This paper traces the history of international efforts to address climate change, from the 1988 Toronto Target through the negotiation and ratification of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. It examines why the Protocol largely failed to achieve its emissions reduction goals, focusing on the withdrawal of the United States, the "law of least ambitious program," and the challenges of managing large multilateral coalitions. Drawing on scholarship by Betsill, Haas, and Victor, the paper considers alternative approaches — including smaller coalitions of major emitters, non-binding agreements, and domestic investment in alternative energy and education — and concludes that the decades spent on the Kyoto process may have diverted critical resources from more effective strategies.
The paper demonstrates effective use of multi-source synthesis: rather than summarizing each source in sequence, it weaves Betsill, Haas, and Victor together thematically, deploying each scholar at the point where their argument best supports the paper's analytical thread. This technique elevates the writing from mere summary to genuine academic engagement.
The paper opens with scientific and historical context, then dedicates a section to the Kyoto Protocol's negotiation and ratification process. The central analytical section critiques the Protocol's outcomes using scholarly debate, while a fourth section introduces structural and theoretical explanations for failure alongside concrete policy alternatives. A brief but direct conclusion ties the stakes back to the urgency of the problem. This five-part structure reflects standard policy-analysis organization: context → policy history → evaluation → alternatives → recommendation.
The effort to bring about effective changes in energy policy worldwide began with the emergence of scientific evidence showing that greenhouse gas concentrations and global surface temperatures had both increased over a geologically short period of time, reaching unprecedented levels within the last 20,000 years (Betsill, 107). This evidence fueled a series of conferences during the latter half of the 20th century. Midway through this series, the first target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions was defined in Toronto, Canada, at the 1988 World Conference on the Changing Atmosphere (Betsill, 106). The "Toronto Target" set a goal of reducing worldwide CO2 emissions to 20% below 1988 levels by 2005.
The Toronto conference may have set the first goal for mitigating rising surface temperatures, but getting countries around the world to agree has been extremely difficult. The structure within which global negotiations for reducing greenhouse gas emissions have occurred was defined by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This structure brought together over 185 countries to ratify the 1992 UNFCCC convention, which established the goals, considerations, and responsibilities for reducing emissions (Betsill, 109). When a subset of the participants expressed the need to set binding timetables and goals, the United States balked, citing the potentially catastrophic consequences this would have on world economies (Betsill, 112). At the time, the United States was the top producer of greenhouse gases in the world, and conference attendees chose to make concessions rather than force the United States to walk away from negotiations.
At subsequent UNFCCC meetings, participants realized that the concessions made to keep the United States involved were unrealistic if they hoped to achieve emissions reductions sufficient to slow global warming. A series of annual meetings culminated in the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, which stated an explicit goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012 (Betsill, 113). A number of mechanisms for achieving this goal were also outlined and negotiated over subsequent years. The first attempt to ratify the Kyoto Protocol occurred in 2000, but failed because negotiations on several technical issues had not been resolved.
In a remarkable display of unity, the remaining participants pushed ahead and finalized negotiations on the unresolved issues by the end of 2001 (Betsill, 113). Article 25 of the Protocol declared that ratification would occur once 55 or more countries signed the Protocol, provided they represented 55% of 1990 sources of greenhouse gases. The newly elected President of the United States, George W. Bush, called the Kyoto Protocol "fatally flawed" and withdrew from the negotiations (Betsill, 113). This left Russia — responsible for 17% of 1990 emissions — as the last remaining hope for ratification. President Putin signed the Protocol in 2004, reportedly after a careful assessment of how the Russian industrial sector could benefit, rather than out of any genuine interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Despite overwhelming support from the vast majority of countries in the world, the Kyoto Protocol has failed to rein in greenhouse gas emissions. Betsill (118–120) argues that the biggest benefit of establishing a worldwide climate change regime has probably been making global warming a recognizable term across the world and lending credibility to the theory that rising surface temperatures result from fossil fuel consumption. In addition, major polluters like the United States have increasingly engaged in programs to reduce emissions and have adopted language suggesting that emissions reduction is official domestic policy. The formation of an international climate change regime has therefore legitimized the theory that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming in most countries of the world.
Despite this limited positive assessment of the UNFCCC's value, Haas takes a much harder line, arguing that the resources expended on negotiating and ratifying the Kyoto Protocol have diverted needed attention away from other environmental issues such as biodiversity and water quality (3). Haas further suggests that the rhetoric countries use when speaking about controlling greenhouse gas emissions belies a "business as usual" domestic policy that does little to address climate change (3). He goes so far as to argue that the global climate change regime process did not work, and that real change will only come through more local efforts. Suggestions include meaningful government investment in research and development programs that produce alternative energy sources, K–12 education programs, and regional, national, state, and local autonomous efforts to limit and reduce emissions (5–6).
The truth probably lies somewhere in between, since it would be difficult to separate the influence of the global climate change regime over the past half century from the emergence of state and regional efforts to reduce emissions. In spite of this difference in emphasis, both Betsill and Haas express pessimism about the chances that the Kyoto Protocol will realize any of its goals. An explanation for its failure can be found in Arild Underdal's "law of least ambitious program," which states that the least interested party or parties determines the terms of any agreement (Victor, 90). With respect to the Kyoto Protocol, this would be the United States and its insistence on the broad use of "flexible mechanisms" to achieve CO2 emission targets (Betsill, 112). Flexible mechanisms consist of legal transactions that allow the exportation of emission-reduction responsibility through carbon trading and clean energy investments in other countries (Betsill, 114).
You’re 71% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.