: UPDATE: Global Warming: A Comparative Guide to the E.U. and the U.S. and Their Approaches to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol
by Deborah Paulus-Jagrič
Deborah Paulus-Jagrič is the Reference Librarian for Educational Services at New York University Law School Library. Her latest article is: Online Law Library Maps, 98 (4) Law Library Journal 691 (fall, 2006).
Published February
2008
This
article is updated continuously at the Global Warming Blog.
New Action: Vermont's U.S. District Court Judge Sessions rules against the auto industry on September 13, 2007, in
Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie.
Table of Contents
Background on the Convention and the Protocol
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC
Kyoto's "Flexibility" Mechanisms
The Clinton Administration, 1993-2001
The Former Clinton Administration: Recent Developments
The Bush Administration & Climate Change (2001-2006)
Post-Midterm Elections, 2006-2008
Political Interference with Climate Science
State, County, & City Actions To Reduce GHG Emissions: California
Other State, County and City Actions to Reduce GHG Emissions
State Actions That Would Have Increased GHG Emissions: Texas
State Actions That Will Increase GHG Emissions: South Dakota
Domestic/International Businesses & Climate Change
The 2008 Presidential Campaign
Finding EU Documents on Climate Change
EU: Recent Relevant Developments
Europe's Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS)
Individual Member State Initiatives
Online Scientific Resources Relating to Global Climate Change
General Scientific Resources and Programs
Innovative Technologies to Reduce GHG
Selective Bibliography of Articles and Books
I began this guide in the fall of 2006, just prior to a number of significant climate-related events. The Twelfth Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC and the Second Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP-12/MOP-2) were held in Nairobi in November 2006, as were the mid-term elections in the U.S.; in February 2007, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was released, which finds it all but certain that human activities are responsible for climate change. Discussions of climate change are everywhere. Here is just one example, to illustrate the current urgency: On January 17th, 2006, the BBC reported that the "Doomsday Clock" had been moved two minutes closer to midnight, partly because of the threat caused by carbon-emitting technologies. The symbolic clock, devised in 1947 by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which was founded in 1945 by former Manhattan Project physicists, now stands at 5 minutes to annihilation. A geoscientist from Princeton University said of the occasion: ".[T]his organization, which for 60 years has been monitoring and warning us about the nuclear threat, now recognizes climate change as a threat that deserves the same level of attention."[1]
My primary sources of electronic information are the email alerts available from Grist,[2] especially Daily and Weekly Grist which not only summarize environmental news but link to the original news sources. I also rely heavily on daily BBC News updates for climate change news from the E.U. and the E.C., the BNA International Environment Daily, the daily Environmental Law Reporter updates, the BNA Environment Reporter, and BNA's U.S. Law Week.[3] In addition, after the Supreme Court decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, a new blog was developed entitled Warming Law: Changing the Climate in the Courts that I rely on for up-to-date information on the many global warming law suits.[4]
In this guide I briefly synopsize the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, and discuss the sources one would use to research them, but I make no claim to originality there. As a comparative guide, it has relatively little to offer, at least so far. To state the major difference between the E.U. and the U.S. in the simplest way, in the E.U. there are climate change laws to apply (the E.U. has ratified the Kyoto Protocol and takes its commitments very seriously), and in the U.S. there are none, at least at the federal level. When and if the U.S. government chooses to act on climate change, this guide will include its actions; thus it will evolve and become a truly comparative guide. Its current value lies in its compilation of recent information on the important work that U.S. states and cities have initiated to address climate change and, hopefully, to compel the federal government into action. I want to thank Mirela Roznovschi for the opportunity to write on this vital subject.
Greenhouse gases ("GHG"), such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone, and methane, trap heat and thereby warm the atmosphere. Emissions of greenhouse gases are increasing and it is anticipated that increases in global temperature will have severe effects on precipitation, ocean levels, extinction of species, and more. In 1988, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).[5] The panel's First Assessment Report in 1990[6] stated the belief of 400 scientists that global warming was real, and urged that steps be taken to avoid any further damage to the environment. For more recent IPCC assessment reports, see infra under Online Scientific Resources Relating to Global Climate Change, Specific scientific materials.
