From the article:

"While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living,..."

While I'm not a fan of the Kyoto Protocol in terms of its uneven-handed approach to lowering the world's CO2 and other greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere, I find it difficult to fathom why there would be such "a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living" to pay in the US for trying to lower our greenhouse gas contributions.

For example, it's actually cheaper for US citizens to purchase and use automotive hybrids long-term than it is for them to purchase and use conventional vehicles long-term.

And, its actually cheaper for US citizens to purchase and use many "green technologies" at home long-term, such as switching from incandescent lighting to flourescent lighting and updating their heating, cooling, and water heating systems to more efficient designs, than it is to stay with the status quo.

And, similarly, industries and businesses would financially benefit in numerous ways by "going green."

And these changes at the home, business, and industry level would have a cascading effect at the power-plant level of energy production...as well as spur new businesses and job opportunities.

So, I really don't understand where this conclusion is coming from...at least for the US.

Anyone?