The Kyoto Protocol and the Environment - Essay Example

The Kyoto Protocol and the Environment Global warming is widely identified as a serious environmental problem due to the harm it causes to the environment and human beings. The very aspect of its being ‘global’ necessitated ‘international’ awareness and action in order to fight this environmental phenomenon. As an international attempt to attract the attention of the world towards the destructive consequences of global warming, countries of the world met in Kyoto in 1997 to endorse the Kyoto Protocol. This Protocol identified some important measures to be followed by all countries in order to minimize the negative impacts of global warming. Although the Protocol was signed by more than 159 countries, major industrial countries, such as the United States, refused to ratify it, believing that the commitments included in this Protocol threaten the national security of the country. Hence, the issue of global warming and the role of industrial countries in this concern have emerged a lot of debate. While poor and developing nations strongly push industrialized countries to bear their responsibilities in protecting the environment from global warming, developed and industrial countries, on the other hand, argue that all the countries of the world should bear equal responsibilities of protecting the environment. Hence, the attitude of those industrial nations, led by the United States, needs to be analyzed and evaluated in terms of its validity and fairness. Thus, it is important to explore the reasons behind the rejection of the United States to ratify this protocol, and the role of individual countries in facing the global warming environmental phenomenon. Actually, in order to protect the environment against the dangerous impacts of global warming, all countries of the world, especially industrialized nations such as the United States, should abide by the items of the Kyoto Protocol to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and fight environmental pollution. Basically, global warming is a negative environmental phenomenon that can lead to serious environmental problems, such as destruction of the environment, loss of biodiversity, and pollution. According to environmentalist Richard Dahl, global warming is an environmental problem that leads to a rise in world temperatures that is caused by the concentration of greenhouse emission gases in air (Dahl). This rise in temperatures will lead to melting of snow Mountains, which will increase sea levels (Dahl). Therefore, most environmentalists around the world agree that greenhouse gases are the primary reason behind the intensification of the global warming problem in the world. In his book, which is entitled "Global Warming: The Complete Briefing," John Houghton explains that the concentration of carbon dioxide in high air levels is the main source of global warming (Houghton, p.10). The increase in world temperatures has deadly diseases in many creatures and human beings, leading to the loss of biodiversity. As asserted by many environmentalists, the rise in temperatures has already led to “a devastating decline in coral cover, which caused a parallel decline in fish biodiversity, both in marine reserves and in areas open to fishing. Over 75% of reef fish species have declined in abundance, and 50% have declined to less than half of their original numbers” (Jones et al.). Therefore, global warming is a detrimental phenomenon that will lead to the disappearance of large parts of sea shores. Any attempt to effectively combat this phenomenon should work hard on minimizing the emission of greenhouse gases, which are the primary reason behind the increase in world temperatures. As the concern about the serious negative impacts of global warming increases, there are various international meetings and conferences, which have directed the attention of the world towards the serious of the global warming phenomenon. The first mention of an international awareness of the environmental problem of global warming was during the United Nations Earth Summit that was held in 1992 in Rio (“Global Warming in Brief”). During this conference, the participants were engaged in long and complicated debates about global warming, its causes, and consequences. The Conference ended with a clear assurance on the dangerous impacts that can be caused by global warming on the environment, calling for collective action to efficiently fight this negative environmental phenomenon. Then, in 1997, countries of the world met again in Kyoto, Japan, in order to clearly identify some measures to be taken in order to minimize the negative consequences of global warming. In that sense, the participants in these meetings have issued the Kyoto Protocol, which raised important warnings about the increase in the greenhouse gas emissions, asking all countries to work hard in order to “reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2012” (“Environmental Diplomacy”). In addition, the Protocol called all countries to lessen their consumption of fossil fuel, the main source of greenhouse gases. Thus, the Kyoto Protocol can be considered as the first sign of international awareness of the dangerous impacts of global warming on the environment. To achieve positive results, the Protocol identified many important measures to be adopted by individual countries for the sake of saving the environment against the deadly effects of global warming. Within the process of identifying the steps to be taken to fight global warming, a debate emerged between poor and rich countries during the discussions within Kyoto Protocol. While poor countries accused industrial nations of being the main source of greenhouse gas emissions that cause the rise in world temperatures, rich countries, on the other hand, attacked poor nations and accused them of preferring to have a free-ride in this concern. In his article which is entitled “Summit to Save the Earth Rich vs. Poor,” Philip Elmer-DeWitt, presented and analyzed the negotiations and debates about the shared responsibility of both poor and rich countries regarding the issue of global warming (Elmer-DeWitt). He sums up this debate by stating that “poor countries didnt see why their plans for development should suffer in order to rectify a problem they did not create. Some rich nations did not want to sign on to anything that would threaten their life- styles or increase the cost of doing