Position of the European Union
On May 31, 2002, all fifteen members of the European Union deposited the relevant ratification paperwork at the UN. The EU produces around 21% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and has agreed to a cut, on average, by 8% from 1990 emission levels. The EU has consistently been one of the major supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, negotiating hard to get wavering countries on board.
In December, 2002, the EU created a system of emissions trading in an effort to meet these tough targets. Quotas were introduced in six key industries: energy, steel, cement, glass, brick making, and paper/cardboard. There are also fines for member nations that fail to meet their obligations, starting at €40/ton of carbon dioxide in 2005, and rising to €100/ton in 2008. Current EU projections suggest that by 2008 the EU will be at 4.7% below 1990 levels.
Position of the United States
Summary: The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified.
On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he doesn't support the general idea, but because he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
- "The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade. The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".
In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.
The prospect of the US staying outside the agreement influenced a number of other countries including Australia, Japan, and Canada to discuss whether they should ratify the agreement, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the USA. While Japan and Canada ultimately decided to ratify the protocol, Australia's current government has said it will not ratify. This may change at the next change of government, as the major opposition parties have committed to ratification if in a position to do so.
Position of Canada
On December 17, 2002, Canada ratified the treaty. This was however opposed by groups of businesses, non-governmental climate scientists and energy concerns, using arguments similar to those being used in the US.
However an additional twist is involved. The US is Canada's major trading partner (and vice versa), so with Canadian companies having to pay for emissions, and US companies not, the fear is that Canadian companies will not be able to compete on a fair trading ground. In one example a company can sell natural gas to the US to be burned in an electrical plant to produce electricity. That gas, burned in the US, is not subject to "Kyoto tax". However if that same plant were operated in Canada, the gas would be taxed as it was burned. That would result in the same electricity costing more if produced locally.
The result is an ongoing "war of words", primarily between the government of Alberta (a major oil and gas producer) and the federal government, although non-governmental climate scientists are becoming increasingly vocal in the press in their opposition to the treaty - for example, see http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=309a5bd5-a66f-48fb-959f-9aa2688a3743. This is largely due to the fact that these scientists were shut out of the consultation process while environmental pressure groups were allowed to take part broadly.
It also appears that the federal government will ask for additional credits for "clean" fuels sold to the United States, most notably natural gas.
Controversy
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that reducing these emissions is crucially important; carbon dioxide, they believe, is causing the earth's atmosphere to heat up too much (see global warming).
Most prominent among these advocates have been officials of the Clinton administration and many environmentalist organizations. The United Nations and some individual nations' scientific advisory bodies have also issued reports favoring the Kyoto Protocol.
Some critics state that the protocol will prevent or damage economic growth.
- American Council for Capital Formation[1]
- National Bank of New Zealand[1]
- John Daly, author of The Greenhouse Trap, August 2002[1]
- President George W. Bush[1]
- Ken Green, Fraser Institute, [1]
The 1997 Leipzig Declaration called the Kyoto Protocol "dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living". Most of the signers of the Leipzig Declaration are non-scientists or lack credentials in the specific field of climate research.
An open letter was written to Canada's future prime minister, Paul Martin, signed by 46 climate experts from six countries - Martin has yet to respond. A previous open letter was signed by 27 climate experts and sent to current Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien.
Some opponents argue that the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions, and the standards it sets would be totally ineffective at curbing or even slowing climate change. In addition, there have been recent scientific challenges to the idea of carbon credits, planting "Kyoto forests" or tree farms to reduce total carbon dioxide output. Recent evidence shows that this may in fact increase carbon dioxide emissions for the first 10 years, due to the growth pattern of young forests and the effect it has on soil-trapped carbon dioxide. Several industrial countries have made carbon credits an important part of their strategies for reducing their net greenhouse gas outputs, further calling into question the effectiveness of the protocols.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol, it is necessary to compare global warming with and without the agreement.
Several independent authors agree that the impact of the Kyoto protocol on global warming is very small (a reduction of 0.15 Celsius degrees by 2100, out of a projected total change of 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees).
Even some defenders of the Kyoto Protocol agree that the impact of it is small, but they view it as a first step, with more political than practical importance, for future reductions, perhaps of up to 70%.
The Kyoto Protocol can also be evaluated by comparing costs and gains.
Several economic analyses were made that show that the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than the global warming that it avoids.
Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue however that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future. Also, they demonstrate commitment to the precautionary principle.
Some theorists predict that even if the world's leading industrial nations agree to reduce their "greenhouse" emissions as mandated by the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that there would be no net change in emissions worldwide. As the industrialized countries cut their demand for fossil fuels, the law of supply and demand will tend to cause the world prices of coal, oil and gas go down, making fuel use more affordable for poorer nations. These theorists predict increased fuel use (primarily coal) in the "non-Annex I" countries, tending to offset the reductions of the "Annex I" countries. [1]
Kyoto Now!
Kyoto Now! is a student led movement at colleges and universities across the USA through which students hope to make American universities commit to reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Cornell Kyoto Now! demanded that the University commit, "to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by seven percent below the 1990 levels of emissions by 2004. These reductions are not on a square foot basis, but based on the total campus emissions," as stated in their list of demands made to Campus administration.
Punk band Bad Religion wrote a song called Kyoto Now! for their 2002 album, The Process of Belief, which spoke about the Kyoto Protocol and their opinions on it. It can be considered an anthem for the Kyoto Now! movement.
See also: Citizens for a Sound Economy, Environmental agreements, Emissions trading, global warming
External links