After that, Europe in particular and other countries as well began to call for action on climate change, and the UN, on December 21, 1990, created the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC). During the negotiation sessions, the U.S. often took strong positions, particularly against enforceable reduction targets and timetables, claiming scientific uncertainty about climate change and that emissions targets would adversely affect the U.S. economy.
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (hereafter UNFCCC)[7] was adopted by the INC on May 9, 1992, and was opened for signature in Rio de Janeiro, at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), aka the "Earth Summit," June 4th to 14th, 1992; it remained open for signature in New York until June 19, 1993, by which date it had been signed by 166 countries. Portugal was the 50th state to ratify the treaty, enabling it to enter into force on March 21, 1994.[8] The UNFCCC has been ratified, accepted, or approved by a total of 190 countries.[9]
The George H.W. Bush administration signed the UNFCCC in Rio on June 12, 1992, and the U.S. Senate ratified it unanimously shortly thereafter, on October 15, 1992.[10]
The original, authentic Convention was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.[11] Parties to the Convention agreed to consider climate change in such matters as agriculture, industry, energy, natural resources, and activities involving sea coasts, and thus to attempt to slow the process of global warming.
The Conference of the Parties (hereafter "COP"), the supreme decision-making body of the UNFCCC, meets annually to review progress on the Convention.[12]
Developed nations are referred to in the UNFCCC as "Annex I" nations, as they are listed in the first annex to the Convention, along with 12 "economies in transition," the EIT parties. The developed countries in Annex I were also members of the OECD in 1992. "Annex II" parties are only the OECD members of Annex I; EIT parties are not so considered. "Non-Annex I Parties to the Convention" are primarily developing countries. Several (48) of these Parties are classified as least developed countries (LDCs) and are recognized as being especially vulnerable, either to the economic effects of reducing emissions, or to climate change itself.[13] The UNFCCC placed the greatest responsibility for reducing emissions on parties included in Annex I, who agreed to contain emission levels at 1990 rates by the year 2000.[14] However, the Convention did not impose binding limits on emissions.
Under the UNFCCC articles 4 and 12, Annex I Parties are required to communicate to the COP "a national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol."[15] These initial "progress reports" were to be communicated by Annex I Parties within six months of the entry into force of the Convention for that Party; within three years for non-Annex I parties; and at the discretion of the least developed countries. UNFCCC article 12(a) states that the inventories shall use "comparable methodologies to be promoted and agreed upon by the Conference of the Parties." These national communications shall also include detailed descriptions of the policies and measures that each party has adopted to implement its commitment under the Convention.[16] The U.S.'s Climate Action Reports, our national communications required by the UNFCCC, are available online from the U.S. Global Change Research Program.[17] On May 4, 2007, the State Department released a draft version of U.S. Climate Action Report 2006. It updates U.S. climate-related actions since the last report in 2002. Public comment is requested until May 18, 2007.[18] On the 15th, the deadline for comments was extended to June 1, 2007.[19]
The IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories were first accepted in 1994, published in 1995, and revised in 1996. The Revised 1996 IPCC Guidelines were reaffirmed by COP-3 in Kyoto which stated that they "should be used as 'methodologies for estimating anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks[20] of greenhouse gases' in calculation of legally-binding targets during the first commitment period."[21] They were published in three volumes which are available on the Web: Volume 1 gives Reporting Instructions on how to prepare and transmit national inventory data consistently; volume 2 is the Workbook, with instructions to assist experts to start developing inventories if they do not have them already; and volume 3 is the Reference Manual, with methods to estimate emissions for a wider range of GHG and lists of source types for each.[22]
The UNFCCC also established two subsidiary bodies:
As the Convention did not contain binding emissions limits, the member countries almost immediately decided that the Convention's commitments were insufficient to make an impact on climate change. In March/April of 1995, the Convention's first Conference of the Parties[25] in Berlin adopted the "Berlin Mandate,"[26] which called for adoption of a protocol to the UNFCCC that would contain more stringent ways for Annex I Parties to limit greenhouse gas emissions.[27] The Parties also set up a new subsidiary body, the Ad Hoc Group on the Berlin Mandate (AGBM) at COP-1 to negotiate a protocol to the Convention; its first meeting was in the summer of 1995.[28] A fourth subsidiary body, the Ad Hoc Group on Article 13 (AG13) was established to explore options for conflict resolution.
