I've been reading about the Kyoto Protocol on global warming recently. A class I'm taking, Diplomacy & International Negotiation, has looked a bit into the negotiations surrounding the Kyoto Protocol. Some significant and relatively new aspects of the negotiations: the involvement of and pressure from non-governmental organizations, a tight deadline for negotiations to be completed (which ended up being delayed one day), and the effect of public attention (significantly increased by Vice-President Gore's last-minite trip to save the negotiations from failing).



Here is some background information: Primer on the Kyoto Protocol - The Climate is Changing Now What?, and the Wikipedia listing.



Russia just finished ratifying the Protocol. The Protocol will become active 90 days after they submit the ratification to the United Nations. The United States has not ratified the protocol, and will not be subject to its . Gore came to my University last month, and stressed that global warming is the single most important issue facing the world today. So why hasn't the US signed? My first thought would have been to blame it on the Bush administration, but a bit more reading seems to show that the Senate has been the real blocker (President Clinton never submitted the treaty for ratification). President Bush said of the treaty:

"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."

The issue is important, and the US does need to act to "save the environment." However, I'm not sure whether the United States should ratify the agreement. The Senate wants binding targets and timetables for developing countries as well as industrialized countries. Differential treatment for developing countries may indeed be necessary. Still, China and many of the other developing countries are advancing very rapidly. If and when they become economic superpowers, should they not be subject to the same emissions quotas as today's industrialized nations? By choosing not to sign a possibly ineffective treaty, the US keeps its bargaining chips, leaving the door open for future negotiations.



--
Posted by David to David's commentary at 11/6/2004 03:09:55 AM