Jackson Free Press

Kyoto in December 1997 was festive. I was there as an observer for the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, working in tandem with a journalist reporting for Salon.

Kyoto residents, dressed up as rabbits, ducks and trees, marched through the streets in well-choreographed demonstrations. Melting penguin ice sculptures were at the entrance to the newly built conference center. Banners and placards in Japanese and English filled the air. A big pink "CO2" wrapped in chains with a leaf growing out of the last link was ubiquitous.

Then-Vice President Al Gore was a target of the creatively inclined. "Al Gore—Cut GHGs Now or Go Home" was a Japanese favorite.

For the first seven days, the European Union and the United States haggled over how much greenhouse gases to cut and how much flexibility to provide in the treaty. Enviros complained the United States wanted so many loopholes—"flexibility mechanisms" to use the language of the diplomats—that the treaty would be toothless. On the eighth day, Gore flew in and told the U.S. delegation to compromise. Later, Gore symbolically signed the protocol on behalf of the United States.

Gore, who stated in his 1992 book "Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit" that "we must make the rescue of the environment the central organizing principle for civilization," was an enigmatic figure to many attending the Kyoto conference. No political persona understood the issue of climate change better than Gore. Yet the Clinton-Gore administration risked little to move the public on an issue in which the Earth was in balance.

Seven years later, the treaty became international law, ratified by 169 countries. Among developed nations, only the U.S. and Australia have been AWOL (though two weeks ago, Prime Minister-elect Kevin Rudd said he would ratify the protocol.). A core principle of the treaty is that the nations of the world have "common but differentiated responsibilities" in controlling greenhouse-gas emissions. That phrase acknowledges that the developed countries of the world are responsible for most of the damaging emissions in the atmosphere and need to take the first steps to reduce emissions. Developing countries like India and China are not required to meet specific emission targets during the first compliance
period (2008-12).

The Bush administration, however, has argued that the United States should not be compelled to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions if China is not required to do so. And although the United States never officially withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty was never sent to the Senate for ratification. From 1990 to 2005, U.S. emissions have increased by 16.3 percent. The Kyoto Protocol requires a U.S. reduction 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012. Among European nations, only the United Kingdom and Sweden are achieving real reductions in greenhouse gases. The most significant emissions reductions in the last 10 years have come from the collapse of industrial enterprises in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

Looking back 10 years, it would be easy to argue that the Kyoto Protocol has been a failure. Without U.S. participation, it was doomed, at best, to only partial success. However, during the past 10 years the awareness of the impact of climate change and the impetus for strong action has grown. Devastating hurricanes, fierce wildfires, prolonged droughts and cataclysmic flooding have defined what is at stake. The consequence of inaction for the lives of those born in the last decade and their children is now obvious. The significance of Kyoto, beyond the details, is that there is now a viable international legal framework for dealing with climate change.

This month, the nations of the world will come together in Bali, Indonesia, to start negotiating for a post-2012 climate plan. What happens in Bali will set the stage for the next U.S. administration. It is hard to imagine that the U.S. will not want to re-engage the rest of the world on an agreement that is crucial for the health of the planet and future generations.

The magnitude of what needs to be done to stabilize the planet's climate can hardly be understated. We must transform the ways we produce electricity, heat our homes, power our factories and transport ourselves. We need to cut the use of fossil fuels by at least 50 percent, and maybe more, by 2050.

We don't have any time to lose.

Ed Smeloff has 20-plus years of expertise in energy policy and resource planning. He now works as a senior manager for project development at Sharp Solar Energy Solutions Group in Southern California. Visit the National Council for Solar Growth at evergreensolar.com.