why i advocate a global, transferrable, per capita carbon credit.