The Success and Failures of the Kyoto Protocol - Literature review Example

Name Course Instructor’s Name Date The success and failures of the Kyoto Protocol The Kyoto protocol is an agreement that was negotiated in December 1997 by many countries. It was enforced after Russia ratified it in 2005. It was devised under the guidance of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC). It was meant to fight global warming. The goal of UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to a level, which can be able to prevent anthropogenic interference, which is dangerous with the system of climate. By the end of 2009, 187 countries had signed and ratified the Kyoto protocol. In accordance to the protocol Annex I countries committed themselves to cut down the emission of four greenhouse gases and perfluorocarbons and hydrocfluorocarbons groups of gases which are produced by them. Other member countries also gave general commitments. Under the protocol, the Annex I countries were to cut down their collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level (Environment, 2010). Several mechanisms were set up to realize the implementation of the Kyoto protocol. They included joint implementation, emission trading and the clean development mechanism. The Kyoto protocol has five principal concepts (Hallsmith 204). The first one is commitments to reduce greenhouse gases by Annex I countries, which are legally binding and the general commitments by other member states. The second principal is implementation, which involves preparation of policies and measures by Annex I countries to reduce greenhouse gases in their own countries. Furthermore, the Annex I countries are expected to absorb these gases and use any available mechanism such as the clean development mechanism, joint implementation and emission trading to acquire credits that allow them to emit more greenhouse gases at home. The third principal is establishment of an adaptation fund for climate change that is aimed at minimizing the impacts on developing countries. The forth principal is reporting, accounting and reviewing to ensure the integrity of the protocol. The final principal is compliance, which involves establishment of a compliance committee, which is tasked with enforcing compliance to commitments made in the protocol. Global warming Global warming has taken a centre stage in the international environmental policy and law since 1990s. Today, global warming is one of the major environmental issues that have a wide coverage in the media (Helm, 44). The importance of global warming in international politics and policy was demonstrated by the awarding of Nobel Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 (IPCC, 2010). The main cause of global warming is anthropogenic emission. The harmful emissions occur everywhere in the world. The effect of every unit of carbon IV oxide is the same irrespective of its source. The contribution to these harmful emissions differs from country to country and from individual to individual worldwide. However, the largest contributors to these anthropogenic emissions are developed countries as opposed to developing countries (Environment, 2010). In addition, wealthy individuals also are great emitters of these anthropogenic gases than their poor counterparts. In spite this; developed countries also have the capability to mitigate and cushion themselves from the effects of global warming than the developing countries, which lack the necessary technology and resources to do so. Therefore, in spite being fewer contributors to global warming, poor countries and poor people within individual countries are at the risk of the impact of global warming (Bradord 87). Mechanisms for reducing emissions by Annex I countries Three mechanisms were set up in the Kyoto protocol to allow Annex I countries to cut down their emissions of greenhouse gases. These included Joint Implementation, Clean Development mechanism and Emission Trading (IPCC, 2010). Joint implementation enables Annex I countries to acquire or transfer emission reduction units given in Annex B countries to be able to meet their limits of greenhouse gas emissions (Hallsmith 204). Clean Development on the other hand is based on projects located in non-Annex I countries, which should be meant for sustainable development of the host country. The clean development mechanism was aimed at enabling greenhouse gas emission at a lower cost beyond the country’s geographical borders. This mechanism enables industrialized countries to support projects in Annex B countries (Environment, 2010). Thus, both joint implementation and clean development mechanisms are project based. Emissions trading enable Annex B countries to trade their assigned amount units given in Annex B to meet their limits of greenhouse gas emissions (Singer & Avery, 60). These mechanisms were aimed at helping the protocol achieve its two broad objectives. These include cost effective mitigation of greenhouse gas emission and sustainable development. The main feature of the protocol was the agreement on binding the targets, that is, limitation of quantified emission or reduction commitments. The success of Kyoto protocol in addressing global warming The EU’s activities after the Kyoto protocol reflect the support of the commission for the Kyoto emission trading system. EU was involved in production of many documents, which were directly or indirectly related to the implementation of the agreement to share the burden, and it emphasized the EU arrangement of emission trading system. Thus, they developed their own emission trading system (Environment, 2010). Through the European Climate Change program (ECCP), EU has tried to identify and develop elements of an EU strategy that is comprehensive to enable it implement the commitment of Kyoto protocol. The ECCP first report released in June 2001 was able to identify forty-two measures that could be used to fight climate change. The implementation of these measures was expected to cut emission of between 664 and 765 million tons of carbon IV oxide by 2010 at a lower cost of about 20 Euros per ton (IPCC, 2010). The commission proposal, promotion of biofuel directive and promotion of combined heat and power biofuels directives were launched in the second phase in 2002. Thus, EU is committed to reducing emission through its adoption and pursue of the Kyoto protocol (Bohringer 69). The Kyoto protocol has a successful aspect in its ability to generate momentum. The ability of this protocol to keep both interested and uninterested nations involved is remarkable based on the fact that causes, responsibilities and effects of global warming have inequitable distribution (Environment, 2010). Despite the setbacks, the intensity of international community involvement in solving the climate change issue under the Kyoto protocol is a success in itself (Bradord 70). Thus, fixing debilitating and dysfunctional aspects of the protocol and building on its strengths will go a long way in realizing the objectives of the protocol. The failures of Kyoto protocol According to IPCC report of 2005, the protocol did was not reducing emissions as expected. It reported 370 ppm increase in the levels in the greenhouse gas emission. This increase resulted in a rise of earth's temperature by 0.5oC in 2007. The report also stated that the ice glaze in arctic was reducing at a rate of 2.7% each year and the sea water level was rising at a rate of 0.5mm per year. This report was an indication of the failure of Kyoto protocol to reduce global warming. The clean development mechanism was expected to initiate climate friendly projects in Annex B countries by allowing generation of revenue by developers through selling offsets or carbon credits. The offset buyers were to use the credits to comply with Kyoto protocol mandate of reducing emissions (IPCC, 2010). However, the mechanism