US Vs China at the Bangkok Climate Talks

 Continued from this post.

The American negotiator,

forcefully outlined America's opposition to the Kyoto protocol. "We are not going to be in the Kyoto protocol. We are not going to be part of an agreement that we cannot meet. We say a new agreement has to [be signed] by all countries. Things have changed since Kyoto. Where countries were in 1990 and today is very different. We cannot be stuck with an agreement 20 years old. We want action from all countries."

Here's China's positition:

Yu Qingtai, China's special representative on climate talks, said rich countries should not desert the Kyoto agreement, which all industrialised countries except the US signed up to and was ratified in 2002 after many years of negotiations. It contains no requirement for developing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, as both their current and historical emissions are low in most cases.....

"The Kyoto protocol is not negotiable. We want [it] to be strengthened. We don't want to kill Kyoto. We really want a revival, a strengthening of the treaty. That can only be done by Annex I [industrialised] countries having a target of 40% cuts by 2020," said Yu.

The Guardian notes: "However, China, with its surging economy and rapidly expanding population is now the world's biggest polluter."  

Isn't the way out of this impasse seems obvious?  China and the developing world must commit to meeting clean energy targets, but the West should the lead the way in terms of reducing emissions.  Is that too much too ask? The article continues:

The difference between the sides is now considered to threaten the success of the talks. In essence, the US is insisting on a completely new agreement, with all countries signed up and all countries free to choose and set their own targets and timetable. Most other countries want to keep the existing agreement as a basis for negotiations, to ensure that rich countries are held by international law to agreed cuts. China in particular wants cuts calculated on a per capita basis.

Don't these poor countries get it?  The United States is not bound by international law to the extent other countries are bound.  It's the task of Americans to help to write the laws for others (as it did in the case of Kyoto), and then lecture the rest of the world on their "delinquency" from time to time.   (For example, the Obama Administration made it quite clear that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to the US.   It is for other countries to prosecute their leaders for war crimes.  Because when the US violates agreements, it always does so for good reason.)

The Guardian article continues:

Diplomats last night suggested that the only way out could be for the US to be asked to sign a separate agreement acceptable to developing countries, which would see it cutting emissions at a comparable speed to other countries.

The G77 countries are meeting to consider their oppositions. One diplomat said: "They are very angry. People have talked of walking out."