I have not posted of late due to having spent two weeks on a little tour of various ports European, giving four talks or panel presentations in Poland, Italy and the Czech Republic. Nuggets from each may find their way into my posts now that I have gotten my legs under me. For the moment, I want to relate the comments of one senior official, a widely respected deputy minister responsible for the “climate” portfolio who over time has become a particular favorite of mine and many of my colleagues for his insight and candor. He was at the table throughout negotiations for Rio, Kyoto, Europe’s “bubble” haggling and all else of relevance. His new approach, coming with a new minister above him, is worth noting for what it signifies.

Under a prior government, our friend was the soberest among his peers on the continent, even acknowledging on a panel with me in the European Parliament that my claims about when and why Kyoto talks tanked were accurate, that indeed Europe got too cute trying to take advantage of a desperate Gore team in The Hague, November 2000 (…as in, while the Florida recount was underway), causing the US to walk away. He emphasized that this one moment was the turning point responsible for the treaty’s woes. Though the opinion was sound and the facts irreproachable as evidenced in contemporaneous reporting, for him to actually say it, there, in his position was no mean political feat.

This time, however, his presentation and debating points focused on reminding all that Kyoto is really a US-created agreement. This ETS so fashionable to assail was our doing. It is very important that we all understand this. Why it is very important, and toward what end he argued this I couldn’t tell, and the format was such that my turn at rebuttal was dedicated to answering questions raised by other participants.

Regardless, I note this because, as my CEI colleagues can attest, I have predicted for years, ever since the Emissions Trading Scheme entered its volatile period (which is a couple of months after it came into being), that Europe would some day fall back on claiming that the US had talked them into this, it wasn’t their fault (notwithstanding the absurd festival of self-congratulation I observed in Brussels the day in February 2005 that Kyoto went into effect, with huge banners and displays touting that singular European achievement, the Emissions Trading Scheme). Careful observers will recall that Al Gore did in fact insist on this provision in Kyoto — in return for which Europe insisted on the EU-friendly 1990 baseline, coupled with the Article 4 ability to collectivize 15 nations’ emissions into a “bubble”, very EU-friendly what with Germany having reunified then shut down East Germany, and the UK having “dashed-to-gas” after 1990, as well.

Though Europe accepted emissions trading in the pact they remained quite noisy in their opposition to it and spent the next several years fighting to mitigate its availability. That is until, one can only surmise, they finally looked at their own numbers and realized that without this scheme their performance would be even more embarrassing as 2008-2012 approached.

As regards this “Made in USA” claim, of course, it should be enough to note that it is hard to credibly describe Kyoto as a US pact when two presidents have eschewed the protocol step of asking the Senate to vote on it, and not one Senator has expressed solidarity with it, let alone sought to bring the duly-signed agreement to the floor. In fact, the only thing the US could do to further emphasize that we want nothing to do with it would be to withdraw, or “unsign”, the pact, which we demonstrably have not done (sloppy reportage to the contrary notwithstanding).

With regards to the change in attitude and rhetoric from my continental friend, I’m as happy at being proven right as the next guy, so long as the next guy is five years old. But there’s actually more at stake than continuing my stunning record of prescience. Of course, changing tunes as such is to be expected among career civil servants when their master changes. However, it also is hopefully a sign that responsible government officials recognize their unilateral, expensive plight (more comments on Bush’s recent troublemaking for them a bit later), and finally know they must find a face-saving (translated: US-blaming) way out.

As such, I am hopeful that this specific course takes root and we soon hear the EU’s excuse for abandoning their failed dogma of emissions rationing as Enron’s revenge, imposed upon them by the US (they won’t say Gore). It can’t be that simple, but that will have to be part of the argument, say, “this was the US’s idea and they refused to take part and it wouldn’t work without them, so we have no choice…” Indeed, the “if only the US did to themselves what we did to ourselves, all would be well” line is the common theme running throughout EU climate, er, diplomacy, for the past six years.

If this proves correct, the result, and implications, would almost be worth the past 10 years’ duplicity from them.