The head of the US delegation, Harlan Watson, has made it clear that his country will happily pollute the global atmosphere. He said openly that his country, under no circumstances, would agree to take on legally binding commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions. So much for climate change, which scientists now say is getting real and worse.

This is not news. Because US President George Bush had already said that the US way of life is not negotiable and rejected the Kyoto Protocol.

What is news is that the US has made it clear that not only will it reject the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period (2008-2012), but also that it would reject the protocol for ever more. The US always had a problem with the protocol. But what began as a sulk has ended in a ‘over my dead body’ kind of approach.

US chief negotiator Harlan Watson also added a ‘in with us, or out’ clause, the first time something like this has happened in climate negotiations. He then went on to sweetly offer poison to the developing countries, saying that his country accepted their ‘right to development’. The US, he said taking the high moral ground, would never ask developing countries to take on commitments to reduce emissions. Incredible. I thought corruption was a game only our politicians were good at.

I am appalled. As, I am sure, are you. The choice that the world’s most powerful nation is offering us is no choice. It leads straight to hell. We are the victims in this dirty business. We have to remember that we have no choice but to demand an effective climate convention. Climate change leaves poor people, living at the very margins of survival, even more vulnerable. Given our poverty, it is in our interest to reduce the impacts of climate change.

There is an interesting pincer movement afoot. On one side is the US — biggest polluter of the world, offering the developing countries a chance to join the sooty game of emitting and creating wealth. On the other are countries — I have the European Union and Japan in mind — which have decided to take on legally binding commitments to reduce emissions. These countries believe they have now done their bit, and would like developing countries — particularly the more advanced developing countries like India, China and Brazil — to take on cuts. Even though we all know these countries need the ecological space to grow. Talk about a Hobson’s choice for the world’s poor nations. Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.

Could it be that the US negotiator has done us a favour? I think so. I do, really. It is now clear that we should not wait for the US to re-engage. Instead we need to deal with this renegade nation. The problem is not merely a recalcitrant bully nation. The problem is about global democracy and how it will function, or not, in a situation where the most powerful lawmaker has turned law-breaker. The world has moved towards a rule-based system of global governance, where nations agree to take on legally binding commitments based on lengthy discussions, consensus building, and voting. But in this body of law, as with law-making in any civilised nation, the standard of justice depends on the equality of power to restrain the strong from doing what they have the power to do, and enable the weak to refuse what they don’t have to accept. This is the challenge we face.

It is going to be more difficult to craft a world in which the rich and powerful are disciplined. But it is definitely possible. I suggest the following:

Firstly, build a strong regime of climate cooperation in which non-members such as the US are not allowed to even trade among parties, a kind of ‘players-only’ club. The Montreal Protocol (created to protect Earth’s ozone layer) is proof this can be done. Secondly, the climate compact needs cooperation between rich and poor, and fairness and good faith. This will be possible if the world agrees to give developing countries their fair share — equal rights to the atmosphere — so creating a strong and durable basis for trust and cooperation. Thirdly, and this I think is vital, we must seek damages from the US as compensation for its wilful and deliberate inaction, which today threatens the lives of millions.