There has to be some kind of international agreement. Climate chaos is a global problem which needs some kind of global framework and global solution. Unilateralism won't work- we need something that ties in all countries, especially the US. Also, we need a negotiated agreement that is supported by all countries, and responds progressively to existing inequalities. Otherwise the rich world will bulldoze everyone else as usual.

Some people may prefer to work towards changing the economic and political system- fair enough, but it's not enough. Even if global capitalism collapsed tomorrow (which is unlikely, let's face it), we'd still be left with the climatic effects of previous emissions, and there'd still be six to ten billion people burning things.

It's taken 13 years to get this far. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was created in 1988. The Framework Convention on Climate Change was signed at Rio in 1992. The Kyoto Protocol was agreed in 1997-agreed, but not ratified. Ratification is the crucial step where countries say they'll actually do it. The last four years have been quibbling over the details (see below). Many people say "yes it's shit, but it is a start and we can't afford to lose another 13 years".

It will be renegotiated before 2010. The Kyoto Protocol sets targets for emissions reductions to be implemented by 2008-2010. Thereafter new targets are needed. So, there is an argument for getting an agreement now, even if it's weak, so that there is something already in place to renegotiate before 2010 ç rather than going back to scratch.

Some things in the Protocol are quite good (maybe).
Firstly the Protocol does talk about the real need- cutting emissions-within a relatively short timespan (10 years). It's rare for a UN agreement to be so specific and set such clear timescales. Secondly, it does recognise that it's the rich industrialised countries that have created this problem, so they are the only ones at this stage with targets for reducing emissions. There is a small recognition of global equity issues there. Thirdly, the Protocol does call for technological information (eg concerning solar power) to be shared even when it's privately owned.

The targets are crap. The average reduction on 1990 levels is 5.2%. Australia, Norway and Iceland even negotiated increases (8,10 and 1% respectively). The scientists say the whole world needs to reduce emissions by at least 60% on 1990 levels simply to stabilise atmospheric concentrations. Seeing that the rich world is responsible, we're going to have to cut emissions by up to 90%. 5.2% is a pretty pathetic start even without the loopholes.

Carbon Trading. The greatest weakness of the Protocol may be that, in its eagerness to allow "flexible mechanisms" for countries to meet their targets, it proposed an international commodity market in carbon. As soon as it did this, the negotiations became dominated by the vested interests of financiers pushing for a new market opportunity. The "flex-mechs" are vast creative accounting loopholes:

Land use changes and forestry. Under articles 3.3 and 3.4, countries can offset domestic land use changes and reforestation against their reductions. It's another huge accounting fiddle, strongly favoured by forested countries like the US and Canada, which allows countries to include changes in land use and forest cover which were happening anyway.

Double counting of target gases. CFCs are included in the basket of six greenhouse gases by which emissions targets are set. Yes, CFCs are powerful greenhouse gases but everyone can double count the reductions they agreed to make anyway in the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting Substances. Anything to avoid reductions in CO2.

Air transport and shipping are excluded from the targets. Emissions from air transport and shipping are not accounted to individual countries, and so do not appear in any national strategy for reducing emissions. On top of the tax-free fuel, its another huge incentive for international air transport. Planes are extremely polluting and the fastest growing source of emissions. Crazy.

No one has ratified it anyway. The argument that "it's better than nothing" is looking pretty lame given that to date Romania is still the only country with an emissions target that has formally ratified it. The US spent years doing everything it could to weaken it, and then refused to sign it anyway.

The Third World is not in it. The Third World has been marginalised at the talks by the argument that the rich world has the greatest responsibility for doing something. True up to a point, but Third World emissions are increasing rapidly and are already above the sustainable per-capita level. Any long term solution must be just and must involve everyone.

Who controls it and who polices it?
Implementation is still unresolved, but it's pretty certain that it will remain as it is now- controlled by a small group of powerful rich nations and be administered to serve their economic interests.