The Bush administration`s rejection of Kyoto could have led to its failure (Grubb, 2002, p. 140).  According to Grubb (2002), the EU`s subsequent decision to support the protocol was crucial. The environmental organization Environmental Defense Fund supported the protocol (EDF, 2005).  Jonathan Pershing, director of the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute, said the protocol “makes it clear that the world is taking the problem of global warming seriously” (Pershing, 2005).  Obama administration President Obama was elected under the widely held belief that shortly after taking office, he would take swift and decisive action to join the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thus help fight global climate change. According to The American, “it was generally expected that Obama would quickly adopt a Kyoto-style national cap-and-trade program that would allow America to gain the moral upper hand in Copenhagen, inciting (or forcing) China and India to agree to emissions targets.”  Signing the Kyoto Protocol seemed like the first logical step, so it was surprising that he rejected the Kyoto Protocol for reasons similar to those of former President Bush. According to The American, “the fundamental shortcomings of the treaty were well understood: it set very ambitious – and costly – targets for the United States, while emissions from developing countries could continue to rise uncontrollably. (And indeed, today, despite Kyoto`s ratification, China has become the world`s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.) The Americans do not hesitate to contribute to a solution, but Kyoto has demanded a lot of sacrifices for little reward.  President Obama was also scheduled to represent the United States in Copenhagen and negotiate the terms of the extension of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012. But instead of the U.S.
helping to craft and sign a Kyoto-like treaty, the U.S. is proposing extreme changes to Kyoto`s emissions management system, sparking intense debate and confrontation over which treaty Kyoto will follow. Many countries fear that these new treaty changes will cripple negotiations and prevent many countries currently under the Kyoto Protocol from re-signing, as well as new countries such as China and India from signing them. “The Obama administration`s proposals could undermine a new global treaty and weaken the world`s ability to avoid the worst effects of climate change.”  Some have strongly criticized the protocol for setting emission reductions only for rich countries, while such commitments are not set for fast-growing emerging economies, such as China and India.B (Stern 2007, p. 478). Australia (under the leadership of Prime Minister John Howard) and the United States subsequently did not ratify the protocol, although Australia has since ratified the treaty. A number of other countries have not taken strong steps to implement it. Although developing countries have made commitments under the Protocol, they have not been quantified and have made it possible to combat climate change as part of a broader national sustainable development policy. In September 2012, the Netherlands Agency for Environmental Impact Assessment and the European Commission`s Joint Research Centre published a detailed study showing that the top 37 Kyoto countries, as well as the United States (which has not ratified the treaty), emitted 7.5% less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2010 than in 1990. Clinton Administration Vice President Al Gore was instrumental in drafting the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. President Bill Clinton signed the agreement in November 1998, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it, pointing to the potential damage to the U.S. economy required by compliance. The Senate also opposed the agreement because it prohibited certain developing countries, including India and China, from complying with the new emission standards.  Grubb (2003) noted, however, that with per capita emissions twice as high as most other OECD countries, the United States is vulnerable to the perception that it has enormous reduction potential. From this perspective, the United States has been forced to reduce its emissions more than other countries.  Grubb (2003) also noted that for two or three years after Kyoto, the usual economic outlook was that EIT emissions would increase sharply as its economies recovered.
In reality, however, EIT emissions did not increase as many models had predicted.  The Kyoto Protocol was a major step towards a unified intergovernmental strategy to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions. But it was not without his objections. Some of the main points of criticism concerned the categorisation of different countries in the annexes, with each annex bearing its own responsibility for reducing emissions based on historical greenhouse gas emissions and thus a historical contribution to global climate change. .