To me, the most interesting and immediate question is not whether the United States will ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but whether other parties are prepared to work toward that goal. The next few months will determine whether other patties choose an agreement on their terms without the United States, or whether they prefer an agreement that may require some compromise of ideological positions, but will in fact be effective and will include the United States. // I believe the EU and others, for a number of reasons, will conclude that its interests and those of the environment lie in crafting an agreement that the United States can support. The United States accounts for approximately 25% of global industrial emissions. Any agreement that excludes the United States will not control global warming. In addition, European businesses may wonder why they are asked to assume significant new climate change obligations if U.S. competitors are not going to be subject to roughly the same rules. // I might note two additional factors relevant here: first, the idea of emissions trading is growing in popularity in capitals on the continent, and also in London and Brussels. Second, economists are warning that few countries, with the notable exception of the United Kingdom, are on track to meet their Kyoto commitments. I am hopeful that these forces will allow governments at COP-6 to mold the Protocol into a sensible, practical shape, one which the United States can support. // Let me say a word more about developing country's participation because this is an area where the United States is frequently misunderstood. The undeniable fact is that climate change is a global problem that requires a global solution. To be sure, industrialization in the North contributed enormously to increased greenhouse gas concentrations. Developed countries, including the Untied States, must take significant steps immediately. // Acting alone, however, developed countries cannot stabilize global greenhouse gas concentrations. From a scientific standpoint, meaningful participation by key developing countries is a necessity. Several large developing countries will soon become the world's leading emitters. Developing countries already produce 44% of global fossil fuel emissions. In addition, developing countries are responsible for a disproportionate share of deforestation and other land-use practices that have raised carbon concentrations. // Per capita energy intensity ratios in some, not all, developing countries continue to rise briskly, despite the existence of clean technologies that were not invented when developed countries were industrialized. In the immediate future, 80% of new electric power generation projects will occur in developing countries. All of us want those projects to use the latest cutting edge technologies. // I mention these facts not to bicker about past or future responsibility, for that detracts from our common cause of halting global warming, but to highlight the need for all countries to be a part of the solution. // In a very real sense, developing countries have the most to gain from an effective Protocol in which all the industrialized countries participate. For developing countries, unfortunately, have the least capacity to adapt to climate change. The longer we wait, the harder it will be to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at acceptable levels and the harder these countries will be hit. // The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change points the way: each nation should take national and international steps commensurate with its capacity to contribute to the global solution based on the principle of 'common but differentiated responsibilities'. // Many developing countries have taken significant unilateral action already. China, for example, has sought to conserve energy and reduc