Sum up the information about the representatives of the UK and the USA.

Analyze the portrayal of the Kyoto conference in the scene. Focus on dramatic devices and use of language.

Choose one of the following tasks:

Taking the text as a starting point, assess the role of international agreements in fighting climate change.

Your school is participating in an online project about climate change with an Indian school. Students at the Indian school have published an article on the project website in which they argue that the wealthy countries historically responsible for excessive greenhouse emissions should be held liable to compensate countries which have contributed less to global heating and that these wealthy countries owe India billions of dollars in climate reparations.

Write an article for the project website in which you comment on this demand.

Joe Murphy and Joe Robertson: Kyoto

The play dramatizes the negotiation of the first international treaty on tackling climate change in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. Main characters include Don Pearlman, a lawyer and lobbyist, and Raúl Estrada-Oyuela, the diplomat chairing UN negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol.

Murphy, J. and J. Robertson. (2024) Kyoto. London: Faber. Act II, scene 13. pp. 84-87.

905 words

¹ COP3 – Third session of the Conference of the Parties, i.e. the UN Climate Change Conference in Kyoto

² Gore was the Democratic nominee for president of the USA in the 2000 presidential election and lost to Republican nominee George W. Bush Jr.

The representatives of the UK and the USA arrive in Kyoto and are greeted by Estrada. The UK is represented by the Deputy Prime Minister, who surprisingly also serves as the lead negotiator for the EU. He is accompanied by advisors. He flew to Kyoto from London, changed planes, and ate and drank during the flight, leaving a heavy carbon footprint. The USA is represented by an unnamed minister and Vice President Al Gore, who arrives later and separately in a helicopter. Estrada wants to speak to Gore, but is granted only half of the time he requests. In his address to the conference, Gore makes vague promises and uses a baseline year for emission cuts that is different from the year agreed upon earlier. He blames the influence of lobbyists for his unambitious goals. Although he wrote a popular book and was admired, he is now criticized. Gore eventually departs before the negotiations have produced any results.

The scene portrays the Kyoto conference in a negative light, highlighting the hypocrisy of the participating nations. This is achieved through various dramatic devices and the use of language. Asides, direct addresses to the audience, and breaking the fourth wall (e.g., "(to us) He’s right. It’s not a real number." (l. 56), "remember Geneva?" (l. 61)) are used to critically comment on what happens, expose climate lies, and establish a rapport with the audience. Furthermore, characters are identified by their countries rather than their names (e.g., "UK" (l. 14) versus "Mr John Prescott" (ll. 10/11)), which reflects the difference between appearance and reality by juxtaposing a country's political stance on climate change with an individual's personal needs, such as food, drink, and leg space. Irony is also employed (e.g., "But when all’s said and done, no one makes an entrance like the Land of the Free." (ll. 37/38), "This guy should run for President." (l. 73)) to criticize the role of the USA. The prominence of numbers and counting (e.g., "three days to go" (ll. 2/3), "Kiribati, four thousand miles … Tanzania, six thousand, five hundred miles, three-point-three tonnes." (ll. 24-26)) creates an impression of objectivity, stresses time pressure, and illustrates the environmental costs and huge carbon footprint of the conference. A quick change between asides and dialogue, as well as parataxis (e.g., Don: "And of course all that first-class champagne" (l. 22), UK: "I drank tea. Two bags." (l. 23), Don: "And he’s carved himself quite the footprint." (l. 24)), critically comments on a seemingly friendly chat, suggesting that the seemingly climate-friendly conference should be viewed critically as well.

The conference participants are unmasked as untrustworthy. Colloquialisms (e.g., "Yep." (l. 19), "bloody European Union" (l. 12)) suggest that Prescott takes neither the conference nor his mission seriously. Puns, repetition, and personification (e.g., Estrada: "What happened to the man who wrote Earth in the Balance?!" (l. 74), Gore: "There’s just so much I have to balance here." (l. 80), Estrada: "Only the Earth, Al. Only the Earth." (l. 81), "glare" (l. 82)) present Gore as a sellout whose failure is publicly exposed. A surprise twist (e.g., "things are going to plan. I’m winning." (l. 91)) reveals that Don, despite initially appearing objective and supportive of the conference's aims, is actually undermining them.