In July, 1996, at COP-2 in Geneva,[29] the parties instructed the representatives "to accelerate negotiations on the text of a legally-binding protocol or another legal instrument to be completed in due time for adoption at the third session of the Conference of the Parties.[that] should fully encompass the remit of the Berlin Mandate," especially the commitments for Annex I Parties.[30] In the "Geneva Ministerial Declaration," published in an Annex to the Report of the Conference of the Parties on page 71, members endorsed the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as "currently the most comprehensive and authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, its impacts and response options now available."[31] Further, the members encouraged accelerated negotiations on the text of a protocol to be adopted at COP-3, in accordance with the Berlin Mandate.
After negotiations that were described as "tough, grueling and long,"[32] the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in December, 1997, at COP-3.[33] It was open for signature from the middle of March, 1998, to the middle of March the following year. Only parties to the UNFCCC can become parties to the Protocol, by ratifying, accepting, approving, or acceding to it. As of September 2006, 166 countries have either ratified, acceded to, approved of, or accepted the Protocol; see Status of Ratification.[34] Only the Annex I Parties to the UNFCCC, 22 countries and the EU-15, are required to reduce their emissions of GHGs under it.[35] Their individual targets are found in the Protocol's Annex B.[36]
The COP to the Convention also serves as the Meeting of the Parties (MOP) to the Kyoto Protocol.[37] Both bodies issue decisions and resolutions.[38]
The Protocol sets mandatory targets for greenhouse-gas emissions, for Annex I Parties only, specifically excluding developing country parties from any obligations under it. Annex A lists the greenhouse gases it covers: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride, and the sectors/source categories that emit them. According to article 3.1, Annex I Parties would ensure that their overall emissions of those gases would be reduced "by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012."[39] However, article 3.8 allows any Annex I Party to use 1995 as a base year for the last 3 gases.[40] Also, a "certain degree of flexibility" was built into article 3 regarding Annex I Parties undergoing the process of transition to a market economy regarding the base year they use, if 1990 is considered too strict.[41]
COP-4 (held in Buenos Aires, Argentina), in 1998,[42] COP-5 (held in Bonn, Germany), in 1999,[43] COP-6 (held in The Hague, The Netherlands), in 2000,[44] and COP-6b, the resumed session (held in Bonn, Germany),[45] in July, 2001, continued work on the details of the Protocol. It was at the Bonn conference that negotiations resulted in a compromise that permitted the Protocol to go forward. The U.S. did not take part in the negotiations.[46]
The "Marrakesh Accords," adopted in October/November, 2001, at COP-7,[47] in Marrakesh, Morocco, addressed the actual operation of the Protocol, including its three "flexibility", or free-market mechanisms, which were proposed by the U.S. delegation.[48] Flexibility mechanisms enable countries that cannot meet their emissions reductions to purchase or acquire the right to emit from other countries. It was necessary to establish these mechanisms before the Kyoto Protocol could enter into force. Decisions of the COP/MOP on the Mechanisms are available online.[49]
Emissions Trading under the Protocol's article 17 allows Annex I Parties to purchase the right to emit from other countries that have not used up their emission limits.[50]
The European Emissions Trading Scheme, the largest of its kind in the world, discussed infra, and carbon trading in general, is not uncontroversial. Analysts estimate that the UK's most polluting industries earned millions of pounds in windfall profits in 2005, from over-allocation of emissions permits. Groups such as the Durban Group for Climate Justice, a group of international organizations that met in South Africa in 2004, reject the free market approach to climate change. The Durban Declaration of Climate Change rejects carbon trading and its attempt to "commodify" natural resources.[51]
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) under the Protocol's article 12 allows developed nations to pay for projects that cut emissions in developing nations and receive credits in exchange that they can apply to meeting their own emissions targets.[52]
