On July 23, 2001 (June 3, 2001 in the lunar calendar), the imperfect Bonn Agreement was born. The Bonn climate conference, which was concerned by world public opinion, finally reached a compromise acceptable to all parties on July 23, 2001, after difficult negotiations and transactions and countless times on the verge of failure. Although this result was a step backward from the greenhouse gas reduction target set by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, it was finally avoided at the last moment. Failure was generally welcomed by the international community, and the Kyoto Protocol was finally "saved." After all, a less-than-perfect agreement that survives is better than a perfect agreement that does not exist, "said Belgian Energy Minister Druze. However, many environmental groups have strongly criticized the Bonn agreement, which is the sixth meeting of the parties to the United Nations Convention on Climate Protection. After the failure of the conference in The Hague in 2000 and the withdrawal of the United States from the Kyoto Protocol, the international community is very concerned about whether the goal set by the parties in 1997 to reduce the world's total carbon dioxide emissions by 5.2% from 2008 to 2012 is still achievable, and whether climate protection will be aborted. According to the provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, the agreement must include 55% of the current emissions of industrialized countries and be ratified by 55 parties before it can enter into force. Since the United States alone accounts for a quarter of the world's emissions, its withdrawal puts pressure on other industrialized countries, especially Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia in the so-called "Umbrella Group". This goal cannot be achieved if any of them, especially Japan, a major emitter, follows the United States. And all indications are that these countries do want to move out of the United States as an excuse to back down. Japan's ambiguous attitude before the meeting became the target of public criticism. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder personally called Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi before the meeting to urge him not to cause the failure of the Bonn conference because of Japan. However, it is precisely because of the withdrawal of the United States that Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia have increased their bargaining chips. The negotiations at the Bonn conference focused on two aspects: first, whether the absorption of carbon dioxide by forests and ecological agricultural land can be included in the emission reduction target; second, whether the above-mentioned countries can reduce their own hard targets for emission reduction through alternative measures such as investment in environmental protection in third world countries and purchase of emission reduction targets. These two issues were also the focus of debate at the Hague conference last year. On the first issue, the European Union, which was at the forefront, firmly rejected the attempts of the United States, Japan, and Canada to evade obligations under the pretext of forest storage of greenhouse gases; on the second issue, the European Union advocated setting flexible boundaries. In order to strive for the success of the Bonn conference and "pull on board" countries such as Japan and Canada, the European Union gave up its original position during the negotiation process of the conference and agreed to include forests and other areas in the calculation of emission reduction targets. In this case, Japan and other countries finally made commitments on their own emission reduction amounts, thus opening the way for reaching the threshold of 55 countries to ratify. The shortcomings of the Bonn conference also have two aspects. First, as many environmental groups have criticized, the discount is too large, and the emission reduction becomes a "gesture". According to the calculation, according to the result of the above compromise, the actual reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the world from 2008 to 2012 will only reach 1.8%, instead of the 5.2% stipulated in the Kyoto Protocol. Second, the meeting did not reach an agreement on a monitoring and punishment mechanism. The European Union advocated the establishment of such a mechanism, but Japan, Canada and other countries opposed it, apparently in the same vein as its position of trying to evade its obligations by all means. The United States, which declared that the Kyoto Protocol was "useless" and "wrong", also attended the meeting. The head of the American delegation insisted on rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, but at the same time aggressively said that if it concerns the interests of the United States, it will intervene. The unreasonable attitude of the United States was criticized and ridiculed by many groups inside and outside the venue, and it appeared very isolated. One striking aspect of the Bonn conference was the international political significance of the fact that the vast majority of 178 countries were able to reach a compromise on a global issue without the participation of the United States. An editorial in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung said that the fact that an agreement could be reached without the participation of the only superpower, the United States, was by no means a trivial fringe phenomenon. The editorial in the Berlin Journal pointed out that for the first time, the international community showed that sometimes things can be done well without the United States. The message from the Bonn conference was that the international community, especially the European Union, showed courage and proved their autonomy. The European Union should show its "leadership in a new type of diplomatic arena" not only on climate issues, but also in practical politics.