Contrasting approaches: the ozone layer, climate change, and resolving the Kyoto dilemma

In December 1997, representatives of 160 governments agreed in Kyoto on a protocol to the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. It was hoped that the 'Kyoto Protocol' would be a major step forward to mitigate emissions of greenhouse gases. Before long, however, doubts emerged on whether the treaty was implementable. Now, nearly two years later, only 19 small nations have ratified the treaty. None were significant emitters of greenhouse gases. A decade earlier, 24 countries had signed the 'Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer'. This treaty was soon ratified by all of the significant producer and consumer nations, and came into force within only 15 months, has now been ratified by 170 countries, and has entered the annals of diplomacy as a landmark of international cooperation. The unexpected success of the 'Montreal Protocol' was viewed as an encouraging sign that the world would be able to cooperate in addressing such other environmental threats as climate change and diminishing biological diversity. However, negotiations over climate change, from their very inception in 1991, have been marked by persistent disarray on the necessity and feasibility of strong early measures to remodel the world's energy structure. Proponents of decisive action became frustrated by the continuing hesitancy on the diplomatic front - a lack of zeal that was manifested, ironically, by many of the same nations that have been leaders on ozone and other environmental issues, notably Australia, Canada and the United States. (HH)Das 'Kyoto-Protokoll' zur Klimarahmenkonvention wurde nach seiner Verabschiedung im Dezember 1997 von vielen als Meilenstein auf dem Weg zu einer effektiven, international koordinierten Klimapolitik verstanden. Inzwischen mehren sich die Stimmen, daß dieses Protokoll nicht implementiert werden könnte - was dann? Bisher (Stand: Dezember 1999) haben erst 19 Staaten das 'Kyoto-Protokoll' ratifiziert, darunter nicht einer der Großemittenten von Treibhausgasen. Das 'Montrealer Protokoll' zum Schutz der Ozonschicht war dagegen sehr erfolgreich, es wurde in kürzester Zeit ratifiziert. In dieser Analyse werden die Umsetzungsbedingungen dieser beiden Verträge in einen Zusammenhang gestellt und Folgerungen daraus gezogen. Wie wäre das 'Kyoto-Protokoll' noch zu retten - und was wären die Alternativen, wenn dies nicht gelingt? (HH