No. This is the short answer, in my opinion.
The global climate agreement referred to is the Kyoto Agreement which is under review. Its future extension will be considered at the UN Conference on Climate Change to be held at Copenhagen in December, 2009.
The bone of contention with the Americans is that being the largest producer of greenhouse gases, it must submit itself to any stringent reductions in emissions agreed upon, whereas the developing nations such as India and China, are presently exempt until a certain per capita emission rate is reached, equivalent to a higher level of industrial development.
In other words, the developing nations have successfully blamed the "global warming crisis" on the US and the developed Western World, because in achieving their high standard of living over the past 100 years, they are almost solely responsible for this environmental crisis concerning rising levels of atmospheric CO2, that they promote.
The developing nations rightfully ask why their industrial development should be curtailed by Kyoto Agreement restrictions on emissions when the problem, as outlined by the West, has been caused by the West in the first place.
The developing nations have a sound argument. This is a major factor in preventing a new global climate agreement and extension of the Kyoto Protocol. The matter will be thrashed out at the Copenhagen Meeting.
The problem would seem to be insoluble within the existing state of reference, or by the currently used small system analysis. One has to resort to the ideas of that famous American thinker, Edward de Bono to resolve matters and so find a new pathway ahead. A much larger system is required to be studied to arrive at a sensible solution to the problem. Most likely by doing so, the problem will be found to be nonexistent, or just a figment of the imagination of a few religious environmental fanatics.
It is necessary to go back to basics and analyze all the propositions used by the Kyoto enthusiasts and decide whether they "hold water". They have a great propensity for changing the meaning of words from their long accepted meaning used in the scientific literature.
The prime example is their loose and incorrect use of the word "pollution". According to Kyoto the atmosphere is being "polluted" by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, predominately CO2, which they say causes global warming and is harmful to the future of mankind and the planet.
My dictionary defines the verb "pollute" as "destroy the purity or sanctity of; make foul or filthy; contaminate or defile (environment); pollution: noun. This seems to me to be pretty straight forward. However, to apply the word to atmospheric CO2 is a gross distortion of the scientific facts and a deliberate deception to promote the Kyoto anti-carbon eco-belief system.
There is no way that putting CO2 into the atmosphere (a natural minor component) can be regarded as "pollution", as defined in the Oxford dictionary, nor is it harmful to do so. In fact it is more likely to be beneficial to mankind.
The entire biosphere of living matter is composed of carbon compounds which are derived from atmospheric CO2. You can not, by definition, pollute the atmosphere with CO2, and it is madness to think so. Carbon is the most wonderful element in the periodic table. It has far more chemical compounds than all the other elements put together. Plants and trees absorb CO2 from the atmosphere to convert into cellulose and sugars and by doing so liberate oxygen for us humans and animals to breath and live. The "carbon cycle" is a fascinating natural phenomenon and should not be held to abuse by religious environmental fanatics.
The USA and Australia have recently (June 2009) passed (so far to the Senate) climate bills, or "emissions trading schemes" designed to drastically reduce CO2 emissions.
The Labor Government of Australia's bill is called the "Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2009" or the CPRS. What a misnomer! How dare they distort the facts! At every TV news, the populace is bombarded with visions of power station cooling towers emitting voluminous white clouds of so-called "pollution", when in fact all it is, is condensed water vapor and harmless.
Carbon dioxide is an invisible harmless gas, highly drinkable (beer and sparkling wine) and an essential component for all living matter. Nor is increasing atmospheric CO2 causing any measurable global warming. Even if it did, a little global warming would be a good thing, better than global cooling any day!
The US bill is called the "American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009" or the Waxman-Markley climate-change bill. The major clean energy sources promoted are wind and solar energies which are thought suitable to replace any further development of coal or even nuclear power for electricity generation. The bill narrowly passed the House of Representatives (219 for, 212 against) and it has now gone to the Senate for consideration.
The concept of "clean energy" is a misnomer. It is based on the misconception that the CO2 produced from burning fossil fuels is harmful to mankind and the environment, whereas the opposite is true. To use the Greens' own manipulation of words, it could equally be asserted that the promotion of wind farm energy is causing undesirable visual pollution of the landscape and should be stopped, plus the added reason of wind power being hopelessly uneconomic.
The deliberate and unjustified demonization of carbon and CO2 by the Greens' and Kyoto enthusiasts is not to be tolerated. Broadening the system under consideration, and defining exactly what you are talking about effectively eliminates their radical, eco-belief system and any supposed problems to do with climate change.
Some References:
(1) "Heaven and Earth: Global Warming - The Missing Science" by Prof. Ian Plimer
published 2009 by Connor Court (Australia) and Quartet Books (UK) ; www.connorcourt.com
(2) "Satanic Gas - the Politics of Carbon Dioxide" by Ray Evans
Quadrant Magazine, September 2008.
(3) The Futile Quest for Climate Control" by Prof. Robert M. Carter
Quadrant Magazine, November 2008.
References 2 and 3, and similar valuable articles, can be accessed through the Lavoisier Group Inc website which is maintained by Australian scientists concerned about proposed climate change legislation in Australia and elsewhere.