We are sorely in need of ideas as to how to proceed to address the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs):

1. (1) Global climate change (GCC) is a huge and genuine problem, as is now more widely recognized than even a few years ago.

2. (2) The Kyoto Protocol, and the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) within which it sits, constitute the only multilateral framework we have to address the problem.

3. (3) The Protocol, as actually negotiated in 1997 or as it went into force in 2005, is inadequate in three important ways: its goals could be costly to achieve if interpreted literally, neither the largest nor the fastest-growing emitters have signed up, and it would have made only the tiniest dent in global GHG concentrations even if it had entered into force with good prospects for compliance and even if all countries had participated.

Few American economists support the Kyoto Protocol. I have spoken and written in support, at least, of the Clinton–Gore version of it, perhaps because I was (one of many) involved in its design during 1996–1999. My claim is that – given the combination of political, economic, and scientific realities as they are – Kyoto is a good foundation, a good first stepping stone on the most practical path if we are to address the global warming problem more seriously, as we should. Nobody would say that the text negotiated in Kyoto is ideal.