Global warming once again (The Flemish Beerdrinker)

Following up on the previous post here are some quotes:

This is all about taxpayers’ money being diverted from developing clean renewable technologies to try and make burning coal less dirty," Bob Brown, leader of the minority Australian Greens party, said in a statement.

And:

i wonder if it would be a good bet to follow my natural cynicism, and say that one of the technologies to be pushed will be hydrogen fuel cell cars?

I can understand these statements if they would come from market fundamentalists who are against governments pushing for particular technologies. But from the viewpoint of environmentalists? At the moment the U.S. and important developing countries do not participate in Kyoto. But apperantly they are prepared to do something instead of nothing. Ok, clean coal or hydrogen are probably not the technologies that will win the hearts and minds of the Greens (their pet technology being windenergy). But if the result is less CO2-emissions, even environmentalists should support that. Why not have a variety of approaches? Is their any reason to believe that only the Kyoto-approach is the right one? If a company like, say, Exxon is financially supporting a r&d-programm for clean technologies that will be freely available for developing countries (no IPR’s), it contributes as much, but in a different way, to battling global warming, than BP does, a company that formally adheres to the Kyoto-targets. If the U.S and China have a comparative advantage in clean(er) coal why not let them profit by exporting it? It still will diminish CO2-emissions and it it good for the economic development of China. Countries that have a comparative advantage in wind can choose that technology and we all will be happy.