Strengths and Weaknesses of Kyoto Protocol in Solving Climate Change - Term Paper Example

Strengths and Weaknesses of Kyoto Protocol in Solving Climate Change Unit Introduction This essay will discuss the Kyoto Protocol while evaluating its strengths and weaknesses. In particular, emphasis has been given to the protocol as a political, technological, and economic issue. The Kyoto Protocol was developed to mitigate continued climate change through emissions. Global warming is one of the key aspects of climate change that has been greatly associated with human activities resulting in greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions. There has been push and pull in the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol which requires the industrialized countries to reduce GHG emissions. The dwindling levels of commitment to this agreement are greatly contributed by economic as well as political issues. Canada opted out of the protocol, while USA and Australia not being signatories demonstrates a major weakness. In addition, Russia has been complaining of not benefiting from the protocol, hence there have been talks on withdrawal (Interfax 2012). Despite these hiccups, the overall emission levels of GHG have been declining. An assessment of carbon dioxide emissions between 1980 and 2006 revealed that emissions started declining after the adoption of the Protocol (Kumazawa & Callaghan 2012, pg 208). The European Union has been in the forefront in combating climate change. Despite the struggles experienced in the realization of the 2008-2012 Kyoto protocol goals, Eur Active (2007) reported that some countries have demonstrated substantial reductions; Germany (2.3%), Romania (4%), and Finland (14.6%). Background Information The world has inequitable levels of GHG emissions because of the varied industrialization. In 1992, there was the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convection of Climate Change (UNFCCC), which paved the way to the development of the Kyoto Protocol. Upon enactment, UNFCCC was operational by March 1994 (Dow and Downing 2007). This framework provided much flexibility by viewing the issue of climate change as an aspect that can be achieved by the developed countries. The parties to this treaty agreed on cutting down on GHG emissions. It came into force in 2005, the year when Canada and Russia became parties. It reflected the commitment by countries to combat GHG emissions based on the national differences, the ability to make a difference and the wealth status of the country (Grubb 2004). The schedule of the development of the protocol started in 2006 and the first commitment period was to run between 2008 and 2012. The protocol is guided by a number of principles, which ensures that parties adhere to the required regulations. Firstly, there are binding commitments for Annex I parties; this is geared towards the reduction of GHG emissions. Secondly, there is a requirement that the Annex I countries develop internal policies and strategies that are aimed at reducing the amount of GHG emissions. The third principle entails the establishment of an adaptation fund that seeks to facilitate reduction of the impacts of climate change on the developing countries. Fourthly, there is provision for an accounting, reporting, and review of the protocol so that it is implemented to the letter. Finally, the protocol establishes that a compliance committee shall be developed in order to ensure adherence to the provisions of the protocol. The protocol provides that Annex-I countries are to adhere to the targets that have been developed in order to reach the levels of emissions that are stipulated. The inability to adhere to the set regulations provided that economic sanctions should be imposed. Dow and Downing (2007) reports that the withdrawal of United States, Canada, and Australia means that approximately 40% of the total emissions are not considered. This makes it an illusion to reach the 5.2% reduction, below the 1990’s levels. Kyoto Protocol as a Basis of Climate Change Interventions (Strength) The Kyoto protocol acts as a serious intervention towards combating climate change. It is an international strategy geared towards creating an environmental awareness; this aspect has been assumed for centuries and required appropriate attention due to the effects of climate change that are witnessed in the world. Climate change is an international issue that affects the world uniformly. The protocol is founded on shared but differentiated responsibilities. It also brings into play other aspects that had not been give focus initially such as innovative climate change strategies, and lays the foundations of governance (De Lucia 2007). Various aspects are determinants to the country’s commitment such as the economic position, the willingness to combat climate change and the wealth of the country. This made the protocol to have economic implications such as some of the major GHG emitters opting out of the protocol. The protocol developed an objective of reducing the GHG emissions with a margin of 5.2% from the 1990s to the 2008-2012 periods (United Nations 1997, pg 1). The protocol placed emphasis on GHG namely; carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases. It has a provision for every country developing its mechanisms of combating the emissions. The capacity to allow individual countries to set their own policies and targets in the implementation of the protocol is a major strength. This is because the countries will be at liberty to impose measures that they will feel appropriate in reducing the level of emissions. The protocol poses a major strength in that it has been able to enhance science and technology. Japan sets the pace in developing some of the most efficient technologies; the protocol required the sharing of these technologies with the developing countries whose technologies are costly and less efficient (Ma 2012, pg 95). There has been increased awareness on efficient technologies and knowledge sharing has been facilitated. In addition, the public has been made to be aware and conscious of their environment. The Deficiency of the Protocol (weakness) The protocol lacks a clause that restricts the major GHG emitting countries. For example, US, which are responsible for up to 19% global emissions, were