“All Parties, taking into account their common but differentiated responsibilities and their specific national and regional development priorities, objectives and circumstances, without introducing any new commitments for Parties not included in Annex 1, but reaffirming existing commitments . . . and continuing to advance the implementation of these commitments in order to achieve sustainable development”
Article 10 (b) and (c) outlines the commitments of developing countries, and although they are not new commitments, they are certainly an elaboration of the existing ones.
The Kyoto Protocol “will not solve the global warming problem, but is a vital first step toward the much deeper reductions that will eventually be needed”. If implemented it will have considerable consequences on the way Nations around the globe allocate the use of non-renewable sources.
The potential benefits from Kyoto are captured by the avoided damages from climate change. In assessing the possible impact of rising atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, the WMO/UNEP Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded in their 1995 Report that: “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate”. Potential climate risks avoided include more severe weather patterns, hobbled ecosystems, less biodiversity, less potable water, loss of coastal areas from rising sea levels, rises in mean temperature, more infectious diseases such as malaria, yellow fever, and cholera.
In addition to the obvious health benefits for all living beings, the protocol allows a great deal of flexibility since it does not specify to countries how their targets are to be achieved. This is left up to the countries themselves; therefore they are able to implement measures which they feel appropriate. Additionally, the fact that with the protocol countries are given between the years of 2008 and 2012 to fulfil their obligations under Article 3 is a further example of flexibility, and as has been suggested that this thereby encourages parties to sign and ratify the protocol.
There are, however, numerous unanswered questions about the structure of atmospheric systems and their potential thresholds. As Schelling suggests, “uncertainties abound: We do not know which regions will get warmer or cooler; which will get wetter or drier; which will get stormier or calmer”. In assessing the benefits of Kyoto, it depends on the perceived risk of catastrophe: if it is believed that disaster is imminent, emission reductions cannot come soon or fast enough; however, if it is not, it is hard to justify the likely costs if the Kyoto Protocol. Numerous risk perception studies have revealed that people commonly overestimate the chance that they will suffer from a low probability/high severity event, e.g. a nuclear power accident; when the potential outcome is potentially very bad, people inflate the chance that the outcome will be realized. Policymakers are not immune to this human fallibility either.
With the US being the largest contributor to global emissions with around 23% of emissions of carbon dioxide, it had the most to lose, in reducing its emissions and fulfilling obligations, in ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. As a result, the US had to weigh up the pros and cons of ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Although they accepted that climate change was a worrying factor, the immediate threat to their economy, by adopting the KP, was too great. Their reliance on fossil fuels would cause great problems when trying to reduce emissions and as a result their economic growth would have to find other ways to continue growing. As a result of these concerns, if an agreement was to be reached, the Kyoto Protocol had to satisfy their concerns. It is also worth bearing in mind that “without the US the value of any agreement would be relatively meaningless” with the US being the largest contributor of carbon dioxide emissions; consequently this gave the US a great deal of weight when seeking to negotiate.
Before the US would consider the Protocol, it demanded that various provisions be included. One of the essential demands of the US, along with Japan, Canada and New Zealand they differentiation. The principle of differentiation allows groups of countries to have collective targets. As a result, a country may increase their emissions and have this offset by a greater decrease by another country, thus meeting the collective target. The EU has already adopted the differentiation principle by setting individual targets in Annex B. Thus poorer countries in the EU could continue increasing their emissions as long as other countries performed greater cuts in order to meet the collective target.
The second demand of states including the US was the need for flexibility within the Protocol; “in particular, that each state individually should decide on the measures and policies necessary for the implementation of its obligations, the establishment of a mechanism allowing the purchase from another state of unused emission quotas (‘emission trading’), and to allow states to undertake climate mitigation projects in one state but claim the benefit of reduced emission for itself”.
Originally the EU had been in favor of coordinated efforts to meet the targets; however the US, in theory, ended up getting their wish. The Protocol permits that an Annex 1 country will be allowed to “Implement and/or further elaborate policies and measures in accordance with its national circumstances”. As a result of EU pressure, however, provisions were installed which gave the Conference of the Parties the power to “consider ways and means to elaborate the coordination of such policies and measures.”
Emissions Trading
Emission Trading is the first mechanism in the Protocol aimed at providing flexibility and choice in terms of meeting individual quotas as to the amount of reductions. The concept behind Emission Trading is to allow the market to facilitate the emission reduction projects in the most cost effective manner. Individual parties will be able to trade emission entitlements with other parties with the intention of meeting their quota obligations. Initially this trading activity has been limited to Annex 1 parties, as they are the only parties with legally binding commitments.
