Results so far:
| Yes | 60% | 74 votes | Total: 123 votes | |
| No | 40% | 49 votes |
Ecological movements are not new to the late 20th century and the early 21st century yet the amount of influence that environmentalists have is greater than ever. There were people and movements opposed to industrialisation due to its social as well at its environmental impact (Eatwell & Wright, 2003, p.231). Ecological movements would usually have far more expansive plans for reversing environmental damage and would not be popular with political leaders, consumers and voters. Politicians (Eatwell & Wright, 2003, p.250).
It was probably no coincidence that modern ecological movements emerged in the West during the 1960s when growing affluence amongst the young middle classes allowed them the chance to think about the global economy and the impact that it had upon the global environment. In the 1960s many people if they thought about the environment at all assumed it meant nothing more or less than making the air and water clean (Hobsbawm, 1994, p. 262).
The main political and economic to capitalism, communism may have had different aims to its capitalist rivals yet it still aimed at rapid economic growth. Neither capitalism nor communism were or are intended to be guardians of the environment. However growing knowledge of the damage being caused to the environment would force countries to co-operate with each other especially after the fall of communism in Central and Eastern Europe (Brown, 2002, p. 240).
In the ever increasing consumption of natural resources and increasing levels of pollution arguably intensified the Global Warming problem and would mean that co-operation over the environment would become a major area of contention. For the instance the United States consumption of oil increased by 300 per cent between 1950 and the start of the oil crisis in 1973. The highly ineffective factories of the Soviet Union produced almost as much as the United States for the production of far fewer goods (Hobsbawm, 1994, pp. 252-253).
Complacency about the environment started to be lifted during the 1970s eventually leading to international protocols to reduce pollution. The oil crisis of 1973 led to some attempts to find alternatives to fossil fuels although it did nothing in the long term to reduce oil consumption even if it did hurt the pockets of Western motorists and Third World governments. As the human population continues to grow upwards of 6 billion plus beyond the use of resources and resulting pollution will grow (Nicholson, 1998, p.157). Environmental and ecological movements started to make headway in Western Europe and North America with concerns about acid rain, the emission of CFC's reducing the ozone layer and most significantly global warming (Brown, 2001, p.252).
Global warming is now a concern of most governments although they do not have an equal say as to the policies that should be pursued to stop or reverse the process. Rising sea levels are more of a threat to the Netherlands, parts of Britain or Bangladesh than they are to the United States, Russia and China. The relative wealth of the Netherlands and Britain make their co-operation with the Kyoto Protocol than that of Bangladesh. The exclusion of the United States, Russia and China plus India would seriously damage the co-operation needed to make the Kyoto Protocol near being effective (Nicholson, 1998, p.165).
It has been encouraging that has been co-operation between governments over the environment. However that co-operation has to be brought about by a process of negotiations and compromises with little to force countries especially more powerful ones such as the United States, Russia and China into agreeing to effective measures to protect the environment. Aside from appealing to sense and reason there is little way of enforcing measures agreed at the Kyoto Protocol or any other environmental summit(Brown, 2002, p. 240).
The Rio Earth Summit was intended to introduce measures and co-operation to tackle global warming on a greater scale. To a certain extent it succeeded in producing co-operation even if it was hampered by the unwillingness of the Bush senior administration to agree to the most stringent measures that could have been agreed. The United States remains the world's largest individual polluting country yet its governments are generally unwilling to jeopardise American living standards to save the planet. The Bush senior administration did not however block the agreement at R as it could have done. The United States government came under pressure from other governments to take greater action yet did yield to it (Brown, 2002, p. 243).
Third World and developing countries were not happy and remain unhappy that the United States does not do more to protect the environment as it gained most from the way that the global environment operates (Nicholson, 1998, p.173).
Other countries mainly in the EU and Scandinavia have been more active in seeing the environment as being of vital importance and wished to go further that the agreements reached at Rio. The EU can play its part in protecting the environment as it can pass legislation and regulations that its member states have to conform to (McCormick, 2002, p.128).
EU states plus Australia and New Zealand played their part in the Kyoto Protocol. Once again the United States proved reluctant to adopt tough measures. That reluctance was despite President Bill Clinton being keen on environmental issues. He was unwilling to cut American living standards and also realised that tough restriction were unlikely to get through a Republican controlled Congress (Crystal, 2003, p. 513).
