Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations

Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol and the Role of the U.S. 1

Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations

and the Role of the United States on Climate Change

Integrated Studies Requirement

March 20, 2009

Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations and the Role of the United States on Climate Change

Throughout the entire world, there has been growing consensus towards international policy for global warming and climate change. In the United States, environmental interest groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund, the Pew Campaign on Global Warming, and Friends of the Earth, have advocated for governmental action. In response, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change (UNFCCC) was established in 1997. Despite ratification by every nation in the world, with the exception of the United States, the Kyoto Protocol has been viewed with a great deal of skepticism in the both the environmental and economic community. It has been deemed flawed and inadequate by critiques, along with the former Bush Administration, which is, inevitably, in dire necessity of revision or replacement.In lieu of the disaffirmation of the United States, domestic alternative measures have been sought and implemented by the previous, as well as, current administrations in order to engage this dilemma.

Under the UNFCCC, to which 186 countries are parties, including the European Union and the United States, industrialized countries are required to “stabilize their greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000” (United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change, 2009).

The Kyoto Protocol to that Convention has seemingly taken the issue further, by requiring industrialized countries “to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by an average of 5% over the period 2008 to 2012” (EUROPA, 2002).Nonetheless, not all countries had to make cuts. New Zealand, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine were permitted to continue their existing emissions, and increases were granted to Iceland, Norway, and Australia.(EUROPA, 2002).

According to Article 2 of the Protocol, the objective is to achieve “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” (United Nations, 1998). Under the treaty, countries must meet their emission reduction targets primarily through national measures. The Kyoto Protocol set aggressive objectives for pollution reduction. Yet, Kyoto did not tell countries, including the United States, exactly how to achieve the objectives.Instead, the Kyoto Protocol offers additional means of meeting their targets by way of three market-based mechanisms. The Kyoto mechanisms are emissions trading (also known as ‘the carbon market’ or ‘cap and trade’), the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI) (UNFCCC, 2009).Because the United States accounts for so many of the world’s greenhouse gases and contributes so much to the problem of global warming, some experts have suggested that the Kyoto Protocol cannot succeed without U.S. participation.President Bush stated, however, that the above mentioned requirements would cripple the United States economy, leading to economic losses of an estimated $400 billion along with the potential loss of 4.9 million jobs (West, 2009).

Emission trading is the approach of controlling pollution by granting economic incentives for attaining diminution in the emissions of pollutants. Through cap and trade, governmental entities set a limit on the amount of pollutant emissions. Companies are then allotted emission permits allowing them to emit only specific amounts of pollutant into the atmosphere. However, companies in need of increasing their emission allowance have the ability to purchase ‘credits’ from those that pollute less, referred to as a ‘trade’. Each country committed to the treaty, has an assigned amount of unit emissions (AAUs), considered a target towards limiting or reducing emissions (McCracken, 2005; United Nations, 1998).

Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol states that, “Countries that have AAUs allotted to them which are not used, are permitted to sell their AAUs to countries that have surpassed their limit” (United Nations, 1998). Therefore, greenhouse gas emissions are considered to be a marketable commodity. However, it has been argued that emission trading does very little to solve overall pollution problems. Third world developing nations that conserve their AAUs ultimately sell to the highest bidding industrialized nation. Thus, industrialized nations, rather than taking active measures towards reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emissions, are capable of merely purchasingAAUs in an open unregulated market.

Domestically, President Obama has called for Congress to submit legislation that “places a market-based cap on carbon pollution” which would ultimately promote the production of renewable energy in the United States (Pew Center for Global & Climate Change, 2009). Thus, President Obama understands that the economic recovery and energy future of the United States are undoubtedly linked. By calling upon Congress to send him market-based global warming legislation, the President has clearly signaled that he understands the risks being faced from unmitigated climate change.

According to the UNFCCC and defined in Article 12 of the Protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism allows all industrialized countries,including the United States, with a greenhouse gas reduction commitment to invest in projects that reduce emissions in developing countries as an alternative to more expensive emission reductions in their own countries. In turn, the country implementing the CDM project can then attain certified emission reduction (CER) credits (UNFCCC, 2009). These credits can be sold or used to offset a country’s limitation targets. “The mechanism stimulates sustainable development and emission reductions, while giving industrialized countries some flexibility in how they meet their emission reduction”, (UNFCC, 2009), yet, as the CDM is an alternative to domestic emissions reductions, it would not produce any more or less greenhouse gas emission reductions than devoid its use.

Additionally, there is tremendous concern over the misuse of the program. For example, two senior StanfordUniversity academics examined more than 3,000 projects applying for or already granted up to $10 billionin credits from the United Nation’s CDM funds over the next four years, and concluded that the majority should not be considered for assistance. According to the study, they are projects that would have been built regardless and between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets, do not represent actual emission cuts (Vidal, 2008).

Rather than investing in overseas projects in developing countries, President Obama in his first address to Congress has pledged to “invest fifteen billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power; advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more fuel-efficient cars and trucks built [right here] in America” (Pew Center for Global Climate Change, 2009). Therefore, domestic projects in the United States, funded by the government, promoting alternative means of energy is a proactive step towards overcoming the dramatic affects of global warming and climate change.

Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol defines the mechanism known as Joint Implementation, which allows two or more developed nations to join in partnerships to reduce their carbon emissions in order to earn emission reduction units (ERUs) from an emission-reduction or emission removal project. Credits from the resulting improvements can be used and count towards meeting their Kyoto targets (United Nations, 1998). Unlike the case of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the Joint Implementation has caused less concern of spurious emission reductions, the Joint Implementation, unlike the CDM, takes place in countries which have an emission reduction requirement.

Flexible mechanisms are among those parts of the protocol which, besides carbon sinks, have been most criticized by environmentalists - who consider there to be a risk of the necessary changes in the rich industrialized countries' energy and transportation systems being delayed, since they will be able to buy emission permits from other countries (Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat, 2003). The flexible mechanisms are seemingly intended to make it easier for countries to fulfill their commitments to reduce emissions. Conversely, while the climate effect will be the same no matter where emissions take place, the cost of reduction will vary considerably from one locality to another. Thus, the focus of industrialized nations is more so fixed upon the financial rather than environmental impact.
An additional concern is that anumber of the emission permits consist, moreover, of what is called “hot air” trading. Russia and the eastern European countries’emissions of greenhouse gases are, according to figures released by theEnergy Information Administration (EIA, which provides official energy statistics from the United States government), at about 30 percentbelow 1990 levels. These reductions are the result of economicrestructuring, not any climate-relevant policies.Though theiremissions are forecasted by the EIA to grow in the future to about85-90% of 1990 levels by 2010, the Protocol will allow them totrade the surplus difference to other industrialized countries startingin 2008 (Energy Information Administration, 2008). Essentially, they will be getting credits without havingtaken any actions to begin de-carbonizing their economies.If their surplus permits are bought up by other countries, the result could be an increase of emissions in some countries for which there would be no corresponding reduction in another (Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat, 2003).

Based upon the above mentioned flaws, the Bush administration withdrew the United States from the Kyoto Treaty in 2001. The most current official policy of the United States regarding the Kyoto Treaty states that, “The Kyoto Protocol does not provide the long-term solution the world seeks to the problem of global warming. The goals of the Kyoto Protocol were established not by science, but by political negotiation, and are therefore arbitrary and ineffective in nature. In addition, many countries of the world are completely exempted from the Protocol, such as China and India, who are two of the top five emitters of greenhouse gasses in the world. Further, the Protocol could have potentially significant repercussions for the global economy.” (United States Embassy – Austria, 2009).

In lieu of the Kyoto Treaty, President Bush formulated a cabinet, dedicated towards policy that would effectively tackle climate change in the United States. In 2002, he announced a series of initiatives called, “Clear Skies and Global Climate Change” geared towards achieving goals similar to the Kyoto treaty using realistic market-friendly based advances (United States Embassy – Austria, 2009). In essence, the goals of the initiatives were to “by 2018, cut the emission of the three worst air pollutants by 70%”, and “cut greenhouse gas intensity, within the next ten years, by 18%” (United States Embassy – Austria, 2009). How effective and realistic these initiatives are remains to be seen.

Despite Bush’s position towards the Kyoto Treaty, many ‘grass-root’ organizations such as the Sierra Club, as well as, 165 United States cities have voted in favor of the Kyoto Treaty, building a nationwide effort in advocating participation of the United States (West, 2009). More recently, in May of 2009, the State Department wrote to the Secretariat of the Montreal Protocol,international agreement designed to protect the stratospheric ozone layer,conveying interest in a proposal that calls for amending the Montreal Protocol to lower and eventually eliminate consumption and production of hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), which are a significant threat to the climate due to the fact that they are potent greenhouse gases (Gertz, 2009). This can be perceived as an act of leadership on the part of the United States in international legislation with the aspirations of conquering climate change.

In conclusion, the Kyoto Protocol is outdated and has failed in several ways. Not only is there a lack of success in the slowing of global warming and climate change, but also it has stifled discussion of alternative policy approaches that could both combat climate change and adapt to its unavoidable consequences.If the average American really understood the fundamental guises, along with the political execution of the Kyoto Treaty, they would not be in support of an international policy that is, at its core, transparent. The United States, when taking a proactive leadership role to minimize the effects of climate change through domestic government funding of alternative energy projects or domestic and international policy, could and would ultimately make a different in the future of our planet.

References

The Kyoto Protocol. (2003)Environmental factsheet from the Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain. Air Pollution & Climate Secretariat. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

United Nations. (2009) The Kyoto Protocol:Joint Implementation. The United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

United Nations (2009) The Kyoto Protocol:Clean Development Mechanism. The United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

United Nations (1998) Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework

Convention on Climate Change. The United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

EUROPA (2002) The Kyoto Protocol and Climate Change - Background Information. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

Vidal, J. (2008) Billions Wasted on UN Climate Program. The Guardian. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

McCracken, M. (2005).Explain Emissions Trading. Teach Me Finance. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

Energy Information Administration (2008) International Energy Outlook 2008. Retrieved March 19, 2009 from

United States Embassy – ViennaAustria (2009). U.S. Policy on the Kyoto Treaty. Retrieved April 10, 2009 from

West, L. (2009).Should the United States Ratify the Kyoto Protocol? Retrieved on April 10, 2009 from

Gertz, E. (2009) Is Obama Administration Failing an Early Climate Test? Retrieved June 15, 2009 from

Pew Center on Global Climate Change (2009) President Obama and Climate Change. Retrieved June 15, 2009 from