Clean Development Mechanism
The Clean Development Mechanism is a mechanism that aims to address the issues of climate change by international co-operation. Crucially, it aims to connect the demands of non-Annex 1 parties, by transferring new technology. Projects (to reduce greenhouse gases) are undertaken in developing countries and are used to offset some of the reduction targets they faced. In return for voluntarily undertaking projects in developing countries that increase the financial flows into the recipient country concerned, and also to provide “real, measurable and long term” benefits, which help to stimulate “leap-frogging” in terms of technology transfer, Annex 1 countries will be allowed to take partial credit for the emissions reductions resulting.
Joint Initiative
Joint Implementation, in the context of the climate change convention, refers to the possibility of emission reductions in one country being funded from, or otherwise arranged jointly with another country. The logic behind this approach is that as long as the global atmosphere experienced a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, it does not matter from where the reductions actually originated.
“For the purpose of meeting its commitments under Article 3, any Party included in Annex I may transfer to, or acquire from, any other such Party emission reduction units resulting from projects aimed at reducing anthropogenic emissions by sources or enhancing anthropogenic removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in any sector of the economy.”
The emission reduction projects then generate ‘Emission Reduction Units’, which can then be used to offset national targets. However, there has to be approval by all parties involved, and the reduction in emissions must also be additional to work carried out domestically.
Despite the US signing up in 1997, on the July 1997 the US Senate voted 95 – 0 against ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, and then in March 2001 the recently elected George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol as “fatally Flawed”, and withdrew the US from negotiations stating “Kyoto is dead”.
There are many reasons why the US refused to ratify the protocol however Mr Bush outlined that the Kyoto Protocol on Global Warming was “in many ways unrealistic” and that its targets were “arbitrary and not based on science”. Although Mr Bush admitted that “we recognise a responsibility to reduce our emissions”, there still remains great scepticism in the scientific community that Greenhouse Gases, which the Kyoto Protocol aims to reduce, are the main source of global warming.
Back in 1996, the US announced that they would not adopt the Kyoto Protocol unless it was a cost effective climate change policy; however, the cost-benefit analysis proved inconclusive. Dr Watson stated that “Kyoto would of hammered our economy and put millions of Americans out of work”, and it was suggested by the Bush administration that the US is not willing to jeopardise their economy without clear and definite future benefits.
One of the fundamental reasons behind the US rejection was that no agreement was reached in Kyoto on what commitments developing countries should assume to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The US highlighted that the Protocol excluded 80% of the world and that it is clear that climate protection requires the participation on the developing countries because by the middle of the next century they are predicted to generate the largest share of carbon dioxide. Developing nations have no incentive to reduce their economic growth. China, for example, is the second largest emitter after the US, but its per capita emissions are about a seventh of those in the United States. This would have put the US at a great disadvantage, as their projected emissions for years 2008 to 2012 would have to be reduced by 40% to fulfil their obligations under the Kyoto Agreement. As a result the “Bootlegger and Baptists” theory comes into practice - in which all parties benefit, however not all parties have to contribute.
George Bush came under significant criticism after rejecting the Kyoto Protocol; however, he recognizes the problems surrounding climate change and admits “[t]here is no doubt that humans have obviously influenced the climate”. As a result, in 2001, the Bush administration announced that they were still committed to “addressing climate change issue in a manner that protects our environment, consumers and economy” and he had ordered his cabinet to make recommendations that address this issue both internationally and domestically.
Bush had previously proposed a “climate change research initiative to study global warming and bolster co-operation between research institutions in the US, Europe, Latin America and Japan”. Currently the US are co-operating with Mexico and South America to try and tackle climate change. Initially, Dr Watson suggested that Washington should “research into renewable energy and ways of ‘capturing’ and ‘sequestering’ carbon emissions resulting from the burning of fossil fuels”. As a result, the US have created two initiatives which deal with research, and sequestration: The National Climate Initiative, and the National Climate Technology Initiative respectively. The National Climate Change Initiative involves NASA, which are examining how carbon dioxide affects global change, with simulations of climate change. They will also look into the effect of aerosols, and water cycles. The National Climate Technology Initiative has two projects on carbon sequestration. The Nature Conservancy Project looks into how carbon dioxide can be stored more effectively, and the second – the International Team of Energy Companies is looking into ways of lowering the cost of removing carbon dioxide from emissions.
Recommendations, were also announced in May 2001, to promote energy efficiency and conservation and to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases through the use of alternative, renewable, and advanced forms of energy. In line with these recommendations, individual States are also involved in tackling emissions.
“[Each State] can influence which energy sources utilities are promoted in their state and which type of energy constituents choose. They have a responsibility for land use and planning and industrial development, as well as activities that directly or indirectly contribute to [greenhouse gas] emissions such as waste management” .
