Interesting article and one with which I would concur.

Kyoto fails because of the point that "There is no sense in half the nations fishing sustainably or reducing fossil fuel use, while the other half depletes the fisheries and uses up all the fossil fuels without any consideration for the future."

Their is no sense in "underdeveloped nations" continuing to increase their populations at an ever increasing rate (in part from the impact of reduced child mortality rates, courtesy of developed nation medicines) whilst the "developed nations" stabilize theirs.

The R&D needed to make "sustainability" a possibility will only come from the intellectual resources of the developed nations.

The engineering and commerical skills to implement and manage the worlds resources will come from the developed nations.

Their is nothing to be achieved (and never will be) in the "economically and skills strong" surrendering anything to the "economically and skills weak" for some simple notion of "fairness", particularly when a large part of the problem it produced by the inability of the weak to contain their burgeoning population growth.

The article is pretty much on the ball. It sees the poverty situation in similar light to the nations assembled at Cairo 11 years ago. How sad that the actions agreed to by all attendees then have since been largely unfulfilled; either by disgraceful neglect or outright opposition. The greatest stumbling blocks to progress from that occasion have been the Vatican, and the US fundamentalists who have such un-representative degree of influence with the White House.
In taking the long view regarding resource-users, perhaps it will, in time, make no difference where people are born. Unless there is going to be a permanent apartheid between the haves and have-nots, we will eventually be consuming and polluting at much the same rates right across the world