Delegations from more than 190 countries and regions meet from November 28 to December 9, 2011, in Durban, South Africa, to continue discussions of how to address climate change under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The year 2012 will mark both the 20 th anniversary of the opening for signature of the UNFCCC (in Rio de Janeiro, 1992) and the end of the first "commitment period" (2008-2012) of the UNFCCC's subsidiary Kyoto Protocol. The preceding 20 years have witnessed expanding evidence of many aspects of human-related, greenhouse gas (GHG)-induced climate change. However, many questions regarding the magnitude, timing, and local characteristics of natural and human-induced climate change will likely persist for decades. A large majority of countries now consider climate change to be a primary impetus to restructuring their energy sectors—and economies more broadly—toward more efficient and less climate-vulnerable models. The 1992 UNFCCC treaty was formulated as a framework to facilitate mutual movement of all countries in this process, to increase effectiveness, and to ameliorate possible adverse effects on competitiveness. The UNFCCC was also created to help avoid a problem of "free riders" (in which some benefit by the efforts of others while not taking comparable actions themselves). In sharing responsibilities for actions, Parties, including the United States, committed to "common but differentiated" responsibilities under the UNFCCC. In the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, the highest-income countries (generally called Annex I Parties) adopted commitments to reduce their GHG emissions by, on average, 5% below their 1990 levels during the "first commitment period" of 2008-2012. The Kyoto Protocol was considered a first step, led by the wealthiest countries, in a process that would eventually include all countries. As such, the low-income, major emitting countries, including China and India, did not take on GHG obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. Partly because of this, the United States declined to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and is not a Party to it. From 1990 to 2009, the greenhouse gas emissions of the Annex I Parties declined by 11.5%, not counting the emissions or sequestration associated with land use and forestry changes (LULUCF); including LULUCF, the GHG decrease was 17.6% from 1990 to 2009. During this period, the GHG emissions of the United States grew by 7.2% excluding LULUCF, or by 5.6% including LULUCF. Globally, GHG emissions rose by an estimated 29% from 1990 to 2008, although greater uncertainties regarding non-CO2 emissions and LULUCF for the rest of the world make estimates less complete and precise. (See the Text Box below for information about actions a few countries are taking to reduce their GHG emissions.) Parties to the Kyoto Protocol were due to conclude negotiations for a second commitment period by 2007; unable to do so, Parties agreed to a two-track negotiating mandate: one to extend the Kyoto Protocol, and the other to include all Parties (including the United States), called the Bali Action Plan. Still, the Bali Action Plan entailed bifurcation in the anticipated commitments for "developed" versus "developing" countries—a persistent division that contributed to missing the deadline for negotiating a new agreement in Copenhagen in 2009 (the "Copenhagen Accord"). The terms of the Copenhagen Accord were reiterated and adopted in the Cancun Agreements in 2010. This disagreement continues to impede negotiations. Although some observers hope that the Durban negotiations will overcome this hurdle by producing a mandate for quantitative, legally binding GHG obligations for all countries, others wonder whether the UNFCCC process will be able to maintain momentum even on narrower objectives, such as rules for new processes and mechanisms for finance, technology deployment, and adaptation. Participants in the climate change negotiations hold a wide spectrum of expectations for the Durban conference. For many low-income nations and environmental groups, the key ambitions for the Durban meeting are to find agreement on 1. a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol with stronger GHG reduction commitments from the Annex I Parties; 2. the legal form of any new agreements, including proposals for legally binding commitments to GHG reductions to take effect by 2020; 3. design of the new Green Climate Fund, and materialization of funds during the "fast-start" period of 2010-2012, provisions for the unreferenced period of 2013-2020, and the pledged mobilization of $100 billion annually by 2020; 4. design of the new Technology Mechanism; and 5. evolution of the Adaptation Committee. At the other end of the spectrum of views, there are a few delegations (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Venezuela) that may seem content with no resolutions of issues, or even collapse of the process. Arguably, the U.S. delegation goes to the Durban negotiations with compromised credibility: the United States' lack of consensus on domestic policy has impaired its ability to negotiate for unambiguous commitments or to assure others that any negotiated