European countries such as Britain, France and Germany were unhappy about the lack of United States support for the Kyoto Protocol. Tony Blair was especially disappointed as he expected Bill Clinton to have been more supportive of the Kyoto Protocol and protecting the environment (Young, 2003, p.150).
George W Bush was even less willing for the United States to be constrained by any parts of the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed prior to the 9/11 attacks the bush administration seemed cool to the idea of government co-operation most issues. Since 9/11 the United States government has been more interested in pursuing the war on terrorism rather than co-operation to uphold the Kyoto Protocol or protecting the environment. The campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq have done harm to the environment. The soaring oil prices seen after the invasion of Iraq may however boost the moves towards finding alternative fuels as much as any of the targets on reducing emissions agreed within the Kyoto Protocol would have done on their own. (Evans and Newnham, 1998, p. 397).
The need for global co-operation to achieve the 5 per cent emission targets set out with the Kyoto Protocol would seem to gathering with global warming seeming to contribute to climate changes that are increasingly costly and dangerous (Crystal, 2003, p. 513).
Climate changes have and will make floods and droughts more common whilst lack of adequate food and water supplies will contribute to greater instances of famine and severe poverty. Whilst countries can take steps to avoid economic problems there is little they can do to stop a hurricane or tsunami. The costs of reducing pollution or improving irrigation and building up flood protection high with no certainty that they will be successful (Eatwell and Wright, 2003, p. 251).
There was large-scale international co-operation to help the Asian countries devastated by the tsunami of December 2004. Countries can only hope that such disasters are confined to unpopulated or lightly populated areas to keep death and destruction to a minimum. Aside from such hopes countries can increase their levels of co-operation by encouraging recycling, energy and water conservation schemes to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Bibliography
Brown (2002) Understanding International Relations 2nd edition, Palgrave, Basingstoke
Crystal, D (2003) The Penguin Concise Encyclopedia, Penguin, London
Eatwell, R. & Wright, A (2003) Contemporary Political Ideologies 2nd Edition, Continuum, London
Hobsbawm, E (1994) Age of Extremes, the Short Twentieth Century 1914-1991, Michael Joseph, London
McCormick J (2002) Understanding the European Union A Concise Introduction 2nd edition Palgrave, Basingstoke
Nicholson M (1998) International Relations A Concise Introduction, Macmillan Press, Basingstoke
Young H (2003) Supping with the Devils Political writing from Thatcher to Blair, Guardian Books, London
Learn more about this author, Barry Vale.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.
The Kyoto Protocol: A Foolish Cause
Human produced (anthropogenic) carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are believed by some to significantly contribute to global climate change. Proponents of anthropogenic global warming claim that without drastically reducing CO2 emissions, catastrophic consequences await our planet. According to the hypothesis, the planet's temperature will continue to rise with increasing levels of CO2. Rising temperatures will cause the Polar Icecaps to melt, which will produce rising sea levels. Rising sea levels will in turn flood coastal cities and certain islands. Manhattan will eventually be flooded and Florida interned in a watery grave. Other consequences of anthropogenic global warming include: increasingly destructive weather systems, world-wide drought, the spread of debilitating diseases, extinction of some plant and animal species, and on and on. Indeed, global warming is touted as a veritable Apocalypse in progress.
Enter Kyoto, the world's answer' to global warming. In December 1997, leaders of the industrialized world met in Kyoto, Japan to formalize a treaty to reduce CO2 emissions. Known as the Kyoto Protocol, the treaty would require the United States to reduce its CO2 emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels. Other industrialized nations would similarly be required to reduce their emissions. However, 130 developing nations-including India and China-would not be obligated to reduce emissions. The United States Senate believed these 130 exempted countries placed the American people at an unfair economic disadvantage; consequently, the Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by a vote of 95-0 (Senate). The purpose of this resolution was to give notice to President Clinton that the Senate would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol unless developing nations were also required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In March of 2001, President Bush echoed the Senate's sentiment when he declared to the world that the United States would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Great sacrifices for a worthy cause are noble; conversely, great sacrifices for an unworthy cause are foolish. Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is a foolish cause and would demand unethical sacrifices of the American people.
