While the New York Times claims that this is an "implicit rejection of the administration's policy," I call it local governments taking charge of their own affairs in a laudable manner.[1] The left argues that this is good for us, then responds that it is so good for us that we cannot be trusted to implement it ourselves, it must be mandated from on high. And yet, why not let people decide for themselves if they want to live, or work, in a "green" county or city? Why not let them decide for themselves what measures are reasonable or cost effective? Is that not what democracy is supposed to be all about: ceding governance to the populace? Naturally, you could question how effective the Kyoto Protocol will be if only some places implement it, but I ask how effective it would be if everyone implemented it. From what I gather, this cannot halt global warming, cannot reverse it. The changes we have seen, if changes they are, are here to stay (or change further). Why then, if global warming cannot be halted, do we not expend our energy attempting to learn how to live with it, rather than fighting fruitlessly against the inexorable?
[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/14/national/14kyoto.html?ei=5088&en=c02e1cce1ca43706&ex=1273723200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print