Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change - Literature review Example

Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change Problem ment The problem of climate change is one that is central and controversial issue in the current society. At the present, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) prophesies a rise of 1.5-6⁰C in the 21st century. Ideally, an increase that is anywhere above 4⁰ could make the earth hotter that it has been in the last 40 millenniums and could be detrimental to the continued existence of human development. Since the age of industrialization set in, CO2 emissions from anthropogenic methods have been significantly rising due to the increased burning of charcoal as well as the consumption of petroleum for energy. This has led the scientific society to unanimously conclude that climate change is as a result of increased CO2 emissions. Although the IPCC approximates that carbon emission need to be reduced by at least 60% to avert extensive climate change, emissions are continuing to be generated at a higher rate than carbon sinks can soak them up. Over the years, there have been concerted efforts taken to avert climate change, such as the Kyoto Protocol and the reduction of emissions in the European Union. While there has been a scientific agreement about climate change, there has not been an agreement among nations’ responses to climate change and there are several deductions as to why this is the case (Frantz & Stephan 205). This research is going to examine the reasons why there are varied reactions to climate change. Framework Climate change is already having an effect on the world and the international population. The UN Environment Program approximates that the added economic adversities related to climate change translate to over $300 billion each given year. There is widespread concern among about climate change in the media with movies such as An Inconvenient Truth and Day After Tomorrow being released to warn nations and the population at large about the effects of global change. Even private citizens have developed concern on climate change in several states, but their government strategies do not always mirror this concern. This has called for the examination of why this disconnect exists (Raustiala 719). To achieve this purpose I will employ the 21st century theories to examine why the Kyoto Protocol has failed despite the seemingly goodwill from member states as well as individual parties. Context The Kyoto Protocol is perhaps the most recent comprehensive accord on global warming. This accord was developed over 13 years ago is seen as having been the first of its kind to include objectives and timelines on emissions. The development of the Kyoto Protocol relied heavily on a variety of theories and its bounds and failures can also be discussed in the context of theories in global relations. In essence, previous examples of achievement in averting different environmental damages worldwide have been documented especially the Montreal Protocol. Throughout the creation of the Kyoto Protocol it was clear that there were some nations that were motivated to take measures against climate change either through world governments or by themselves. This was the case especially among highly established nations in the western part of Europe (Malvik & Hege). One major claim explaining how the achievement of the Kyoto Protocol is going to be is the law of the least ambitious program (LLAP) coined by Arild Underdal. This law points out that the commitment level of the treaty’s least concerned party curtails the success of an international treaty while the LLAP contains the bulk of the research conducted on climate change in recent years. The main reason for this phenomenon is that the harmony rule puts the final word with the party that is most lax in seeing the treaty implemented. For this reason, ambitious new programs become unlikely to be implemented. Scientists argue that there are limitations to the LLAP since there are areas where it is not necessary for voting to be unanimous and there are also instances where there have been achievements without all the parties being ambitious. It is interesting to note that these science analysts are referring to the implementation of world agreements, which does not essentially point to the success of an agreement once it is passed (Hovi & Sprinz 28). Ideally, issues of enforcement especially in relation to global environmental law are a big problem. As Hovi & Sprinz puts it, at a global level, there has not been any type of mandated institutions that have been set up for the purpose of convincing nations to adhere to the set guidelines. Instead, environmental challenges are managed by voluntary agreements among a cluster of countries. Efforts to resolve global climate challenges and therefore also enforcement issues thus for that reason widely lean on consultations and coordination, not on regime interventions as is the case for national environmental challenges (30). Ideally, most literature on this subject is seen to address the lesser nations in what is called as the tragedy of the commons. This is usually what happens when examining the projected effects of global warming since those who are at the losing end of this phenomenon are not essentially the largest emitters. The Kyoto Protocol has not in any way brought a solution to the challenge of enforcement in environmental law and for that reason there is a requirement for incentive on top of being a party to this global treaty in order to encourage other nations to reduce their production of greenhouse gases. In their critique of the Kyoto protocol, some