Climate deal: Is it enough?

After intensive talks in Bonn, 178 countries have agreed how to tackle climate change.

The compromise means the Kyoto Protocol, the global climate treaty, can soon enter into force without the United States which has repudiated it.

The provisions of the protocol as originally agreed four years ago have been considerably watered down to take into account Japan's reservations.

EU officials admit the deal has serious gaps, and the environmental movement Greenpeace described it as "Kyoto Lite", but most agree that it is an important start.

Is a diluted version of Kyoto enough to combat global warming? Can its goals be achieved without the US? Or do the gains outweigh the losses?

Click here to read your previous comments on Kyoto

This Talking Point has now closed. Read a selection of your comments below.

---

It seems clear that the multinationals are behind the Kyoto treaty. They purposely saw to it that India and China were excluded from the agreement since they have been planning to move production there anyway. The effect of the Kyoto agreement will merely be to move greenhouse gas producing industries from nations covered by the treaty (where wages are high) to nations not covered (where wages are low). Yes the multinationals couldn't be more pleased.
R. Barbour, Jeju, Korea

Does anyone really care what our governments think or do?

Scott, UK

Does anyone really care what our governments think or do? We are in the age of the consumer which means each and every one of us can make a difference. If you think that global warming is not an issue, then carry on with your lives as you are now; if you think global warming is an issue, then change your lifestyle - buy products that are environmentally friendly. This will have a much larger impact than any government signing a treaty!
Scott, UK

The US Senate also refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles. Look what a success that turned out to be.
T.J. Cassidy, U.S.A.

Why do we expect the US to follow anything that the rest of the world agrees with?

Marc, UK

Why do we expect the US to follow anything that the rest of the world agrees with? Just recently they've decided they want to carry on making germ/chemical weapons when the rest of the world wants to stop. I get a little worried by the sabre-rattling, isolationist voices we hear from Washington. To someone who's studied the run-up to Germany launching WW2 they sound scarily similar.
Marc, UK

The arguments that man is/is not causing global warming through the production of greenhouse gases are both convincing. I am no scientist - however, my own opinion is that we ARE having a detrimental effect on the environment. But let's just consider this - what right has man to continually use the planet as a convenient dustbin? We consider ourselves to be so superior, but in reality we are a self centred, narrow minded, arrogant species. We pollute the lands, seas and the atmosphere with blatant disregard for life on this planet.

So my point is this - instead of arguing the toss on global warming, it's high time that we REALLY started to clean up our act anyway. It's time to stop a few multi-national companies holding the governments of this world hostage, for the benefit of ALL life on Earth. It's time for clear, objective, unbiased thought. So let's get started...
Paul D. Kay, UK

Investing in better efficiency saves us all money in the long term

David Allsopp, UK

Why on earth do people think that a reduction of a few percent in energy usage is going to hurt them in any significant way? This is the sort of trivial reduction that can be achieved by everyone taking a few less car trips, having a slightly less powerful vehicle, installing better insulation and turning lights and appliances off at work and at home when not needed. Really, is this such a hardship? Investing in better efficiency saves us all money in the long term, even if you don't care about the environmental benefits.
David Allsopp, UK

Kyoto is probably a good thing, but it won't stop the rise. The Earth is still in the process of coming out of the last ice age. Temperatures have been rising for 10000 years. The process will not stop because we puny humans stop pumping CO2. We overestimate our importance in the scheme of things. Bring on the endless summers.
Alex B, Australia

This accord was put together after all night sessions in bars and meeting rooms. This means that a load of overtired and possibly intoxicated junket attendees put together an agreement that was really meaningless. If a commercial deal was completed in this fashion directors and company chairmen would be fired.
Phil Davies, UK

To Jeffery from Kansas City. If I suspected that my body was being poisoned would I just ignore it because no-one could give me "clear scientific proof of its causes" or would I go about trying to alleviate the problem just in case? And if I knew my lungs were being rapidly diminished, would I try and halt this or would I let it go on regardless? The answer seems to be yes in your case, and in fact, this is backed up by the billions who smoke and do no exercise, so I suppose we really are doomed!
Oliver, UK