A project to clean up a Chinese factory that emits the GHG HFC-23, trifluoromethane, illustrates problems with the program. HFC-23 is a Freon-type refrigerant that will soon be banned in industrial nations because it depletes the ozone layer. Cleaning up that factory under the CDM enables chemical companies to expand existing factories that produce HFC-23 for use in cheap, inefficient appliances to be sold in India and China, which have no responsibilities under the Kyoto Protocol. Thus the Kyoto Protocol's mechanism is used to clean up HFC-23 factories, leaving them functioning and in violation of the Montreal Protocol to the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, which requires them to be phased out.[53]
The Joint Implementation Mechanism (JI) under the Protocol's article 6 is similar to the CDM; it allows developed countries to receive "emissions reduction units" for financing projects to mitigate climate change in other developed countries that are "economies in transition," that is, formerly Communist countries.[54]
In May 2007, the World Bank issued a report entitled State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2007, by Karen Capoor and Philippe Ambrosi.[55] The report showed that the global market for CO2 emissions credits doubled in 2006 to $30.1 billion: $24.4 billion was generated by the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme, see infra, $5.3 billion through the CDM, and $141 million through JI.[56]
The Marrakesh Accords also established several expert groups:
· The Consultative Group of Experts (CGE) assists developing countries prepare reports on climate change.[57]
· The Least Developed Country Expert Group (LEG) gives advice to the least developed countries.[58]
· The Expert Group on Technology Transfer (EGTT) works to share technology with less developed countries.[59]
COP-7 in Marrakesh also adopted Decision 11/CP.7, regarding the principles to govern Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).[60] Decision 11/CP.7, among other things, recommended that draft decision -/CMP.1 on Land use, Land-use change and forestry be adopted by the first session of the COP serving as the Meeting of the Parties of the Kyoto Protocol, which they did.[61] The Decision also made various requests to the SBSTA in its section 2, and several "invitations" to the IPCC in its section 3. This work was based on a 2000 Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change & Forestry by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,[62] which in turn was based on the Protocol itself. Article 3.3 of the Protocol says that "net changes in greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land use change and forestry activities, limited to afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation[63] since 1990.shall be used to meet the commitments in this Article of each Party included in Annex I." Article 3.4 of the Protocol states that at the first COP/MOP session (in 2005) Parties should "decide upon modalities, rules and guidelines as to how and which additional human-induced activities related to changes in greenhouse gas emissions and removals in the agricultural soil and land use change and forestry categories, shall be added to, or subtracted from, the assigned amount for Parties included in Annex I, ." LULUCF activities provide a relatively low cost way for Parties to offset their GHG emissions.[64]
The World Summit on Sustainable Development was held in Johannesburg in 2002; the U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell, one of the U.S. representatives, was criticized there by environmental groups that disagreed with the U.S. stance on a variety of environmental policies.[65]
COP-8 was held in New Delhi, India, in 2002[66]; COP-9 was held in Milan, Italy, in 2003[67]; COP-10 was held in Buenos Aires, Argentina, in 2004.[68]
Entering into force: Article 25 of the Protocol provides two conditions that must be satisfied before the Protocol could enter into force: First, at least 55 Parties to the Convention must ratify, accept, approve, or accede to the Protocol, of which there must be enough Annex I Parties to have accounted for at least 55 % of carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. The Protocol would enter into force 90 days after both conditions were satisfied. As the U.S. was responsible for 36% of 1990's GHG emissions, its ratification was considered essential to the Protocol's implementation, and there was dismay in the international community when the U.S. failed to ratify.[69] However, Russia, responsible for 17% of 1990 GHG emissions, ratified on November 18, 2004.[70] Thus the Protocol came into effect on February 16, 2005. The original, authentic Protocol was deposited with the Secretary-General of the United Nations.[71]
COP-11 was held in Montreal, Canada, from November 28 to December 9, 2005, and was also the first MOP to the Kyoto Protocol.[72]
Among other things, COP-11 established the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG).[73] The AWG's first session was held in Bonn from May 17 to May 25, 2006[74]; its second session was held in November 6-14, 2006, in Nairobi.[75] See infra.
