Podcast Summary:

Cautionary Tales with Tim Harford
Episode: Kyoto: The Battle that Defined Climate Politics – with Joe Robertson
Date: November 21, 2025
Host: Tim Harford
Guest: Joe Robertson (co-writer of the play "Kyoto")

Overview: Main Theme and Purpose

This episode explores the dramatic true story behind the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the world's first legally binding climate agreement. Through an engaging conversation with playwright Joe Robertson, Tim Harford investigates the high-stakes negotiation, the swirling chaos and politics, and the pivotal figures—heroes and antiheroes—who shaped the course of global climate policy. Robertson dissects how the international community struggled and occasionally succeeded in finding consensus on an existential threat, as depicted in his acclaimed play "Kyoto".

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Why Kyoto? The Theatrical Allure of Climate Negotiations

[06:20–07:54]

• Joe Robertson and his co-writer were fascinated by polarization and divided discourse in society. They wanted to tell a story about agreement—even in contentious circumstances.
  • "We wanted to write about [polarization] and find a way of talking about that in a dramatic and exciting way and actually stumbled on the story of Kyoto by accident, and were immediately inspired by this parable of agreement." – Joe Robertson [06:33]
• Robertson was inspired by the high-stakes emotion, pride, and drama relayed by real participants of Kyoto: "The intrigue, the back corridor deals, but above all, a real dedication and devotion and pride in what they do." – [07:24]

2. Setting the Stage: Climate Politics in the Late 20th Century

[07:54–09:21]

• The climate conversation gained momentum in the 1980s, culminating in the creation of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988.
• Early climate science was full of uncertainties, making consensus difficult: "Distilling that evidence into a clear thing that […] everyone can understand is sort of one of the major problems at the heart of this discussion." – Joe Robertson [08:54]

3. The Choice of Protagonist: Don Perlman, an Oil Lobbyist

[10:01–11:39]

• Rather than a climate hero, the play centers on Don Perlman – an obscure but pivotal oil lobbyist, representing the “agent of disagreement" within a story about forging agreement.
  • "The idea of writing a story of agreement told through the lens of this agent of disagreement at the heart of it felt like quite an exciting dramatic device that could undermine some of that earnestness…" – Joe Robertson [10:59]
• Perlman, despite being little-known, was “a thorn in the side of those trying to find a way to move the world forward.”

4. The Tactics of Delay and Uncertainty

[12:26–13:37]

• Echoing strategies pioneered by the tobacco industry, Perlman exploited uncertainty to stall progress:
  • "He and his associates didn’t need to present a sort of a coherent idea of the science […] it just needed to be a question mark. And that was enough to sow doubt in a subject as dense and as opaque as climate…" – Joe Robertson [12:26]
• People, individually and collectively, often seized on any reason to delay difficult, costly changes: "So very often people are just desperate to find a reason to delay, not even necessarily to do nothing, but to do nothing yet." – Tim Harford [13:03]

5. Negotiating the Impossible: Multiple Voices, Diverse Interests

[13:37–19:14]

• Achieving global agreement is vastly more complicated than getting a group to agree on dinner; representing billions, nations struggle to reconcile economic and existential interests.
• Small island nations (bloc: Alliance of Small Island States, AOSIS) emerged as a “moral compass,” making climate a present, not future, threat for many:
  • "They become much more difficult to ignore and they become the moral compass of the negotiations." – Joe Robertson [18:53]

Notable Dramatic Quote (Small Island States Rise Up)

• "We will not drown in silence." – Actor/Narrator (from play) [20:10]

6. Science Under Fire: The Santer “Discernible” Moment

[20:38–23:33]

• In 1995, Ben Santer’s “discernible human influence” phrase in the IPCC report became a crucible, spurring personal attacks and one of the first major “doxings” in the climate debate.
• "They accused Ben of changing details [...] It kind of destroys Ben's life. [...] It's one of the first doxings we can actually find in the history of the Internet." – Joe Robertson [22:00]

7. Perlman’s Toolbox: Double Diplomacy and Exploiting Procedure

[24:10–26:15]

• Perlman’s tactics included “double diplomacy” (playing nations against each other), exploiting procedural ambiguity (e.g., the bracketing of Rule 22 around majority requirements), and constant immersion in negotiations.
• His maneuvering entrenched a consensus model—requiring unanimity—that endures in climate talks today:
  • "That rule still applies to this day… operating under a consensus model of agreement that began, you know, as a result of Don and the OPEC states back in 1995." – Joe Robertson [26:10]

8. Unexpected Hero: John Prescott, the Reluctant Lead Negotiator

[26:41–28:22]

• UK Deputy PM John Prescott was integral, with negotiation skills honed as a union mediator. When the Dutch failed to show, Prescott unexpectedly led the EU bloc at Kyoto.
• "He connects with voters with his fist, as it were… but he was absolutely integral to the success of Kyoto." – Joe Robertson [26:41]
• Prescott's motto: "Just keep walking and talking." – [27:39]

9. The Core Deadlock: Old Polluters vs. New Aspirants

[28:22–29:53]

• The US and China clashed: who should bear responsibility for emissions? Established polluters (US/EU) vs. rising powers (China, India), with developing states insisting: "You have caused this problem. It must be yours to solve…"
• "How you square that circle is the fundamental problem of solving climate change." – Joe Robertson [29:39]

10. The Final Night: Chaos, Commas, and Compromise

[34:14–38:01]

• The last session was a farcical but epic all-nighter: chairman Estrada disappeared (for a nap), interpreters left, negotiators argued over every word and comma.
  • "Coffee is run out, food has run out. There’s rumors that toilet roll is running out as well. The conference staff are clearing away furniture because they’ve got an event the next morning." – Joe Robertson [34:28]
• Commas became tools for ambiguity: "A comma allows for a slight ambiguity in a sentence that allows two different delegations to go home and claim victory." – Joe Robertson [36:29]
• Estrada hammered clauses through by sheer force of will: agreement achieved "by unanimity".
  • "By the end, he’s gaveling through and you can hear the delegates going, agreed, agreed. And it sort of rises into this crescendo…" – Joe Robertson [37:28]

11. Aftermath and Legacy of Kyoto

[38:01–41:43]

• Despite US non-ratification, Kyoto marked a critical line in the sand; many ratifying nations met or exceeded targets.
  • "No one can say things are going well in climate. I think without Kyoto, we’d be in a much worse position." – Joe Robertson [38:30]
• Kyoto helped legitimize climate policy and made climate an inescapable part of global politics.

12. Reflections on Cynicism, Idealism, and Human Nature

[40:27–43:47]

• Some changes are due to technological progress and national policies, but Kyoto shifted global consciousness.

  • "We live in an after Kyoto world where the threads run through all elements of policy making all around the world…" – Joe Robertson [40:46]

• On Perlman: Robertson believes he never doubted his own rightness, seeing climate policy as a threat to America's interests.

• The problem is deeper than science; it's entwined with politics, economics, and identity:

  • "Fossil fuels and our use of the natural resources of this planet are a part of every single aspect of our life…" – Joe Robertson [43:21]

13. Lessons for Today: Keep Walking and Talking

[44:15–44:52]

• The utility of dialogue and perseverance—Robertson’s advice for modern negotiators:
  • "Just keep walking and talking. […] all we have is discussion, is conversation, is the ability to talk and to work through our problems…" – Joe Robertson [44:49]

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "How do you get that many people to agree on anything, let alone something as difficult and contentious as laws and climate laws, which have tentacles in every part of our society?" – Joe Robertson [06:57]
• "It just needed to be a question mark. And that was enough to sow doubt in a subject as dense and as opaque as climate…" – Joe Robertson [12:26]
• "We will not drown in silence." – Play (Actor/Narrator) representing small island states [20:10]
• "A comma allows for a slight ambiguity in a sentence that allows two different delegations to go home and claim victory." – Joe Robertson [36:29]
• "No one can say things are going well in climate. I think without Kyoto, we’d be in a much worse position…" – Joe Robertson [38:30]
• "We live in an after Kyoto world…" – Joe Robertson [40:46]
• "Just keep walking and talking." – John Prescott’s maxim, invoked by Joe Robertson [44:19]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Setting the Scene: The Kyoto Conference: [02:18–03:56]
• Origins of Climate Science & Summary of the '90s: [07:54–09:21]
• Don Perlman, Agent of Disagreement: [10:01–11:39]
• Uncertainty as a Tactic & Parallels with Tobacco: [12:26–13:37]
• Rising Voice of Small Islands: [18:00–20:13]
• Santer’s 'Discernible' Moment and Personal Fallout: [20:38–23:33]
• Perlman’s Procedural Exploitation: [24:10–26:15]
• John Prescott: The Negotiator: [26:41–28:22]
• Developed vs. Developing World Deadlock: [28:22–29:53]
• The All-Nighter and the Final Gavel: [34:14–38:01]
• Was Kyoto Worth It?: [38:01–41:43]
• Reflections and Lessons for COP30 and Beyond: [44:15–44:52]

Conclusion:

This episode offers a vivid, human-centered account of the drama behind the Kyoto Protocol, expertly blending political history, personal stories, and philosophical questions about collective action. Through playwright Joe Robertson’s insights and Tim Harford’s probing questions, listeners see how the messiness of international negotiation can still yield moments of hope and progress—even when riddled with commas, caveats, and late-night brinkmanship.

Essential Lesson:
When the problem is this complex, the process must be persistent. “Just keep walking and talking.”