The US signed it but the Senate didn't ratify it (they voted 95-0 against it). Which is for the best really because it was a poorly conceived idea even, perhaps especially, if you think man-made CO2 emissions would lead to a world catastrophe in the near future. Note that most of the signatories to the Kyoto protocols have not lived up to them.
I guess my point - poorly made - was elaborating on the article's observation that Congress and the White House have spent the better part of two centuries doing everything they can to prop up the US sugar industry, and then connecting the observation about global warming to the timing (about 12 months after Kyoto).
As a general rule, when a comment or joke takes more words to explain than it did to make originally, that's a darn good sign you missed the mark!
