Abstract
The Kyoto Protocol is dead. This was the international reaction after the new U.S. administration under George W. Bush announced on March 13, 2001 its manifested unwillingness to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The world had placed all its hopes on the Protocol as the only available tool to prevent imminent climate collapse1 and the U.S. decision destroyed almost all hopes that this could be averted. Without the U.S., whose 4% of the population emits 25% of global Greenhouse gases (GHG) and the last world superpower with considerable political influence and financial resources to address climate change effectively on the global scale, one of the most important passengers had left the “negotiation train.” This could be an invitation for other reluctant states to refuse action on climate change protection, as well. Climate change diplomacy seemed to arrive at a dead end.2 Although the international press presented the U.S. announcement of the final death of the Kyoto Protocol as a deep surprise and shocking event to the world public, scholars of climate change diplomacy were not too surprised at all.3 They were always aware of the great difficulties in agreeing on a binding agreement on GHG quantitative reduction targets. But nevertheless, even though the negotiation process had been always difficult, the main actor to blame for the current failure seemed to be easy to identify — the United States of America.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
At the beginning of the year 2001, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) released its Third Assessment Report on Global Warming. The report draws a scenario of the potential impacts of unrestricted global warming that was worse than expected. According to IPCC, global warming will most likely cause a global temperature increase between 1.5 and 6.0 degrees Celsius, mainly due to human activities. Moreover, the global temperature is rising faster and is higher than in any time during the last 10,000 years, more than during the complete period of human civilization. See Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. and James Barry, “Warming of earth raises new alarm”, International Herald Tribune (IHT), January 23, 2001.
For a detailed overview of the climate change negotiation process, see Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
See for example David G. Victor, The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming (Princeton, 2001).
From the American perspective, this evaluation is also true of the EU position.
The international energy agency provides several studies on this topic. See IEA, World Energy Outlook 2000 (Paris 2000); Lee Schipper, Fridtjof Unander, and C¨¦line Marie-Lilliu, “The IEA Energy Indicators: Analyzing Emissions on the Road from Kyoto,” www.iea.org/envissu/cop6/eneins.pdf.
See Hans-Joachim Ziesing, “Höhere CO2 Emissionen im Jahre 2000,” in DIW-Wochenbericht 6/01, www.diw.de/deutsch/publikationen/wochenberichte/jahrgang0l/.
See for example David Victor, “Piety at Kyoto didn’t cool the planet,” New York Times, March 23, 2001; Frank N. Liard, “Just say no to greenhouse gas emissions targets,” Science and Technology Online, Winter 2000; Daniel Sarewitz and Roger A. Piefke, Jr., Prediction: Science, Decision Making and the Future of Nature, (Washington D.C., 2000).
Robert Paarlburg provides one of the few studies on domestic factors of US climate change leadership. See Robert Paarlburg, “Earth in Abeyance: Explaining Weak Leadership in the US International Environmental Policy,” in Eagle Adrift: American Foreign Policy at the End of the Century, Robert J. Lieber, ed., 137–59 (New York, 1997). See also Paul G. Harris, “International Environmental Affairs and US Foreign Policy,” in, The Environment, International Relations and US Foreign Policy, Paul G. Harris, ed., 3–44 (Washington D.C., 2001); Stephen Hopgood, American Foreign Environmental Policy and the Power of State (Oxford, 1998); and Walter Rosenbaum, Environmental Politics and Policies (Washington, 1998).
The following analysis will focus on the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush Administrations from 1993 until 2001. For analysis on the previous George Bush Administration and the U.S. climate strategy from the beginning see Hopgood, American Foreign Environmental Policy and the Power of State.
Even though the Second and Third IPPC reports concluded that there is evidence of discernible human influence on global change, the international debate about the reliance of climate change models and the role of anthropogenic impact are still mistrusted, especially by some scientists and politicians in the USA. For the scientific and political reaction towards the Third IPPC report results see Philip P. Pan, “Scientists issue dire predictions on warming,” Washington Post, January, 23, 2001.
For the full text of the UNFCCC see www.unfccc.int/text/resource/conv/conv_004.html.
Annex I countries are states, which were members of the OECD in 1992, as well as countries in transition.
Annex II countries are states of the OECD as well as the European Community.
See the following for the most detailed and best analyses about the Kyoto Protocol. Herman Ott and Sebastian Oberthuer, The Kyoto Protocol: International Climate Change for the 21st Century (Berlin, 1999); David R. Victor, The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol.
