Kyoto Ugly

Born in the year 1997, with the objective to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" what leaves me astrayed is that no matter what you say & what you mean, it never comes down to actions.

India signed and ratified the Protocol in August, 2002. Since India is exempted from the framework of the treaty, it is expected to gain from the protocol in terms of transfer of technology and related foreign investments. At the G-8 meeting in June 2005, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pointed out that the per-capita emission rates of the developing countries are a tiny fraction of those in the developed world. Following the principle of common but differentiated responsibility, India maintains that the major responsibility of curbing emission rates with the developed countries, which have accumulated emissions over a long period of time. However, the U.S. and other Western nations assert that India, along with China, will account for most of the emissions in the coming decades, owing to their rapid industrialization and economic growth.

Now, coming back to the point, why in the first place did India sign this treaty? and if it was for the "good-wood" cause, why is there still a provision for filter-free chimneys in factories? Isn' t the government responsible for an unchecked environmental harm? or have we just signed the deal to 'look' mere globalised and environmental cautious? Or simply...are we just hypocrites?