This is a featured issue.
Kyoto Protocol
The
Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty on global warming. It also reaffirms sections of the UNFCCC. Countries which ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.
In 2004, the
Government of Canada ratified the treaty, although many observers claim no government plan exists to meet requirement of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 6% over 1990 levels by 2012.
Canada's Plan
In 2005, Canada released its climate change plan entitled Project Green – Moving Forward on Climate Change: A Plan for Honouring our Kyoto Commitment"
* According to Project Green, the gap between actual emissions and projected emissions will be at least 270 megatonnes (Mt) by the time of the Kyoto implementation period of 2008-2012 (if emissions continue to increase on a business-as-usual basis).
* In 1990, the base year for the Kyoto Protocol, Canada’s total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were 596Mt.
* Canada committed at Kyoto in 1997 to reduce its total emissions to 6% below 1990 levels
-- or to 560 Mt - by 2008-2012.
* Total Canadian GHG emissions increased by 24% between 1990 and 2003.
* Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 2002."
positions
[+] The Kyoto Protocol is a necessary first step against climate change.
(pro)The United Nations Argument:
The impact of the Kyoto Protocol may be small, but it is a first step with more political than practical importance, future emissions cuts of 70% are likely required to Stabilize atmospheric CO2.The
UN Environment Program says the effectiveness of Kyoto really depends on whether it lays a good foundation for the climate convention process, which might lead to greater reductions later.
(pro) The Government of China
On September 3 2002 the
Government of China ratified the treaty, stating: "The Chinese government believes that the United Nations Framework Convention on climate and its Kyoto Protocol set forth the fundamental principles and provide an effective framework and a series of rules for international cooperation in combating climate change, and as such they deserve worldwide compliance,"
- (pro):Kyoto is the only international plan that exists, and it is way past time to get going.
[+] Position: The Kyoto Protocol is fundamentally flawed because it exempts developing nations, and should be scrapped.
pro:The Bush Argument:
The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
con: China's emissions are already shrinking, America's are not.
According to an article in Science (November 30, 2001), China’s greenhouse gas emissions have fallen since 1996. The article states, "The prevailing wisdom about China’s greenhouse gas emissions is that they are increasing steadily, because of the large quantities of coal being used to fuel a fast-growing industrial economy, and most projections show China’s greenhouse gas emissions continuing to grow in the coming decades."
The article’s authors claim, however, that, "we find that China’s CO2 emissions declined by 7.3 percent between 1996 (the peak year) and 2000, and CH4
methane emissions declined by 2.2 percent between 1997 (the peak year) and 2000."
con: Kyoto's emissions credit trading will encourage emissions reductions in developing nations.
Many nations, including Canada, have committed to buying credits for emissions reductiosn from lesser developed nations. Not only will Kyoto encourage the technology transfers that developing countries need to "leap frog" from highly inefficient to efficient tehcnologies, but it will offset the economic injustice of having to pay for a problem they did not create.
[+] Position: The Kyoto Protocol is irrelevant, it will not prevent climate change. (Climate change is inevitable)
pro:there is no means of enforcement, Kyoto will not work.
To be effective any global warming treaty, must have mandatory fallback provisions where if its targets are missed by a wide margin an automatic new set of rules will kick in where regulation of global CO2 emissions will pass to independent bodies and be taken out of the hands of endless negotiations that produce no results.
Otherwise its all a waste of time and we might as well just accept mass global warming and move on to how to protect the environment within the context of mass warming.
[+] Position: The economic cost of implimenting the Kyoto Protocol too high.
(con) The Russian Ministry of the Economy:
The ministry says that the average level of greenhouse gas emissions in Russia in 2008-2012 will still be 15 percent less than the target determined for Russia in the Kyoto Protocol. Accordingly, Russia would be in a position to sell billions of Dollars worth of Kyoto credits. source:
mosnews
(pro):The Heritage Foundation:
On the
Climate Stewardship Act of 2003 (a milder than Kyoto plan for CO2 emissions caps), the Heritiage FOundation states:
"Studies show that this energy-suppressing proposal, whether in its original version or in its amended form, would have an adverse impact on the nation’s economy. It would increase the cost of energy for consumers, impact job creation, and slow the nation’s economic growth. For these reasons alone, Congress should continue to reject attempts to impose caps on greenhouse gas emissions." They quote a U.S. Energy Information Administration Study which finds:
- Gasoline prices would increase by 9 percent in 2010 and by 19 percent in 2025;
- Natural gas prices in the electric-power and industrial sector would increase by 21 percent in 2010 and 58 percent in 2025; and
- Electricity prices would increase by 35 percent in 2025.
Source:
heritage.org
con: The insurance industry warns of the costs of climate change.
''One of the world’s largest re-insurance firms, Munich Re, has warned that climate change could increase the global insurance bill from $30 billion a year to $300 billion a year, by 2050. "Climatic changes could trigger worldwide losses totalling many hundreds of billions of dollars per year," warns Dr Gerhard Berz, head of Munich Re's Geoscience Research Group. According to Dr Berz’s report in Our Planet, losses due to more frequent tropical cyclones, loss of land from sea level rise and damage to fishing stocks, agriculture and water supplies, could annually cost an estimated US$304.2 billion by 2050. The report’s estimates are based on predictions by the Intergovernmental Panel on climate (IPCC) that pre-industrial carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere will double by 2050.
[+] Postion: The Kyoto Protocol is uncecessary global warming is a good thing.
(pro) Russia's Academy of Sciences:
''In 2003 "Nature's real weapon of mass destruction is actually global cooling, not warming. It is ice ages and cold weather which cause hardships and catastrophes, whereas increases in temperature have historically coincided with periods of prosperity."
Illarionov pointed out that there is a strong link between wealth creation and environmental protection. "Kyoto harms economic growth, perpetuates poverty, and would undermine everyone's ability to achieve a cleaner, healthier environment. Therefore, the most important policy for environmental protection is creating the right conditions for economic growth. Kyoto has the opposite effect and is therefore environmentally harmful.'' source:
mosnews
sources and resources:
Greenpeace (1998) Briefing Paper on the Kyoto Protocol
Sierra Legal Defence - Kyoto Backgrounder