analysts point that without enforcement in global law the treaty becomes meaningless. In the present scenario, America, which is considered the world’s leading emitter, is not a member of the treaty. The European Union, which is the 2nd largest emitter, has joined the Kyoto Protocol and is showing some important efforts towards conformity, but these barely change the global trajectory of CO2 productions. In reality, China, which turns out to be third largest emitter has joined the treaty but faces no restrictions on its emissions. The fourth biggest emitter Russia is a party to the treaty but its only motivation for joining is that the treaty overlooks inaction and presents the possibility of profit from selling the surplus emission credits. These same motivations are evident in the part of Japan and India, which are the other big emitters (Hovi & Sprinz 28). The interest based explanation elucidated above treats each nation as an autonomous self-interested player that desires wealth and power by evaluating the costs and advantages of various paths of action. The two factors that researchers have consistently examined are ecological vulnerability and the expenses of pollution subsiding. Economic issues and climate change subsiding have usually been examined together since there is a clear connection. Although numerous researchers and decision makers have promoted delinking CO2 emissions from financial performance, this far the incident has demonstrated that fiscal growth and CO2 production abatement still mirror two counteracting inclinations. This means that the responsibility for world climate change clashes with economic priorities in a carbon based economy. Global analysts have established that there is a variation in balancing economic growth with CO2 emissions, which partly enlightens the widespread but distinguished responsibility in Kyoto and developed countries opposition to applying the same level of dedication expected from developing nations (OBrien & Robin 221). The other reason that cites why countries have been hesitant to implement changes regarding climate change is triggered by the possible exposure to both globalization and climate change. States reacting to the quick transformations that climate change and globalization present encounter a distinct set of problems in implementing effective rejoinders to climate change. Climate change and economic globalization, happening at the same time, will likely bring about new or customized sets of winners and losers. Double disclosure has significant strategy allusions, mostly among those that have a high probability of experiencing the negative impacts of both globalization and climate change. The significant thing to note regarding the idea of double exposure is the notion of winners and losers and that the vulnerabilities that a nation’s financial system encounters from globalization may seem to be more significant than the vulnerabilities that the nation will encounter further along as a result of climate change (OBrien & Robin 223). Examining the past environmental achievements contributes a big portion of the climate change literature. One global environmental treaty that had a big amount of success is the Montreal Protocol, which dwelt on phasing out the emission of substances associated with the ozone depletion. The celebrated success of the Montreal Protocol was attributed to various factors key among them being the role of scientific comprehension of ozone depletion, the effect of public pressures on decision makers, the function technological advancements, the leading role played by the United States, a knowledgeable community, and the task of global institutions (Zhang 5105). In the last few years, various researchers in the climate change area have chosen to examine the issue using the triumph of the Montreal Protocol. One perspective has examined the carrot vs. stick strategy to enforcing climate change treaties in the developing nations. Some researchers have attributed the achievement of the Montreal Protocol to the reality that trade restrictions came along with monetary and transfer mechanisms. However, there is a much wider cost in slowing climate change which denotes that developed nations will not bear all the incremental costs of climate change alleviation. The economic issues concerning climate change are also much wider since CFC’s where one part of production, whereas the sources of climate change can be considered to be capitalism and industrialization (Zhang 5106). Another viewpoint on the interest-based explanation is the 5 stage model of participation. This theory has repeatedly been applied by researchers to explain the continual U.S. inaction in environmental matters. The 5 stage model claims that for a person to offer help, one has to see the event in question, feel an individual responsibility to help, have knowledge on what to do, and choose to act. The researchers used this model to explain why the public was not worried about the environment and hence the little structural alterations implemented. The case of US residents not observing climate change can be explicated since the impacts are not evenly spread and the large section of Americans spend their time in the house, away from the usual contact with the environment. In addition to this, the anti-science skepticism that is prevalent in the US has led most citizens to decline to identify climate change as a catastrophe. Since the government has refused to take responsibility in relation to global change, this has trickled down to the general public. Ideally, the public is better placed to push their governments to implement environmental changes but in the case