For information on the very complicated debate about the Kyoto mechanisms, see Ott and Oberthuer.
See Earth Negotiation Bulletin, vol. 12, no. 189; Miranda A. Schreurs, “Bonn 2001: Saving Kyoto, ” German-American Relations and the Presidency of George W. Bush, Topics AICGS, Germany 2001.
See “Statement of Frank E. Loy,” in: Sustainable Climate Protection Policies, Friedemann Mueller and Alexander Ochs, eds., 19–26 (Ebenhausen, 2000).
The role of sinks for GHG reduction is still one of the most controversial issues. Whereas the USA demands the intense use of sinks for meeting reduction commit- ments, the EU doubts the reliability of sinks and criticizes the lack of compliance control mechanisms. Indeed a study carried out by the International Institute of Applied Research Analysis (IIASA) supports the EU interpretation. See www.iiasa. ac.at/Admin/INF/PR/PR-00.08.25.html.
Information given in this and the following sections are results from numerous interviews with officials from the American government, Congress and NGOs in Washington D.C. and Berlin during 1999 ¡ª 2001. They are not personally quoted. A very helpful and brief overview regarding the systematic factors of decision-making in foreign environmental policy of the U.S. is provided by Carrie Anderson, “Cultural and Systematic Differences: Factors that influence Americans and Germans in Environmental Policy Making,” in Sustainable Climate Protection Policies, Friedemann Mueller and Alexander Ochs, eds. (Ebenhausen, Stifftung Wissenschaft and Politik, 2000), 104–10.
This is most obviously shown by the U.S. debate concerning domestic energy shortages in 2001, which were answered by enlarging the market instead of inventing new energy effective technology and launching a restructuring and modernization of the energy market. For further information see www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press176. html, ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/pdf/international/0484(200I).pdf.
As a matter of fact, cheep energy frees capital to be used in investment and employment generation. In contrast to the USA, high energy prices in Europe do make efficiency profitable, but still draw away capacities that could be used productively elsewhere. This is a trade-off that few in the EU are willing to admit.
A good overview and collection of the most important testimonies, committee meetings, and resolutions is provided by the National Council on Sciences and the Environment, Global Climate Change: Congressional Responses,http://www.cnie.org/nle/ clim-7/ebgcccon.html. See also Congressional Research Service, Report to Congress 98–664: Global Climate Change: Congressional Concern About “Back Door¡± Implementation of the 1997 U.N. Kyoto Protocol, http://www.cnieorg/nle/clim-16.html.
See in particular the analysis of Robert Falkner, “Business Conflict and US International Environmental Policy: Ozone, Climate, and Biodiversity,” in The Environment, 157–77.
See http://www.microtech.com.au/daily/byrd.htm
See William R. Moomaw, “Why Wait for the Senate?,” in Sustainable Climate Protection Policies, 51–57.
A detailed overview is provided by Paul G. Harris, Understanding America’s Climate Change Policy: Realpolitik, Pluralism, and Ethical Norms, OCEES Research Paper No. 15, June 1998 or Norman J. Vig, “Presidential leadership and the Environment: from Reagan to Clinton,” in Environmental Policy in the 1990s. Reform or Reaction?, 3rd ed., 95–118, Norman Vig and Michael E. Kraft, eds. (Washington D.C., 1997).
See Time Magazine, April 9, 2001, vol. 157, no. 14, Special Report: Global Warming. Others argue that this perception is too simple. The natural gas industry, which stood to gain most from CO2 caps, gave much more money to the Bush campaign than the oil industry. The current strategy shows more a lack of alternatives and of time. This again reveals deficits of the Clinton presidency, where not enough action on renewing the Energy market was undertaken.
From the perspective of the early American immigrants, the European governmental systems represented exactly this. The overall visible and sensible governmental oversight and control was for many the main reason to leave Europe and build up a new state system and society in the United States. See Theodore J. Lowi, and Benjamin Ginsberg, American Government: Freedom and Power,4th edition, (New York: W.W. Norton 1996).
See Robert Paarlberg, “Earth in Abeyance: Explaining Weak Leadership in the US International Environmental Policy,” in Eagle Adrift: American Foreign Policy at the End of the Century, Robert J. Lieber, 135–59 (New York, 1997).
