Less Than Zero

The US has been correct on one thing: China simply must be a participant in any climate change regime. But the US would have a better argument to make if it didn't reek of hypocrisy, since the US never (and will likely never) ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Ultimately, the US didn't ratify for reasons of "national interests" (read: "economic self-interests"). Recall that the US is the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. And why is China not a participant? 1. National interests (second largest emitter of carbon dioxide). 2. Kyoto took up a distinction between Annex 1 industrialized countries and developing countries. Annex 1 countries (US included) would be required to fulfill Kyoto obligations, while the developing countries would be gradually phased into the Kyoto regime after 2012.

The US has made two efforts, both basically window-dressing in relation to the problem:

1) the aborted McCain-Lieberman Climate Stewardship Act of 2003: this would have set carbon emissions reductions at a year 2000 baseline by 2010, with all sorts of "feasibility" exceptions. Kyoto sets the baseline level of carbon emissions at 1990. The US refuses to attempt to meet that since emissions accelerated throughout the 1990s and 2000s. Clinton never even tried to submit the Kyoto Protocol to Congress for ratification. It would have failed dramatically. Meeting the Kyoto baseline level of 1990 would now require a radical overall of industrial and consumer practices in the US. It might not have if the US had ratified in the first instance.

So, the McCain-Lieberman Act would have moved the goalposts to 2000 levels. But even that never passed. And if it had, it would have been regressive - it advertised an 18% reduction in carbon intensity, but would have allowed for an overall net increase in emissions.

Any remaining hope resides within progressive individual state measures within the US (for example; and also here).

2) The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (official site here), developed largely by the Bush administration and John Howard of Australia. It falls under the purview of Bush's "voluntary" approach to pollution reduction. He tried it in Texas and made a mess. The AP6 is a technology- and investment-oriented, voluntary approach to climate change mitigation. The program took effect in January 2006, and as yet has yielded very little in the way of knowing whether or not there's any real reduction. Not one of the signing members have reduced carbon emissions in the ten-month interim. There's a good chance it's bogus.

In the meantime, carbon emissions, the main target of any climate change regime, have grown significantly over the past several years.

The growth in global emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels over the past five years was four times greater than for the preceding 10 years, according to a study that exposes critical flaws in the attempts to avert damaging climate change.

Data on carbon dioxide emissions shows that the global growth rate was 3.2 per cent in the five years to 2005 compared with 0.8 per cent from 1990 to 1999, despite efforts to reduce carbon pollution through the Kyoto agreement.

Much of the increase is probably due to the expansion of the Chinese economy, which has relied heavily on burning coal and other fossil fuels for its energy...

Current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are 380 parts per million (ppm), about 100ppm higher than before the Industrial Revolution 200 years ago. Some computer models predict damaging and irreversible climate change if carbon dioxide levels rise above 450ppm or 500 ppm.