The Kyoto Protocol has singularly failed to shape international environmental policy-making in the way that the earlier Montreal protocol did. Whereas Montreal placed reliance on the force of science and moralistic injunctions to save the planet, and successfully determined the international response to climate change, Kyoto has proved significantly more problematic. International Environmental Policy considers why this is the case. The authors contend that such arguments on this occasion proved inadequate to the task, not just because the core issues of the Kyoto process were subject to more powerful and conflicting interests than previously, and the science too uncertain, but because the science and moral arguments themselves remained too weak. They argue that 'global warming' is a failing policy construct because it has served to benefit limited but undeclared interests that were sustained by green beliefs rather than robust scientific knowledge. This highly topical book takes a frank look at the political motivations that underpin the global warming debate, and will appeal to political scientists and energy policy analysts as well as anyone with an interest in the future of the environment and in the policies we create to protect it.

This highly topical collection, edited by two accomplished academics, explores how environmental science and energy policy relate to international politics and policy. This complex and essentially interdisciplinary subject has been the core about which academics have fiercely debated and, as yet, unsuccessfully reached satisfactory negotiations. The editors interpret the politics of climate change as being driven less by scientific understanding than by disguised interests and deeply believed norms. The carefully selected papers in this volume both analyse and advocate policies that claim to be directed towards ?combating man-made global warming? and hence ?save the planet?.