Climate change is likely to be a key point of discussion in trans-Atlantic relations over the coming year. President-elect Obama has pledged deep cuts in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Senator John Kerry (D-MA), in Poznan as an observer for Obama, said that the United States is ready to lead the way on climate change. He also said the new draft treaty, expected one year from now after talks in Copenhagen, should not be contingent on the United States passing a national cap-and-trade regime.

All of this suggests at least important two things for the next administration to keep in mind while crafting an approach on climate change for trans-Atlantic dialogue.

First, the limited progress in Poznan should be a signal that the Kyoto-induced fixation on targets and timetables is not a productive way to deal with this challenge. It is widely recognized by now that Kyoto was fundamentally flawed, in part for lacking credible enforcement mechanisms and for asking nothing of developing countries, even the big emitters. The UN said recently that twenty countries with Kyoto commitments--including Germany, Ireland, Italy and Spain--are off track when it comes to meeting their targets. Will they be any better positioned to make more ambitious cuts after 2012? Kyoto requires 37 (mostly European) countries to cut their collective greenhouse gas emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels during the 2008-2012 period. The United States never ratified the treaty.

Second, a significant portion of the U.S. public and their representatives in Congress still have reservations about the costs of a national greenhouse gas cap-and-trade regime and the potential erosion of competitiveness if many other countries do not have similar obligations. At the close of the Poznan talks on December 12, John Kerry echoed concerns that have a long history in Congress when he said that ensuring all countries have responsibilities under a new treaty would be key to U.S. ratification. The Byrd-Hagel resolution of 1997 stated that the United States should not sign any climate change protocol that failed to require developing country participation and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. Its 97-0 passage in the U.S. Senate sent a clear signal about Congressional discomfort with an international mitigation regime.

(While some hailed the passage of the Bingaman resolution in 2005 as a sign of shifting sentiments in Congress, in reality this non-binding resolution called for a mandatory national program to limit emissions in the United States that "will not significantly harm the United States economy and will encourage comparable action by other nations that are major trading partners and key contributors to global emissions." It was a reaffirmation of Byrd-Hagel concerns, not a reversal.)

Instead of centering a new transatlantic climate dialogue around arbitrary deadlines, such as the goal to conclude a new treaty just one year from now, the next administration should make cooperation on new energy technologies the focal point. A parallel effort to address head-on the shortcomings of Kyoto is important, too - but not at the expense of progress on technology. A workable agreement later is better than a flawed agreement now that imposes costs but does little for the climate.

Jill O'Donnell is a graduate student in the IR/International Policy program at the Johns Hopkins University Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) in Washington, D.C.