Notwithstanding the similarities between the problems of ozone depletion and climate change, the Montreal Protocol has proved a stunning success, and the Kyoto Protocol has largely failed. The American posture, and hence the fate of the two Protocols, was largely determined by perceived benefits and costs. For those who are concerned about the risks of climate change, it is worth pointing out that the United States has been a principal contributor to those risks, and that the nation's economic self-interest does not exhaust its moral obligations. To the extent that the citizens of the United States have benefitted from activities that inflict significant harms on other nations, those citizens are properly asked to help-through reducing their own emissions, through paying other nations to reduce theirs, and through payments to ease adaptation. In addition, political pressure, including moral convictions, can play a role.rnBut on the basis of tales of the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Protocols, it is best to assume that domestic self-interest will continue to be an important motivating force. The position of the United States will not shift unless the perceived domestic benefits of emissions reductions increasernor the perceived domestic costs drop, perhaps as a result of technological innovation. It follows that for the future, the task is to devise an international agreement that resemblesrnthe Montreal Protocol in one critical respect: its signatories, including the United States, have reason to believe that they will gain more than they will lose.
展开▼
