Who said, "We will not submit this (Kyoto) for ratification until..." (continued)?

Question

Who said, "We will not submit this (Kyoto) for ratification until there's meaningful participation by key developing nations"?

Why was that said?

What has changed since then?

Is developing nation participation less urgent or more urgent now?

Answer 1

A. Al Gore said this in 1998.

B. Climate change is a global problem that requires global solutions. Al Gore was planning bilateral talks with key developing nations.

C. What happened next? We elected oilmen to the Whitehouse and action on global warming was soon forgotten.

Answer 2

so many people have forgotten....or never knew...the US Senate rejected the idea of Kyoto 95-0...during the Clinton years.........and blame no Kyoto on Bush......just anther example of hypocrisy and selected memory

Answer 3

I thought that the US "signed" Kyoto during the Clinton administration but the administrations had worked out a deal that they would not submit it for ratification until some of the major developing countries had agreed to curb their emissions.  I believe it was just sitting and waiting when Bush took over.  He did not even attempt talks with the developing nations (not that Clinton got anywhere with them) and the treaty essentially just died in the congress.

I think that the developing nations have always had an important role to play.  As their emissions grow, the amount developing nations need to cut is going to become vital.  How to handle the disadvantages they will face cutting emissions is going to remain a tough issue.

The developed countries where able to "grow: their economies while diluting waste into public resources (air, some waters, soils and forest) without consequences to the neighbors at the beginning of the industrial revolution.  As time passed, some of the neighbors started complaining and laws were passed to make it so public resources (air; some waters, soils, and forests) were protected to a certain point so that neighbors would not incur excessive cost of cleaning up resources needed for a good quality of life.

As time passed, we began to see regional effects (lead in gas, pesticides, acid rain, ozone hole, regional air pollution, forest management practices , etc), that needed addressing.  The philosophy of "socializing costs while privatizing profits" was beginning to be felt.  More of the burden was placed on industry (the ones that received much of the profit from sales) to bear more of the cost.  This should also force a rise in the price of the goods - by how much depends on how elastic the demand is (determined by how well you can live without something or if you can substitute something else).  

Remember that although the companies receive "benefits" (profit) from the use of public resources, so does the public.  The public receives jobs, support for schools and arts, health care, benefits from the use of the goods, etc.  The companies don't directly profit from some of the benefits the public receives.  In short, a company should NOT be totally responsible for ALL the environmental costs associated with production because the public receives benefits also.  But raising the price of goods and the costs of using public resources encourages conservation and "best use" is determined through market forces. There is a balance that is achieved.  It gets tweaked as we learn more about costs and benefits.

Now with the global environmental impacts are becoming apparent, the developed countries now need to barging with the developing countries (and even with future generations) to decide how to best split the costs and benefits among the populations of the Earth.  While it is true that the developed countries (and past generations) have greatly benefited from the relatively "un-restrained" (not the right word maybe) use of resources, the developing nations have also benefited. Exactly who, which generations and by how much varies widely.  Economist try to provide information so that the parties can try to work out a solution of who should pay what and receive what, but this is really not a scientific question in the end.  It is a political negotiation.  You get what you negotiate, not what is fair.   This is a lawyer mentality - not a scientific mentality.  That is why the trouble reaching a solution.  

The developing countries have a time advantage in that they can grow their economies very rapidly in the short term by not entering into an agreement.  The disadvantage is they have the populations most likely suffer from global warming because they are least able to respond technologically.

The developing nations have the technological advantages that help protect their nations in the longer term.  Responding with technology to address extreme long term effects can get very expensive and lower quality of life.  It is advantageous for developed countries to reduce the magnitude of the potential impacts to preserve a high quality of life in the long term. In the short term, developed countries can do the most to cut the emissions, but will also suffer the greatest short-term economic costs.    However, as the developing nations grow, this becomes less true (for example, China emits as much or more CO2 than the US now.)  The solution is beginning to move out of the developed countries hands.

Treaties and tools like the Kyoto protocol are just negotiations to divide the benefits and costs over the short and long term (and over the generations) so that everybody wins or at least don't suffer as much from climate change,  maximizing the social welfare of all populations on Earth.  This is completely a political process. Doesn't it suck?

That is why this is such a argumentative topic on YA.