A Brief History of the United States and the UN Climate Change Negotiations
With or without a seat at the table, the U.S. has always been the biggest blocker to progress on climate change.
1992
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is agreed at the Rio Earth Summit. Developed countries commit to return emissions “by the end of the present decade [2000]… to their 1990 levels” (Articles 4.2(a) and (b)). The U.S. signs and ratifies the Convention [1]. President George H.W. Bush says “The American way of life is not up for negotiation” [2].
1994
Convention enters into force 21 March 1994.
1995
COP1 in Berlin reviews developed country commitments. Parties conclude that these commitments “are not adequate”, and begin a process to “take appropriate action for the period beyond 2000, including the strengthening of the commitments of the [developed country] Parties … in Article 4, paragraph 2(a) and (b), through the adoption of a protocol or another legal instrument”. This mandate — known as the “Berlin Mandate” — leads to negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol [3].
1997
COP3 in Kyoto concludes negotiations and to adopts the Kyoto Protocol, which commits developed countries to reduce emissions by 5.2% below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. U.S. weakens Protocol during negotiations by, among other things, downgrading a “clean development” compliance fund and advocating carbon market “flexibility mechanisms”, which subsequently fail [4].
1997
President Clinton signs Kyoto Protocol. U.S. Senate declines to ratify Kyoto Protocol. Passes Byrd-Hagel resolution (by vote of 95–0) declining to ratify any treaty which:
(A) Mandate(s) new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States [5].
2001
President George W. Bush opposes Kyoto Protocol [6] and withdraws U.S. signature [7]. (Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties a signatory to a treaty is legally bound to “refrain from acts which would defeat the object or purpose of a treaty” [8]).
(The U.S. non-ratification of Kyoto Protocol is consistent with U.S. practice of not signing or ratifying other major agreements including: UN Convention on the Law of the Sea; Convention on the Rights of the Child (193 Parties); Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (187 Parties); Mine Ban Treaty (159 Parties); Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (112 Parties); Convention on Cluster Munitions (71 Parties); Optional Protocol to the Convention against Torture (63 Parties); International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (32 Parties); and others [9]).
2005
Kyoto Protocol enters into force 16 February 2005 (currently 192 Parties).
2007
COP13 adopts Bali Action Plan and mandates negotiation of an agreed outcome, to be adopted at the Copenhagen Conference in 2009. Upon U.S. insistence, the plan refers to “commitments and actions” by developed countries, setting the stage for the U.S. to undertake “actions” rather than legally binding “commitments”. U.S. opposes Bali Action Plan, but reconsiders when Papua New Guinea demands it leads or “gets out of the way” [10].
2009
Concerns are raised by Europeans that the U.S. is seeking to weaken the Copenhagen deal [11].
2009
U.S. Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, receives media accolades for proposing a goal of “mobilizing” $100 billion by 2020 [12], a sum considerably (around $40 billion) lower than €100 billion proposed by the EU [13]. Neither figure bears any relation to funds actually required in developing countries, which measure in the trillions [14]. Analysis shows U.S. and other developed countries using flawed methodology to demonstrate funds are delivered [15].
2009
At COP15 in Copenhagen, President Obama announces the Copenhagen Accord [16], a non-binding deal negotiated outside the formal UN process, and then departs for Washington DC, before the text is circulated to around 140 parties and formally tabled in the UN process. In the absence of consensus, the Copenhagen Accord is merely “noted” [17]. The Accord and process leading to it are criticized and the Copenhagen Conference is widely considered a set-back in multilateral climate diplomacy [18].
2010
U.S. sets emissions reduction target of 17% by 2020 from 2005 levels. (By characterizing its target against 2005 versus 1990 benchmark, the U.S. gives the impression of greater ambition. Against 1990 levels, the U.S. reductions would be a mere 4% by 2020) [19].
2010
Leaked U.S. communications strategy indicates U.S. government efforts to “Reinforce the perception that the U.S. is constructively engaged in UN negotiations in an effort to produce a global regime to combat climate change” [20].
2010
U.S. Climate Envoy calls for a “new paradigm of climate diplomacy” signalling a “bottom up architecture” based on “domestically derived mitigation commitments” with the “same elements binding on all countries, except the least developed” [21]. Analysis demonstrates U.S. position avoids key elements of a legally binding treaty [22].
2010
COP16 in Cancun “advances each of the core elements of the Copenhagen Accord” according to UN Climate Envoy, Todd Stern, who says that finance is a “core part of the deal” including fast-start finance of 30 billion during 2010–2012 [23]. Analysis subsequently shows as little as 9–11% of finance actually delivered by U.S. and other developed countries to developing countries is new and additional [24].
2011
COP17 in Durban establishes “Durban Platform” and mandate for a new “protocol, another legal instrument or an agreed outcome with legal force under the Convention applicable to all Parties”, leading to negotiation of the Paris Agreement in 2015. US envoy opposes references in the plan to the Convention’s principles saying “if equity is in, we’re out” [25].
