The American diplomacy around the protocol of Kyoto

During the past forty years, the issue of global warming has gradually been established as the priority of environmental debates to become a major issue in our society for the twenty-first century. The proliferation of conferences, books, and films on this subject reflect the growing interest. The debates are bitter because they raise the question of changing our lifestyle.

It is not compatible with the concept of sustainable development and measures must be taken at all levels to curb the growth in consumption of fossil energy. International cooperation on this context is particularly important. But, as with any multilateral discussion, finding common ground is not clear. How to agree on it by all States around a draft action when it could have a negative impact on their economies? How about certain countries who may prefer to go it alone? How to convince leaders to ask their voters to sacrifice some of their habits for the good of the international community?

How to ask the leaders of the world powers to take part "in sustainable development" while these same countries are already the basis of its poor economic health? But more importantly, how to announce to the less developed countries that they will have to industrialize without increasing their energy expenditure? These are all issues that led the states to consult in the drafting of an international treaty. It was in Kyoto, Japan, that the decision to coordinate efforts in environmental matters took place.

The United States, the largest economy and biggest polluter of the earth, refused to participate despite the concessions made to them. This disclaimer seriously endangers the essence of the treaty for which the participation of all States is essential. Our work will aim to explain the reasons that led Clinton and Bush administrations not to offer the text of the Senate for ratification.

Our work will begin by clarifying the current situation and the danger of global warming and political agreements reached within the framework of the Kyoto treaty. We will then analyze the US position from a societal approach and its history. We will then more specifically study the Clinton and Bush administrations on the environment to determine which political and economic forces have played role in the decision not to ratify the Protocol.

The earth's atmosphere consists of 99% nitrogen and oxygen and 1% of the famous "greenhouse gases". These greenhouse gases are primarily water vapor: carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide (CO2), mainly from the combustion of fossils and deforestation; methane (CH4) which originates primarily from ruminant livestock, landfills of garbage, oil and gas operations; halocarbons (HFCs and PFCs) are gases used in refrigeration systems for air conditioning and cooling; the aerosol propellants, nitrous oxide or nitrous oxide (N2O) from the use of nitrogen fertilizers and chemical processes; sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) used in electrical transformers, etc.

These gases - also called greenhouse gases - are responsible for the well-known phenomenon called "greenhouse effect", causing the restraint of infrared rays in our atmosphere. Indeed, once reflected from the earth, these rays are not lost in space. Instead, they are reflected by the gas layers (pollution) and returned to the ground, reinforcing the effect of direct sunlight. It is estimated today that without this layer of gas, the average temperature on earth would be -18 ° C instead of 15 now.

Tags: Global warming, sustainable development, fossil energy, greenhouse gases¸ methane, sulfur hexafluoride, Kyoto, Japan, international community

[...] He was the anchor point of administration for the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol and sending Clinton to advance the negotiations. Al Gore's career as a whole was marked by his commitment to environmental values. In March 1976, he abandoned his law studies to represent Tennessee in the House of Representatives. He took advantage of this framework to conduct his environmental activism by organizing consultations on toxic wastes from in 78 to 79 and sponsoring the 80 studies on the implications of global climate to encourage investment in green technology. [...]

[...] We even doubted the sincerity of the battle of Al Gore, some of his opponents arguing that Gore had shaped the protocol based on the interests of energy companies, particularly in trying to include nuclear energy for obtaining pollution credits. These critics can still tarnish the battle of Al Gore: the political pressures that led him to set aside his convictions, as evidenced by his actions since the elections in 2000 which he lost. Indeed, since his retirement, Al Gore has been traveling all over the world to broadcast the evidence of global warming. [...]

[...] Part The Kyoto Protocol Global Warming The earth's atmosphere consists of 99% nitrogen and oxygen and of the famous "greenhouse gases". These greenhouse gases are primarily water vapor: carbon dioxide or carbon dioxide mainly from the combustion of fossils and deforestation; methane (CH4) which originates primarily from ruminant livestock, landfills of garbage, oil and gas operations; halocarbons (HFCs and PFCs) are gases used in refrigeration systems for air conditioning and cooling; the aerosol propellants, nitrous oxide or nitrous oxide (N2O) from the use of nitrogen fertilizers and chemical processes; sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) used in electrical transformers, etc. [...]

[...] The positions of the presidents of the United States before the Kyoto Protocol This section will briefly trace the history of American presidents' positions in international cooperation on environmental issues. It runs primarily on the dealings surrounding the "Summits of the Earth”. The period covered here extends from 1972 - when the first Earth Summit was held till 1997 - the date of signature of the protocol. o Richard Nixon (1969-1974) The Republican president set himself up as a fervent supporter of environmental causes. [...]

[...] In these circumstances, proponents of the Kyoto Protocol have reason to worry about the future evolution of the US policy. Will it be possible one day to ignore the structural inertia? The answer should be in complete overhaul of power relations in the political arena. Supported by a change in mentality among the population, the renewal of the political class should help turn good intentions into action. This movement seems already underway: the change towards sustainable development among the majority in Congress leaves hope of a change in the US climate policy. [...]