of the U.S. this has not been possible since the pubic do not see how climate change affects them (Sims). The design of public support for improved regulation as well as the desire for reducing emissions in the EU led to creation of the Kuznets Curve, which claims that there is a reversed U-relationship between pollution and economic development. In creating the Kyoto Protocol, participants depended heavily on the Kuznets Curve, which does not impose any limits on the emerging economies. There are several reasons why more developed nations regulate pollution more austerely and these are the fact that pollution destruction becomes a bigger priority once societies have finished basic investments, higher earning societies have more technical workforce and finances for checking on enforcement and the fact that upper salary and education enable local communities to push for advanced environmental standards. Although some scientists have questioned the reliability of this model, research done in this area has demonstrated that this is the case. This is mainly interesting given that deforestation has a number of detrimental effects on the environment with one of them being an impact on climate change. Forests are critical in containing carbon that is produced in the world. One study established that nations that had high levels of modernization, measured by education standards, were the leading contributors of deforestation (Sims). Kuznets Curve is a section of a wider theory called “ecological modernization theory,” which examines environmental dilapidation as something that all developed countries experience and then deal with it. There are various criticisms of Kuznets Curve and ecological modernization theory since every time that they are studied with more thorough econometric procedures, the statistical and empirical proof falls short. One review points out that the only period that the Kuznets Curve is probably applicable is in the case of ambient pollution in the urban places, which has not been investigated enough (Sims). An alternative to the ecological modernization theory is the concept of a race-to-the bottom approach where high polluting companies move to nations with more lenient environmental standards in big numbers, which the makes states with strict regulations to discard them in order to attract those firms and thus help their economies. In the race to the bottom situation, the comparatively high environmental standards in the economies where the earning power is high implement high costs on those polluting the environment. Shareholders then push the companies to relocate to low-income nations, whose individuals are so ready for jobs and earning to an extent where their environmental regulations are feeble or absent. The ever increasing capital deficits force regimes in such economies to start tranquilizing the environmental standards. The race-to-the bottom case would support the interest-based argument, which point out that nations would be unwilling to take a certain loss in the face of an unsure risk and offer their jobs and industries to other countries. The race-to the bottom scenario would therefore lead to an increase in pollution even in nations that had stringent pollution control mechanisms (Oreskes). Another explanation of the ecological modernization theory that has been used widely is the metabolic rift theory. Originally coined by Marx in the 1850’s to explain soil dilapidation, the metabolic rift theory claims that the main effect of any degradation to the atmosphere is capitalist pursuit of profit. Naturally, the pursuit for profits has forfeited reinvestment in the land thus causing degradation of nature through robbing the soil of critical nutrients and desecrating cities with the accretion of waste as pollution. Marx pointed out that a continued interaction with nature served as a regulative law of social production and that the disconnect from nature and agriculture that most people encounter in a capitalist society brings about this metabolic rift which progresses to the allowance of environmental degradation. With the increase of capitalism, there has been a greater need to manufacture and this has taken in even more natural resources into the system hence causing environmental degradation. The natural resources that are being referred to in this case are mostly petroleum and coal, the burning of which cause high emissions of CO2. The state of being disconnected from the environment is the major reason why capitalist nations such as the United States cannot be expected to honor the Kyoto Protocol. Evidence Examining the reasons why a nation has a reduction in CO2 emissions can aid in explaining what manner of action should be undertaken in order to inspire other nations to reduce their emissions as well. Within the above discussion, there are 4 primary themes being played out to provide the evidence of variations in response. First there is the idea of risk and adaptation, which relies heavily on the success of the Montreal Protocol and psychology and then there is the Kuznets Curve and the ecological modernization theory, which states that the environment will become a priority once countries rise above the initial problems of industrialization. In addition to this there is the race-to-the bottom theory where nations actually relax environmental regulations in order to retain their competitiveness and lastly there is the metabolic rift theory, which state that the innate traits of capitalism leads to the growth of production and humans continuing to draw away from nature therefore loosing their initial concern about environmental degradation (Stern 2). Due to the Law of