2011
Canada withdraws from the Kyoto Protocol, following U.S. example [26]. Canadian Prime Minister cites that the protocol does not cover United States and China [27]. Canada previously weakened its climate pledge from 20% below 2006 levels to 17% below 2005 levels “to be aligned with the final economy-wide emission emissions target of the United States in enacted legislation” [28].
2012
COP18 in Doha concludes negotiations under the Bali Action Plan, and under the Kyoto Protocol for a second period of commitments from 2012 to 2020. Drawing on examples of U.S. and Canada, other countries Japan, New Zealand and Russia decline to submit commitments for the second period, further undermining the Kyoto Protocol [29].
2013
COP19 in Warsaw consolidates notion of “nationally determined contributions [30] (consistent with U.S. interest in avoiding internationally determined and binding mitigation targets) while also applying the term to developed and developing countries (consistent with U.S. interest in blurring the distinction between developed and developing countries). U.S. opposes outcomes on loss and damage for most vulnerable countries [31], but ultimately relents enabling establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage [32].
2014
Documents leaked by Edward Snowden show U.S. spied on other countries during Copenhagen Conference, further undermining trust in U.S. and process [33].
2014
U.S. and China issue joint announcement on climate change, in which U.S. weakens its Copenhagen Accord emission reduction pledge from 30% by 2025 [34] to 26–28% by 2025 [35]. 20 countries including the U.S., other developed and some developing countries come forward to financially support the Green Climate Fund [36].
2014
COP20 in Lima continues negotiations under Durban Platform. U.S. and other developed countries seek to narrow focus of “intended nationally determined contributions” to mitigation [37] versus adaptation, finance, technology, capacity and other issues (as a means of focusing the future Paris Agreement towards this topic). Developing countries successful in ensuring outcome will address all issues in a “balanced manner” and that adaptation can be included as component of national contributions.
2015
Prior to COP21, the U.S. Co-Chair of negotiations under the Durban Platform (Dan Reifsnyder) and his Algerian countrpart (Ahmed Djoglaf) release a draft negotiating text that is considered so biased towards the U.S. position that it is widely referred to as “the U.S. text”. The text is opposed by all G77 members who demand that it is rebalanced. G77 Chair, Ambassador Diseko of South Africa, likened the systematic exclusion of developing countries views as “just like apartheid” [38].
2015
Before and during COP21 in Paris U.S. continues to seek an outcome focused on mitigation and transparency, while seeking to avoid internationally-binding mitigation outcomes, and to weaken commitments on adaptation, loss and damage, finance, technology and capacity building. U.S. joins a Coalition of High Ambition with the EU and other developing countries, announcing it as a group of more than 90 countries [39] which turns out upon closer examination to involve, at the time, around 15 countries [40] U.S. also avoids controversy with vulnerable countries over loss and damage by convincing them to forego language on legal liability and compensation, in favor of an aspirational reference to 1.5 degrees C in the Paris Agreement [41].
2015
Paris Conference concludes the Paris Agreement, widely hailed as a diplomatic success. The Agreement, however, consolidates the U.S. position by ensuring contributions are “nationally determined” and non-internationally binding — effectively gutting the climate regime for wealthy industrialized countries, in favor of a weak international agreement that lacks binding mitigation targets, includes weak rules on adaptation, finance, technology, and capacity building, and requires the United States to undertake no climate legislation, thus enabling President Obama to sign it through Executive Order (and so enabling President Trump to initiate withdrawal the same way).
2017
President Trump announces withdrawal from Paris Agreement.
References
1 http://unfccc.int/tools_xml/country_U.S..html
2 Scientific American, Climate Negotiations Fail to Keep Pace with Science, at https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-negotiations-fail/; The Economist, A Greener Bush, at http://www.economist.com/node/1576767
3 UNFCCC at https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop1/07a01.pdf
4 The Guardian, Why are carbon markets failing?, at https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/blog/why-are-carbon-markets-failing. See also: http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21576388-failure-reform-europes-carbon-market-will-reverberate-round-world-ets. See also: http://theconversation.com/even-the-pope-gets-it-carbon-markets-wont-fix-the-climate-38950
