Should the US ratify the Kyoto Protocol?

No

1 of 4

by Cassandra Chowdhury

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

There are many theories about how the world will end: whether it be from plagues, from alien invasions, or from the Rapture. Recently, many people have come to see global warming and the effects of greenhouse gases as a possible apocalypse. With the carbon levels within our atmosphere rising drastically and our planet yielding more unpleasant results because of our carelessness, it has become a high priority to heal the environment. Indeed, Winston Churchill spoke correctly when he said "the era of procrastination, of half-measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place we are entering a period of consequences." Now that the signs of this procrastination are becoming apparent, measures are being taken around the world to revive our planet. The Kyoto Protocol is by far the most well-known and the first international measure taken thus far to lower greenhouse gas emissions. The plan calls for all included countries to lower their greenhouse gas usage by 5% between 2008 and 2012. Though the Protocol has noble aims, however, its benefits are far outnumbered by its costs and shortcomings. The National Center for Policy Analysis stated that the Kyoto Protocol's "importance is largely symbolic. After eight years and tens-of-millions of tax dollars spent: Kyoto is, indeed, an expensive symbol" (Burnett). I believe that the United States was right in not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, and that many improvements need to be made in the treaty before it is going to be effective.

Personally , I am greatly concerned about global warming and consider myself an environmentalist. This is why it surprised and disappointed me, as I learned more about the Kyoto Protocol, to realize that I saw many problems in the treaty. The greatest concern about the Kyoto Protocol is that its costs greatly outweigh its benefits. In a study done by Nordhaus and Boyer, it was estimated that the net global cost of the Kyoto Protocol is $716 billion, and the benefit to cost ratio is approximately 1-7(232). A study by Barrett casts doubt upon the idea that Kyoto will be able to sustain itself and states that it is quite likely that the costs of the Protocol will be too much for many countries, forcing them to drop out of the treaty (which will not be difficult since it has no means of enforcement). The National Center for Policy Analysis claims that "Kyoto's emission cuts would reduce U.S. gross domestic product somewhere between 3.6 percent and 5.1 percent by 2010" (Burnett). It also states that the Department of Energy estimated that Kyoto would cause gasoline prices to rise by 52 percent and electricity prices to rise by 86 percent (Burnett). These are not financial burdens that the Unites States is ready to take on, and first more research much be conducted on alternate resources that can be used.

One of President Bush's greatest concern about the Kyoto Protocol is its exemption of developing countries from any emissions caps at all. The treaty divides countries into two categories: those that are developed, such as the United States; and those that are developing, called Annex I countries. Not only are these countries not obligated to lower their emissions, they are allowed to increase their carbon production. Making exceptions for countries with small economies, or those that are going through great economic hardships is understandable. However,
the exempt countries include China, India, Brazil, and South Koreathe second, fourth, 10th, and 11th largest economies in the world (Will). China also happens to be the second largest producer of carbon on earth, falling just short of the United States. Because the Kyoto Protocol does not require it to set a limit on its greenhouse gas emissions, China is intending to dramatically raise its use of carbon, and is expected to pass the United States and become the largest carbon producing country within the next 25 years (Will). Newsweek's George Will wrote, "Nothing America can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030." This obviously frustrates and in many ways contradicts what the Kyoto Protocol is trying to achieve. Another related concern of multiple countries is that the financial burdens of the Kyoto Protocol will leave them so weakened economically that they will be disadvantaged when they conduct trade with the exempt Annex I countries ("Kyoto and Beyond").

