DV3166 Global environmental problems and politics

have been possible for the USA to have continued supporting the Kyoto
regime at international negotiations without ratification at home. But its
overall ability to implement Kyoto would have been reduced.
Second, the Kyoto Protocol was flawed in many ways that were obvious at
the time. The overall reduction of 5.2 per cent for Annex I was a small
target, even if Annex I did achieve it. The hot air problem meant that
emissions trading alone was unlikely to achieve reductions. The means for
involving non-Annex I countries in climate-change policy was unclear and
seemed to be based on the goodwill of all countries concerned. Indeed,
President Bush said in the same speech:

… it would be unfair – indeed, counterproductive – to condemn

developing nations to slow growth or no growth by insisting
that they take on impractical and unrealistic greenhouse gas
targets. Yet, developing nations such as China and India already
account for a majority of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions,
and it would be irresponsible to absolve them from shouldering
some of the shared obligations.
10.2.22
Partly in response to these statements, President Bush launched his ‘Clean
Skies’ initiative in 2002 to improve domestic air quality in the USA. And in
2005, the USA joined the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development
and Climate with Australia, Korea, Japan, China and India. This alliance
of countries was interesting because it included the USA and Australia
(who were reticent about Kyoto), and some of the largest Asian countries
that were not included in Kyoto. On the one hand, this initiative was
welcome because it claimed to focus on long-needed technology transfer
to countries that used high quantities of coal – matters that the Kyoto
Protocol did not address specifically (see Chapter 6). But on the other
hand, this alliance was criticised for apparently trying to weaken the Kyoto
Protocol and the UN framework.
But it is important to remember that the president’s statements alone
do not constitute the US position. Many policymakers insisted that
supporting the Kyoto process was important in order to build international
cooperation and a shared framework. Some states within the USA adopted
their own approaches to implementing climate-change policy, which
sometimes meant using the language and targets of the Kyoto Protocol.
• The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) is a state level
emissions capping and trading programme based in 10 states in
northeastern USA (with some additional states and provinces in
Canada as observers).
• In California, the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 aimed to
reduce the state’s emissions (which were twelfth-largest in world) by
25 per cent by 2020. This law effectively puts California in line with
the Kyoto limitations, but at a date later than the 2008–2012 Kyoto
commitment period.
• Some 850 US cities in 50 states by 2008 had adopted some level of
climate-change initiative. By late 2007, Seattle had reduced emissions
by 8 per cent since 1990.
The accession of President Obama in 2009 marked an important shift
in the USA’s international stance on climate change. Under the new
president, the USA began to support international negotiations on climate
change, and adopted a more direct bilateral stance with specific countries,
especially China, to encourage new targets that included the larger
developing countries.
74