Kyoto Round 2: the US and EU weigh in

In my last post , I discussed the news coming out of the climate talks in Bangkok that developing countries have been in an uproar over the fear that the United States and the EU are trying to kill the Kyoto protocol. This December in Copenhagen, the UN aims to achieve an agreement on an international framework which will take effect once the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012. Discussions have become divided, however, as to whether or not the Kyoto protocol should extend past its expiration with newly defined targets for developed countries or if the protocol should be replaced with a new international agreement. The US and developing countries are not currently signed on to Kyoto.

Both the US and the EU have announced that they wish for a new international agreement rather than a continuation of Kyoto. Yet, the two disagree as to the role that the protocol should play within the framework: the EU wishes to retain the best elements of the Kyoto protocol in the new agreement and the US suggests doing away with the protocol altogether. In my previous post, I discussed the backlash to a new agreement by developing countries. However, it is also important to look at the US and EU views regarding the significance of continuing or replacing Kyoto.

The United States has long been opposed to the Kyoto protocol, with the Bush administration never ratifying it on the grounds that some developing countries, such as China, were not also required to reduce emissions despite the fact that they might also be high polluters. The United States’ position on climate change has taken a positive shift under the new Obama administration, however, with Barack Obama even receiving the Nobel Peace Prize for his “constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting”. And, it looks as though the US wants to sign on to an agreement in Copenhagen despite the fact that national legislation will not yet be confirmed. Still, it seems that too much time has passed since the Kyoto protocol was first introduced for the US to change its stance and ratify the current international agreement now, particularly since the targets within its framework are viewed by the US administration as out-of-reach.

According to chief US negotiator Jonathan Pershing, “We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries. Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries.”

Instead, the US administration insists that all countries need to sign on to a new international agreement and suggests that, within that agreement, countries may choose and set their own timetable and targets. While this approach could possibly increase participation in an international agreement, this individualistic-approach could also make it harder to reach the collective goal of avoiding an increase of 2ºC in global average temperatures, a limit derived from research put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Unlike the US, rather than discard the Kyoto Protocol entirely, EU officials suggest that the protocol be used as a stepping stone within a new agreement. Still, they appear hesitant to come out and openly criticize the Obama administration – particularly since the US appears more open to participation in an international agreement than under the Bush administration. Despite their disagreements, EU officials seem open to the US message and realistic about the likelihood of the US now signing on to the Kyoto protocol:“We are very unlikely to see the US join Kyoto, but we are working with the US to find a legal framework to allow the US to participate and which will allow large emitters [such as China] to participate,” said EU spokesman Karl Falkenberg.

The difference between the sides regarding the future of the Kyoto protocol could pose a threat to the success of the upcoming climate talks in Barcelona which will be the last chance for official discussions before the UN conference in Copenhagen. However, there is still a possibility that may help to appease both sides on the issue – asking the United States to sign to an agreement that is separate of the Kyoto protocol yet still considered acceptable to developing countries.

Hopefully talks in Barcelona will manage to ease some of the residual backlash from Bangkok. However, get out your gloves because time is ticking and any agreement in Copenhagen is looking likely to come down to a knock-down-drag-out fight to the final bell.


Paige Andrews is a regular contributor to Change2 and is currently the Director of Research at Climatico which provides independent analysis of international climate change policy. Paige will be attending and reporting from COP-15 in Copenhagen this December.