See Michael E. Kraft, “US Environmental Policy and Politics: From the 1960s to the 1990s,” in Environmental Politics and Policy, 1960s-1990s, Otis L. Graham Jr., ed, 17–42 (2000).
One of the few publications on this topic is provided by Benito Mueller, Congressional Climate Change Hearings: Comedy or Tragedy? (Oxford, 2000), http://www. wolfson.ox.ac.uk/¡ªmueller.
During the Clinton presidency, other intergovernmental councils and working groups, such as the Council on Sustainable Development and the Climate Change Task Force, were set up. For a detailed analysis see Norman J. Vig, “Presidential Leadership and the Environment: from Reagan to Clinton.”
See the statement of Kyle Mulhall, Associate Counsel for House Minority Leader Richard Gebhardt, Democratic Party, in M¨¹ller and Ochs, 69–71.
The following information is derived from the author’s interviews with staff of the executive branch in Washington D.C., Boulder, CO and Berlin during 1999–2000.
See http://www2.whitehouse.gov/PCSD/tforce/cctf/index.html.
The outcomes of the USGCR were also heavily criticized. The main task of the Research Plan was “to gain predictive understanding of the interactive physical, geological, chemical, biological and social processes that regulate the total Earth system and, hence establish the scientific basis for national and international policy formulations and decision.” While the program put tremendous scientific work and financial resources into the prediction of global change, it failed to provide any advise for policy makers. A detailed analysis is provided by Roger A. Pielke, Policy History of the US Global Change Research Program: Part 1, Administrative Development and Part II,Legislative Process, Submitted to Global Environmental Change, October 25, 1999, as well as Roger R. Pielke, “Usable Information for Policy: An Appraisal of the US Global Change Research Program,” Policy Sciences 28, (1995), 39–77.
See Ronald D. Brunner and Roberta Klein, “Harvesting Experience: A Reappraisal of the US Climate Action Plan,” Policy Sciences 32 (1999), 133–161.
See Douglas Jehl, “US Going Empty Handed to Meeting on Global Warming,” New York Times, March 29, 2001. Additional reports are found in the International Herald Tribune (IHT), March 29, 2001, Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2001, and the Washington Post (WP), March 29, 2001.
See Amy Goldstein and Eric Pianin, “Hill Pressure Fueled Bush’s Emissions Shift,” WP, March 15, 2001, and Brad Knickerbocker and Francine Kiefer, “The Costs of Bowing out of the Global-Warming Treaty,” Christian Science Monitor, March 29, 2001.
For a detailed analysis on that topic see http://www.cnie.org/nle/rsk-2.html.
The Bush strategy could be also observed in the press. See Eric Pianin, “EPA Chief Lobbied on Warming Before Bush’s Emissions Switch,” WP, March 27, 2001, Douglas Jehl, “U.S: Stance on Warming Puts Whitman in Tense Spot,” New York Times, March 30, 2001, or Douglas Jehl and Andrew C. Revkin, “President Cancels Clean-Air Vow,” IHT, March 15, 2001.
See “Senate Budget Vote Rebuffs Bush on Global Warming,” Washington Post, April 7, 2001.
The Assessment report was called for by a 1990 law, and was conducted under the U.S. Global Change Research Program in response to a request from the President’s Science Advisor. It is available at http://www.gcrio.org/NationalAssessment. See also Charles Arthur, “Climate Time-bomb Ready to Explode Under Bush,” UK Independent, April 6, 2001.
See Miranda A. Scheurs, “A View from the United States: COP 7 and the Kyoto Protocol, ” in German Foreign Policy in Dialogue, Newsletter 2, no. 6 (4th Quarter 2001) (http://www.deutsche-aussenpolitik.de).
A very illustrating picture on the differences between the US and European Systems is provided by The Guardian, see “The Great Divide,” The Guardian, April 4, 2001, www.guardianunlimited.co.uk/globalwarming/story/0,7369,468260,00.html.
See Christopher C. Horner, “Kyoto Cools,” Washington Times, April 5, 2001.
Ott offers some interesting ideas of new policy strategies for the follow-up Kyoto process even in case the U.S. government is not changing its position. See Ott, “Climate Change”, 13–16.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2003 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Holtrup, P. (2003). The Lack of U.S. leadership in Climate Change Diplomacy. In: May, B., Moore, M.H. (eds) The Uncertain Superpower. Berliner Schriften zur Internationalen Politik. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11631-8_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-663-11631-8_14
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-8100-3437-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-663-11631-8
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive