Feb
29
Bidding Time in the Kyoto Protocal
February 29, 2008 | | 1 Comment
by Eva Chang
The target set for the accomplishment of cutbacks on greenhouse gas emissions of the participating states is in 2012. Four years from now, results would show whether the states committing to cutback on their greenhouse gas emissions have achieved their goals and whether the extent of cutbacks has an impact on climate change.
With so big a goal and so short a time, the states that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol do not seem to be putting pressure on states refusing to ratify the agreement, such as United States and Australia, and formalize their commitment to the concerted effort of cutting back greenhouse gas emissions on a global scale. This is because the states who have ratified the agreement are struggling to keep pace with their targets while at the same time dealing with resistance from various sectors affected by the green policies. The United States and Australia remain adamant in their stand to recognize the need to cooperate in the greenhouse gas emissions but without formally committing to take action.
Numerous reasons justified the refusal to make a final commitment. When Kyoto Protocol came into effect, the justification for not ratifying is the impending economic losses from the closure of industries reliant on greenhouse emissions and the high costs of transforming fossil fuel-burning operations to green production. The United States with industries powered by fossil fuels and Australia with a strong coal industry explained that their economies could not sustain the extent of commitment exacted by the agreement. Due to these justifications, efforts focused on improving the three mechanisms of the agreement to motivate these large states to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Other states, representing 63.7 percent of aggregate greenhouse gas emissions, ratified the agreement still with the exception of the United States and Australia that represent more than 25 percent of greenhouse gas emissions.
In early 2000, environmental concerns became a non-priority with the escalation of problems on terrorism resulting to the concentration of efforts and resources on the war on terrorism and on boosting national and international security. At present, although threats have abated, political and security issues persist , especially in the United States with upcoming presidential elections. At present, the environmental burden has slowly shifted to developing countries. The U.S. Energy Information Administration has projected that carbon emissions are likely to increase in the next decades as seen in the left figure with developing countries contributing more greenhouse gas emissions to exceed the greenhouse gas emissions of the industrialized countries. The United States has evaded responsibility by shifting the blame on developing countries.
With just four years to the deadline of target completion, the states whose participation in the Kyoto Protocol should make a big difference are bidding time until 2012 by looking for justifications not to take action. States that are having a hard time in keeping up with their commitments have also kept mum on the issue. Although, environmental issues form part of the agenda in international forums, no decisive actions have come about. At this rate, achievement of the targeted cutbacks on greenhouse gas emission is uncertain and there is likelihood that a number of states would evade a renewal of commitment. Perhaps state government are waiting for a serious global environmental problem to occur before finally doing action.
Comments
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)1 Comment so far
eva, you might want to look into the 2007 bali climate change conference and see what was achieved; it was meant to be a roadmap for after kyoto. from what i remember, australia finally signed the kyoto protocol and even the us was ready to commit to some kind of action plan..