It gives the U. S. a chance to see if it turns out to be a benefit in the regions where it is adopted. Or whether it proves to be a smarter decision to reject it, in the regions that choose not to accept it.
Also, many places are finding there's economic benefit to implementing Kyoto-based pollution control standards, that small businesses are developing to fill the need, to creatively find cost-efficient ways to deal with pollution, that develops better ways to combat pollution while keeping costs down.
And that part surprised me most: That fighting pollution is widely considered to be a drain of resources that hurts the economy, while instead it has resulted in forming an environmental control industry, that actually builds the economy.
But I think this slower implementation might be the right path: 1) gradually testing the water for implementation, to show that compliance with Kyoto can be done without hurting the economy, 2) testing new technologies in a capitalist way that encourages innovation to fill the need.
As opposed to a wasteful federally-imposed implementation that would result in a lot of waste before the nation was ready to fully implement Kyoto-type environmental controls.
Locally electing to implement Kyoto is the American way !
As a general rule, I think most regulations work best when implemented slowly on through local initiative, rather than forcing a uniform standard on different regions.
Some regulations are, of course, more appropriate for some regions than others.
In fact, the whole concept of federalism is based on that to some extent.