not one of the parties to the protocol (Stavins & Olmstead 2010). The timing of the protocol is also a major disadvantage to the realization of the climate change. The five-year plan that is set out in the protocol is not sufficient to solve a problem that has been in existence for decades and will have an effect to the future generations. This proposition faults the entire strategy since there is limited focus on longevity. The protocol as it stands has various flaws that reduce its effectiveness. Russia and Canada had postponed ratification, they both ratified but Canada withdrew later. On the other hand, United States and Australia have failed completely to ratify the protocol; this is a major setback especially given that United States is the highly ranked country for emission of GHG. There is also a feeling that the developing countries have been cut out from the regulative scope of the protocol hence there is uncertainty that they may be the targets of developed countries in adding more emissions. The effect of the overall regulations is limited in terms of the reduction in the concentration of GHG emissions. It is also evident that some of the targets are set too low that little effort is required to meet these targets. The implementation of the agreement is feeble especially in terms of the future targets, which are not clearly defined. The scope of the period limits the achievement of long-term strategies; the protocol has a narrow and short-term vision since it is provides guidelines over what should happen over a short time frame. Kyoto Protocol Global Support (Strength) The Kyoto Protocol is global hence, it has backup from countries spread across the world. Irrespective of the conflicts of interests especially from the major GHG-emitting countries, there is a common consensus that climate change is a menace to the current and even future generations. Some of the provisions of the protocol bind even countries like US that are not signatories since it are a signatory to the UFCCC. The institutional framework of the protocol is well developed. The monitoring and coordination of the performance of the individual countries is done through the UNFCCC secretariat (UNFCCC 2011, pg 1). The protocol also provides for development of creative, flexible, and innovative structures that facilitate cost reduction. As part of its structures, the Kyoto protocol has binding targets and timetables that are meant to guide the emissions strategies by the industrialized countries. Improving on technology is considered one of the interventions that are to be adopted by the Annex I countries so that they are able to reduce their emission levels. Countries with improved technologies have been required to share their efficient technologies so that there is a global trend towards reduction of GHG emissions. This protocol was a major breakthrough in the regulation of emission throughout the globe. It is a major start point in facilitating environmental conservation; it forms the foundation for future global interventions in combatting climate change. The Kyoto mechanism requires that the Annex-I countries reduce to reduce GHG emissions at a reduced cost. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) provides an opportunity for developing countries to participate in the issues related to climate change. There can a significant reduction in the GHG emissions if the developing countries commit themselves to reducing their levels of emissions through CDM. The CDM is a provision of the protocol that strengthens environmental sustainability. As provided in the Article 12, it requires that Annex B countries implement emission reduction projects in developing countries. The projects were to earn the respective country saleable credits. According to Carbon Trust, the success of CDM was beginning to be seen since 4000 CDM projects were on the validation phase by the close of 2008. In this regard, China and India have been seen to lead the park in developing CDM projects. By September 2012, approximately 4600 projects were fully registered by the CDM Executive Board (UNFCC, 2013). However, this mechanism can easily be tampered by the developed countries through enactment of reduction opportunities that are cheap. The outcome of the CDM is expected to be minimal (Ellis et al 2004). The process is costly due to the accompanying transaction costs as well as the monitoring costs. Some analysts have highlighted clearly that the role of CDM is limited and may not serve the overall impact of climate change, which is a long-term issue. The effectiveness of CDM is also limited in that its effectiveness against leakage is limited. The failure of UNFCCC in dealing with any substantial development towards climate change proves that its predecessor, Kyoto Protocol is an effective mechanism of dealing with the whole aspect of climate change. The main reason is that the protocol comes with a package that set outs the legally binding emission levels that should be met by each of the categories of countries. In addition, it has developed a framework of the mandatory targets and the accompanying penalties for the countries in Annex-I that are not able to meet their targets. The effectiveness in enforcing the protocol is a major boost to its implementation hence climate change. The protocol establishes that there GHG emissions do not have any direct local effects but they have a global impact. These gases do find their way into the atmosphere irrespective of where they are produced hence causing deleterious effects to the atmosphere. The view that the protocol does focus on emission trading does not solve the underlying environmental problem. However, there is reduction in the costs of emissions which can be considerable depending on the stabilization strategy used (IEA 2002). This means that since the aspect of climate change is a process that occurs over time, there is a significant reduction in the impact. The implementation of the emission trading at both the country level and the international platform provides a dual mechanism of dealing with the levels of emissions released in the air. In addition, governments are capable of distributing their efforts through negotiations towards the realization of cost-effectiveness and equity (Philibert 2005, pg 3). There are two types of emission