In March 2001, shortly after taking office, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would not implement the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The protocol — an agreement negotiated by former Vice President Al Gore and signed by former President Bill Clinton, which was later ratified by 140 countries — was aimed at containing greenhouse gas emissions and combating global warming. However, the Kyoto Protcol targets are being challenged by climate change deities, who condemn strong scientific evidence of the human impact on climate change. An eminent scholar believes that these climate change deniers are „good“ in violation of Roussau`s idea of the social contract, which is an implicit agreement between members of a society to coordinate efforts in the name of general social utility. The movement to reject climate change is hampering efforts to reach an agreement on climate change as a global collective society.  Gupta et al. (2007) evaluated the literature on climate policy. They found that no relevant evaluation of the UNFCCC or its protocol has stated that these agreements will solve the climate problem or be successful.  In these evaluations, it was considered that the UNFCCC or its protocol would not be changed. The Framework Convention and its protocol contain provisions for future policy measures to be taken. Since May 2013, 191 countries and a regional economic organization (EC) have ratified the agreement, representing more than 61.6% of schedule I emissions in 1990.
 One of the 191 ratifying countries, Canada, has relinquished the protocol. In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia said they would not meet other Kyoto targets.  The Canadian government announced on December 12, 2011, effective December 15, 2012, its possible withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol, effective December 15, 2012 Canada has committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% to 190 higher. The Harper government has prioritized oil sands development in Alberta and de-introduced the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Environment Minister Peter Kent called Canada`s responsibility for „enormous financial sanctions“ under the treaty unless he withdrew.   He also suggested that the recently signed Durban Agreement could provide another way forward.  The Harper government has said it will find a „Made in Canada“ solution. Canada`s decision was generally not well received by representatives of other ratification countries.  UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon called on world leaders to agree on an agreement on controlling global warming at the 69th session of the UN General Assembly on 23 September 2014 in New York. The next climate summit was held in Paris in 2015, the date of the Paris Agreement, which succeeded the Kyoto Protocol. However, another key objective of the protocol, which should not be overlooked, is to provide industrialized countries with the means to demonstrate their „leadership“ needed to convince developing countries to participate in environmental efforts. This „political“ objective is different from what has been discussed so far, in that it is not easy to quantify the conditions under which it would be achieved, as it is largely a matter of perception (political).
While it seems plausible to say that a failure to enter into force the protocol would be sufficient to fail to achieve this political objective, and a failure of Liechtenstein`s ratification alone would not do so, it is not at all clear what the consequences of a failure of ratification by the United States (considered by many developing countries as the main culprit) would be.