In response to AH in Scotland. Yes, every nation does look after its own. The world wants the USA to stay in fierce commercial competition with its rivals, yet have us do it with our hands tied. Sounds like a socialist way of revamping the world economy. If the US reduces its output, I'm sure Europe will step right in and try to take away those markets. This whole Kyoto Protocol is a smokescreen. World climate change is inevitable. Once fertile areas in Biblical times are now deserts. There were famines and droughts long before the advent of the internal combustion engine.
Daniel, USA

Get population levels back to a more manageable level

Hazel, UK

Kyoto on its own is not enough. The thorny reason why there is so much undesired emission stems from the demand of Earth's ever burgeoning population. Get population levels back to a more manageable level and the demand for Earth's resources will lessen. Unfortunately, it takes more than just sensible family planning measures; wars, genocide and plagues all play their part. And as previous geological evidence has shown before often a species had a glut before extinction and I am sure human beings are no exception.
Hazel, UK

Economic costs are involved in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. It would appear that the USA would incur substantial economic loss if they comply to the requirements of Kyoto, while China and India, with a total population of over 2 billion, are exempted in toto. This does seem unfair to the US. Kyoto will not succeed if big continents like the USA, China and India do not participate. The USA must not be made to believe that political connivance is in play. In order for Kyoto to succeed, nuances must be identified and managed, together with the minutiae of the agreement and to the full satisfaction of all parties involved. Only then will they show total commitment to its cause.
Freddie Tan, Singapore

The comments of Daniel from the USA concern me somewhat. He appears to be saying that the intention of the USA is to look after its own citizens and not those of the rest of the world. Is this the type of world that my children are going to be brought into? One where you look after one's own, forgetting about the rest. Was Live Aid a mistake I ask Daniel? Let's just look after our own interests and see which is the last nation to fall, shall we? I think not.
AH, Scotland

It is irrelevant whether the U.S. sign up to Kyoto or not; the attitude of their president to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty show that he is willing to ignore treaties that have already been signed. George Bush, and his apologists (some of them on this site), now claim that human actions are not responsible for global warming.

His sudden mastery of climatology is breathtaking when compared to his knowledge of foreign affairs, and his excuse that he "... won't do anything to harm the U.S. economy ..." is naive; does he believe that there will be no U.S. economy for his children and their children? There will not be if he continues to ignore the facts.
M Bell, UK

It may not be a perfect treaty but at least somebody is doing something. However, we wouldn't like to disturb Mr. Bush right now with serious environmental issues as he is too busy working on his anti-ballistic system. I was wondering what the States could do if instead of spending so much money for a useless weapon, they had invested it to support the Kyoto agreement.
M. Papaelias, U.K.

European leaders must be counting their lucky stars that the US is not participating in the Kyoto treaty. It gives them the convenient opportunity to place blame for any failure to protect the environment on the United States while they can continue to defend their own industries. As the Greens vent their hysterics on "the Toxic Texan", European export industries will continue to quietly flood the US with profit making fossil fuel consuming goods.
Brian Ploszaj, South Korea (USA)

One of your contributors suggested that without the US nothing can be decided! How wrong assumption can be. In a democratic world a great majority of 178 countries have already decided. Now it is up to the US administration to accept the voice of democracy or they will be remembered as the Global Dictator, a bully and an outcast. Add also to that the refusal of US to follow the world on the elimination of chemical weapons, disarmament and mines and you get the picture.
AG, Japan

Agreeing to a 2% reduction is one thing, but translating the agreement into practical actions is another.
Sarwat Fatima, Hong Kong

