Kyoto: Why We Can'T Say No

Kyoto: Why We Can't Say No

In August of 2005 Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf of Mexico, causing over 1,604 deaths, 705 cases of missing persons, and at least seventy-five billion dollars worth of damages. Over half a million people were left impoverished and displaced. In our time of need, the United States looked to other countries for donations, and received nearly a billion dollars from over seventy governments. But as we were to soon find out, had the decision rested on the shoulders of the citizens of those countries alone, we would not have gotten much aid from anyone. Many people in other countries saw Hurricane Katrina as a just punishment for the United States' refusal to implement the Kyoto Protocol. "Well, what's that?" asked millions of Americans in confused unison. And some still do not know the answer.

The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty drafted in Kyoto, Japan (hence the name) in 1997 at the Conference of Parties under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The treaty was only open to then current members of the UNFCCC and its main purpose, as stated by the United Nations Environment Program, is this:

The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland. (2)

The emission of greenhouse gases, as indicated above, is very harmful to the environment. Greenhouse gases are directly responsible for the phenomena of global warming, the gradual increase in the average temperature of the Earth's atmosphere and oceans. The effects of it are potentially disastrous.

Greenhouse gases build up in the atmosphere and produce a 'blanket effect,' overheating the earth and endangering our environment. Greenhouse gas emissions have skyrocketed over the last two hundred years or so due to the worldwide Industrial Revolution, which is resulting in a substantial increase in the global temperature: the U.N. advisory panel has forecast a rise in global temperature of from 1.44 to 6.3oF by 2100 (Hermann Ott 13). With global warming looming so forebodingly over our heads, shouldn't we all be doing as much as we can to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions? My sentiments must be shared because 163 countries have already signed the Kyoto Protocol into effect, the United States among them. But that is not enough. Though a signatory, the United States has yet to actually ratify the protocol. As the country with the largest amount of greenhouse gas emissions, the United States' negligence negates the efforts of the other countries. The United States needs to ratify and implement the Kyoto Protocol--before it is too late.

To understand the need for the Kyoto Protocol, one must first be made to understand the

ramifications of global warming. Though some independent scientists denounce the claim that the earth's temperature is rising abnormally, most agree that the evidence is clear. As Robert T. Watson, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), points out: "It is not a question of whether the Earth's climate will change, but rather by how much, how fast and where. It is undisputed that the last two decades have been the warmest in this century, indeed the warmest for the last 1000 years--sea level is rising, precipitation patterns are changing" (1). In the realm of environmental effects, precipitation patterns are the least of our worries. Scientists expect more exaggerated periods of drought and rain and extremely intense tropical storms. This means that Hurricane Katrina and the Indian Ocean Tsunami are just the tip of the iceberg--which, by the way, is melting and dramatically changing the arctic region's landscape and the lives of the people and animals surrounding it. The intensity of our storms has reached an uncharted plane. Last month the tornado season got off to a violent and tragic start: The National Weather Service (NWA) has confirmed 591 tornadoes throughout the month of April alone--which is more than double the number at this time last year--that resulted in a total of 49 deaths (National Weather Service 4). Such powerful storms do severe damage to our delicate ecosystems.

Earth's ecosystems are an elaborate, intricately linked masterpiece. Thirty-three percent of them will be gone in 2100. The monarch butterfly, with its Mexican wintering grounds destroyed, will be one of the first species to lose it habitat and face extinction. The sugar maple of North America will soon follow. If the sea levels were to rise by even four meters, about two hundred million people (belonging primarily to Asian coastal cities) would become homeless and have to flee, causing a refugee problem (IFCC 1). Global warming could spawn an entirely new

era of civilization.

In the face of such evidence, the United States' excuses for not backing the treaty are fallacious. The U.S. claims that the economical costs for implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be too high. This is ridiculous; of course the costs of diminishing the effects of global warming are going to be high. The U.S. is looking for the easy way out here, and there is none. We made a mistake, and now we have to pay--literally. While it is true that the estimated costs of the U.S. implementing the Kyoto Protocol would be about three hundred and ninety-seven billion dollars, common sense says that the costs of doing nothing would be higher. Recall the billion dollar costs of rebuilding after Hurricane Katrina and the Indian Ocean Tsunami. Imagine the costs when, as a result of leaving global warming unattended, extreme weather events such as these become the norm. Even the American Council for Capital Formation (ACCF), nationally known Kyoto skeptics, admits the "the Protocol has a marginal net benefit which is lower than the net benefit of simply adjusting to global warming" (15).

Another complaint the U.S. makes is that the "common but differentiated responsibility" (American Council for Capital Formation 6) clause is unfair. The clause establishes that the Annex B countries (underdeveloped countries such as China and India) are exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto