"Kyoto was a flawed process. There isn't one industrialized country around the world that has ratified that treaty, and so that is a non-starter"

Andrew Card’s statement draws attention to the perceived shortcomings of the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty aimed at combating climate change by setting binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets for industrialized countries. Referring to Kyoto as a “flawed process,” Card underscores his belief that the agreement, despite its intentions, failed both in design and in practical effectiveness. The choice of the word “process” rather than “treaty” shifts the focus from the document itself to the entire diplomatic and political enterprise, hinting at deeper problems in how the global community approached climate negotiation in that era.

The core of Card’s critique rests on his claim that “there isn’t one industrialized country around the world that has ratified that treaty,” which, though factually debatable, points to a broader truth about the lack of full participation by major economic powers, most notably the United States. Without the involvement and commitment of large emitters, any global environmental agreement would lack the punch required to achieve meaningful change. The absence of ratification from these key players renders the agreement ineffectual since its goals rely on collective action and burden-sharing.

The final statement, “so that is a non-starter,” delivers a blunt assessment: without the foundational commitment from the main contributors to greenhouse gas emissions, the treaty cannot serve as a viable launching point for global climate policy. This phrase dismisses Kyoto’s practical relevance in shaping future agreements, suggesting the need for a new model capable of securing broader consensus and actionable commitments. Card’s remarks thus reflect a skepticism that partial or symbolic participation in international agreements can drive real-world results, emphasizing instead the importance of inclusive and enforceable accords. Implicit is a critique of multilateral environmental diplomacy that does not address the political and economic realities of the countries involved, challenging subsequent efforts to design future agreements such as the Paris Accord.