Kyoto would have very little effect for the investment it would require

Adam Ruddermann, Connecticut, USA

When it comes down to the pure numbers, Kyoto would have very little effect for the investment it would require. While I do believe that some sort of plan is necessary, I believe that Europe has used the environment as a platform for anti-American rhetoric for so long that it's generally seen as just that. If Europe would get off its high horse and actually do something (ratify it and implement it, in other words) maybe then we'll pay attention.
Adam Ruddermann, Connecticut, USA

Bush is right, the science is shaky and there is no PROOF that manmade CO2 is causing warming. The Earth has always had cycles of warm and cold. If the US had agreed to Kyoto, the world recession this would have caused would cripple the whole world economy.
G.S. Brown, New Zealand

It'll solve nothing at all. If anything, Kyoto ensures that overall gas emissions will increase, thanks to the developing world getting a free pass. Interesting how no one at all is "pressuring" Beijing to reduce its skyrocketing emissions rates, they are #3 and rising fast, and are exempt from Kyoto entirely. Good job, folks, you guaranteed their becoming the #1 polluter in the world very soon, doubly likely thanks to Kyoto's selective restrictions on some countries, and none on others. Where do you think pollution intensive industry will migrate? Towards countries that are affected by Kyoto? No way.
Stephen, US

Why is nothing mentioned about the 40 years of stratospheric nuclear tests, the development of the HAARP project and the effects these projects have had on global weather patterns? Little wonder the USA is reluctant to sign the Kyoto agreement - they obviously know something the rest of us don't.
JohnD, UK

Everyone is always whining and complaining about what a poor leader the US is

Daniel, USA

Everyone is always whining and complaining about what a poor leader the US is. Since when has the USA ever asked to be your (the world's) leader? The US's intention is to make life better for its citizens, not the rest of the world. The British Empire began to fall when they started trying to protect others' interests. You're only united in your dislike of America. The world is a better place because of American innovation and industrial expansion.
Daniel, USA

I have an idea. Why don't all the countries of the world pick one day each week, such as Sunday, where all industrial production is prohibited. Give the Earth, and its people, one day of rest each week.
Lauren, USA

Since so many in the UK are so vastly committed to saving the planet, maybe they should lead by example. You could start at the source by shutting down your North Sea oil production. That would drive oil prices off the scale and "force" us slothful Americans to our bloated and gout-ridden knees. Of course your economy might suffer for a while, but your nanny-state government could squeeze the people more with excessive gas taxes. Hey maybe you can really get back to earth and save money as well by riding mules in the meantime. Just watch for all that methane though, it's a green house gas too! Suffer and show us the way. Ya'all have fun.
Aaron Wilson, USA

"Global warming" is an unproven theory based on dubious computer models. It's a bit like basing your economic strategy on Tomb Raider. The joke is that European politicians have been taken in by this garbage.
David, UK

The costs of not signing Kyoto are now our concern

Matthew, USA

If the rest of the world had per capita emissions comparable to China and India, we would not be in this mess. India and China represent an insignificant amount of global emissions over the past century. We should be trying to emulate both those countries rather than repeatedly using them as a red herring to further confuse an already complex issue. The administration has abandoned a chance at global leadership. It's a disgrace. The costs of not signing Kyoto are now our concern, and they are far more severe than those associated with signing. Finally most Americans support the protocol. This was the work of the administration, not US citizens.
Matthew, USA

It's a good start and refreshing to see that on an issue as important as this, the rest of the world leaders aren't sitting on their hands waiting for the US of A to say it's OK. I hope it leads to a more balanced world as well as a less polluted one. Sure, the developing world needs more energy and it's a perfect opportunity to implement other more environmentally friendly schemes before they get caught as deeply in the fossil fuel trap that we are.
Rory, UK

There are two possibilities: Either global warming is caused by manmade CO2 or it's caused by something else. If it is caused by CO2 then Kyoto is way too weak to have an impact so it should be discarded. And if it's not caused by CO2, then Kyoto is an expensive waste of money and effort so it should be discarded. So either way I cannot imagine how any sensible person could support it.
Peter Nelson, USA

