Events in Copenhagen - no, not about the Olympic Games but, instead, about climate change - are instructive to Americans who can place them in context.
According to a recent report, it is unlikely that international negotiators scheduled to meet in Denmark in December will be able to agree on a new climate change treaty.
There are various reasons why representatives planning for the United Nations-sponsored event are not optimistic about success as they define it. One is that developing nations, including economic powerhouses such as China and India, are not likely to agree to substantial new emissions limits. Without them, actions by other countries - including a "cap and trade" law in the United States - would have little or no effect on global temperatures.
But that raises a very interesting point about contradictions in climate change claims.
You may have noticed that a strategy being used by U.S. liberals is to change the focus away from drastic, expensive limits on use of fuels such as coal. Instead, they prefer to label climate change rules as "green jobs" initiatives that actually are good for the economy. As many as 4.2 million new jobs could be created, it has been claimed.
But opposition to climate change rules from China and India has focused precisely on the economic impacts. Leaders in those countries say new emissions limits would mean fewer jobs.
Do the realists in China and India know something we don't - or are they simply viewing climate change rules realistically? Our bet is on the latter possibility.