trading schemes that are provided in the protocol; project-based and allowance-based exchanges. Any reduction in the carbon dioxide output as well as the utilization of renewable energy sources earns a country some ‘credits’ ; this entails the project–based allowances. On the other hand, the allowance-based schemes requires that countries that cannot meet the required targets buy credits from those that are have much credit or get from those countries that are not bound by the requirements. The deadline for meeting the first round targets in emission trading was set for late 2014. (Dow and Downing 2007). Legal and Scientific Deficiency of the Protocol (weakness) The Article 3 of the Protocol has the provisions for the legal implications for the Annex I targets. There is lack of objectivity in this provision; the main center of focus is in the reduction commitments and the limitations that are set for the emissions. Various political aspects influenced the development of the protocol. It was clear a specific target that was quantifiable was known. Due to the underlying political aspects the three major parties; US, EU and Japan agreed on a near flat rate, an aspect that was done in an attempt to draw a political compromise. This means that the agreement is lacking in legal framework. While there are provisions about non-compliance as set out in article 18, the specific guidelines are not stipulated (Wijen and Zoeteman 2005). Criticisms from various quarters have emerged that the protocol lacked concrete scientific background. This could have been a potential cause for the withdrawal of United States from the provisions of the protocol. President Bush had criticized the protocol on grounds that it lacked sufficient science to support the arguments. It is notable that temperatures have risen by 0.6 degrees as from the 19th century to date (IPCC 2007, pg 1). There is no evidence that proves that the impact of GHG emissions is the absolute cause of climate change. The relationship that has been drawn through science can easily be questioned. There is much of inequity in the provisions that are set out; some countries will be required to put a lot of effort while others will have very little to do. A good example is the inequity that is evident in the Annex I countries. Countries such as Japan will be heavily affected since they have the most energy effective systems, therefore to reduce some little amount of emissions will require much input. On the other hand, countries in European Union and Russia will have very little to do in order to meet their expected targets. Another area where the protocol makes an assumption that brings inequity is in the Non-Annex I countries. It requires that CDM projects be developed in the Latin America and Asia while completely neglecting the role of African countries, which is slowly becoming a center of economic interest among the economic giants such as US, and China. (Slade and Werksman n.d, pg 62-73). The role of developing countries is somehow vague and has no accompanying consequences; they are tasked with the responsibility of increasing of reducing deforestation, increasing use of renewable energy and promoting energy efficiency. Threats to the Kyoto Protocol (Weaknesses) Various factors that pose as threats to the mandate of Kyoto protocol; Parallel strategies: There has not been consensus among all the countries in adoption of the protocol. United States and Australia are more inclined to the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate as opposed to Kyoto. This framework also addresses the same issue of climate change. Through the two strategies are complementary, there is a political play in the adoption of these two strategies. In addition, there lacks a common system of reaching resolutions that will ensure that the world is integrated in developing policies that will ensure climate change is effectively handled. This indicates that the Kyoto protocol may be downplayed hence its effectiveness reduced. Increasing Levels of Emissions in the Developing Countries: The protocol places so much emphasis on the developed countries and plays a smaller responsibility to the developing countries. It is estimated that with the levels of emissions being seen in the developing countries, there is high chances their emissions might catch up with that of the developed countries by 2025 (Browne 2004). This problem is aggravated by the view that non-Annex I countries are not required to reduce their emissions by the protocol. In addition, there is a crisis because some of the countries that are not bound to the requirements of the protocol are demonstrating a high population growth; these include India, United States, Brazil, and many African countries. The use of old technologies by the developing countries also poses a risk to the realization of the protocol. The developed countries have taken advantage of the protocol’s provision for the developing countries to dump their less technologically-advanced and environmentally unfriendly equipment to the developing countries (De Lucia, 2007). Unhealthy Economic and Political Competitions: Competitiveness becomes very unequitable in situations since the requirements that are supposed to be met by the Annex-I countries varies with those of the Non-Annex I countries as well as the countries that have failed to ratify the protocol. This means that in terms of industrial development there is a competitive advantage from the non-adherents as well as the Non-Annex I countries. On the other hand, there is created political suspicion between countries that are competing in terms of industry and the overall economic development. For example, United States and China are countries that have political and economic rivalry, if one party was compliant, the other party would endeavor to get out of bounds in order to compete effectively. Loopholes in Kyoto protocol (weakness) There are identifiable loopholes in the Kyoto protocol that requires to be keenly addressed. There should primarily be a reduction of the underlying uncertainties as well as setting the scientific background clear in order to reduce the compromises that arise based on these arguments. The policies and measures that have been stipulated in the policy are deficient hence requires repealing. In addition, they are not