РефератыИностранный языкThThe Kyoto Protocol Essay Research Paper While

The Kyoto Protocol Essay Research Paper While

The Kyoto Protocol Essay, Research Paper


While the issues of global warming and the Kyoto Protocol are not


exclusively Asia-Pacific topics, this essay will discuss the importance


of Australia?s role, along with the United States, in undermining this


treaty. To a lesser degree, the roles of India and China will also


be examined. Particular emphasis will also be placed on the economic,


environmental and political aspects involved in the topic. Statistical


data will also be offered to support this analysis.


The Framework Convention on Climate Change, instigated by the United


Nations, was held in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997. More than 2,200


delegates from 161 nations took part in this summit to help forge an


international treaty now known as the Kyoto Protocol. We can see from


the map provided that the major stakeholders examined in this essay


encompass the entire Asia-Pacific region.


The objective of the Kyoto climate-change conference was to establish a


legally binding international agreement, whereby, all the participating


nations commit themselves to tackling the issue of global warming and


reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GGE?s). The target agreed upon at


the summit was an average reduction of 5.2% on 1990 levels by the year


2012. Table A, at the end of this essay, details the negotiated targets


for each Annex 1 nation.


At the close of negotiations, Luxembourg?s Environment Minister Johnny


Lahure, was jubilant when he announced, ?Today there are no losers and


only one winner, the environment.? However, it is difficult to understand


his enthusiasm.


In reality, it would take an immediate reduction of at least 60% to make


an impact on the greenhouse gases that have been accumulating in the


atmosphere since the onset of the industrial revolution. Given this,


even if it is ratified, the Kyoto Protocol will achieve little for


the environment.


Now, thanks entirely to the United States and Australia, ratification


of the treaty may never eventuate. Australia and the US arrived at the


talks as hostile participants with entrenched positions. Central to US


obstinance was the lack of participation from China and India. Although


major polluters themselves, because they are developing countries,


the Kyoto accord does not require them to reduce their emissions at all.


The Americans advocated an ?all in? policy. That is, both developed


and under-developed nations should be required to reduce greenhouse gas


emissions and comply with the treaty. As it stands now, China and India


can increase their emissions ? they are not bound by the treaty.


Consequently, the US objected. However, it would appear this American


argument is a spurious one. The United States is the world?s most


industrialised nation and as such is responsible for a staggering 25%


of global GGE?s. As the world?s biggest polluter, couldn?t it be argued


that they have a moral obligation to lead by example?


As developing nations, in particular China and India, become more


industrialised, they will require guidance and leadership in establishing


clean renewable energy resources. However, if the world?s largest polluter


isn?t interested in taking measures to curb the effects of global warming,


it is unlikely that they will.


Then in March 2001, the new Bush Administration politically


dumped the Kyoto Protocol, finally ending speculation on the US


position. ?[President] Bush has no interest in pursuing the Kyoto


Protocol?, declared the US Environment Protection Agency chief, Christine


Whitman.


Within a few weeks, Australia also showed their desire to jump


ship. Australia?s Minister for the Environment, Senator Robert Hill said,


?We?ve always said we wouldn?t ratify [t

he Kyoto Protocol] ahead of


the US?. In essence, it?s a case of if they don?t ? we won?t. However,


one can?t help but feel that the US retreat simply gave the Australian


Government a convenient excuse to pull out. The Kyoto accord was a low


priority for the Howard government from the very beginning.


Australia was one of only two nations that successfully negotiated an


increase in their GGE?s. They were allowed to increase their emissions


by 8% on 1990 levels by 2012. Prime Minister John Howard described


this political victory as a ?terrific result? for Australia. However,


the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics (ABARE)


have recently released a sobering statistic.


If Australia fails to take any counteracting measures between now and


2012, ABARE says their GGE increase will actually be 35% – way above


the negotiated target. Exactly how John Howard planned to achieve this


?terrific result? is still not clear.


Australia relies very heavily on fossil fuels and is the biggest emitter


of greenhouse gases per head of population. With 76% of their energy


production being sourced from coal and oil, the task of reducing GGE?s


will be a very difficult one. Perhaps the task is so difficult, it was


never seriously on the agenda.


However, Australia?s reluctance to recognise the importance of global


warming is quite puzzling. Australia?s delicate ecological balance is


particularly vulnerable, more so than other nation in the world. Much


of their landmass is semi-arid and subject to drought, extremes of


temperature and sensitive to El Nino cycles. Add to that soil salinity


problems and temperatures that are already higher than optimum for


agriculture in many regions.


Australia?s economy is also dependent on $31 billion in annual


agricultural exports. Tourism in the Great Barrier Reef alone is worth


$1 billion each year. Surely then, if any country has a strong national


interest in avoiding climate change, it must be Australia.


Disintegration of the Kyoto Protocol will also deliver another economic


blow to Australia. Emissions Trading between nations is likely to cease


without US involvement in the treaty. Under the Kyoto accord, a country


can gain carbon credits by planting forests, then sell these credits to


nations that overextend on their negotiated GGE levels.


Australian State Forests were very keen to take advantage of the Emissions


Trading system, and it was seen as a new multi-billion dollar a year


industry. As an example, this year NSW State Forests won a contract


for carbon credits with Japanese electrical company TEPCO worth $120


million. However, the viability of Emissions Trading is now in severe


doubt without the support of the US.


Economic considerations aside, the lurking dangers of global warming are


rising sea levels, due to the melting of the polar ice caps. Consider


a nation like the Maldives, a small group of islands in the Indian


Ocean. The average height of land in the Maldives is only a few metres


above sea level. If the issue of greenhouse gas emissions is not


immediately addressed, the Maldives, in the not too distant future,


will be completely under water.


Climate change is a global concern and we can see that Australia?s


reluctance to seriously participate in the Kyoto Protocol will have


adverse repercussions for the entire Asia-Pacific region, not just


Australia. It is also clear that, in this instance, Australia is all


too willing to dance to America?s tune. It is the responsibility of the


world?s two most notorious polluters to take the lead role in reducing


GGE?s, not to turn their backs to the problem.


Table A


The individual commitments for each Annex 1 (developed) nation:

Сохранить в соц. сетях:
Обсуждение:
comments powered by Disqus

Название реферата: The Kyoto Protocol Essay Research Paper While

Слов:1294
Символов:8954
Размер:17.49 Кб.