The Kyoto Protocol and The Green Movement

“The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the premise that (a)

The Greenhouse Policy was adapted from the Greenhouse and Energy Minimum Standards Regulation 2012. The aim of the Policy was to limit global warming temperatures below two degrees Celsius, reduce emissions to five per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, and provide recommendations. In 1998, Australia signed the Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty, which commits to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Australian Gas Light Company is committed to reduce emissions, being the largest contributor.

The objective was simple: reduce emissions of six greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases. The United States has not ratified the agreement. The Bush Administration currently explains their views on the agreement not as a direct reflection of their concern on the environment, but as a result of the strain the protocol would put on the economy and the lack of enforcement of quotas for several other nations including China and India. The United States must become a figurehead for environmental reform by addressing international issues and enforcing their quotas.

The Kyoto Protocol… insists on lowering global greenhouse gas emissions in the hope of reaching stabilization at some level, preferably one that is not too high. The basic requirement of the

Five years after the UNFCCC was entered into force the Kyoto Protocol was signed. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty named after the Japanese city in where it was adopted in December 1997. The aim of the Kyoto Protocol was to minimize the emission of six greenhouse gases in 41 countries and put the European Union to 5.2 percent below 1990

In the face of climate change, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is not only a nation’s essential task but also a global duty. Because of poorly regulated emissions, some greenhouse gases will remain in the Earth’s atmosphere for thousands of years. The mitigation of global environmental emergencies requires uniform international standards and established rules. Therefore, international policy coordination by multilateral agreement is indispensable. This policy paper aims to discuss participation in the Kyoto Protocol Extension is worthwhile and what benefits and burdens await the nation taking part in the efforts towards emissions reduction.

Reducing carbon dioxide emissions, an ostensible catalyst for global climate change, has become a priority for many of the G-20 economies and developed world since the Kyoto protocol was enacted. Countries have developed a myriad of mechanisms designed to drastically reduce their sovereign carbon footprint, yet from these diverse policy directives "a new commodity was created in the form of emission reductions or removals; carbon is now tracked and traded like any other commodity. This is known as the carbon market" (United Nations. Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2012. P. 1).

From melting glaciers to devastating storms and stranded polar bears, the mascots of climate change show how rapidly the greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) are changing the planet. Such examples, in addition with the rising price of energy, drive people to want to reduce consumption and lower their personal shares of global emissions. In the 1990s, almost every member state of the United Nations resolved to confront global warming and manage its consequences. Thus the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) international treaty recognized a unified resolve to curb global warming. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol strengthened the convention. The process of cutting the carbon is a complex business and not all hybrid design would be a success in regard to uncertainties and political lobbying involved. The regulation of the government, participation of the industry and other participants can make the system effective over a certain time span.

The protocol agreement suggested countries were required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 5% against levels produced in 1990. A further extension was agreed to depreciate the emissions by 18% below the levels in 1990 during an eight year time period from 2013 to 2020.

The main objective of the Kyoto Protocol was to lower greenhouse gas emissions between 2008-2012 by a collective target of 5% reduction for industrialized country signatories from their emission count in 1990 (Robinson, Kyoto and Post-Kyoto). Furthermore, each country had targets of their own set that they had to reach. For example, Japan signed on for a target decrease of 6% while Iceland was allowed a maximum of 10% increase (Prins & Rayner,

In 2012, the Kyoto treaty was set to expire but the goals set in the treaty were nowhere near completion so the countries involved decided to meet in Durban in 2011 to discuss a new treaty to extend the ideas of Kyoto. Since 2011 they haven’t exactly come up with a new plan for a treaty until the U.S and China, both of which were not part of Kyoto, set a couple of goals to lower their emissions. With both China and the U.S putting out their goals, all other countries involved with the new idea of a treaty will have a better idea on how to compromise to lower the emission output and stop contributing as much too global warming. As discussed in class, the amount of time the world has to get it together and put an end to the enormous amounts of emissions being pumped into the atmosphere is thirty years which is considered plenty of time if everyone could agree on a new treaty. Our carbon budget is how the countries have been looking at what happens in those thirty years. Worldwide the total amount of carbon we can produce is around 1,000,000,000,000 metric tons of carbon (Duncan 2014). With the U.S and China setting the limits and examples on how much to produce, the world now has an acceptable idea of how much each country can produce.

In Louisiana alone, it is estimated they will lose over 64,000 jobs because of weakened world markets due to the mandates of the treaty. The state is also expecting electricity bills to increase by 70 percent and the cost of gasoline to rise by 50 cents due to tax increases (Livingston, 1998). A study by WEFA (Wharton Econometric Forecasting Associates) estimates that the cost to the U.S. per year due to the agreement could reach 300 billion a year--more than is annually spent on elementary and secondary education. This translates into $2,700 of lost income for a family of four by the year 2010 (Novak, 1998). As a result of all of this, Cato Institute claims that there will be a reduction of planetary mean temperature by only 0.19 degree Celsius over the next 50 years (Kyoto Treaty, 1998). If these statistics are accurate, there is reason to believe that the Kyoto agreement will not be enough and that more will need to be done in order to stop this problem. The Kyoto Protocol is one method that governments are using in an attempt to control the potentially damaging effects of CO2. In Ottawa, Canada, the government feels as though they have a different method that will produce revenue while also reducing greenhouse gases. This alternative to taxes would take place by auctioning permits to emit CO2. These permits would be tradable between companies similar

of the Kyoto Protocol allow Annex I countries to achieve part of their emission reduction

Annex I countries are industrialized nations with large carbon emissions, such as the US, Australia, EU, and Russia. The agreement has four implementation mechanisms designed to achieve the desired reductions in emissions, but only asks that countries comply with the reductions rather than suggesting a methodology. The primary method for countries to reduce emissions is through domestic policies, traditionally taking the form of governmental controls, which each nation would be responsible for creating and enforcing. Domestic policy is “…likely to become a ‘hook’ to ensure that the industrialized countries implement the policies necessary to spur real changes towards less carbon-intensive production and consumption patterns (Depledge 11).” The domestic policy article in the Kyoto Protocol is intended to provide governments, not an international body, with direct control over domestic emissions.

In addition to the mandatory uniform standards, voluntary agreements can play a significant role in greenhouse gas reduction strategies. Firms may commit to some steps in controlling greenhouse gas emissions if they fear more costly mandatory controls will arise if no voluntary reductions executed. On an international level, a regulatory approach could be setting up an emission target in which countries agree on a fixed national emission levels. (Stavins, 1997)