The Kyoto industry has been a windfall to those major-emitting countries that insisted on exemption, such as South Korea, China, India, Brazil, and Mexico, for the very same reason it has been a financial drag on the economies of the small handful of countries (35) that claimed they would do . . . something. That is, most of the “reduction” promises were no such thing, thanks to a 1990 baseline tailored to accommodate subsequent economic collapse by half of the 35.

So, a very few countries claimed to reduce emissions, which in practice has universally meant transferring wealth to other people to develop more cleanly or with less energy intensity.

What’s not to like? South Korea and others are asking, and have figured a way to keep the gravy train rolling, given that a post-2012 treaty with even deeper “reduction” targets will of course be impossible for countries that haven’t actually cut emissions even by as little as they promised in the first go-round. The fly in the ointment is that in the U.S. (and I’d wager, increasingly throughout Europe) there remains a call, found in the unanimous 1997 Senate resolution against Kyoto and repeated in similar statements by President Bush, that such countries have to adopt similar burdens, as well.

Today’s news confirms that Wimpy Weatherby has been installed in at least two governments as climate minister, offering to gladly pay us Tuesday – rather, beginning in 2025 – for a hamburger today – which means, that we keep the largesse flowing in a Kyoto II running from 2012-2020.

Specifically, ClimateWire (subscription required) breathlessly touts a story today with the lead, “South Korea is poised to become the second developing country to set greenhouse gas emissions targets.” Ummm . . . no. Look, South Korea, the 13th-largest economy in the world and the ninth-largest emitter of greenhouse gases, is muttering something about promising to peak their emissions in 2025.

Yes, that’s five years after the successor pact would expire and so far in the future as to be both substantively and politically meaningless. Then, without any more detail or reason to believe this is possible than our own homegrown green sages, they’ll radically slash emissions in half by 2050! Ah, but they mention “renewable energy” a few times for a tinge of green credibility. They ought to read up a little more.

Still, the ever sincere green pressure chorus chime in. “‘Developing country actions will be a key component in Copenhagen,’ said Jake Schmidt, international climate policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council, referring to the December 2009 U.N. meeting in Denmark at which leaders hope to hammer out a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.” Groan.

Did you know they take us for suckers? This is supposed to somehow rise to the level of “mandate[ing] new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period” (from S. Res. 98, “Byrd-Hagel”) in a possible Kyoto successor pact. Hogwash.

South Africa was first out of the box on this, though their crisis having led to actual energy rationing indicates that even an emissions reduction promise wouldn’t be any more a stretch than it was for Central and Eastern Europe and Russia. Argentina has made similar noises.

The way the media treats the issue, if Sen. McCain wins the election this will no doubt be treated as a sincere effort to satisfy a long-running U.S. demand and how unreasonable to not take yes for an answer, even though on its face it is yet another way to just keep the gravy train running on time. That is, unless McCain is serious about “tabbing Gore.” Should Sen. Obama win, it seems unlikely that much coercive spin will be necessary, but only in support of what appears to be a planned headlong rush to do what it takes to supposedly make our allies like us again. Because, you know, we squandered post-9/11 goodwill over this thing last time.