As of May 2002, 25 US states had introduced state action plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. New Hampshire enacted a Clean Power act which sets limits on emissions of Sulphur Dioxide, Nitrogen Oxides and Carbon Dioxide. Many states have also introduced State Greenhouse Gas Registries, which register their voluntary greenhouse gas emission reductions.
Although the US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol was met with a plethora of criticism, the reasoning behind rejecting the Protocol, is arguably, understandable. No country would want to damage their economy without a guarantee of future benefits, and no leader would agree to such legal documentation should they face the number of risks that the US faces.
As a result, the US have taken a stance that the will individually tackle the problems raised by the Kyoto Protocol, with them considering to revaluate their opinion of the Protocol in the future. Although the withdrawal of the US is a major setback, presently the Protocol has been ratified by 100 parties, of which Annex 1 parties account for 43% of the carbon emissions. It has been suggested that Kyoto is now “riddled with more holes than a block of Swiss cheese”; however it is a good building block for tackling global emissions, a problem which has been discussed for many years.
I believe that the US was correct in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, as they faced a number of growing problems, and negotiations were not progressing. I feel, however, that the US must stick to its outlines of improvements for global emissions, and that reconsideration on Kyoto should occur in the near future, in order to improve, and combine combat of harmful emissions.
Bibliography
ENDS “Prospect Cloudy for Kyoto Protocol” [2002]
French "1997 Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change" [1998]
Guardian Earth Summit Supplement
Hobley A “Is Kyoto Dead? Climate Change after Bush” [2002]
Yandle & Buck “Bootleggers, Buck and the Global
Warming Battle” (2002)
Dr Harlan Watson “Climate Change: International Agreements and Mitigation Alternatives”
S. Oberthur and H. Ott, The First Conference of the Parties 1995
Thomas C Schelling Green House Effect, The Concise Encyclopaedia of Economics
Lichtenstein The Judged Frequency if Lethal Events 1978
Guardian Online
Bush proposes alternative to Kyoto pact on Climate
Forget Kyoto Deal for Another 10 Years, says Bush Advisor
Reports
Global Environmental Outlook Report 2000
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992
Kyoto Protocol 1997
The FCCC came into existence in May 1992 at the UN headquarters in New York, and was adopted the following month in Rio at the “Earth Summit”.
These countries are outlined in Annex 1 of the Convention.
S. Oberthur and H. Ott, The First Conference of the Parties 1995 25 EPL 4/5, 144-56
Article 3(1) Berlin Mandate
Article 4(2) (a), (b) Convention
List in Annex A of the KP as “carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro fluorocarbons, perfluorcrabons and sulphur hexafluoride. UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Under the Convention, developed countries were referred to as Annex 1 countries; however under the Kyoto Protocol, they are referred to as Annex B countries.
All parties to the Convention were to develop a national database of the “anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks” and to devise a solution which will reduce the climate change
Daniel Lashof, a Senior Scientist at Natural Resources Defence Council
Global Environmental Outlook Report 2000
Average sea level is projected to rise by about 50 cm, within a range of 15 to 95 cm, by the year 2001. (A 50 cm rise in sea level would lead to the displacement of millions of people in low-lying ‘delta’ areas and a number of small island states could be wiped out – “Global Environmental Outlook”
The IPCC mid-range scenario projects an increase in global mean temperature of 2.0 degrees Celsius, within a range of 1.0 to 3.5 degrees Celsius, by the year 2100, the largest warming in the past 10,000 years – “Global Environmental Outlook”
Thomas C Schelling – Green House Effect, The Concise Encyclopaedia of Economics
Lichtenstein – The Judged Frequency if Lethal Events 1978
Duncan French Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1997 p.230
Duncan French Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1997 p.236
Bush proposes alternative to Kyoto pact on Climate – Guardian Online
Outlined in a report by the National Academy of Sciences.
President Bush’s Advisor Dr Harlan Watson
Forget Kyoto Deal for Another 10 Years, says Bush Advisor – Guardian Online
Dobriansky, Paula - Remarks to Resumed Sixth Conference of Parties
Yandle & Buck Bootleggers, Buck and the Global Warming p.185
Dr Harlan Watson Forget Kyoto Deal for Another 10 Years, says Bush Advisor – indicating Bush’s opinion
Dr Harlan Watson “Climate Change: International Agreements and Mitigation Alternatives”
Dr Harlan Watson Forget Kyoto Deal for Another 10 Years, says Bush Advisor
the US signed an agreement to conserve tropical rain forests
Dr Harlan Watson Forget Kyoto Deal for Another 10 Years, says Bush Advisor
Hobley, A “Is Kyoto Dead? Climate Change after Bush” p.176
http://unfccc.int/resource/kpthermo.html
Hobley, A “Is Kyoto Dead? Climate Change after Bush”