Political & Economic & Environmental Aspects of the Kyoto Protocol - The issue of global warming and the Kyoto Protocol is a topic highly charged debate.

Political & Economic & Environmental Aspects of the Kyoto Protocol

The issue of global warming and the Kyoto Protocol is a topic highly charged debate. Australia’s involvement with the Kyoto Protocol affects the economic

and political aspects of our country. These will be discussed further in this report.

The Framework Convention on Climate Change, instigated by the United Nations, was held in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997. More than 2,200 delegates from 161 nations took part in this summit to help forge an international treaty now known as the Kyoto Protocol. It encompasses counties all over the world but mainly the Asia-Pacific region.

The objective of the Kyoto climate-change conference was to establish a legally binding international agreement, where all the participating nations commit themselves to tackling the issue of global warming and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GGE’s). The target agreed upon at the summit was an average reduction of 5% on 1990 levels by the year 2012 (1).

In reality, it would take an immediate reduction of at least 60% to make an impact on the greenhouse gases that have been accumulating in the atmosphere since the onset of the industrial revolution. Given this, even if it is ratified, the Kyoto Protocol will achieve little for the environment.

Political

Because of argument by the United States and Australia, ratification of the treaty may never eventuate. Australia and the US arrived at the talks as hostile participants with entrenched positions. Central to US obstinance was the lack of participation from China and India. Although major polluters themselves, because they are developing countries,

the Kyoto Protocol accord does not require them to reduce their emissions at all.

The Americans created an “all in” policy. That is, both developed and under-developed nations should be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and comply with the treaty. As it stands ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

Political

the Kyoto Protocol accord does not require them to reduce their emissions at all.

The Americans created an “all in” policy. That is, both developed and under-developed nations should be required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and comply with the treaty. As it stands now, China and India can increase their emissions – they are not bound by the treaty.

Consequently, the US objected. The United States is the world’s most industrialised nation and as such is responsible for a staggering 25% of global GGE’s (2). As the world’s biggest polluter, could be argued that they have a moral obligation to lead by example.

As developing nations, in particular China and India, become more industrialised, they will require guidance and leadership in establishing clean renewable energy resources. However, if the world’s largest polluter isn’t interested in taking measures to curb the effects of global warming, it is unlikely that they will.

Then in March 2001, the new Bush Administration politically dumped the Kyoto Protocol, finally ending speculation on the US position. ‘Bush has no interest in pursuing the Kyoto Protocol’, declared the US Environment Protection Agency chief, Christine

Whitman (3).

Within a few weeks, Australia also showed their desire to jump ship. Australia’s Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill said, ‘We’ve always said we wouldn’t ratify the Kyoto Protocol ahead of the US’ (4). Essentially, it’s a case of if they don’t – we won’t. However, one can’t help but feel that the US retreat simply gave the Australian

Government a convenient excuse to pull out. The Kyoto Protocol was a low priority for the Howard government from the very beginning.

Economic

Australia was one of only two nations that successfully negotiated an increase in their GGE’s. They were allowed to increase their emissions by 8% on 1990 levels by 2012 (5). Prime Minister John Howard described this political victory as a terrific result for Australia. However, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE) have recently released a sobering statistic.

If Australia fails to take any counteracting measures between now and 2012, ABARE says their GGE increase will actually be 35% (6) - way above the negotiated target. Exactly how John Howard planned to achieve this result is still not clear.

Australia relies very heavily on fossil fuels and is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases per head of population. With 76% of their energy production being sourced from coal and oil, the task of reducing GGE’s will be a very difficult one. Perhaps the task is so difficult, it was never seriously on the agenda.

However, Australia’s reluctance to recognise the importance of global warming is quite puzzling. Australia’s delicate ecological balance is particularly vulnerable, more so than other nation in the world. Much of their landmass is semi-arid and subject to drought, extremes of temperature and sensitive to El Nino cycles. Add to that soil salinity

problems and temperatures that are already higher than optimum for agriculture in many regions.

Australia’s economy is also dependent on $31 billion in annual agricultural exports (7). Tourism in the Great Barrier Reef alone is worth $1 billion each year (8). Surely then, if any country has a strong national interest in avoiding climate change, it must be Australia.

Disintegration of the Kyoto Protocol will also deliver another economic blow to Australia. Emissions Trading between nations is likely to cease without US involvement in the treaty. Under the Kyoto accord, a country can gain carbon credits by planting forests, then sell these credits to nations that overextend on their negotiated GGE levels.

Australian State Forests were very keen to take advantage of the Emissions Trading system, and it was seen as a new multi-billion dollar a year industry. As an example, this year NSW State Forests won a contract for carbon credits with Japanese electrical company TEPCO worth $120 million (9). However, the viability of Emissions Trading is now in severe doubt with t the support of the US.

Environmental

Political and economic considerations aside, another danger of global warming is rising sea levels, due to the melting of the polar ice caps. Consider a nation like the Maldives, a small group of islands in the Indian Ocean. The average height of land in the Maldives is only a few metres above sea level. If the issue of greenhouse gas emissions is not

immediately addressed, the Maldives, in the not too distant future, will be completely under water.

Conclusion

Climate change is a global concern and we can see that Australia’s reluctance to seriously participate in the Kyoto Protocol will have serious consquences for the entire Asia-Pacific region, not just Australia. It is also clear that Australia is too willing to agree with America. It is the responsibility of the world’s two most notorious polluters to take the lead role in reducing GGE’s, not to turn their backs to the problem.