I don't believe the US will change its stance on any environmental treaty

Paul, Boston, US

I don't believe the US will change its stance on any environmental treaty. We are in the midst of a energy crisis. The US needs to drill, it needs to conserve, and it needs to find alternative sources of energy - all three not just one or two. A fact which has become clear in recent months, and which may have ill effects on the environment, is that the international community relies on the US far more than the US relies on the international community. Our government obviously feels that it can afford to act autonomously and without the best wishes of other governments. I believe that we can as well.
Paul, Boston, US

Having watched environmental moves for much of my life, and having seen the unintended consequences, such as "Biodegradable" detergents leading to eutrophication, or the current MTBE situation, I wonder if we are not being driven off another environmental cliff. There is no guarantee that even total cessation of carbon dioxide emissions would stop whatever degree of global warming is in progress. There were far stronger warming periods during the last interglacial period. Should we allow ourselves to commit to such a far-reaching international shift of priorities without some assurance of success? After all, it was only 30 years ago that climatologists were warning us of the coming of the next ice age.
Paul Burnham, USA

Reviving the Kyoto Treaty in Bonn is a good sign

Mohamed Ali, UK

We have seen the effects of the climate changes, but the question is why do we not do something? Reviving the Kyoto Treaty in Bonn is a good sign, and most countries in the word are now aware of the dangers of climate change and want to do something about it. But it seems to me that countries dominated by big corporations force their leaders not to join the Kyoto protocol.
Mohamed Ali, UK

From the comments on this Talking Point it appears that the Europeans are convinced that current and future global temperatures are and will be heavily influenced by human activity. In our country this is still a hotly debated subject, with new data being released and studied all the time. My question is, why are you convinced and what authority has convinced you?
Jeffrey, Kansas City, MO (USA)

I notice many Americans pointing their fingers at China and India. Just shows you soundbites and spin have usurped facts! The US Energy Department recently reported that China's emissions are down 17% in the past five years. Moreover India and China combined with 2.3 billion population emit less than the US with 285 million people. Most people outside America know these facts and laugh at the spin the US media generates.
Bernard Marcazzo, France

Without the US nothing can be decided

Dominique Bikindou, France/ Germany

I do not think that the Kyoto Protocol is efficient enough. Since the United States decided that it did not want to take part in this protocol, I felt that many other countries were also reluctant to apply the treaty on climate change. What I find sad is the fact that these talks showed that without the US nothing can be decided. Moreover, I have the impression that most of the countries are further preoccupied by the state of their economies.
Dominique Bikindou, France (currently living in Germany)

When the rest of the world finally gets fed up with the Greens telling them what to do, the US will be there with, "I told you so." It's all a big charade.
Tom, USA

While I agree with those who slag off the US, we must remember that the other 75% of greenhouse gases come from the rest of the world, i.e. ourselves, and that we can do something about that 75%. If we collectively reduced our emissions to just under one third of their present value then the US would not just be the world's biggest polluter it would have the dubious accolade of polluting more than everyone else put together.
P, UK

What's needed is more people power

John R, UK

In the final analysis, I suspect that the future of the planet rests with each and every one of us. Politicians are largely self-interested, and many sit on the boards of large corporations. What's needed is more people power: a global mass movement to protect the future of humanity.
John R, UK

As the Chinese proverb goes: a journey of a thousand miles also begins with the first step. Well done world, at least we have a beginning to this journey. Strange how the country with the highest obesity rates in the world cannot even take one step for fear of stumbling (sic).
Bob, UK

The level of sneering anti-Americanism really is repellant! And people wonder why they are increasingly isolationist? Sometimes I am embarassed to be European.
Davy, UK

Addressing Di Stewart's disagreement with pollution permit trading. Actually this is one of the most effective ways to reduce overall pollution and to encourage innovation. I'd also like to say to people outside the US, please keep pressuring, arguing, boycotting, etc. Make our leaders listen to you, because the USA is behaving terribly at this point. Voters like me do a lot of lobbying but we need your continued help too.
Victoria, USA

