A Critique on the Kyoto Protocols - Research Paper Example

A Critique on the Kyoto Protocols Introduction The world has experienced drastic changes in climatic conditions due to irresponsible handling of natural resources. The product of industrialization, growth, technological development and urbanization all account to rises in greenhouse gases. According to Kim, et.al. (2010), greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), water vapor, and fluorinated gases which all act as a “greenhouse around the earth.  This means that they let the heat from the Sun into the atmosphere, but do not allow the heat to escape back into space.  The more greenhouse gases there are, the larger the percentage of heat that is trapped inside the earth’s atmosphere” (Kim, et.al, 2010, par. 2). In the discourse, global warming was specifically defined as “climate change that causes an increase in the average temperature of the lower atmosphere.  Global warming can have many different causes, but it is most commonly associated with human interference, specifically the release of excessive amounts of greenhouse gases” (ibid.). With the alarming levels of greenhouse gases continuing to increase at unprecedented pace, scientists all over the world drastically made efforts to inform the international organizations in charge of environmental protection. An international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention of Climate Change (UNFCCC) deemed it of primary importance to address global warming issues through its governance and with the assistance of another international agreement, the Kyoto Protocol. According to the official website of UNFCCC, the Kyoto Protocol “sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries and the European community for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions .These amount to an average of five per cent against 1990 levels over the five-year period 2008-2012” (UNFCCC, 2010, par. 1). In this regard, the essay aims to proffer one’s personal opinion as to what world leaders and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should agree on. Likewise, the essay seeks to address the following concerns, to wit: (1) is there a solution that they should commit to? If so, what is it? If not, then what should they do? (2) Why haven't the Kyoto Protocols worked? What has not worked and why? What has worked and why? (3) What should be the role of the US? And (4) what should be the role of China?  Personal Opinion. Diverse articles and publications on UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol reveal that their primary thrust is “to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system. They are designed to assist countries in adapting to the inevitable effects of climate change. They facilitate the development of techniques that can help increase resilience to climate change impacts – for example, the development of salt-resistant crops – and to exchange best practices with regard to adaptation” (UNFCCC: Fact Sheet, n.d., pars. 3 & 6). The relevant distinction between the two organizations is that “while the Convention encouraged industrialized countries to stabilize greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, the Protocol commits them to do so” (UNFCC, 2010, par. 2) The word encourage as an aim of UNFCCC (the Convention) is weak in view of the eminent danger posed by global warming. It is no wonder that since its inception in 1994 it failed to elicit the response required of its member parties. On the other hand, the objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to commit member parties to stabilize GHG emissions through three market based mechanisms of emissions trading, clean development mechanisms (CDM), and joint implementation. Despite the enumerated mechanisms, eligibility requirements, reporting and compliance monitoring, it is hard to believe that since its adoption in 1997, already 13 years ago, until now there is no concrete and substantial improvement in the reduction and stabilization of GHG emissions. It is a personal conviction that the dilemma lies in the objectives and standards set by both international endeavors. Since both have acknowledged that there is indeed an impending threat to the environment posed by global warming, they should have identified specific goals and targets in terms of scheduling which aspect of climate change should be addressed in hierarchical order. The scope of climate change and global warming is so vast that member countries could simply report that all aspects are concurrently addressed without specifically focusing on areas that need to be prioritized to have a significant effect to reduce GHG emissions. In fact, in a published online report from Spiegel International, it reported that the United Nation’s Climate Chief, Yvo de Boer, announced his resignation in view of “the intractable problem of bringing the UN's 192 member governments to some kind of binding resolution” (Moore, 2010, par. 2). His desperate efforts to unite party members realized that governments could not possibly resolve issues given their expertise venturing on policy frameworks rather than on concrete solutions to impending problems. Boer acknowledged that solutions should come from businesses. In this regard, the IPCC and Kyoto Protocol should re evaluate their stance and recognize the need to identify and prioritize the specific aspects in stabilizing GHG emissions. Under their provisions for measures that can be done: (reducing emissions, expanding forests, changing lifestyles and rules, and coping) – specific areas must be prioritized and member countries must all focus on the identified area at given time