Abstract
The Kyoto protocol was the first step taken by governments towards implementing the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992). This seeks to prevent dangerous ‘global’ warming and its impacts; the assumption being that all or most of this warming is caused by human action and is therefore susceptible to mitigation. Only governments in developed countries have so far committed themselves to emission reduction targets and thus to potentially major interventions in their economies and societies. At Kyoto, in December 1997, developed countries negotiated national commitments. Their net reductions of six greenhouse gases measured from a 1990 baseline, are to be achieved between 2008 and 2012. However, Australia may increase its net greenhouse gas emissions by 8%, while the UK agreed to a cut by 12.5%, considerably above the EU average cut of 8%. Examples of ‘common but differentiated’ responsibility have major economic implications, especially for trade. The mandatory British reduction target — if the Kyoto Protocol comes into force — is considerably below a promised 20% reduction, a target to which the UK government remains committed. This paper asks why the EU/UK and Australia adopted such different positions. It does so by analysing internal factors and forces that have shaped domestic policies. It is argued that while similar motivations produced different outcomes, the Australian government also received less biased and broader advice from its experts. The Australian case, as well as that of the EU/UK, thus presents a most interesting contrast to Swedish climate policy.