It's better than no deal at all

John, UK

It's a weak deal that does not go far enough; but it's better than no deal at all. I doubt that it will do much to reduce the effects of man-made climate change, but it keeps the issue in the public eye and gives us the impetus to do more in future.
John, UK

I see that most US contributors of this discussion are mentioning India and China as the most significant world polluters, and unless they get on board, the US has every right not to participate. Is this the kind of leadership that the only remaining superpower is offering? This sounds more like a talk of a spoilt brat than a serious reason for not trying to save what we have left of this planet. I am of the opinion that us, humans, are here just temporarily, and that this what we have should be available unspoilt to the future generations. How selfish to think of this in economic sense, to provide us with better living conditions, and not to care about our children and grandchildren. On the basis of what are they going to be able to sustain their living standards?
Stanisa, Australia

The US once again shows the world who is the leader

Casey, USA

To continue with the football analogy, if your star player, having been bribed to throw the game, bottles out and decides to heckle from the sidelines instead, is that any reason to abandon the game? And if, in spite of this, you secure a very narrow victory, does your star player arrogantly insist that without him the game wasn't worth playing anyway, or hang his head in shame?
Mick B, UK

At the end of the day a 2% reduction is so pathetic it really doesn't matter if the US refuse to co-operate. We need a larger reduction to make a worthwhile change. The US should be forced to co-operate otherwise we will all continue to be bullied by that "oh-so-wonderful" country.
Darren, UK

Countries, particularly European ones are adept at convening and poor in implementations.
BM, Washington DC, USA

I think claims that America won't sign until India and China are held accountable are ludicrous. Facts have proven that America represents 6% of the global population and 25% of toxic emissions. They are the WORST polluters and sniping "we won't join until others have to as well" is childish. Shape up! Take responsibility and set an example. Not only that but each and every modern nation has been allowed a period of industrialisation in order to develop growth. We must, as developed powers, allow these poorer countries to go through the same process in order to let them catch up with the rest of the world. Once they have done so then we can implement policies alongside them. We cannot limit the growth of under-developed nations but we can take responsibility for our emissions as modern industrialised societies.

Putting one's economy or refusing to sign because those still trying to catch up don't is inexcusable. America deserves the scorn it gets. I am just glad the other 94% of the global population thinks that they should act maturely and do something to protect our future - even if it means putting it higher up on the agenda over monetary matters. The 178 countries that signed should be proud of themselves. America should hang its head in shame.
Sharon B, UK

The US should be forced to co-operate otherwise we will all continue to be bullied by that "oh-so-wonderful" country

Darren, UK

I think the world community did the right thing in making a Kyoto deal. I do hope the US follows soon. Many of you should cool off your anti-Americanism and, instead, encourage American environmentalists to put real pressure on Bush. The Earth needs American participation for the environment to improve. Don't count us out yet. You certainly can't deny that Americans have always been great innovators. I would not be surprised if American technology becomes a valuable tool for really cleaning up the planet. Way to go, EU. Here's to a healthier world.
Shawn, Washington DC, USA

One small step - this time in the right direction - for the whole of mankind.
Richard G, UK

Yes Simon (England), this climate deal could very well be seen as the World Cup without US, America not playing ball.
Stefan P., England

The climate deal is a start- now they should start to walk the talk, not just talk the walk. The US has not agreed to it, so the deal will probably fail because the other countries will see US getting away with things, which under the treaty, you wouldn't.
Stefan P., England

It is often said that a journey of 1,000 miles begins with a single step and it is also the case with Kyoto. Even though the cuts in emissions are only small once the whole alternative fuel and technologies industries gets into full swing the reductions will not only be easy to meet but also desirable. I can envisage that the next round of emissions cuts would be far more ambitious. The benefits of reduced reliance on fossil fuels are that not only is the cost of fuel less but we would be less prone to fluctuations in price and availability. After all, who wants an energy crisis - just ask the Americans.
Rod Maxwell, Scotland

Way to go, EU. Here's to a healthier world.