the Least Ambitious Party and the bulk of the research that argued that even if some states were party to the treaty did so for selfish gains, there is sufficient evidence to prove that the Kyoto Protocol is not ideal for solving environmental issues. Regardless of the fact that the Kuznets Curve as well as the ecological modernization theory has been widely disproven, it has significant policy allusions it was depended upon in the creation of the Kyoto Protocol especially in relation to offering developing countries an opportunity to catch up in terms of advancement and then concentrate on fixing the environment (Clark & Richard 391). In the race to the top scenario, there is enough evidence to prove that states that at first seemed concerned about the environment have now changed their focus and are relaxing the existing regulations to attract new startups as well as to prevent existing firms from relocating to nations that have flexible environmental laws. In addition to this, some nations such as Russia have realized that the weak Kyoto laws in terms of enforcement provide a good avenue for selling surplus emissions and are therefore using this avenue as an opportunity for new revenue. Although this is not as transparent, there is enough evidence to prove that the seeming commitment to the Kyoto Protocol is on the surface but deep inside, very little is being done (Clark & Richard 393). Although being the biggest CO2 emitter, the U.S. has constantly refused to be a treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. As a capitalist nation, the US realizes that it main responsibility is creating more wealth for its society. For this to be possible there is need for the creation of manufacturing plants all over the country not only to produce goods but also to create employment for its people. Today, America is recorded as the largest consumer of coal throughout the world and it is not surprising to note that coal is the biggest producer of carbon. Due to this fact, it can therefore be argued that the metabolic rift theory perfectly fits the developed nations. Although some form of commitment might be seen in reducing climate change, the first priority is in generating profits something that negates the seeming attempts at conserving the environment. The rate at which forest cover is fast disappearing in both the developed and the developing nations is a clear sign that making profits comes before conserving forests can even be considered (Stern 15). Closing Argument Although the Kyoto Protocol was enacted with the promise of reducing climate change, it is sad that several years down the line very little has been achieved in bringing this change. Even among the nations that at first seemed to be party to the treaty, it is now emerging that they did this for purely selfish gains and not because they had a genuine concern for safeguarding the environment. Although the treaty was formed with great plans to protect the environment, its apparent lack of enforcement measures has created a scenario where people do not see the need of abiding by the rules of the treaty. In addition to this, the failure by the big carbon emitters to be a party to the treaty means that not many gains have been experienced in this field. Although some small countries have tried hard to abide by the treaty, their efforts at carbon reduction does very little to affect climate change. In addition to this, such countries have been forced to rethink their stringent guidelines to avoid losing investors to countries that have flexible environmental laws. The other reason why the treaty has failed to bring about any meaningful results is because most individuals in the society do not have the knowledge of how climate change affects them and as such they do not think that they have a role to play in this matter. With no anyone prodding them to action, most governments have relaxed and any attempt to safeguard the environment is only done on paper. For this treaty to have been successful there is need for all parties to the treaty to go back to the drawing board and design fresh strategies touching especially on enforcement to push states into implementing the guidelines (Clark & Richard 396). Works Cited Clark, Brett, & Richard, York. Carbon metabolism: Global capitalism, climate change, and the biospheric rift. Theory and Society. 34. (2005): 391–442 Frantz, Cynthia, & Stephan Mayer. The Emergency of Climate Change: Why Are We Failing to Take Action? Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. 9.1 (2012): 205--222 Hovi, Jon & Sprinz, David. The Limits of the Law of Least Ambitious Program. Global Environmental Politics 6.3 (2006) 28-42 Malvik, Henrik, & Hege Westkog. The Kyoto mechanisms and the quest for compliance: Unresolved issues and potential pitfalls. CICERO Working Paper 2001:3. (2001) OBrien, Karen & Robin, Leichenko. Double exposure: assessing the impacts of climate change within the context of economic globalization. Global Environmental Change. (2000): 221-232 Oreskes, Naomi. The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change. Science. 306. (2004) Raustiala, Kal. States, NGOs, and International Environmental Institutions. International Studies Quarterly. 41.4 (2008): 719-740. Sims, Andrew. "Who owes who? Ecological debt: the biggest debt of all. Jubilee Research 2001 Web. 16 Mar 2014. Stern, Nicholas. The Economics of Climate Change. American Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings. 98.2 (2008): 1-37 Zhang, ZhongXiang. Multilateral trade measures in a post-2012 climate change regime? What can be taken from the Montreal Protocol and the WTO? Energy Policy. 37. (2009): 5105–5112 Read More