Why the United States did not become a party to the Kyoto Protocol: German, Norwegian, and US perspectives

Abstract

According to two-level game theory, negotiators tailor agreements at the international level to be ratifiable at the domestic level. This did not happen in the Kyoto negotiations, however, in the US case. We interviewed 26 German, Norwegian, and US participants in and observers of the climate negotiations concerning their views on three explanations for why the United States did not become a party to Kyoto. Explanation 1 argues that Kyoto delegations mistakenly thought the Senate was bluffing when adopting Byrd-Hagel. Explanation 2 contends that Europeans preferred a more ambitious agreement without US participation to a less ambitious agreement with US participation. Finally, explanation 3 suggests that in Kyoto the Clinton-Gore administration gave up on Senate ratification, and essentially pushed for an agreement that would provide them a climate-friendly face. While all explanations received some support from interviewees, explanation 1 and (particularly) explanation 3 received considerably more support than explanation 2.

US presidents and the failure to ratify multilateral environmental agreements

“…This target left little doubt that Kyoto would be unacceptable to the Senate, which had unanimously passed the ByrdHagel resolution a few months earlier. Interviews with participants in, and observers to, the Kyoto negotiations provide substantial (although, it should be noted, not unanimous) support for this claim (Hovi et al, 2012). For example, a former US EPA official said:…”

Carbon accounting for sustainability and management. Status quo and challenges

“…In spite of the relative ineffectivity of international efforts, some national strategies are making progress (on national developments see e.g. Karlsson et al, 2011;Hovi et al, 2010). Few countries with very high greenhouse gas emission levels such as Germany and the Netherlands are leading the reduction efforts (see IEA, 2011), whereas, vulnerable nations such as the nations in the 'Coalition of Pacific Island States' are urging the international community to become actively involved in climate change prevention and adaptation efforts.…”

Framework for the future? Exploring the possibility of majority voting in the climate negotiations

“…Unfortunately, instead, it has undermined the climate regime on numerous occasions, including signing the Kyoto Protocol and subsequently not ratifying it (Depledge 2005). Importantly, not only was it incapable of ratification, but also the protocol had numerous concessions put into accommodate US preferences (Paterson 2009;Hovi et al 2012) with even the design of the compliance system being largely American in origin (Bang et al 2007). While the negotiations towards a 2015 agreement are now undergoing are a strong push towards architectures that accommodate the USA, this movement will likely lead to weak outcomes (Hare et al 2010;Paterson 2009) which, if legally binding, may still not be ratified by the Republican-dominated US Senate.…”