Shawn, Washington DC, USA

To ratify Kyoto would bring significant damage to our economy and quite possibly seriously damage an already weak American commitment to preserving the environment if it's seen as economic suicide. Combine that with Kyoto's loose restrictions on India's and China's production of greenhouse gasses, and indeed the Protocol becomes a political white elephant. Not to denigrate the seriousness of global warming or of environmental proponents, but what may be needed to truly turn around the production of greenhouse gasses is less moral grandstanding and more generosity in developing worldwide green industry rather than pitting nation vs. nation.
Trenton, United States

Diluted it may be, but a bird in the hand is worth many more in the "Bush". Now that we have an agreement, we can work to develop the infrastructure and mechanisms to a) deliver real GHG reductions in the developed world and b) promote technologies in developing countries that will help them to base economic growth on a much more sustainable footing than we managed. George Bush may well protect a few jobs today, but corporate America will soon learn to embrace energy efficiency if it is to be truly competitive in the new World market
Melanie, UK

It seems that the United States is going to be ridiculed for not entering into a treaty which is designed to fight a problem that doesn't exist. When natural factors are removed from the observational temperature record, no trend remains. That means that anthropogenic climate change isn't happening, and any economic losses incurred as a result of climate treaties such as Kyoto will be in vain. Eventually, after the predicted warming fails to materialize, the world will recognize the wisdom of American politicians' rejection of such treaties.
Johne, USA

A bird in the hand is worth many more in the "Bush"

Melanie, UK

It is really a meaningless tokenism. The group was desperate to agree on anything at any cost. I have never thought very much of the Kyoto accord and the religion- like fanaticism surrounding it, but it was clear that the group would have agreed to CO2 increases in order to get an agreement, and make a political point. I think the severe watering down of the agreement robs it of credibility.
George Milton, USA and Italy

This is the same deal Al Gore proposed when he went over to Europe a couple of years ago and the EU was so firm in its opposition to it. This is what makes the EU so hypocritical. They say we can't change this protocol in the least. The next thing you know, they back down and give in. If this new protocol was in effect all along the US would have never of vetoed this. I here that this is a victory for the EU but they just sold out their principles because of a little US pressure. The US once again shows the world who is the leader.
Casey, USA

I really am amused by the complete lack of understanding displayed by those who suggest a boycott of US goods. The fact is, the US gets 11% of its GDP from trade, by far the least of any industrialised nation. Most US foreign trade is with Canada and Mexico whose economies are fully and inseparably integrated with our own.
You want a fight, you've got one. I now own a German automobile, believe, me it will be the last foreign car I'll ever own. As for Kyoto, I'll make you a deal, the US will sign Kyoto and will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 5% when you agree during the same period to reduce your population density by 5%.
Bill Langema, US

Any effort is better than nothing

Eric, Australia

I read the various comments. Most of those pouring scorn are Americans so far. But there are a great many Americans who disagree with Mr Bush and his stance. Perhaps the majority disagrees. Either way, in it's most basic, America should make an effort. At the moment it's the only show in town. You think this is bad for your economy - floods etc are not any better. Let us not forget the insurance companies will have to pay for that and they are the biggest stock investors, not to mention the loss of lives. Any effort is better than nothing.
Eric, Australia

The whole watered down agreement is a sham and President Bush was right refusing to participate in it. Without huge polluters such as China and India the agreement is useless. Besides, even if all countries on earth would sign and implement an agreement requiring 50% real cuts it still would not help much since man-made CO2 amounts to roughly 3% of the total. Since 97% percent is produced naturally should we penalise Mother Nature and demand that she cuts harmful emissions (including volcanic pollutants)?
Mirek Kondracki, USA

Well, at least it has enabled the politicians to come back and spout a lot of hot air

Hugh, UK

Well, at least it has enabled the politicians to come back and spout a lot of hot air telling their electorate how much they have achieved and what wonderful people they are. Apart from that, the whole thing appears to have been a rather expensive and pointless gesture, aimed to make the Americans look silly, rather than to address environmental concerns in a sensible and non-partisan manner.
Hugh, UK