Finally, the text illustrates that the conference is not achieving its aims. Stage directions (e.g., "Don steps aside to allow Secretariat to take the Ministerial photograph" (l. 35)) separate Don from the official representatives, creating a symbolic distance between a critical voice and the hypocritical ministers. Contrasts (e.g., "Smile!" (l. 40) vs. "No one smiles" (l. 41)) show that the ministers are not doing what they are supposed to do, suggesting that this failure extends to the higher level of climate protection. Graphic expressions and sarcasm (e.g., "shitting themselves to a greener future" (l. 27), "raping the atmosphere" (l. 33), "filthy business" (l. 33)) emphasize the seriousness of the ecological situation and express frustration with the futility of the conference.

Taking the text as a starting point, it is evident that the conference where an international agreement is being negotiated generates a massive ecological footprint. Furthermore, not all conference members are committed to fighting climate change, and the negotiators are unable to achieve agreements.

On the one hand, international agreements often do not play an important role. They are frequently non-binding, such as the Paris Agreement, which features no penalties for non-compliance. National interests can undermine collective action, as seen when the US Senate did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Political will can also shift, evidenced by the US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement under Trump. Moreover, slow negotiation processes delay action, such as the UN Climate Change Conference 26 failing to agree on strong fossil fuel phase-out language. Lastly, these agreements have limited influence on the private sector, allowing the continued expansion of oil and gas production.

On the other hand, international agreements do play an important role. They facilitate global cooperation, as demonstrated by the UN Climate Change Conference 28 negotiations that led to the first global agreement to transition away from fossil fuels. They set targets, provide a framework for accountability, and enable a regular review of commitments, like the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement, which require countries to submit reports regularly. These agreements also encourage technological transfer and mobilize financial support for developing countries; for example, the Paris Agreement aims to help developing countries acquire clean technologies through initiatives like the Green Climate Fund. Ultimately, they increase pressure on countries that do not participate sufficiently, and there are currently no better alternatives available.

Climate Reparations: A Justified Demand or a Step in the Wrong Direction?

Recently, students from our Indian partner school published an article on our project website demanding that wealthy nations pay billions of dollars in climate reparations to countries that have contributed less to global heating. This raises a complex question about historical responsibility and the best path forward in fighting climate change.

There are strong arguments in support of the Indian students’ demands. India is among the countries most affected by climate change, yet historically, it is only responsible for a small amount of emissions. Conversely, the countries causing the most CO2 emissions, like Germany, have flourished financially partly due to climate-damaging lifestyles, which is reflected in higher per-capita incomes and higher GDPs. Moreover, the countries most responsible often suffer less from the effects of climate change than countries like India, which are located in more vulnerable regions in the Southern hemisphere and face severe floods, massive fatalities, and climate migration. The payment of reparations could help mitigate economic damage, support sustainable development in India, and reduce climate migration. Historically, there is a precedent of reparations being used to force countries to make amends for mistakes, such as paying for the costs of war. Paying climate reparations would mean accepting moral responsibility to make up for the resulting damage and suffering.

However, there are also compelling arguments against the Indian students’ demands. It is important to note that the nations causing CO2 emissions did not intend to hurt India or other countries in the Southern hemisphere. Furthermore, all nations suffer from the effects of climate change, not just those in the Southern hemisphere; for instance, Germany has also experienced terrible floods. Industrial nations need their financial resources to transform their own industries and invest in green energy at home, as seen in massive German investments in energy transition and infrastructure. One could argue that past mistakes are less important than future collaboration. Additionally, India itself is now a major producer of emissions and is at least partly responsible for current damages. Instituting reparations could undermine already existing measures like the Green Climate Fund, and there is a danger of the misallocation of funds. Ultimately, money alone does not repair ecological damage.