This paper argues that the Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change was doomed to face difficulties ab initio. It explains why this is the case by analyzing the Kyoto Protocol’s shortcomings and deficiencies. Moving the climate change agenda forward multilaterally among the 195 parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is proving to be a serious challenge. The lack of progress in UNFCCC negotiations in recent years, especially the failure to obtain an international agreement on emissions limitations targets and timetables by all major developed and developing country emitters, has led many to question whether the UNFCCC is, in fact, the best and most effective forum for mobilising a global response to climate change. The current approach to negotiating a comprehensive, universal, and legally binding global agreement on climate change is unlikely to succeed. The paper concludes that no breakthroughs will take place regarding a global climate change agreement until there is more political maturity on the side of the US, and until rapidly emerging economies such as China and India indicate that they are ready to play their part in tackling the climate change challenge, since they are part of the solution. Large emitters of green house gas need to be involved for negotiations to come to a conclusion. Much progress is still needed until we reach an international agreement that covers all the world’s countries and that is strong enough to tackle climate change effectively and is equitable enough to gain the sympathy of all countries.

This paper argues that the Kyoto Protocol1 to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)2 was doomed to face serious difficulties ab initio because it places the responsibility of reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions only with developed countries (Annex I countries)3 as if they were the only sinners of climate change. A more plausible solution to reduce GHG emissions (which is the whole purpose of this exercise) is to involve major GHG emitters, irrespective of their GDP. The section also proposes using the experience of trade agreements as a model for reaching a global climate treaty, since sometimes the very same people are at the negotiating table for trade and environmental issues.

The Kyoto Protocol is a highly-centralized, top-down agreement5 on climate change which has proven to be very rigid in its approach to reducing GHG emissions.6 For the purposes of GHG emission reduction, the UNFCCC divides the world into Annex I countries (or developed countries)7 and developing countries, legally binding only Annex I countries to reduce their GHG emissions by a certain deadline.8 Why so? Because seen retrospectively, rich countries have been the major polluters; they are responsible for most of the GHG emissions, and have the financial and technological means to tackle climate change.

However, instead of asking only Annex I countries to reduce GHG emissions, this section argues that a better (and arguably fairer)9 way to tackle the climate change issue today is by bringing together the major GHG emitters, irrespective of their GDP.10 Why? Because the Kyoto Protocol’s stipulation that only Annex I countries reduce their GHG emissions does not reflect today’s or tomorrow’s climate change reality. It is not enough to ask only Annex I countries to reduce their GHG emissions11 if the aim is to solve the climate issue. Major developing countries which are also major GHG emitters should be asked to reduce their GHG emissions. Why? Seen prospectively, climate change is a developing-countries problem, as predictions indicate that, in the near future, developing countries will be the major polluters (see Figure 1) as well as the major victims of the consequences of climate change, especially countries near the equator.12 Moreover, developing countries account for roughly an equal quantity of emissions as developed countries and will account for more than 75% of emissions growth in the next 25 years.

Governance And Public Policy Journal, National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, Swarnajayanti Gram Swarojgar Yojana, Government Policy, Microfinance Programme, Social Exclusion, Microfinance System, Commercial Banks, Development Projects, Econometric Analysis, Decision-Making Processes, Infrastructure Development.