Rather than the emphasis being on limiting emissions, the focus in Kyoto II is shifted to encourage the development of new technology that will replace fossil fuel technology. But with a key addition of also focusing on the design of reforms that will completely mitigate the financial pain from the introduction of such technology. A focus on designing reforms that will ensure the transition away from fossil fuels will have no financial losers.

The emissions targets will be written into the agreement, not as an "enforceable" target, but more as a goal that we want to achieve. And if it is written into the agreement in this fashion we could choose a far more ambitious target to aim for. Something sizeable like a 50% or 60% reduction on 1990 greenhouse gas emission levels by 2020 could be written into the agreement without causing a problem. And such high targets will serve a valuable purpose.

The principal focus of the agreement will be to establish or participate in a massive R&D Think Tank with the express goals of developing emission free energy technologies, and more importantly, reforms or initiatives to ensure their introduction is facilitated with the least pain. The reforms are all about solving the human element, and solving the human element is what Kyoto II is all about.

Such an agreement will ensure the establishment of at least half a dozen major organizations throughout the world, and this will move us in a positive rather than a negative direction. The prestige to be had by being the Think Tank to emerge with THE solutions, or some of them, will be a major driving force. It will appeal to the sense of national pride, and instead of being the holdouts, the US will be the biggest player in the Protocol.

The flavour of the Kyoto II recommended here is one of creation or addition to the capitalist system, whereas the flavour of the original Kyoto Protocol is one of hindrance to the capitalist system, or at the very least some pain for something that has come to be accepted as action that will have almost no impact on the big picture. One Kyoto creates jobs and the other costs jobs. The reasonable political arguments against the original Kyoto Protocol are multitude, but in Kyoto II they disappear and are replaced with many voices of support from industry.

In a world of commerce we need the support of industry or it is an uphill battle that is almost always insurmountable.

The structure of Kyoto II stays out of the realm of that which can be reduced to "we shouldn't have to unless they do" and "it's not our mess so why should we have to pay for it". Kyoto II transforms these two statements into "we want to be the first" and "we can't get left behind on this one". Which statement will encourage someone to get involved boots 'n' all? You must do this! Or this is a competition and the biggest prize in history is up for grabs!