The Kyoto Protocol need not be a partisan issue. Climate change needs to be addressed, but the 1997 pact was never going to pass the Senate. By abandoning it, Bush at least avoided hypocrisy. It might take a century to reach a consensus on solving the greenhouse gas problem, but that is no excuse for wasting time getting started.
Thomas C. Schelling is Distinguished University Professor of Economics and Public Affairs at the University of Maryland.
The Kyoto Protocol should not be a partisan issue. The percentage reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions to which the United States committed itself by signing the 1997 Protocol to the 1992 un Framework Convention on Climate Change was probably unachievable when the protocol was adopted. The protocol then languished in Washington for the final three years of the Clinton administration, which chose not to present it to the Senate for ratification. In accordance with a Senate resolution calling for the full participation of the main developing countries in the protocol's emissions-cutting requirements, that pause was supposed to allow time for negotiation to bring those countries on board. But nobody thought any such negotiation could produce results, and no negotiation was ever attempted. George W. Bush, succeeding to the presidency three years after the protocol's signing, had some choices and may not have made the best choice when he rejected the plan outright last year. But the one option he did not have was to submit the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
The U.S. "commitment" to the protocol meant cutting emissions significantly below their 1990 level by 2010 -- which required a 25 or 30 percent reduction in projected emissions levels. Such a cut was almost certainly infeasible when the Clinton administration signed the protocol in 1997. Three years later, with no action toward reducing emissions, no evidence of any planning on how to reduce emissions, and no attempt to inform the public or Congress about what might be required to meet that commitment, what might barely have been possible to achieve over 15 years -- 1997 to 2012 -- had become unreasonable. The Senate will not confirm a treaty unless it knows what actions the "commitment" entails, and no president could answer that question without a year's preparation. No such preparation appears to have been done in the Clinton administration. Bush, in stating that he would not submit the treaty to the Senate, at least avoided hypocrisy.
Log in to continue reading
Access to this article requires a one-time free registration. To register, click here.
Log In
Buy PDF
Buy a premium PDF reprint of this article.Related
Forty-five hears after the Marshall Plan, America's foreign aid program is in shambles. The Clinton administration has the opportunity to make a new beginning with a clearly defined program to promote environmentally sound economic growth for the benefit of the poorer populations of the world and the United States and other industrialized nations as well. Trade, technology and investment policies must be molded into an initiative that recognizes the limits to the carrying capacity of the globe.
A comprehensive plan to revive America's competitiveness comes from Rocky Mountain Institute - using energy efficiency to prime th economic pump, an industrial policy to guide fresh capital injections and environmental technology to create a cottage industry for the 21st century.
Policymakers need a guide to the complexities and challenges of the struggle against terrorism. Unfortunately, two authors who could have written one have chosen instead to rehash the Bush administration's mistakes.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.