had many flaws, developers were also liars, and thus credits worth billions of dollars are being sold by projects, which did not need the assistance of the clean development mechanism (CMD) to be built (Bohringer 60). Thus, the mechanism has failed to meet both the objective to reduce greenhouse emissions and the objective to promote sustainable development in Annex B countries (Environment, 2010). Most of the credits are earned from projects, which do not reduce emissions (Singer & Avery, 40). In cases where CMD was able to reduce emissions in Annex B countries, the process was found to be very expensive. It has been noted that some of the projects, which have applied for the CMD, have ironically resulted in serious environmental and social harm. There has been a rise in emissions between 1990 and 2005 in many countries with countries like Spain recording a rise of 61%, Portugal 57%, New Zealand 41% and Australia 37%. This ironical given that all this countries committed themselves to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Only six countries reduced greenhouse gas emission during that period with only England and Germany being G8 countries which cut their emissions by -6% and -15% respectively (Wicke & Knebel 32). Furthermore, CDM is short-term mitigation gains. In fact, CMD is a non-emission reducing strategy since emission reduction in developing country generates an offset, which allows the Annex I country to continue polluting the environment discourages investment in deployment and innovation in low carbon technologies and inhibits rapid transition to an economy, which is compatible with a stable climate (IPCC, 2010). The CDM provides a route for escape for developed countries, which are unwilling to implement changes, which are drastic in the energy policy. Consequently, investments in existing or new alternative technologies are not carried out. Furthermore, no framework is included in CDM that ensures that the projects are prioritized in line with the expected impacts on the environment and the poor. Thus, the Kyoto’s clean development mechanism is a complete failure in cutting the emissions to the required level (Environment, 2010). Among the concessions which were made during the process of Kyoto protocol negotiation the introduction of flexibility through Kyoto mechanisms (Bradord 16). This flexibility provides escape clause that allows developed countries to avoid implementation of the commitments they take in their own countries. This is unique in the international law arena since countries are expected to implement commitments they take in their own home countries (Bohringer 53). In addition, flexibility has given much prominence to the private players for the implementation of Kyoto protocol, which is an international treaty. Due to this, there has been a compromise for both social and environmental objectives of the Kyoto protocol. Neutrality is usually the premise of international legal regime. Under this system, all states are usually treated equally. Thus, rules that do not discriminate the states during their application are deemed just. Under the international legal regime, inequalities such as economic differences are not taken in to account (Environment, 2010). However, under the Kyoto protocol, which gives guidelines on the legal regime of global warming, there exists a differential treatment. This is informed by the fact that countries which have historically contributed to global warming (grouped as developed countries in the protocol) have the capability both economically and technologically to mitigate and adapt to global warming. Thus, different commitments were adopted under the Kyoto protocol by developed countries and the developing countries. Developed countries took emission reduction commitments (IPCC, 2010). This in itself contributed to the failure of the protocol to address the problem of global warming. For instance, China and India, which were grouped under the developing countries, are some of the major global emitters of greenhouse gases. The fact that these countries were not given emission reduction targets is in itself a failure of the protocol. In addition, the protocol was not able to give Russia emission reduction target and it was unable to bring in United States of America (Environment, 2010). The four countries, China, United States of America, India and Russia accounted for a half of carbon emissions in 2004. This shows that the protocol is a failure and will not be able to meet its global warming reduction targets by 2012. Therefore, the effects of common but differentiated responsibilities of the protocol have had debilitating and dysfunctional consequence on the protocol (Singer & Avery, 34). Conclusion The Kyoto protocol is an agreement, which was negotiated in December 1997 by many countries. It was enforced after Russia ratified it in 2005. It was devised under the guidance of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC). It was meant to fight global warming. The goal of UNFCCC is to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to a level, which can be able to prevent anthropogenic interference, which is dangerous with the system of climate. Global warming has taken a centre stage in the international environmental policy and law since 1990s. The main cause of global warming is anthropogenic emission. We can conclude that Kyoto protocol failed to realize its goals based on the continued increase in emissions of anthropogenic gases and increasing global temperatures. The failure can be attributed to inability of the Kyoto protocol to force the United States of America, a major global anthropogenic emitter, to participate in its ratification. The USA contributes to more than 25% of anthropogenic emissions and therefore without its participation the goal of reducing global warming is just a dream. In addition, the US government has been influencing the World Bank to invest more in fuel energy projects instead of clean energy projects worldwide. This move has resulted in a rise in the green house gas emissions leading to increase in global temperature. The failure of the protocol can also be attributed to the loopholes in the protocol, which allows developed countries from reducing the anthropogenic gas emission in their country through the clean development mechanism. Thus even though clean development mechanism has allowed commissioning of clean energy projects in developing countries, the continuous pollution of the atmosphere by the developed countries offset these efforts. Another, reason that could have contributed to failure of this protocol was differential treatment policy of the protocol which saw countries like India, China and Russia which are major emitters of greenhouse gas together with US accounting for more than 50% of emissions being left without targets to meet in terms of anthropogenic gas emission reduction. Reference Bohringer, Christoph. “From Kyoto to Bonn: From Little to Nothing?” The Energy Journal, 23.2 (2002): 51-71 Bradord, David. 2002. Improving on Kyoto: Greenhouse Gas Control as the Purchase of Global Public Good, working paper, Princeton University. Environment. 2010. The Kyoto Protocol. 15 Aug.2010. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.htm Hallsmith Gwendolyn. The key to sustainable cities: meeting human needs, transforming community systems. London: New Society Publishers, 2003. Helm Dieter. Climate-change policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Publication and Data. 15 Aug. 2010. http://www.ipcc.ch/ Singer, Siegfried & Avery, Dennis. Unstoppable global warming: every 1,500 years. New York: Rowman & Littlefield, 2007. Wicke Lutz & Knebel Jurgen. Beyond Kyoto: a new global climate certificate system : continuing Kyoto commitments or a global 'cap and trade' scheme for a sustainable climate policy? Sydney: McMillan Publishers, 2005. Read More

