Ask Liv: The Kyoto Protocol

I know I haven't written an Ask Liv entry lately (things have been really busy here at Greenopolis!) but my motto is, better late than never. So without futher ado, here's this week's Ask Liv feature:

"Have you heard of the Kyoto Protocol, in which nations agree to cut back
on carbon emissions to prevent green house gases and global warming? I was
just wondering, what do you think about the Protocol and why do you suppose
that the United States and Australia have not signed this agreement?"

This is a great question. There is so much talk about the Kyoto Protocol in the mainstream media, it's really helpful to have a frim grasp of what the agreement is exactly, and an understanding of the issues surrounding it.

At its most basic level, the Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement to reduce greenhouse emissions in an effort to combat climate change. Today, 178 nations have signed and ratified the agreement (Australia is actually one of these, but the United States is not). By ratifying, these countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Sounds great. So why wouldn't the United States want to sign on?

Well, there are a number of valid arguments against the Kyoto Protocol. This agreement has become synonymous with environmental responsibility in the mainstream media, but this reputation may not be justified. The first concern that many have, including the United States government, is that the Kyoto Protocol separates nations into Annex 1 (developed) countries and Non-Annex 1 (developing) countries. Non-Annex 1 countries (such as China and India) are not held to any regulations at all, but merely asked to participate in clean energy programs. 

Among Annex 1 countries, the expectations vary. Countries like those in the European Union (and the United States, had they ratified) are expected to meet stringent reductions, but Australia is only expected to keep emissions to less than 8% ABOVE 1990 levels. Iceland is allowed to go up to 10% above 1990 levels. This range of expectations puts countries on an uneven playing field, and is one of the reasons the United States chose not to participate. 

Another complaint about the Kyoto Protocol is that among the countries that did pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, their efforts so far have been questionable. First, there are a number of ways provided within the Protocol for nations to reduce their emissions without actually doing so. Participating nations can purchase credits from other nations that are not using all of the emissions alloted to them. Former Soviet Union states, for example, had large economies in 1990 (as members of the USSR) that have since shrunk. These countries can sell the right to pollute a certain amount to other countries with growing needs. 

Another way that Kyoto participants "reduce" their emissions in through financing environmental projetcs. In the same way that individuals can purchase carbon offsets that fund forestation or clean energy projects, countries can do the same, often funding projects in Non-Annex 1 countries (in other words, their own emissions remain unaffected).

Lastly, many Kyoto countries simply have not reduced emissions. Of the states expected to reduce greenhouse emission by 2012, most have increased emissions since signing the agreement. 

These are all reasons why the United States was hesitant to sign and ratify. Before even considering the economic costs of participating in the program, the agreement does not look all that appealing. When proposed in the US Senate, the body voted 95-0 against ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. 

An international agreement to deal with climate change is obviously desired and needed, but the Kyoto Protocol may not be the solution.