|  www.waroffices.us
Some people may look at this political cartoon and agree whole-heartedly
with its sarcastic frustration with the Bush Administration's refusal
to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. On the surface, the Kyoto Protocol seems
to be a proactive, cooperative way to help reverse the effects of human
activity on the Earth’s environment. With so much incentive and
support on most countries’ parts of the protocol, why is there such
reluctance to support it among countries that emit the most greenhouse
gasses (the United States currently emits 36.1%, the most greenhouse gases,
of all the Annex-I countries)? Before we make judgements on such nations
as the United States and Australia, we must analyze theoretical and political
reasons why the Kyoto Protocol has been so controversial over the last
eight years.
~Functional
Flaws in the Kyoto Protocol
1. The lack of penalties to
participating countries who do not comply
Currently, no penalties exist
for a ratifying country that does not meet emission targets by the stated
deadlines. Reasons for this lack of penalty are coupled by doubts over
the ability of some countries to survive the economic difficulties that
would accompany developing cleaner technologies. Possibilities for punishment
have included financial penalties, trade sanctions, and even emissions
penalties under future climate change agreements. However, talks to
get any of these into place have been slow and difficult, for seemingly
good reasons.
2. The ease at which countries
can withdraw from the protocol
The only thing a participating
country needs to do in order to be freed from requirements of the Kyoto
Protocol is give one year's notice. This is not a very good policy to
promote the gravity of what is at stake, according to the protocol's
creators, if it is not enforced. Giving countries the ability to simply
walk out on their side of the deal undermines the integrity of the entire
endeavor.
3. Vague method of awarding
credits
There is presently no stated
definition for what constitutes an emissions "reduction" in
the Kyoto Protocol. Although the Kyoto Mechnisms are a good idea theoretically,
there is presently no real method for which credit transfer among countries
can be implemented. The possibility of a trade market based on emissions
credits reveals a true potential for reductions to becom e a main priority
for a lot of countries, but as for now, the mechanisms (and the entire
concept) are useless until a system can be set up.
~Fundamental Flaws in the Kyoto Protocol
1. The exclusion of developing
countries from the protocol
It is understandable in theory
why the creators of the Kyoto Protocol excused devoloping countries
from regulations enforced by it: with little economic strength, these
countries could never be able to afford the technologies needed to reduce
their greenhouse gas emissions. For now, developing countries must use
the dated technology they have to try and build up their indutries and
make more money. Such is the case in China and India, which currently
hold more than one third of the Earth's population.
Herein lies the problem
with the Kyoto Protocol's lax standpoint on developing countries. Although
per capita, China and India do not emit nearly as much greenhouse gas
as say, the United States, they also have several times more capita.
The result is a pretty substantial amount of greenhouse gas emissions
by these two countries, and this will only increase as they become more
industrialized. Since the Kyoto Protocol ignores this fact, it is critized
greatly by the United States and other industrialized countries.
2. Present economic damages
from the enforcement of the protocol
Creating new technologies
is expensive. So expensive at times, that countries involved do not
see the long-term benefits of their establishment. Such is the case
with clean-air research attempts by many countries in the Kyoto Protocol.
If a country is truly struggling economically in the present-day while
pushing toward building a technology that will help them years down
the line, they will naturally be reluctant to continue the endeavor
especially if it means that jobs will be lost to more efficient machines,
anyway. Many countries believe that it is better to worry about other
issues currently plagueing them.
3. Insufficient results from
reductions
After all this work and struggle
trying to get coutnries involved in the Kyoto Protocol, it might not
even make a real difference in the end in terms of the environment.
Scientists have used the data from projected emissions reductions based
on promises from the countries participating. Unfortunately, they have
figured that even with this collective reduction, the earth's global
warming patterns will not stop. It is, in theory, an effort that is
"too little, too late".
 www.bbc.co.uk
Conclusion
From looking
at the bleak flaws in the makup of the Kyoto Protocol, the viewpoints
of opposing countries such as the United States becomes more clear.
From a realist perspective, if China and Inida get ahead economically
due to thier excused exclusion from the Kyoto Protocol, it would represent
a severe threat to the US if it had to participate. President Bush is
acting from a realist's point of view and seems to want to preserve
the economic wealth and power the United States presently enjoys. Political
action is, undeed, a bit more complicated than the cartoon at the top
of the page might suggest.
Despite all
the motivations of countries opposed to reducing greenhouse gases, the
issue of the Earth remains. It is still undergoing, despite how or why,
massive climatic changes at an unheard of rate, and actions must be
taken to help prevent global catastrophe.
|