Compliance with the Protocol: The Compliance Committee began operation in March 2006; it has two branches, enforcement and facilitative. If the enforcement branch determines that a Party is not in compliance with its obligations under the Protocol, it will "require the Party to make up the difference between its emissions and its assigned amount during the second commitment period, plus an additional deduction of 30%. In addition, it shall require the Party to submit a compliance action plan and suspend the eligibility of the Party to make transfers under emissions trading until the Party is reinstated."[76] The facilitative branch assists Parties in meeting their obligations under the Protocol.
The most recent meeting of the Climate Change Convention was COP-12, held from November 6-17, 2006, in Nairobi, Kenya, in conjunction with the second meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP-12/MOP-2).[77] A press release issued the first day of the Conference was entitled: Nairobi United Nations Climate Change Conference opens with warning that climate change may be most serious threat ever to face humankind.[78] One of the major goals of the Conference is to work on a global agreement for the time period after the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012. Another is to help poorer African countries adapt to climate change.[79] The UN released its Report on the African Regional Workshop on Adaptation just before the meeting opened; the report states that the effects of climate change on Africa will be particularly severe.[80]
In preparation for COP-12, the UN issued its annual report on October 30, 2006, compiled from data that all 41 Annex I Parties to the UNFCCC submitted to the secretariat. The report, entitled Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data for 1990-2004 for Annex I Parties, showed that since 2000, emissions have increased slightly, in both EIT and non-EIT Parties; also, the number of Parties with emissions decreases has declined to seven nations from 23 of the 41 since 2000.[81] One of the report's conclusions is that "industrialized countries will need to intensify their efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions."[82]
COP-12/MOP-2 concluded on November 17, 2006. Participants pledged to review the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol in 2008 as required under Article 9 of the protocol to determine whether it adequately deals with increases in GHG emissions. Negotiators "assur[ed] developing nations that the effort will not include consideration of new mandatory requirements on their greenhouse gas emissions."[83] It was also agreed to conduct another review, required by the protocol's Article 3.9, to determine whether more severe emissions cuts will be required after the first compliance period ends in 2012.[84]
Meetings of the subsidiary bodies and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol were held in Bonn from May 7-18, 2007, in preparation for COP-13 and COP/MOP-3 to be held in Bali in December 2007.[85] Delegates continued to discuss extending the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.[86] A high-level meeting of heads of state was proposed on May 8 by U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to discuss the post-Kyoto era; it would be held in New York in September, in preparation for Bali.[87]
The fourth session of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol and the fourth workshop under the dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention was held in Vienna, Austria, August 27-31, 2007.[88] Delegates agreed to set GHG emissions cuts between 25 and 40 percent below 1990 levels in the successor pact to the Kyoto Protocol.[89]
COP-13
United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali, COP 13 & the Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) 3, opened December 3, 2007, in Nusa Dua, Bali, Indonesia. Observers hoped for a political breakthrough in international climate change negotiations, and a timetable for a successor agreement to the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.[90] The conference continued until December 14th. Before it opened, on November 30th, leaders from 150 global companies endorsed a legally binding framework to address climate change in The Bali Communiqué, in the belief "that tackling climate change is the pro-growth strategy. Ignoring it will ultimately undermine economic growth."