5 S. Res. 98, 105th Cong. (1997).
6 President Bush, Letter to Members of the Senate, http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=45811
7 The Guardian, Bush kills global warming treaty, at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2001/mar/29/globalwarming.usnews; See also: https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn566-heat-is-on/
8 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, Article 18. See: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-19291-3_20
9 See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_treaties_unsigned_or_unratified_by_the_United_States. See also: America the Exception: 7 other treaties the U.S. hasn’t signed http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/05/17/america-the-exception-7-other-treaties-the-u-s-hasnt-ratified/
10 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1fwrWc-g_A
11 See, The Guardian, U.S. planning to weaken Copenhagen climate deal, Europe warns, at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/sep/15/europe-us-copenhagen
12 New York Times, Hilary Clinton Pledges $100B for Developing Countries, at: http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/12/17/17climatewire-hillary-clinton-pledges-100b-for-developing-96794.html?pagewanted=all
13 See: https://euobserver.com/economic/29171
14 The Guardian, Poor countries must find $4tn by 2030 to avert catastrophe, says study, at: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2016/apr/22/climate-change-study-poor-countries-4tn-2030-avert-catastrophe-paris-agreement
15 Business Standard, Developing countries irked by report saying that climate funds delivered, at: http://www.business-standard.com/article/international/developing-countries-irked-by-report-saying-climate-change-funds-delivered-115102200764_1.html. See also: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-100-billion-climate-question/, and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/paris-climate-talks-indian-officials-accuse-rich-countries-of-exaggerating-climate-aid
16 The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Remarks by the President during press availability in Copenhagen, https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-during-press-availability-copenhagen
17 http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5262.php; See also: http://unfccc.int/files/parties_and_observers/notifications/application/pdf/100125_noti_clarification.pdf
18 The Guardian, Blame Denmark, not China, for Copenhagen failure, at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/28/copenhagen-denmark-china. See also: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/12/copenhagen-destroyed-danish-draft-leak. See also: The Guardian, Low targets, goals dropped: Copenhagen ends in failure, at https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal
19 U.S. submission to UNFCCC, at: http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_15/copenhagen_accord/application/pdf/unitedstatescphaccord_app.1.pdf See also: Washington Post, U.S. pledges 17 percent emissions reduction by 2020, at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/28/AR2010012803632.html
20 The Guardian, Confidential document reveals Obama’s hardline U.S. climate talk strategy, at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/apr/12/us-document-strategy-climate-talks
21 Todd Stern, Speech at Brookings Institution, 8 May 2010
22 See http://climate-justice.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/U.S.Assessment_Final.pdf
23 ENS-Newswire, Cancun Climate Outcome ‘Consistent With U.S. Objectives, at: http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/dec2010/2010-12-14-02.html
24 African Climate Policy Center, Fast-Start Finance: Lessons for Long-term Climate Finance under UNFCCC, at http://www1.uneca.org/Portals/acpc/documents/Fast-start.pdf
25 US department of state, at: https://2009-2017.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2011/12/178699.htm. See also: https://www.ethicsandinternationalaffairs.org/2013/if-equitys-in-were-out-scope-for-fairness-in-the-next-global-climate-agreement/
26 Reuters, Canada’s Kyoto withdrawal began when Bush bolted, at http://www.reuters.com/article/us-kyoto-withdrawal-idU.S.TRE7BB1X420111213
27 The Economist, Kyoto and out, at http://www.economist.com/node/21541849 See also: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/science-environment-15930562; and http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/science-environment-16075719 ((Note China has ratified the Kyoto Protocol but does not have quantified legally binding targets under the protocol. As confirmed by Todd Stern, U.S. Climate Envoy, Keynote Address to Brooking Conference, 18 May 2010, “the conventional wisdom that developed countries have legally binding requirements while developing countries are free to act or not on a purely voluntary basis is a myth. Both categories of countries have legally binding commitments under the Framework Convention and the Kyoto Protocol. The obligations for developed countries, especially under Kyoto, are certainly more specific, but developing countries have legally binding obligations to formulate, implement and publish their mitigation programs. “
28 See: http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5264.php. See also: http://greenpolicyprof.org/wordpress/?p=399
29 See: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/Quick_Guides/QG-DohaAmendment
30 Decision 1/CP.19, paragraph 2(b), at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf;
31 The Hindu, U.S. to oppose mechanism to fund climate change adaptation in poor nations, at: http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/us-to-oppose-mechanism-to-fund-climate-change-adaptation-in-poor-nations/article5351162.ece. See also: http://theconversation.com/rich-and-poor-countries-face-off-over-loss-and-damage-caused-by-climate-change-51841 and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2013/nov/25/climate-change-warsaw-rich-countries-blame-paris-deal
32 Decision 2/CP.19, at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2013/cop19/eng/10a01.pdf
33 The Guardian, Snowden revelations of NSA spying on Copenhagen climate talks spark anger, at: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/30/snowden-nsa-spying-copenhagen-climate-talks. See also: https://thinkprogress.org/snowden-documents-reveal-u-s-spied-during-2009-copenhagen-climate-summit-fbb2645d8138
34 See, U.S. Pledge under Copenhagen Accord, at: http://unfccc.int/meetings/copenhagen_dec_2009/items/5264.php; and U.S. pledge under U.S.-China joint announcement: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change
35 U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change at: https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2014/11/11/us-china-joint-announcement-climate-change
36 Newsweek, Climate change: How to make sense of the Lima climate talks, at: http://www.newsweek.com/climate-change-how-make-sense-lima-talks-289531
37 Id.
38 Reuters, South Africa likens draft climate deal to apartheid, at: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-summit-talks-idUSKCN0SD1U920151019. See also: http://www.climatechangenews.com/2015/10/19/un-climate-text-swells-as-g77-flexes-muscles-in-bonn/
39 BBC, COP21: U.S. joins ‘high ambition coalition’ for climate deal, at: http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35057282
40 Business Standard, Coalition led by EU and U.S. a sham?, at: http://www.business-standard.com/article/current-affairs/coalition-led-by-eu-and-us-a-sham-115121001307_1.html
41 https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-dealing-with-the-loss-and-damage-caused-by-climate-change