binding hence presenting challenges to the implementation. The type of language that is used in describing various provisions is very soothing. This makes it possible for these measures and policies to act as if they are not strict. A good example of the laxity in these policies and measures is in the Article 2.2 which provides that Annex I countries will have to develop negotiations that will facilitate the establishment of mechanisms to reduce and limit the use of fuels by marine vessels as well as by aircrafts. The parties that were supposed to negotiate on this aspect failed to reach a consensus. This greatly thwarted the efforts of the Kyoto protocol in reducing the effects of climate change. There is also a provision on article 2.3 focuses on the efforts being made towards the adoption of the policies and measures so that there is a balanced benefit especially from the countries that are concerned about the effects of climate change (Wijen and Zoeteman 2005). The repeal of article 3 is also paramount. This provides the binding legal l character that should be coupled with reduction in emissions. The commitments made by Annex-I parties requires that they should not go beyond a certain level of emissions. The quantified emissions limitations and reduction commitments should be reviewed especially concerning the design that has been adopted. Another issue that arises is the quantification of the gases that are released in the atmosphere. Methane and nitrous gas are difficult to establish their levels as well as presents challenges in their removal from the sinks. There is also a major challenge of quantifying the levels of destruction to the atmosphere a given amount can cause. The coverage sinks too pose a threat to the environment and the biodiversity. The point that was raised in the protocol to reduce the emissions through establishment of sinks remains not valid and requires review because of the expected long-term effects to the environment. Conclusion In conclusion, the Kyoto Protocol has a number of strengths and some weaknesses too. Issues relating to withdrawal of some parties, non-commitment, inequality, inadequate legal framework among others pose a serious challenge to the protocol. On the other hand, the reduction in emissions has been witnessed courtesy of the protocol. The protocol cushions the developing countries while making tightening the regulations for the developed countries. The major contributions of the weaknesses that are confronted by the protocol are issues relating to political and economic situations. In addition, the changing technology has a great influence on the strengths of the protocol. The protocol acts as a good intervention towards climate change. The motive has been very good and the strengths outperform the weaknesses. However, the protocol is limited by the lack of support and commitment from the major GHG emitters such as US and China. This is contributed by the interplay of political, economic and technological factors that face the world today. References "Canada Rejects New Kyoto Protocol", 2011, Enviromation, , no. 69, pp. 4-5. http://search.proquest.com/business/docview/878898777/900BCCB20C94F59PQ/4?accountid=45049 Browne, J. (2004), Beyond Kyoto, Foreign Affairs, Vol 83, No.4. Retrieved from http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Browne2004.pdf De Lucia, V. (2007), common but differentiated responsibility, the encyclopedia of earth. Retrieved from http://www.eoearth.org/view/article/151320/ Dow, K. & Downing, T. E. (2007), The Atlas of climate change mapping : Mapping the world’s greatest challenge. Berkley, California: University of California Press. Dudek, D., and Golub, A. (2003), “Intensity” targets: Pathway or roadblock to preventing climate change while enhancing economic growth? Climate Policy. Ellis et al. (2004), Taking stock progress under the CDM, IEA/OECD Information Paper. EurActive (2007, July 16), Doubt cast to EU climate change goals. Retrieved from http://www.euractiv.com/climate-change/doubt-cast-eu-climate-change-goals/article-164658 Grub, M. (2004), Kyoto and the future of international climate change responses: from here to where? International Review for Environmental Strategies. IEA (2002), Beyond Kyoto- Energy dynamics and climate stabilization, Paris: OECD/IEA Interfax (2012), POLITICS ECONOMY; Russia does not gain much from Kyoto Protocol, should reconsider its participation - Medvedev 2012, , Moscow. http://search.proquest.com/business/docview/1113337585/900BCCB20C94F59PQ/2?accountid=45049 IPCC (2007), Projected climate change and its impacts. Retrieved from http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html Kumazawa, R. & Callaghan, M.S. (2012), "The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon dioxide emissions", Journal of Economics and Finance, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 201-210. http://search.proquest.com/business/docview/1014278473/900BCCB20C94F59PQ/3?accountid=45049 Ma, Z.F. (2012), The effectiveness of Kyoto Protocol and the legal institution for international technology transfer, Journal of Technology Transfer, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 75-97. Philibert, C. (2005), Lessons from the Kyoto protocol: Implications for the future. International Review for Environmental Strategies, Vol 5, No. 1. Retrieved from http://philibert.cedric.free.fr/Downloads/Transforming%20Kyoto.pdf Slade, T. N and Werksman, J. (n.d), An Examination of the Kyoto protocol from the small island perspective. Retrieved from http://environment.research.yale.edu/documents/downloads/o-u/Slade.pdf Stavins, R. & Olmstead, S. (2010), Three key elements of post-2012 international climate policy architecture, Impact. UNFCCC, (2011), Status of ratification of the convection. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/status_of_ratification/items/2631.php United Nations (1997), Press release: Industrialized counties to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2%. Retrieved from http://unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/info/indust.htm Wijen, F. and Zoeteman, K. (2005), Architecture of the Kyoto Protocol and prospects for public climate policy, Handbook of Globalization and Environmental Policy: National government interventions in a global arena, Cheltenham 595-623. Read More