[91] Signatories included Shell, Coca-Cola, Dupont, British Airways, Rolls Royce, and many more. In a letter to Yvo de Boer, the head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, Rep. Edward Markey, Chairman of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, and 10 House committee chairmen, emphasized the willingness of the majority of Americans to reduce GHG emissions.[92] Finally, a rough and vague roadmap (the "Bali Action Plan") for a new global climate treaty was agreed on, to which the U.S., however reluctantly, agreed.[93] A Papua New Guinea representative said to the U.S. in apparent desperation and in unusually strong language that was applauded by the delegates: "We seek your leadership. But if for some reason you are not willing to lead, leave it to the rest of us. Please, get out of the way."[94] Work proceeds to draft a successor agreement by 2009.[95]
A hearing was held before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee entitled: International Climate Change Negotiation: Bali and the Path Toward a Post-2012 Climate Treaty on January 24, 2008.[96] James Connaughton, chairman of the White House CEQ and a top environmental adviser to the Bush administration, said that he continued to oppose mandatory limits on U.S. GHG emissions, and reiterated the administration's well-known position that it would not commit to international goals unless major developing countries did also.[97]
Both the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol are served by the Climate Change Secretariat.[98] The mandate of the Secretariat is laid out in Article 8 of the Convention. Its main functions are:
The Secretariat has been located in Bonn, Germany, since August of 1996.
This is the web page of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.[100] This site serves both the Convention and the Kyoto Protocol by transmitting official documents and reports and other related information. It provides the latest data and is an invaluable resource for anyone researching in this area. The guide entitled Feeling the Heat[101] included in the Essential Background section provides a useful introduction to global climate change, as well as background of the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol.
Reports from COP/MOP sessions can be found under Search documents of the COP, COP/MOP and all Subsidiary Bodies on the UNFCCC Web page.[102]
As noted supra, the U.S. signed and ratified the UNFCCC in 1992 during the George H.W. Bush administration.
Shortly after taking office, President Bill Clinton announced on Earth Day, April 21, 1993, "the Nation's commitment to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000."[103] However, in the 1994 mid-term elections, the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress for the first time in 40 years, and after that the president was unable to persuade the Republican Congress to cooperate with his good intentions.[104] Our subsequent lack of national consensus on climate change was a disappointment to environmentalists.[105]
In 1995, COP-1 met in Berlin, adopted the Berlin Mandate as discussed supra, and began negotiations on a Protocol that would set enforceable reductions in emissions for Annex I parties only.[106] The U.S. agreed to the Berlin Mandate, despite misgivings about the exclusion of developing country parties (the "non-Annex I" parties).[107]
At COP-2 in Geneva, in July 1996, the U.S. representative, Timothy Wirth, Under Secretary for Global Affairs at the Department of State, reversed the U.S.'s earlier position and announced support for binding national emissions limits.[108] At the December session of the AGBM, parties agreed to submit draft protocol proposals by the middle of January, 1997, as under the UNFCCC's Article 17, proposals had to be communicated to the Parties at least 6 months before the Conference of the Parties at which they would be discussed.
Clinton and Gore were reelected in the November 1996 election.
In January, 1997, the U.S. State Department produced a draft protocol that contained specific caps on the greenhouse gases countries could emit during specific periods of time, based on 1990 emissions; it was a kind of international emissions trading scheme. Its attempt to encompass developing countries was deleted from the final draft protocol.[109] In March, 1997, the AGBM met to discuss the proposals.
