That Kyoto (and environmentalism) is bad for business.
It's a flawed assumption. If companies spend more on R&D to get more output for a given level of fuel consumption, they reduce emissions per unit output. (Really Basic Maths, guys!)
On the flip-side, if they're getting more output, but having to spend less on fuel, they're increasing their profit margins. (Again, Really Basic Maths, Guys!)
Inefficiency is unprofitable. No self-respecting economy should tolerate inefficiency that then damages the environment in the process of being inefficient. Hey, if you want to be inefficient on your own time, at your own expense, that's your problem. You can go bust when your competitors steam-roller you into the ground.
But when inefficiency harms everybody, then that's another story. There, the line needs to be drawn. If you're wasting resources, but wasting OUR environment in the process, then damnit, I want you to have to pay to clean up your mess. It IS your mess, therefore it IS your problem.
How do we improve efficiency? By spending money on R&D. By investing in firms that make higher quality components for machines, etc. Sure, going for shoddy components and parts saves you a few bucks. It might cost you thousands of bucks in poor performance, over the lifetime of those parts.
(Or, in the case of certain Bridgestone/Firestone tires, it might even cost you your life. But, hey, you probably bought a few spare lives at a Walmart sale, so what does it matter. Right?)
How else? Well, improved mass transit would probably help. The rail network is an almost unusable mess, the coach system is collapsing, and the few States that do run bus services don't seem to have any idea on what busses are used for. It's a mess. You need people with vision, insight, and an idea on how to run these kinds of networks.
Ok, anything else? Raising the minimum MPG would be a good idea. Also, testing more vehicles meet the standards, and imposing those standards AS a minimum, not an average.
Then the US needs to do something about its power network. The power grid wastes a LOT of energy. It is horribly inefficient and (as the California brownouts and New York Blackout showed) it is also archaic and utterly inappropriate for modern needs.
Again, there needs to be massive investment in R&D, and in replacing the existing grid with a much more fault-tolerent, low-waste system.
Even street lighting could be improved. Do you REALLY need to provide the ISS astronauts with extra lighting? If not, then simply mandate that street lights must direct their light strictly downwards. Easy enough to do. How does that help? Well, if you're not wasting half the light, by blasting it into space, then you only need to put half the power into the bulb in the first place. There are a LOT of street lights across the US as a whole. The power savings you could make from using simple reflectors might easily reduce emissions from power stations by significant amounts.
Just tiny things, like the street lights, add up. There are 260 million people in the USA. Each is likely to encounter fuel-inefficient devices and utilize them in (additionally) wasteful ways. You're unlikely to change Americans, but you can change the machines they use, and what those machines will permit.
I don't think it the least bit difficult to meet the Kyoto targets -AND- bolster all existing industries profits in the process -AND- create whole new industries on top of that.
Henry Ford, by using the time and energy efficient production line all but obliterated his competitors, who followed suit or died. Learn from that! Efficiency Makes Money! The Environment can make you rich a damn sight easier than those spam e-mails can. At least environmentally-friendly practices can give you real-life examples of how and why it works.