According to two-level game theory, negotiators tailor agreements at the international level to be ratifiable at the domestic level. This did not happen in the Kyoto negotiations, however, in the US case. We interviewed 26 German, Norwegian, and US participants in and observers of the climate negotiations concerning their views on three explanations for why the United States did not become a party to Kyoto. Explanation 1 argues that Kyoto delegations mistakenly thought the Senate was bluffing when adopting Byrd–Hagel. Explanation 2 contends that Europeans preferred a more ambitious agreement without US participation to a less ambitious agreement with US participation. Finally, explanation 3 suggests that in Kyoto the Clinton–Gore administration gave up on Senate ratification, and essentially pushed for an agreement that would provide them a climate-friendly face. While all explanations received some support from interviewees, explanation 1 and (particularly) explanation 3 received considerably more support than explanation 2.
AldyJ (2004) Saving the planet cost-effectively: The role of economic analysis in climate change mitigation policy. In: LutterRShogrenJF (eds) Painting the White House Green: Rationalizing Environmental Policy Inside the Executive Office of the President. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future, 89–118.
2.
AldyJStavinsR (2007) Architectures for Agreement: Addressing Global Climate Change in the Post-Kyoto World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
3.
AndresenSAgrawalaS (2002) Leaders, pushers and laggards in the making of the climate regime. Global Environmental Change12(1): 41–51.
4.
Argentine Republic (1999) Revision of the First National Communication According to the UNFCCC. Buenos Aires: Secretariat for Natural Resources and Sustainable Development.
5.
BangG (2010) Energy security and climate change concerns: Triggers for energy policy change in the United States?Energy Policy38(4): 1645–1653.
6.
BarrosVGrandMC (2002) Implications of a dynamic target of greenhouse gases emission reduction: The case of Argentina. Environment and Development Economics7(3): 547–569.
7.
BetsillMBulkeleyH (2004) Transnational networks and global environmental governance: The Cities for Climate Protection Program. International Studies Quarterly48(2): 471–493.
8.
BodanskyD (2001) The history of the global climate change regime. In: LuterbacherUSprinzD (eds) International Relations and Global Climate Change. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 23–40.
9.
BrynerG (2008) Failure and opportunity: Environmental groups in US climate change policy. Environmental Politics17(2): 319–336.
10.
CutajarMZ (2004) Reflections on the Kyoto Protocol: Looking back to see ahead. International Review for Environmental Strategies5(1): 61–69.
11.
EvansP (1993) Building an integrative approach to international and domestic politics: Reflections and projections. In: EvansPJacobsonHPutnamR (eds) Double-Edged Diplomacy: International Bargaining and Domestic Politics. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 397–430.
12.
FisherD (2004) National Governance and the Global Climate Change Regime. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.
13.
FisherD (2010) Understanding the relationship between sub-national and national climate change politics in the United States: Toward a theory of boomerang federalism. Policy Sciences (forthcoming).
14.
HarrisPG (2000) Climate Change and American Foreign Policy. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
15.
HarrisonK (2007) The road not taken: Climate change policy in Canada and the United States. Global Environmental Politics7(4): 92–117.
16.
HironoRSchröderH (2004) The road to and from the Kyoto Protocol: The perspectives of Germany and Japan. International Review for Environmental Strategies5(1): 39–60.
17.
HoviJSkodvinT (2008) Which way to US climate cooperation? Issue linkage versus a US-based agreement. Review of Policy Research25(2): 129–148.
18.
IidaK (1993) When and how do domestic constraints matter: Two-level games with uncertainty. Journal of Conflict Resolution37: 403–426.
19.
JacobyHEllermanAD (2004) The safety valve and climate policy. Energy Policy32(4): 481–491.
20.
JacquesPJDunlapREFreemanM (2008) The organization of denial: Conservative think tanks and environmental skepticism. Environmental Politics17: 349–385.
21.
LeechBL (2002) Asking questions: Techniques for semistructured interviews. PS: Political Science and Politics35(4): 665–668.
22.
LisowskiM (2002) Playing the two-level game: US President Bush’s decision to repudiate the Kyoto Protocol. Environmental Politics11(4): 101–119.
23.
MazmanianDAJurewitzJNelsonH (2008) California’s climate change policy: The case of a subnational state actor tackling climate change. Journal of Environment and Development17(4): 401–423.
24.
PatersonM (2009) Post-hegemonic climate politics?British Journal of Politics and International Relations11(1): 140–158.
25.
PutnamR (1988) Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization42(3): 427–460.
26.
RabeB (2008) States on steroids: The intergovernmental odyssey of American climate policy. Review of Policy Research 25(March): 105–128.
27.
SchellingT (1960/1980) The Strategy of Conflict. Ann Arbor, MI: Harvard University Press.
28.
SchreursM (2004) The climate change divide: The European Union, the United States, and the future of the Kyoto Protocol. In: VigNFaureM (eds) Green Giants. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 207–230.
29.
SchreursMASelinHVanDeveerSD (2009) Conflict and cooperation in transatlantic climate politics: Different stories at different levels. In: SchreursMASelinHVanDeveerSD (eds) Trans-Atlantic Environment and Energy Politics: Comparative and International Perspectives. Aldershot: Ashgate, 165–180.
30.
SelinHVanDeveerS (2007) Political science and prediction: What’s next for US climate change policy?Review of Policy Research24(1): 1–27.
31.
SkjærsethJBSkodvinT (2003) Climate Change and the Oil Industry: Common Problem, Varying Strategies. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
32.
UrpelainenJ (2009) Explaining the Schwarzenegger phenomenon: Local frontrunners in climate policy. Global Environmental Politics9(3): 82–105.
US Senate (1997b) Opening Statement. Senator Jim Inhofe, Environment and Public Works Committee, Hearing on Global Climate Change. Thursday 17July1997. Available at: http://epw.senate.gov/105th/inh_7-17.htm (accessed 28 January 2010).
35.
US Senate (2001) Treaties and Other International Agreements: The Role of the United States Senate. A Study Prepared for the Committee on Foreign Relations, United States Senate. Report. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress. January.
36.
VictorDG (2001) The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
37.
VictorDG (2004) Climate Change: Debating America’s Policy Options. New York: Council on Foreign Relations Press.
38.
WienerJB (2004) Convergence, divergence, and complexity in US and European risk regulation. In: VigNFaureM (eds) Green Giants. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 73–110.
