Kyoto

Is the Kyoto Protocol the Wrong Approach?

Climate change is a relevant issue today that should be on the minds of people. In 1972, scientists discovered that CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) might destroy the ozone layer. In 1985, scientists discovered that the destruction of the ozone layer was occurring quite rapidly and recommended that country leaders should take action as soon as possible to decrease CFC levels. In 1987, in Montreal, representatives from all over the world, came together to ban CFC's. This was the first successful collective action taken against global warming. But now the problem is larger than just banning the gas from refrigerators. The world continues to warm fast enough to alarm geologists, meteorologists, and others who study climate change. International initiatives to offset global warming began on 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, organized by the United Nations. However, the result was a weak non-bonding agreement aimed to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Five years later, in Kyoto, Japan, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC came up with a treaty call the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC).

The Kyoto Protocol is based on the idea that 38 nations needed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 emissions levels. However, this is not the solution to global warming. The main reason being that only industrialized countries are committing to reduce their emissions, and developing countries have been left out of the treaty. In addition, large emitters of carbon dioxide such as the US and Australia didn't choose to ratify the agreement. The Kyoto Protocol will have a low impact in the reduction of greenhouse gases, but it will create a significant economical and social benefit, generating jobs and economic growth in Canada.

The Kyoto Protocol is the wrong approach to reduce greenhouse gases below 1990 emissions levels. As Tennesen suggests, the Kyoto Protocol will be in progress during 2008 to 2012. During these years, developed countries will have to reduce their carbon dioxide levels by 5.2 percent below 1990 emission levels. Countries such as the United States, Japan and the European Union have to reduce their emissions levels, he suggests, whereas The Russian Federation, Ukraine and New Zealand need to increase their emissions (215). Tennesen also states, "the agreement placed limits on six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydroflourocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride" (216).

The treaty focuses the most on the reduction of the carbon dioxide emissions. However, methane gas is also a very powerful greenhouse gas that should be treated with the same priority as the carbon dioxide. The reason why they are not giving so much importance to methane is because methane gas only stays in the atmosphere for a period of 10 years, whereas carbon dioxide stays for a period of 100 years. Also, methane can be cleaned more easily: fixing natural gas pipes, putting more soil on landfills, and feeding the cows with something that does not give them so much gas (Tennesen 219).

However, the Kyoto Protocol is flawed because not all the countries ratified to the agreement. For instance, the United States and Australia, who are major pollutants of carbon dioxide, did not ratify the agreement. The United States emits around 25 percent of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions. Even though the United States took part in the argument to build up the treaty, it didn't ratify, because its major excuse is that developing countries are not obligated to meet the targets of the Protocol. The United States said that at least developing countries should get into the accord even if the targets allowed an increase in their emissions of carbon dioxide. The biggest setback to the process was on the Bush administration in the year of 2001, in spite of the evidence on global warming and the important role that they would play since they are the largest emitters of carbon dioxide. Many environmentalists greeted the announcement with loud dismay (Tennesen 222). Australia, afterwards, put a step out of the accord since the largest emitter would not ratify the agreement. Australia states that the Kyoto Protocol is not going to work due to the absence of the major and potential pollutants such as China and India.

Furthermore, developing countries were not required to control their emissions of carbon dioxide during the period of the treaty. The reason for this decision is because industrialized countries such as the United States are the major responsibles for the current amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, and they should take the first step to offset global warming (Tennesen 222). Countries like China, India, Mexico, Brazil and Latin America are many of the countries that are not obligated to meet the targets and timetables, because they are not large emitters currently. However, developing countries will lead the emissions of carbon dioxide at the end of the 21st century. Thus, leaving out important future emitters from the treaty is one of the flaws of the Kyoto Protocol to offset global warming.

Therefore, the central flaws of the Kyoto Protocol are: long-term participation in the protocol will end up only with countries that don't share a large amount of world greenhouse gas emissions, which would only reduce the rate of warming slightly, no prevent it entirely; and the Kyoto Protocol "emphasis on targets and timetables for emissions reductions" (McKibbin and Wilcoxen 52-53). This means that, even if the Protocol continues its process without the United States, the remaining countries will be below those targets by 400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Another flaw is that emissions would be in force only during the first period of the protocol: 2008-2012. Moreover, after the first period 2008-2012, the "limits for future periods remain to be negotiated" (McKibbin and Wilcoxen 59). To sum up, the Kyoto Protocol will do hardly any reduction on greenhouse gases emissions.

On the other hand, the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on the competitiveness of the Canadian Industry is a key consideration in developing Canada's approach to climate change. Canadian exports account for about 37 percent of its GDP, and 87 percent of this exports go to the United States. Consequently, Canada has to be responsive to the needs of its trading sectors due to the decision of the United States to not ratify the agreement (Canada 17). According to the Government of Canada,

The AMG competitiveness review also examined the issue of investment "leakage" (the relocation of capital as a direct result of climate change cost). It observed that an increase in costs could induce investment