texts will be accepted by the Senate. After signing the Kyoto Protocol, the United States never became a Party to it. The U.S. Congress has taken up, but never enacted, legislation specifically addressing mitigation of U.S. GHG emissions, and has not fully funded requests by Presidents Clinton, (George W.) Bush, or Obama to support their pledges of financial support for deployment of low-emitting technology and other assistance to low-income countries. Congress remains divided over the stance the United States should take in the international climate change negotiations. The breadth of views may be characterized by contrasting two recent remarks by Members: On the one hand, there is the call from Representative Bobby L. Rush: "Ambitious and urgent action to help poor countries and communities confront climate change and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions here in the [United States] is both a moral imperative and in our national interest." On the other hand, Senator James M. Inhofe recently wrote to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton that "there is no chance of any climate treaty being ratified by the United States Senate in the foreseeable future." Many international stakeholders doubt the policy stasis of the United States can be overcome in the next few years; instead of looking to U.S. leadership, some observers now counsel the U.S. delegation to "get out of the way." In this context of strongly held differences within the United States, and between the United States and most other countries, the Durban conference will tackle questions of the future of the Kyoto Protocol and the possibility of a mandate for future quantitative, binding GHG obligations for all Parties. Some observers have noted that, despite entrenched negotiating positions, the meetings throughout 2011 have had a positive atmosphere, which may portend well for decisions in Durban. As noted earlier, the Durban negotiations will continue on two tracks, one under the Kyoto Protocol and one under the broader UNFCCC. In each track, key topics for negotiation in Durban are summarized in the remainder of this report. The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, 2008-2012, expires at the end of 2012. Parties to the Protocol have been unable as yet to agree on the terms of any subsequent commitment period, and many are anxious to avoid a gap between periods or the setting aside of the protocol and of the rules and institutions established by it. To most experts, the Kyoto Protocol has been important not so much because of the GHG reductions it was intended to achieve, but more because it was the first step in launching a process and establishing formal mechanisms for setting targets, monitoring and verifying Parties' performance, minimizing costs through international emissions trading mechanisms, and other infrastructural achievements. Most countries are anxious to continue the Kyoto Protocol, in part to retain the emissions trading mechanisms that it established: "emissions trading" and "Joint Implementation" among Parties with binding GHG targets, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) for generating "certified emission reductions" (CERs) with projects in Parties without targets that can be sold to Parties with targets to help minimize their GHG abatement costs. A minority of Parties are less interested in sustaining efforts under the Kyoto Protocol. Canada, Japan, and Russia have said they will not offer further GHG reduction commitments in an instrument that does not engage all major emitters, specifically the United States, China, India and Brazil. A common concern about the Kyoto Protocol is the exemption from quantitative GHG reduction commitments by middle-income Parties and, more broadly, the bipolar distinction between "developed" and "developing" country parties. The European Union has said it would agree to another commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol but would require a clear "road map" to agreements that would include GHG obligations for all major emitting Parties. Australia and Norway have launched a proposal to draw new Parties into commitments: binding emissions caps for the Annex I Parties and binding commitments to GHG abatement actions by the non-Annex I Parties by 2015. Other concerns about the Kyoto Protocol, and the focus of proposals to improve it, are that some of the rules and procedures established under the Kyoto Protocol have proven to be either overly constraining, in the views of some, or unacceptably inefficient. Also, some rules regarding what may count as emission reductions or offsets remain unresolved, such as whether and how to account for many emissions and carbon uptake associated with land use and forest management. Another issue is whether unused emission allowances from the first commitment period may be carried over into subsequent periods. The Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperation (AWG-LCA) continues its work but remains divided over whether it should maintain the distinction among Parties in two groups: developed and developing country Parties, or whether "common but differentiated" commitments could be achieved within a single framework.