The Clinton-Gore appointees in The Hague strongly support implementation of the Protocol and the legally binding penalties. In 1997, VP Al Gore flew to Kyoto, Japan to insure that America, one of only 38 nations bound by the treaty, would agree to the UN agenda even though it would devastate our economy by forcing jobs and industries to leave our shores and move to one of the 150 nations not bound by the treaty, such as Mexico and China. The Kyoto Protocol would cost American families between $3,684 and $6,400 per year for a family of four. And a recent study by the National Black Chamber of Commerce and the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce entitled, "Refusing to Repeat Past Mistakes," estimated that implementing Kyoto could cost up to 3.2 million jobs, about half of them the jobs of blacks and Hispanics. Gore' s well-known call for the elimination of the internal combustion engine is also in keeping with the Kyoto Protocol because radical environmentalists believe that more than 92% of environmental nuisances (cost of accidents, pollution, climatic change, congestion-related noise) are ascribable to the road, with only 2% caused by rail.

This call for "radical changes in the world economy and in the way we all live" should interest every American, especially since science has yet to conclude the premise of the Kyoto Protocol: that the earth is warming due to an increase in greenhouse gases emitted when fossil fuels are burned and when people breathe out. On one hand, radical environmentalists claim that rising sea levels will cause island nations to sink as glaciers and ice sheets melt, while on the other hand, they claim that the earth will become a desert. Both cannot be true, yet scientific evidence is not even being discussed in The Hague. In reality, the UN is using the climate change issue that affects people in every nation to consolidate its power over them.

During the first week of negotiations, "political" scientists met mostly behind closed doors to hammer out a rulebook for implementation of the Kyoto Protocol's three schemes:

• trade emissions with developed countries whose emissions are lower than their targets; 
  
• investment in emissions reduction projects in developing countries; and 
  
• use of carbon "sinks," forests and farmlands, to absorb carbon dioxide. The main contentions at the end of the first week regard the uses of carbon "sinks" and nuclear energy. Environmental radicals claim that the Americans want to avoid the necessity of reducing greenhouse gases by claiming that "sinks" offset their production, thereby enabling them to increase emissions by 18% from 1990 levels, while claiming that we have met our reduction target of 7% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Further, they claim "[i]f developing countries do not reject these blatant U.S. attempt at cheating, it will be they who will be the losers." Regarding nuclear energy, the Americans hope they can break an impasse with the European Union (EU) who opposes the U.S. position on the carbon "sinks" by being "flexible" with nuclear energy since that is how France, a member of the EU, produces most of its energy.