Why This Matters

Klein and Beutler express some skepticism about the significance of the High-Level Meeting happening today, and they make some good points. What's happening is basically a form of kabuki. But I talked to a UN official yesterday who was able to explain the significance of the kabuki, and it's a pretty important thing.

The basic shape of the issue goes back to Kyoto and the late 1990s. Everyone knew that that agreement wasn't nearly tough enough to take care of the problem. But the thinking was that if you could get everyone to commit to the principle "reduce carbon emissions to halt global warming" that when the initial measures agreed to proved inadequate, governments would be compelled to step things up. Then came George W. Bush and his decision to "un-sign" Kyoto. Not only did that prevent the USA from moving forward, but it essentially got all the other governments of the world off the hook. With Bush so intransigent of course nothing was going to work.

Meanwhile, there's a need for a successor treaty to Kyoto to govern the world after 2012. The thinking is that it takes two years to negotiate a treaty, and then two years to get it ratified. Thus, we need to start next year at a scheduled meeting in Bali, Indonesia. But if the world's governments sit down in Bali next year cold after years of inactivity, then nothing's going to happen. So there's a kind of kabuki meeting happening this year to get things rolling. Since nothing's going to happen, Bush is willing to participate -- Condi Rice will be at the formal meeting, and Bush himself at an informal one with other heads of government this evening -- but that itself signifies that the process is getting rolling again. The idea, then, is that the next administration will be able to hit the ground running, stepping into a process that's already under way.

Comments

"Then came George W. Bush and his decision to "un-sign" Kyoto."

Then came George W. Bush and his decision not to pretend that the Senate hadn't voted 95-zip to declare that they weren't ratifying that treaty, no way, no how. How is this Bush's fault? Are you under the illusion that the treaty was going to go forward anyway?

Posted by Brett Bellmore | September 24, 2007 9:36 AM

Then came George W. Bush and his decision to "un-sign" Kyoto.

This is just a flat-out lie. Sigh.

Meanwhile, the Kyoto treaty is in effect, right now, with binding requirements on the signatories who have ratified the treaty, George W. Bush or no George W. Bush. And the signatories are (by and large) not living up even to those "inadequate" requirements.

To blame that on George W. Bush is, of course, plain bunk.

Posted by Al | September 24, 2007 9:51 AM

Al and Brett-
You guys are confused about Matt's purpose. He's not getting paid to figure out the truth. He's getting paid to help support the myth (whatever it may be-in this case, GW unsigned Kyoto, in that case, Israelis are bad, or Petraeus is a liar, etc etc). Matt is the kid that throws spaghetti on the wall-if it sticks, an adult (Krugman, Dowd, the DNC, etc) takes it and makes a meal. He's a propagandizer-just like the rest of them (Left and Right). Arguing about posts here is like arguing about your favorite flavor of ice cream.

Sk

Posted by Sk | September 24, 2007 10:02 AM

1. From outside the US, it did look as if Bush had 'un-signed Kyoto'.

2. US withdrawal did damage Kyoto.

3. Kyoto *was* always regarded as a first step.

4. Matt's post is a reasonable reflection of what the Germans, Brits etc are hoping for from the High Level Meeting.

Apart from that, I totally agree with the other commenters.

Posted by DavidS | September 24, 2007 10:40 AM

The Democrats were duped by (take you pick here (Big Oil, then Gov. Bush, K. Rove. etc) into voting against the Kyotot ratification just like they were for the Iraq war vote. Don't you remember all the arm twisting the Goracle - then President of the Senate - did to get thee US Senate on board with this wonderful treaty?

Yglesias puts up his share of absurd posts, this one might take the cake.

Posted by JBJB | September 24, 2007 10:42 AM

As other commenters have noted, the notion that George Bush "un-signed" Kyoto is ludicrous. Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy, Paul Wellstone, Tom Daschle, Russ Feingold, John Kerry, Pat Leahy, Pat Moynahan, and every other Senate Democrat voted for a resolution stating they would not ratify a treaty that did not impose limitations on developing countries. Clinton never even submitted it to the Senate to be voted down.

Posted by right | September 24, 2007 10:49 AM

The real story behind that 95-0 vote in the Senate is that Kyoto got zero support from the Clinton White House, which always saw the environment as Al Gore's weird little pet issue. While Gore was flying to Japan to work on the treaty, the White House was supposed to be setting up meetings with shaky Dem senators who'd been getting anti-Kyoto talking points from energy lobbyists and organized labor telling them it'd sink the economy. The White House never sent anyone to the meetings, and the Senate Dems blew Kyoto off.

Posted by Christmas | September 24, 2007 11:38 AM

Then came George W. Bush and his decision to "un-sign" Kyoto.
***********************************************
Must agree this is most deceptive. You can't "unsign" an unratified treaty that the Senate unanimously voted they would never ratify prior to Bush's coming into office.

Posted by Campesino | September 24, 2007 12:28 PM

Matt - Everyone knew that that agreement wasn't nearly tough enough to take care of the problem. But the thinking was that if you could get everyone to commit to the principle "reduce carbon emissions to halt global warming" that when the initial measures agreed to proved inadequate, governments would be compelled to step things up. Then came George W. Bush and his decision to "un-sign" Kyoto.

One of the rare times I have seen Matt make flat-out dishonest propaganda. He knows full well that there was never a ratified treaty to unsign.

Why the Senate refused to ratify by 95-0 is that everyone knew it was a bad treaty. The Clinton Administration knew that to get China to even show up, that promises had been made by the Euroweenies that China would be exempt, along with developing nations. And that the Euros had set it up so that compliance with 1990 levels of carbon emission was easiest for slow economic growth countries with shrinking populations - just so coincidentally - Europe!
But is was Gore's pet cause so Clinton sent his loose cannon off to his Crusade with zero Clinton support, and Gore came home with such a piece of dogshit "global agreement" that Gore, as President of the Senate, was unable to get a single vote for his Great International Achievement.

Later, partisan spinmasters made him the Goracle and blamed Bush for the Senate under Clinton rejecting the treaty that targeted the USA with the worst burden. Of course Bush didn't help himself politically by tying his position into one of arrogant rejection of the global warming problem and dismissal of "know-knothing pointy-headed scientists" demanded by the ill-educated Fundies in his Base (where it is as much an article of religious faith that there is no such thing as global warming - as believing Terri Schiavo was just as cognitively aware as they were)

Posted by Chris Ford | September 24, 2007 1:44 PM

What with all the warming and stuff, I don't think the world's governments will be sittting down cold in Bali next year.

Posted by bobbo | September 24, 2007 2:18 PM

Yes, to say that Bush decided to "un-sign" Kyoto is a complete misrepresentation. Clinton and the Democrats never even tried to get it ratified in the first place.

By the way, according to this piece, the EU is failing miserably at meeting its Kyoto targets. If Europe lacks the political and popular will to make even these "first step" emissions reductions (which everyone agrees would have virtually no impact on GHG concentrations even if fully implemented), then it does not bode well for the future of this strategy.

Posted by Mixner | September 24, 2007 2:38 PM

Uh oh. Houston, we have a problem.

The next administration will build on what the Bushies have done?

Does. Not. Compute.

Posted by serial catowner | September 24, 2007 8:05 PM

"What's happening is basically a form of kabuki. But I talked to a UN official yesterday who was able to explain the significance of the kabuki, and it's a pretty important thing."

So you are taking a UN official at his word that the kabuki in which he is personally invested is important?

What about those poor Nigerians who have $10,000,000 in the bank and just need your $5,000 to get through customs. Do you take them at their word too?

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | September 25, 2007 3:35 AM