business” (Elmer-DeWitt). Hence, the debate about the responsibility of individual countries towards global warming has hindered the world of establishing a world wide program for combating global warming. The conflicting attitudes of poor and industrial countries in this concern stand as an obstacle in the way of reaching positive results in the war against global warming. Consequently, a shared vision about global warming and its serious negative effect on the environment is urgently needed in order to implement effective strategies for facing this environmental problem. The reluctance of the United States to take serious measures to lessen the emission of greenhouse gases is the primary reason behind the loose position adopted by the world towards the phenomenon of global warming. As the United States refused to ratify this treaty, the American administration believes that it protects the interests of its citizens and huge multinational corporations. In his article, which is entitled "Ideas Matter: A Political History of the Twentieth-Century Environment," J.R. McNeill, the professor at Georgetown University, argues that the main reason behind the refusal of the US to sign this treaty is pressures practiced on US administration by multinational corporations and interest lobbies. In this context, R. McNeill notes that "in most of the rich countries, some powerful industries resisted environmental regulation successfully by launching endless lawsuits or controlling the decisive ministries" (McNeill). For example, American oil giants are reluctant to implement expensive technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They did not want to increase their expenses, and so, they strongly opposed ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. As argued by Jim Lobe, an American political analyst, American oil giants, such as Shell and Exxon Mobil, practiced extreme pressure in order to prevent the US administration of signing the Kyoto Protocol that would put strict limitations on their oil navigation practices. In this context, Lobe directs harsh criticism to these huge oil corporations for “undermining efforts to combat global warming and lobbying Congress to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling" (Lobe). Accordingly, preserving the interests of huge multinational corporations is one of the main reasons behind the rigid attitude that the US adopts against the Kyoto Protocol. Consequently, it can be argued that the US is internally pressured by huge corporations and lobbies not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Moreover, the US administration itself does not want to ratify the protocol in order not to induce radical changes in the life styles of American citizens. According to US administration, an endorsement of the items of Kyoto Protocol requires that the United States should change the way it conducts its industries and runs its business, in a way that would lead to a radical change in the lifestyles of Americans. In this concern, Elmer-DeWitt points out that “"the American life-style is not up for negotiation" (Elmer-DeWitt). To put the issue clearer, the commitments to the recommendations of the Kyoto Protocol would lead to great losses in US economy. Thats why the US does not to abide by the strict measures and standards set by the Kyoto Protocol. As mentioned by Larry West, in his article which is entitled “Should the United States Ratify the Kyoto Protocol?” the former Bush administration believed that the treaty requirements would lead to "economic losses of $400 billion and costing 4.9 million jobs” (West). As such, the US has prioritized its own interest over the interest of all humanity when it rejected to abide by the standards set by the Kyoto Protocol. In that sense, it can be said that the United States is ethically responsible to abide by the rules and measures identified globally in order to fight global warming and protect the environment. In conclusion, it can be said that global warming is a serious environmental problem that can have destructive impacts on the environment. Consequently, the Kyoto Protocol stressed the importance of taking action to face this serious problem. However, the United States and other industrial nations refused to ratify this Protocol, claiming that it contains measures that put a lot of burden on developed countries. This rigid attitude adopted by the United States against the Kyoto Protocol stems from the American desire to protect its own interests and the interests of its citizens and corporations, disregarding the interests of all humanity. Finally, the international community has to cooperate effectively in order to convince the US and other industrialized nations to abide by the measures set by the Kyoto Protocol to save the environment, which should be a global concern, not an individual one. Works Cited Dahl, Richard. “Population Equation: Balancing What We Need with What We Have.” Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol. 113, No. 9. (Sep., 2005), pp. A598-A605. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. Elmer-DeWitt, Philip. “Summit to Save the Earth Rich vs. Poor.” The Time Magazine. 01 Jun. 1992. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. . “Environmental Diplomacy.” Analysis of the Kyoto Global Climate Conference. 12 Dec 1997. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. “Global Warming in Brief.” 11 Nov. 2000. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. Houghton, John. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. Cambridge University Press, 1997, 1-9. Print. Jones, Geoffrey P. et al. “Coral Decline Threatens Fish Biodiversity in Marine Reserves.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, Vol. 101, No. 21. (May 25, 2004), pp. 8251-8253. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. Lobe, Jim. "ExxonMobil Takes Heat on Global Warming." 12 Jul. 2005. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. . Michaelowa, Axel. “Global Warming Policy.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, Vol. 17, No. 3. 2003. pp. 204-205. Web. 11 Nov. 2011. McNeill, J.R. "Ideas Matter: A Political History of the Twentieth-Century Environment." 2000. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. West, Larry. “Should the United States Ratify the Kyoto Protocol?” 2007. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. < http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprotocol_2.htm>. Read More