Global warming Global warming has taken a centre stage in the international environmental policy and law since 1990s. Today, global warming is one of the major environmental issues that have a wide coverage in the media (Helm, 44). The importance of global warming in international politics and policy was demonstrated by the awarding of Nobel Prize to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 (IPCC, 2010). The main cause of global warming is anthropogenic emission. The harmful emissions occur everywhere in the world.

The effect of every unit of carbon IV oxide is the same irrespective of its source. The contribution to these harmful emissions differs from country to country and from individual to individual worldwide. However, the largest contributors to these anthropogenic emissions are developed countries as opposed to developing countries (Environment, 2010). In addition, wealthy individuals also are great emitters of these anthropogenic gases than their poor counterparts. In spite this; developed countries also have the capability to mitigate and cushion themselves from the effects of global warming than the developing countries, which lack the necessary technology and resources to do so.

Therefore, in spite being fewer contributors to global warming, poor countries and poor people within individual countries are at the risk of the impact of global warming (Bradord 87). Mechanisms for reducing emissions by Annex I countries Three mechanisms were set up in the Kyoto protocol to allow Annex I countries to cut down their emissions of greenhouse gases. These included Joint Implementation, Clean Development mechanism and Emission Trading (IPCC, 2010). Joint implementation enables Annex I countries to acquire or transfer emission reduction units given in Annex B countries to be able to meet their limits of greenhouse gas emissions (Hallsmith 204).

Clean Development on the other hand is based on projects located in non-Annex I countries, which should be meant for sustainable development of the host country. The clean development mechanism was aimed at enabling greenhouse gas emission at a lower cost beyond the country’s geographical borders. This mechanism enables industrialized countries to support projects in Annex B countries (Environment, 2010). Thus, both joint implementation and clean development mechanisms are project based. Emissions trading enable Annex B countries to trade their assigned amount units given in Annex B to meet their limits of greenhouse gas emissions (Singer & Avery, 60).

These mechanisms were aimed at helping the protocol achieve its two broad objectives. These include cost effective mitigation of greenhouse gas emission and sustainable development. The main feature of the protocol was the agreement on binding the targets, that is, limitation of quantified emission or reduction commitments. The success of Kyoto protocol in addressing global warming The EU’s activities after the Kyoto protocol reflect the support of the commission for the Kyoto emission trading system.

EU was involved in production of many documents, which were directly or indirectly related to the implementation of the agreement to share the burden, and it emphasized the EU arrangement of emission trading system. Thus, they developed their own emission trading system (Environment, 2010). Through the European Climate Change program (ECCP), EU has tried to identify and develop elements of an EU strategy that is comprehensive to enable it implement the commitment of Kyoto protocol. The ECCP first report released in June 2001 was able to identify forty-two measures that could be used to fight climate change.

The implementation of these measures was expected to cut emission of between 664 and 765 million tons of carbon IV oxide by 2010 at a lower cost of about 20 Euros per ton (IPCC, 2010). The commission proposal, promotion of biofuel directive and promotion of combined heat and power biofuels directives were launched in the second phase in 2002.

Read More