From Leader To Laggard - The Changing Role Of U.S. Leadership And The Kyoto Protocol

Former U.S. Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright, once said that "We are the indispensable nation. We stand tall. We see further into the future." Now, eight years after her proclamation, U.S. "indispensability" is a topic very well-open to debate. The United States has long been considered to be the leading actor on the world stage. Now it looks like the international community has grown weary of being audience to the increasingly one-nation "play." The administration under George W. Bush has been rife with decision-making outside of international interests and involvement, which includes issues of immense global concern. One of the most heated of these concerns is global climate change, a matter that is tackled in the Kyoto Protocol. Almost every nation has signed onto the treaty, including every industrialized nation except for one - the United States, the nation once expected to lead prevention measures on global climate change. The Bush Administration's decision to disregard the Kyoto Protocol has elicited international criticism of the U.S. as a trustworthy global leader.

To understand why the U.S. is expected to participate and lead the Kyoto Protocol, one must examine its roots, implications, and its striking relativity to the U.S. The Kyoto Protocol is a pact formed in 1997, aimed at reducing environmentally harmful greenhouse gases emitted by developed nations to 5% below 1990 levels by the year 2008. It is an agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), born out of the growing concern that unchecked carbon dioxide missions will lead to violent storms, droughts, melting ice caps, and other disastrous events (Guardian Unlimited, 2005). In order to achieve the goals set in the protocol, participating nations engage in emissions trading (selling "surplus" reductions to other nations that will exceed their emissions cap), the development of alternative power sources (such as solar and wind), and implementation of pro-environmental, anti-carbon measures either domestically or in developing nations, through forest-planting, technology transfers, and so forth (CAN International, 2005). As of December 2007, 175 nations have ratified the treaty, with Australia as the most recent addition. This means that the United States is now the only industrialized nation not to come on board, presenting a major problem; the U.S. is the highest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions in the world, accounting for about 25% of emissions worldwide. The Kyoto Protocol is not a perfect plan, but it is the first step towards effectively handling the issue of global climate change, and thus calls for lowering emissions much below the recommended cuts made by the scientific community. In addition, the exemption of China and India, both developing but high carbon-emitting societies, has been a point of contention. However, to abandon the plan altogether would be disastrous; it provides a framework upon which new and improved climate change treaties will be made in 2012, when the Kyoto Protocol expires. Additionally, without US participation, any hope for progress made from the protocol is "virtually obsolete" (BBC News, 2005). Thus, in spite of some flaws, the Kyoto Protocol still represents a major international negotiation working to benefit the planet as a whole; Bush has chosen to disregard the mounting international pressure to cooperate.

Even in the absence of US participation, the industrialized nations of the world and the EU in particular have made impressive strides forward. When President Bush made it very clear early on that the US would not be a part of the Kyoto Protocol, the EU did not back down from pursuing the treaty; this decision was politically significant during an American presidency that so avidly favors unilateral, one-sided action. As Tony Karon of Time magazine believes, "The determination of the nations of the industrialized world to hang in and negotiate a binding treaty even after it had been nixed by the 'indispensable nation' suggests that we may have entered a new era in international affairs... the Kyoto decision will have given the Europeans and other industrialized nations a sense of collective power and confidence to act independently of the U.S. that is likely to grow" (2001). One year after the treaty had gone into action, with legal force to back it, the UN Climate Change Secretariat affirmed that the targets set for 2012 are well on their way to being met. The relative success being made without the US, paired with the heavy interdependence between the Kyoto parties, has made for a clear divide between the US and the rest of the world over this issue, and major negotiations are not being made to succumb to the wills of the Bush administration. Former English Prime Minister Tony Blair has said, "[I]f America wants the rest of the world to be part of the agenda it has set, it must be part of [the rest of the world's] agenda, too" (Ramakrishna, 2005). Even some countries not bound to the Kyoto Protocol, because of their status as still-developing, have taken actions to curb climate change. China, for example, has placed more stringent fuel policies on new cars than the United States has, and is embarking on a plan to boost nationwide energy efficiency by 20% by the year 2010 (Clayon, 2007). The proactivity of nations not expected to contribute the way the US is expected to arouses further distaste for America's stance. After all, how can the United States maintain credibility as leader of the international community, having stalled and quibbled over such a major world issue? (Center for American Progress, 2004). Even domestically, the United States has fairly strong opposition in withholding from the Kyoto Protocol. Former vice president Al Gore is a strong advocate of the treaty and voice for global climate prevention, and his recent win of the Nobel-prize signifies how important the subject is becoming in the world. Senator Dianne Feinstein from California and other assenting senators put forth a resolution in 2005, calling for US participation and the need to lead others by example. Feinstein stated, "By not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, we have sent a harsh message to the world that the largest emitter and contributor to global warming refuses to participate in a worldwide program aimed at reducing greenhouse gases" (Feinstein, 2005). Unrest has come from abroad and at home over this unpopular decision, leaving the US with a tarnished image in need of repair. In fact, it may be contributing largely to a decline of American influence with its allies.

While the Bush administration has presented its frustrations with the treaty, it is clear that the greater evil is in avoiding it, especially when no alternative and effective policy has been put in its place. The first argument the Bush