frames. For instance, for the years 2010 – 2012, the focus is on reducing emissions. All member parties must exert all efforts in working towards this objective. Scientists the world over could advise and recommend ways to reduce emissions at all cost in all countries - not just on member parties. Then, reporting, which is required to be done annually, must be revised to a more shorted period, say every six months to solicit feedback and to address any improvements, as required. Therefore, at this point in time, both IPCC and Kyoto Protocol could not commit any solution because the environmental problem they have laid on member governments are so vast and enormous in span and extent that addressing them all at the same time would be chaotic and simply unviable. As suggested, through prioritization of objectives with strict time frames, coupled with regular reporting and monitoring standards, tasks would be simpler, more structured and systematized. As noted, the Kyoto Protocol failed to achieve its objective of commiting member parties to stabilize GHG emissions despite clearly and explicitly stated market based mechanisms due to the shotgun approach. It expects member parties to implement all suggested mechanisms at the same time. Although there have been achievements to date, these were very minimal and reported recurrence of rising emissions despite previous successful efforts of reduction. The report from UNFCCC indicated that “between 1990 and 2000, the total greenhouse-gas emissions of industrialized countries actually declined slightly (by 5.6 per cent) -- but that reflected unusual circumstances… now the Eastern European "economies in transition" are growing again, and their emissions are rising. The real work, what is really needed -- worldwide economic progress combined with reduced emissions -- has yet to be accomplished” (UNFCCC: Accomplishments, n.d., par. 1) In addition, there have been reports indicating that the credibility and authenticity of the research published by the IPCC were questionable and doubtful. In one article published by Guardian News and Media Limited, Juliette Jowit reported that the “Dutch government finds minor inaccuracies in contested paper, but reasserts that 'climate change poses "substantial risks" to most parts of the world” (Jowit, 2010, par. 1). She further averred that “the Dutch panel of experts claims it found 12 errors - from a criticism of the number of people in Africa at risk of water shortages to mistakes in references or typing. It also suggested the summary version of the report had portrayed an over-dramatic picture by putting the emphasis on negative impacts of climate change, and it failed to explain some of the threats were not only driven by climate change” (Jowit, 2010, par. 3). It was therefore recommended that more efforts must be made to review the sources of information before reports are to be published. In addition, the initial contention of the United States not to support the Kyoto Protocol contributed to its failure. Since the United States “releases more greenhouse gases than any other nation and accounts for more than 25 percent of those generated by humans worldwide” (West, 2010, par. 5), it plays a major role in supporting the objectives of the Kyoto Protocol and playing an active part in ensuring that a more feasible implementation program must be adhered to. As indicated by West, one of the provisions noted by the US was consisted with the recommendation provided above, to wit: “prior to negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution saying the U.S. should not sign any protocol that failed to include binding targets and timetables for both developing and industrialized nations” (West, 2010, par. 10). The article written by Palieschesky (2010) revealed that “some countries are exempt from the Kyoto Protocol because they have historically been less responsible for the generation of greenhouse gases. China and India are two of the nations exempt from the protocol” (par. 2). However, facts and details about global warming in China revealed that “China is the largest producer of greenhouse gases and the largest emitter of carbon dioxide. It was not supposed to overtake the United States as the world’s leading producer of greenhouse gases until 2020 but a study by a Dutch government-funded group released in June 2007 determined that China was already the world’s No. 1 emitter of carbon dioxide then” (Hays, 2008, par. 1). In this regard, China should also support the aim of the Kyoto Protocol. Conclusion The success of the Kyoto Protocol and the efforts of the IPCC would be determined not only by the participation of developing member nations, as initially stated. Global warming, as the term suggests, is a global concern. All people for all walks of life, regardless of nationality and culture will be affected by its dangerous threats. For the Kyoto Protocol to report a significant accomplishment in the next scheduled meeting, a more structured prioritized climatic measure to stabilize GHG emission should be identified and focused on at a clearly defined time frame – with the participation of all nations all over the world. Works Cited Hays, Jeffrey. Global Warming in China. 2008. Web. 21 August 2010. < http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=393&catid=10&subcatid=66#> Jowit, Juliette. “Review of questioned IPCC report says conclusions 'well-founded'.” Guardian.co.uk. 5 July 2010. Web. 21 August 2010. < http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jul/05/dutch-support-ipcc> Kim, YeSeul, Granger, Erika, Puckett, Katie, Hasar, Cankutan, & Francel, Leif. Global Warming: Definition. 2010. Web. 21 August 2010. Read More