Trying to lock poor countries into per-capita CO2 emissions that are one-tenth or smaller than that of the US is obscene, so objections about keeping India and China out of Kyoto are ill-founded.

If you're implying that the "poor" economies of India and China are only 1/10 the size of the US economy, check the CIA World Factbook:

GDP (purchasing power parity in US$, 2004 estimates)

1. World $55.50b
2. United States $11.75b
3. European Union $11.65b
4. China $ 7.26b
5. Japan $ 3.75b
6. India $ 3.19b
7. Germany $ 2.36b
8. United Kingdom $ 1.78b
9. France $ 1.74b
10. Italy $ 1.60b
11. Brazil $ 1.49b
12. Russia $ 1.41b
13. Canada $ 1.02b
14. Mexico $ 1.00b

Combined, they represent nearly 90% of US GDP, not a mere 10% or less each. And keeping with this data, why should Mexico be exempt, because it's a developing country, but not developed Canada, when their GDP is similar? Same with rich Japan and poor India or rich Italy and poor Brazil? It is those poorer countries with much larger populations and faster growth rates that pose the biggest threat in the future. The rich developed countries have pretty much stablised in terms of population growth and depopulation is already becoming a concern. Developed countries are not going to increase their respective economic output and greenhouse gas emissions significantly, due to their ageing and shrinking populations in coming decades, but think of the doubling and then doubling again of India's or China's or Brazil's economy over the next century. And any American who has ever travelled to India or China will know already they are much filthier places and far worse polluters than the US overall. Do you really think the environmental regulations of China greatly surpass the US, about the only sound reason I can think of to exempt it?

Not that I think Kyoto will make the slightest bit of difference to slowing global warming.