Probably, maybe, possibly shouda read the article there BertramN. The "SEATS" are all the same size. The title is a literary flight of sour grapes. For rules to be U.S.-friendly, they would require all countries to live up to certain standards — not just developed countries. This is particularly true regarding China. Meyer said U.S. policy and positions on this matter have been consistent across the last several administrations: Clinton, Bush and Obama all didn’t want climate agreements to have separate categories for developed and developing countries. “I think other countries understand there are some permanent interests of the U.S. in this process that will be there after Trump leaves office. If they want the U.S. to stay in or come back in, they need to be aware of those interests as they negotiate the rules,” Meyer said. Of course, the United States is not alone in its position. Japan and Europe also want consistent rules across the board. IOWs SpongeBob -- Virtually NONE of the developed countries want these accords to be "redistribution" to the poorer lesser developed countries. With China being exempt -- we'd be writing checks to them the same way we'd be writing checks to Angola and Palua. The UN is ALL ABOUT "global wealth re-distribution" and UNFORTUNATELY GW is their framework for accomplishing it. I'm NOT saying that GW is a political scam.. Only that EVERYTHING the UN does with respect to GW/CC IS a poltical scam.. With the movement losing traction and all of the HYSTERICAL parts of the GW circus leaving town --- THERE IS STILL ROOM to negotiate global accommodations for CO2 reduction. But THAT should be done in the G8 or WTO or some other global org that doesn't have a stadium full of beggars with their hands out.