For those countries that are considered developed and are being held responsible for emissions decreases, there are still ways around the constraints of the treaty. The Kyoto Protocol permits a practice called emissions trading, which allows countries that desire to go over their emissions cap to be excused by make a deal with other countries. These other countries agree to use less carbon in order to make up for the excess carbon being produced by the country that is paying them. This concept allows for an easy way out for countries that cannot or will not meet their goals of cutting green house gases. Individual countries do not have to take responsibility or initiative to solve their carbon problem, because the treaty focuses on global results. Though emissions trading has been said to promote a feeling of intercontinental cooperation, it also ensures that countries can get away with not lowering their emissions at all. One country that is expected to make use of emissions trading is Germany, who shocked Kyoto supporters in 2006 when it announced that it could make no more cuts to its emissions levels in the interest of its economic wellbeing ("Kyoto in Crisis"). Germany had been the treaty's greatest supporter in Europe. An article in the academic journal New Scientist states that a "likely scenario [for Germany] is that it will end up buying so-called "hot air"spare Kyoto emissions permits from Russia and Ukraine. That would be a cop out" and "it would severely undermine [Kyoto's] credibility" ("Kyoto in Crisis"). Lohmann of the New Scientist states that emissions trading "encourages the industries most addicted to coal, oil, and gas to carry on as much as before" and that "there are better ways of tackling climate change than by privatizing the Earth's carbon-cycling capacity." In short, emissions trading gives too much of a fallback to countries that are not doing enough to lower their level of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol would be far more powerful if it held countries personally responsible for their carbon production and ceased to provide loopholes.

The United States has received an extraordinary amount of criticism because of its withdrawal from the Kyoto treaty, especially because this country produces the largest amount of carbon of anywhere in the world. It has been accused of not caring about the environment and of being too concerned about the costs of emission cuts. However, the United States has been making great progress in the fight against global warming by investing their money in environmental programs outside of the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, the United States has spent more money than any other government on the creation and promotion of technologies that reduce greenhouse gases; and we have done this while still maintaining economic growth. Billions of
dollars have gone to research on new, cleaner technologies and the transfer of these technologies to developing countries. The United States also sponsors the Asian-Pacific Partnership of Clean Development and climate, an agreement which encompasses six nations who all together produce 50% of the world's greenhouse gases ("Too Good to Be True?"). Unlike Kyoto, this agreement focuses on individual countries to reduce emissions, and it also attempt to engage India and China in emissions reductions through building up marketing incentives and providing knowledge and new technology transfers ("Too Good to Be True?"). It is true that this agreement has gotten much criticism, but no more or less than that received by the Kyoto Treaty. Other programs that the United States has dedicated its time and finances to include the "Healthy Forests" plan, and the Methane to Markets program, which will remove 1% of all greenhouse gases from the hemisphere, "the equivalent of taking 33 million cars off the road, or shutting down 50 coal-fired power plants or heating 7.2 million homes" (Burnett).
I am certainly not against acting swiftly to bring a halt to global warming. Nor am I against spending money to do so. However, the Kyoto Protocol, though its goals are noble, is not an efficient way to deal with these new climate changes. The large sums of money that it calls for and the many loopholes that exist, especially for those countries termed developing countries are both parts of the Kyoto Protocol that must be changed before the world can deal with global warming efficiently. The human race has a lot to learn before it can truly make amends with the earth. Henry David Thoreau was ahead of his times when he asserted, "humans should stop tampering and instead begin to learn how to live in harmony with nature" (Dizard 16). If only we had realized that sooner.

Works Cited
Barret, Scott. "Political Economy of the Kyoto Protocol." Oxford Review of Economic
Policy, Winter 1998.
Burnett, H. Sterling. "Was U.S. wise to reject Kyoto treaty on climate change?" National Center
for Policy Analysis, May 1, 2005.
Nordhaus, William D and Joseph Boyer. Warming the World- Economic Models of Global
Warming. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 2000.
Will, George F. "Incovenient Kyoto Truths: Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick
covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?" Newsweek, February 12, 2007.
"Kyoto and Beyond." CBC News, February 14, 2007.
"Kyoto in crisis: can the protocol survive a loss of faith from its staunchest
supporter?" New Scientist, July 8, 2006.
Lohmann, Larry. "Carry on polluting: far from being a solution to global warming, carbon
trading is little more than a license for polluters to carry on business as usual." New Scientist, December 2, 2006.
"Too good to be true? Beating climate change without altering our lifestyle is a
tempting idea." New Scientist, Sept 3, 2005.
Dizard, E Jan. Going Wild: Hunting, Animal Rights, and the Contested Meaning of Nature.
University of Massachusetts Press: Amherst, 1994.

Learn more about this author, Cassandra Chowdhury.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.