First of all, consider the 130 countries that are exempt from Kyoto's requirements. Even if the United States and other industrialized countries met reduced CO2 emission requirements, these would be offset by the growing CO2 emissions from developing countries (Samuelson). According to the U. S. Energy Information Administration, global emissions of CO2 will increase to 7.8 billion tons by 2010 without Kyoto. With Kyoto, when factoring increased emissions from developing countries, global emissions of CO2 will increase to 7.3 billion tons (Samuelson). This is a minuscule difference unworthy of the huge costs associated with implementing the treaty's requirements. The Kyoto Protocol cannot significantly reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, and it would be unethical to burden the American people with shouldering the costs.
Secondly, the negative affect the Kyoto Protocol would have on the American economy cannot be underestimated. This is one of the reasons why the U. S. Senate unanimously opposed the Kyoto Protocol (Senate). Honoring the requirements of the treaty would require a tremendous reduction in our energy consumption. In other words, our use of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel, and other forms of energy would have to be severely curtailed to reduce CO2 emissions to seven percent below 1990 levels. This means a significant decline in our standard of living. Furthermore, a growing economy needs energy to continue growing. By forcing businesses to reduce energy consumption, or by making it too costly for businesses to consume energy, production will be reduced. Once production is reduced, jobs will be lost. This is a law of economics. In fact, independent economic studies of Kyoto Protocol requirements all indicate massive job loses in heavy manufacturing and Gross Domestic Product reduction by several percentage points by 2010, with greater loses occurring into the future (Administration, 3). This tremendously negative economic impact is not worth the minuscule affect the Kyoto Protocol would have on reducing global CO2 emissions. Not only would the costs of combating global warming devastate our economy, the global economy would be severely affected as well. So much so, Sir Fred Hoyle said such costs could eventually return us all to the Dark Ages (Hoyle).
Some would argue that these costs and sacrifices are necessary, for without them we are doomed. This argument would indeed have merit if the science of anthropogenic global warming was settled; however, such is not the case. In fact, one climatologist called the idea "the greatest deception in the history of science" (Ball). In addition, over 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition which requested that the United States reject the Kyoto Protocol because the treaty was based upon "flawed ideas" (Petition). Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences (NSA), prepared the cover letter for the petition. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT and member of the NSA panel on climate control, said "we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future" (Lindzen). Lindzen's article was written to correct false reports made by the media in reference to a report released by the NAS on climate change. According to Dr. Lindzen, CNN's Michelle Mitchell said the NSA report represented a "unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room" (Lindzen). Dr. Lindzen was one of eleven scientists who prepared the report, and he said that Mitchell's comments were false. He continued by stating the report made clear that there was "no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them" (Lindzen). Far from being scientifically established, anthropogenic global warming is a seriously flawed principle based largely on assumptions.
The Kyoto Protocol is economically and scientifically unsound; therefore, the United States must continue to reject foreign and domestic pressure to ratify the treaty. Interestingly, the debate is all but over as far as academia and the media is concerned; the climate is catastrophically warming and evil humanity is to blame-evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. This attitude smacks of a hidden agenda. One can not help wondering if the crusade to promote the Kyoto Protocol is a concerted effort to destroy the American economy.
Works Cited
"Administration Expected to Defy Bryd-Hagel." Republican Policy Commission.
http://rpc.senate.go v/_files/ENVIROmw102 197.pdf
Ball, Timothy. "Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?"
http://www.oism.org/ news/s49p1828.htm
Hoyle, Fred. Qtd. in "The Global Warming Folly." Zbignlew Jaworowski.
http://www.mitosyfra udes.org/Ingles/Warm .html
Lindzen, Richard S. "The Press Gets It Wrong: Our report doesn't support the Kyoto treaty."
http://www.eagleforu m.org/psr/2001/july0 1/lindzen.shtml
Petition Project. http://www.oism.org/ pproject/
Samuelson, Robert J. "The Kyoto Delusion." The Washington Post. June 21, 2001. p. A25.
http://www.eagleforu m.org/psr/2001/july0 1/samuelson.html
Senate Resolution 98. "Byrd-Hagel Resolution." www.nationalcenter.o rg/KyotoSenate.html
Learn more about this author, Isaiah Paul.
Click here to send Author comments or questions.