{
"authors": [
"Daniel Bodansky"
],
"type": "other",
"centerAffiliationAll": "",
"centers": [
"Carnegie Endowment for International Peace"
],
"collections": [],
"englishNewsletterAll": "",
"nonEnglishNewsletterAll": "",
"primaryCenter": "Carnegie Endowment for International Peace",
"programAffiliation": "",
"programs": [],
"projects": [],
"regions": [
"North America",
"United States"
],
"topics": [
"Economy",
"Climate Change"
]
}
REQUIRED IMAGE
In contrast to Kyoto—which tries to construct a comprehensive global architecture all at once—the United States should proceed step by step, starting with domestic action and then moving outward, beginning with like-minded states. It should initially address fewer greenhouse gases and use relatively simple procedures.
The decision by the Bush administration to abandon the Kyoto Protocol and go its own way on climate change is not necessarily the disaster for climate policy often portrayed by environmentalists. Because Kyoto's success is far from assured, having alternative approaches is a prudent hedging strategy. The real disappointment has been the failure of the United States to develop a credible climate change policy of its own.
In contrast to Kyoto—which tries to construct a comprehensive global architecture all at once—the United States should proceed step by step, starting with domestic action and then moving outward, beginning with like-minded states. It should initially address fewer greenhouse gases and use relatively simple procedures. And it should employ a safety valve that caps costs to provide economic predictability and prevent unexpectedly high costs that would tempt countries not to comply. In the long run, the race to combat climate change will go to the most durable policy, not the speediest.
A limited number of print copies are also available.
Request a copy
About the Author
Daniel Bodansky is professor of law at the University of Washington. From August 1999 to June 2001, he served as the climate change coordinator at the U.S. Department of State, where he played a central role in formulating and negotiating U.S. climate change policy. He has followed the climate change negotiations closely since they began in 1991, and he has worked as a consultant for the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. He has published widely on the United Nations climate change regime, including a comprehensive commentary on the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Related resource: Managing Global Issues: Lessons Learned, edited by P.J. Simmons and Chantal de Jonge Oudraat
The Endowment's Global Policy Program addresses the challenges arising from the globalizing processes of economic, political, and technological change. It seeks to integrate the emerging global policy agenda with traditional security concerns and to advance new responses to specific transnational issues.
Daniel Bodansky
Carnegie does not take institutional positions on public policy issues; the views represented herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Carnegie, its staff, or its trustees.
The Plaza Accord was not an externally imposed punishment of Japan but part of a broader restructuring that Japanese economists and policymakers themselves recognized was necessary. Its effects were undermined, however, when Tokyo responded to the resulting slowdown with policies that exacerbated investment, credit expansion, and the very imbalances the adjustment was intended to resolve.
Michael Pettis
The nuclear relationship between China and the United States is increasingly shaped by widening perception gaps rather than deliberate strategic design.
Tong Zhao
China’s banking crisis in the 2000s was resolved by transferring the costs to households through financial repression—a decision that recapitalized the banks while exacerbating the structural imbalances that continue to shape the Chinese economy today.
Michael Pettis
But their "principal to principal" model will only be as effective as the political strength of each leader back home.
Damien Ma
U.S. unpredictability has allowed China to capitalize on its positioning as the “responsible great power”. Paradoxically, the more China wins the perception game, the more likely expectations will rise for Beijing to deliver not just words but to demonstrate with its deeds.
Chong Ja Ian