Shawn (USA) says this treaty without the USA is like soccer without a ball. No, Shawn, it is like World Cup soccer without the USA; a great and serious international participation.
Simon, England

This is definitely a good sign. All the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol have at least indicated that global warming is happening and want to take steps to the reduce pollution. I'm sure some countries will not be able to meet even these reduced targets, but in a few years time they might be able to meet them. I hope the EU continues with its original plan to reduce pollution and not take the easy option of saying that we are already within our limits. I'm also glad to see that other nations have decided to proceed with Kyoto, despite America.
Colin, Netherlands

The Kyoto Treaty is tokenism at its very worst

Di Stewart, USA

It's a starting point. Something to add to and extend over the coming years. It's also now something that the US is excluded from. George Bush cannot hope to claim he is world leader while outside an agreement to attempt to safeguard our world. He will be under pressure from the US electorate because of all the industrialised countries in the world, the US is now seen as the only one that endorses unrestricted polluting. Great image for the "clean-cut American boy". I think he will find himself under more pressure than he imagines.
Kathy Sadler, UK

In practical terms this agreement isn't worth the recycled paper its written on. So why have an agreement at all? In a word: ego. The new agreement is nothing more then a diplomatic device designed to save face. A pollution reducing treaty without the participation of the US, is like trying to play soccer without a ball...pointless. Anyone ever wander what happened with that League of Nations thing? Come back in a few years when your ready for a real treaty. One that holds India and China to the same standards as everyone else.
Shawn, Louisville, USA

The Kyoto Treaty is tokenism at its very worst and at best is an appeasement to "green" voters. The whole thing should have been thrown out and rewritten from ground zero. The fact that one party to the Treaty can over pollute and buy "credits" from another less polluting party is laughable. Who is going to enforce this Treaty? Will parties to the treaty who over pollute be fined? Who decides how much? Will fines help global warming. The whole issue is utterly laughable.
Di Stewart, USA

It is a very important step in the right direction. At last the conscience of the world seems to have managed to overcome the boundaries of individual countries. The US, however, seems to have missed a historic opportunity to assert its moral leadership. It made a considerable strategic mistake.
Jennifer, UK

It should not be watered down

Tom OD, UK

As the one country which has not signed up to the Climate Change Treaty, the US is laughing all the way home. It makes no commitments to reduce greenhouse gases, suffers none of the costs of so-doing, and is consequently rewarded by becoming more competitive in world markets. There are only two ways to square the issue. Either a tax is levied on US goods similar to the value of their damage to the environment, or else the world's consumers make a concerted boycott of products manufactured in the USA. Bush has argued all along that he will do nothing that harms US jobs. The only option of the rest of the world is to make sure that doing nothing is the one sure way to harm US jobs.
Andi-Tsuyoshi Williams, Japan

Even if Kyoto-light only isolates the United States, it would still be a huge success for the treaty and the progressive world. The United States were (and are) against the Kyoto treaty because their green industry is in its infancy stage and cannot compete with the highly sophisticated green industries in Europe and Japan. I do think that the EU needs to be aware of Japan's commitment to this treaty though, because even if it is signed and ratified by the Diet (Japan's parliament) it still does not mean that other parts of the Japanese system will adhere to the deal, due to the fact that the buck does not stop anywhere in Japan.
Jose Fernandez, Netherlands

There is no point going into something as vital as this half-heartedly. It should not be watered down and countries who object to parts of the treaty should be forced to accept by sanctions, etc. The long-term effects are far far more important than the short-term economic effects. It would help if America would stop acting like the spoil brat and follow suit with the rest of the world, but then Oil is more important there. So the global warming theory will still be ridiculed when Florida is under water along with a lot of the present East and West Coasts. It's a start and that's something but it should not be watered down because one country does not like it.
Tom OD, UK