Fiona Harvey
A chorus of European governments, United Nations officials and green activists has for months been calling 2007 a pivotal year for climate change.
The reason is that the main provisions of the Kyoto protocol on emissions cuts expire in 2012 and proponents of the treaty say it is essential that talks on a successor begin at a UN meeting in Bali in December. Otherwise, they fear, it may be too late to agree a new treaty in time.
President George W. Bush appears to agree. His offer to engage in climate change talks, which would set a "new framework on greenhouse gases when the Kyoto protocol expires in 2012" before the end of 2008, caught the rest of the world unawares. But opinion is divided over whether this is a genuine attempt to break the deadlock on Kyoto or a delaying tactic intended to avoid binding targets on emissions.
Whichever is true, Mr Bush's proposal - to "set a long-term global goal for reducing greenhouse gases" - marked a sharp departure from the US position on climate change negotiations for the past seven years.
The US delegation at climate talks have specialised in delaying tactics, refusing to sign agreements and walking out of conferences. Negotiators have rejected suggestions that the US should join a "global framework" or agree targets for cutting emissions.
So for Mr Bush to suggest the 15 biggest emitters of greenhouse gases should meet to craft an agreement combining both came as a surprise.
But Mr Bush's proposals leave the most important questions unanswered. These are: the extent of emissions cuts that will be agreed; the deadline for those cuts; the mechanisms by which they will be achieved; and how the burden will be shared between rich and poor countries.
Finding answers to those questions occupied the UN from 1992 to 1997 when Kyoto was signed. Even after that, it took seven years for the treaty to come into force, because of disagreements.
Under Kyoto, the answers were an initial target of 5.0 per cent of emissions cuts compared with 1990 levels by 2012; the mechanism should be emissions trading; and a principle of "common but differentiated responsibility", meaning poor countries bear less of the burden of cuts than rich countries because they have lower per capita emissions and bear less responsibility for past emissions.
The EU has attempted to further this process by arguing for a "stabilisation goal" of a 2°C temperature rise. Scientists warn a 2°C rise is the limit of safety, beyond which climate change becomes catastrophic. To reach the goal, scientists calculate the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide must be stabilised at about 550 parts per million by 2015 to 2020. By working backwards from this goal, the EU reasons, a ceiling on global emissions can be calculated. The only remaining question would be the extent of cuts each country should make.
Mr Bush's detractors argue that in suggesting separate talks, he is setting back progress on climate change by returning to old arguments other nations regarded as settled. Angela Anderson, vice-president of the US National Environmental Trust, said: "He is taking a huge step backwards. He is suggesting voluntary targets. That is not good enough."
The question is whether the US can force a split between the Kyoto countries, encouraging some to abandon the UN process in favour of separate US talks.
José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, made clear last Friday that the EU sees the UN process as final: "I believe this has to remain the basis for setting - and achieving - binding, measurable and enforceable targets."
Mr Bush's detractors must also ponder whether a Democratic president would have attempted to forge a process that could be differentiated from the Kyoto protocol. Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, told the Financial Times that even a Democratic president would have difficulty persuading the US Congress and public to agree to Kyoto, which has become a dirty word. She said the process would have to be called something else.(Under syndication arrangement with FE)