In June, 1997, the U.S. Senate held hearings to discuss the protocol to the UNFCCC, and whether the Senate should pass its Resolution 98, also known as the "Byrd-Hagel Resolution," which advised the president not to sign the Protocol.[110] The appendix to the report that accompanied Senate Resolution 98 contained the testimony given at those hearings.[111] The primary reasons the Senate gave for the U.S. not to sign included the protocol's exemption of all 129 developing country parties from any obligations under the protocol. The Senate considered that omission "inconsistent with the need for global action on climate change and is environmentally flawed." Also, the Senate "strongly" believed that "serious harm to the United States economy." could result if the U.S. did join.[112] Resolution 98 was passed by the Senate 95-0 on July 25, 1997.[113] Senator Byrd, one of its co-authors, elaborated on those two reasons in the Congressional Record about six months later, referring to the Protocol several times as a "work in progress" and a "partly painted" canvas.[114]
On October 22, 1997, President Clinton spoke at the National Geographic Society where he outlined three elements of a "comprehensive framework.which.will enable us to build a strong and robust global agreement": 1) the U.S. would commit to the "binding and realistic target" of lowering emissions to 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012; 2) the U.S. would "embrace flexible mechanisms" for meeting those limits, including a joint implementation system; and 3) the first two elements were conditioned on the participation of industrialized and developing nations in addressing global climate change. The president also outlined six elements of a plan to "provide incentives and lift roadblocks" to increase companies' and individuals' involvement.[115]
As noted supra, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted on December 11, 1997, at COP-3, after about 30 months of delicate negotiations.[116] In February of 1998, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing entitled Implications of the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. The testimony noted that the Protocol as adopted the previous December "fails-fails-to meet either of the requirements of Senate Resolution 98. It fails to meet the minimum criteria set unanimously by the U.S. Senate," referring to the Senate's complaints in Resolution 98 that the Protocol exempted non-Annex I parties and would cause serious damage to the U.S. economy.[117]
In fact, U.S. Vice-President Gore did sign the Protocol on November 12, 1998, and agreed to make greenhouse gas emission cuts of 7% below 1990 levels.[118] The signature was largely symbolic, as it was extremely unlikely, after the Byrd-Hagel Resolution passed so decisively, that the Senate would ratify it.[119] Indeed, neither the Clinton nor the Bush Jr. Administration has sent the Protocol to the Senate for ratification.[120]
At the last moment, in December 2005, former U.S. president Bill Clinton was added to the schedule as a speaker at COP-11 in Montreal, much to the consternation of the Bush administration, which told organizers of the conference that allowing Clinton to speak would "scuttle" any hopes of the U.S. signing onto the Kyoto Protocol.[121] Mr. Clinton spoke anyway, at the request of conference officials, and called the Bush administration's opposition to the Protocol on the basis that it would harm the U.S. economy "flat wrong."[122]
On August 2, 2006, former President Clinton launched the Clinton Climate Initiative, as part of the William J. Clinton Foundation, in order to "make a difference in the fight against climate change in practical and measurable ways."[123] The initiative joined with the Large Cities Climate Leadership Group[124] (a group of 23 cities world wide, formed in 2005 to reduce urban carbon emissions) to help large cities combat global warming.[125]
Since his defeat in the 2000 presidential election, former Vice-President Al Gore has made a name for himself as an environmentalist. His 2006 film, "An Inconvenient Truth," devoted to the risks of global warming, debuted at the Sundance festival and was a critical success, even earning an Academy Award nomination for best documentary feature (and one for best original song, I Need to Wake Up, by Melissa Etheridge) in January 2007,[126] both of which won.[127]
Al Gore was also nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in February 2007, for his efforts to educate people about climate change.[128] On October 12, 2007, it was announced that he and the IPCC would share the prize, for their efforts to raise awareness of man-made global warming. However, a White House spokesperson said that the award would have no impact on administration policy regarding climate change.[129]
The Bush administration was known to have many connections with the oil producing industry, and the new president was not expected to favor environmental efforts. Indeed, President Bush made it clear shortly after assuming office that he would not support the Kyoto Protocol, repeatedly claiming that it was "fatally flawed in fundamental ways,"[130] that it unfairly exempted most of the world, and that as written it was not in the economic interests of the United States.[131] The U.S. signature has little effect without ratification, but the signature does mean that the U.S. must not work against the Protocol, or prevent other nations from joining. The Natural Resources Defense Council has a Web page entitled The Bush Administration's Global Warming Policies.[132]