The Kyoto Protocol, signed in 1997, was widely viewed as badly flawed. Many countries that signed the accord lagged far behind their targets in curbing carbon dioxide emissions. The United States refused even to ratify it. And the treaty gave a pass to major emitters in the developing world like China and India.
This from the NYT piece "Obama’s Backing Raises Hopes for Climate Pact." Since, the article provides a somewhat one-sided view of things, it might be helpful to balance things off a bit, though it might still not convince some people. The basic treaty is the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992), Kyoto but one "protocol" to it. It is put in place to be just one of a developing means to address climate change, to set forth international obligations (i.e. law) for this purpose and develop a continuing effort to address the problem. [See, e.g., Lawless World by Philippe Sands]
As in all such efforts, the going can be slow, complex, and flawed in various respects. But, it helps to look at the big picture, one that cannot be based on one protocol signed over ten years ago. It also helps to consider the basic philosophy of the Kyoto Protocol, provided by this Wikipedia summary:
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to a set of a "common but differentiated responsibilities." The parties agreed that:
1. The largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries;
2. Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low, and
3. The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.
In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were not included in any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the pre-treaty industrialization period. However, even without the commitment to reduce according to the Kyoto target, developing countries do share the common responsibility that all countries have in reducing emissions.
So, it is unfair to say that China, India, etc. are just given "a pass." First, there is a matter of basic fairness. For centuries, developed countries like the U.S. and those in Western Europe have been major emitters of greenhouse gases because of their industrialized state while non-developed countries were way back in the pack. As these countries now move to reach equal development, we are supposed to assume they have equal requirements as those who have been polluting for much much longer? The piggies have the same diet plan as those who just started to pig out?
Second, it is simply not true that the developing countries have no responsibilities. Yes, they were given "a pass" from certain requirements for a limited period of time, but -- this is key -- the whole point of the process is to set up overall rules of obligations to address global environmental problems. The developing countries still have obligations to address the problems, plus a growing obligation to follow the limits of developed nations. Such limits would be negotiated over time, particularly when the first period of Kyoto expires in 2012. It also helps if major players like the U.S. are involved, including using their own trade policies etc. to put pressure on.
Critics of Kyoto can still point to its flaws, but it seems that sometimes we are not truly given the other side. We are not told just what Kyoto was meant to accomplish -- a limited, but still quite important first step.