Technorati Profile
Kyoto Protocol
From Wikipedia:
"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, which have been linked to global warming."
Was reading an article in the Straits Times by one of my favourite columnists, Janadas Devan. The article offered reasons why the Kyoto Protocol, or KP, is unlikely to succeed. Chief among those reasons were that China, India, and US won't be required to cut their carbon emission. China and India are developing countries and will only be subjected to voluntary cuts, while US has refused to sign the KP. Together, they account for 35% of the world's carbon emission.
Mr. Bush's apparently worried that the US economy will be affected. By ratifying the KP, countries pledge to keep their carbon emission below certain levels, failing which they engage in emission trading with other countries who have leftover emission levels. They can spend up to millions buying spare emission levels. Understandably then, developed nations who produce high levels of carbon and are unable to cut back, will find themselves handing over the fruits of their industrialization to countries like Russia. Heck, if I were Mr. Bush, I'd chicken out too. It's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Many US citizens complain now, and blast the Bush administration for rejecting the KP. But how much of their ire is on behalf of the environment, and how much is just bluster directed towards the Democrats? And will these same people condemn Bush later, whether on failed/ unwelcome policies or dollars lost, should the US take on the KP? Environmental issues are notorious for their political undertones, and the KP is hardly an exception.
Developing nations who have signed the KP have it good- they are not required to make enforced cuts to emission rates, can bask in international praise as signatories of the KP, and still stand to make money should neighbouring developed countries carry out emission trading with them. They don't have to concern themselves with tricky economic issues - until they become developed anyway. For those who are interested, Singapore has not yet acceded to the Kyoto Protocol, and officials have made non-committal, ho-hum responses to KP, which is seldom a sign of affirmation. Malaysia and Indonesia, on the other hand, have acceded to the KP. The more cynical among us will immediately note that the latter two are developing nations, and Singapore, a developed one. Coincidence? Of course, a dichotomy like this will never hold. Astute observers will realize that UK and Japan have signed on.
The problem with the KP is that it forces administrations to prioritize their aims and objectives. The results of this exercise might not be accepted by everyone governed by the administration, but the only alternative is a "softer" protocol that pays lip service to environmental issues and does not really attempt to solve the problem. With such a hard-hitting protocol, UN and the world must know that it will never be internationally accepted.
Interestingly though, author Michael Crichton has something to say about the KP in his latest novel "State of Fear". Now, if I didn't have immense faith in humanity's decency, I'd say that Mr. Crichton is trying to pull a "Da Vinci Code" publicity stunt. But then again, if humanity is always decent, then there wouldn't be the need for a KP now would there? Nations will always conscientiously cut back on carbon emission without the need for some fancy penalties like emission trading (who thinks up of these new-fangled ideas anyway. What's next? Oxygen rationing?). We're a screwed up species, oh yes we are.
"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, which have been linked to global warming."
---------
Was reading an article in the Straits Times by one of my favourite columnists, Janadas Devan. The article offered reasons why the Kyoto Protocol, or KP, is unlikely to succeed. Chief among those reasons were that China, India, and US won't be required to cut their carbon emission. China and India are developing countries and will only be subjected to voluntary cuts, while US has refused to sign the KP. Together, they account for 35% of the world's carbon emission.
Mr. Bush's apparently worried that the US economy will be affected. By ratifying the KP, countries pledge to keep their carbon emission below certain levels, failing which they engage in emission trading with other countries who have leftover emission levels. They can spend up to millions buying spare emission levels. Understandably then, developed nations who produce high levels of carbon and are unable to cut back, will find themselves handing over the fruits of their industrialization to countries like Russia. Heck, if I were Mr. Bush, I'd chicken out too. It's damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Many US citizens complain now, and blast the Bush administration for rejecting the KP. But how much of their ire is on behalf of the environment, and how much is just bluster directed towards the Democrats? And will these same people condemn Bush later, whether on failed/ unwelcome policies or dollars lost, should the US take on the KP? Environmental issues are notorious for their political undertones, and the KP is hardly an exception.
Developing nations who have signed the KP have it good- they are not required to make enforced cuts to emission rates, can bask in international praise as signatories of the KP, and still stand to make money should neighbouring developed countries carry out emission trading with them. They don't have to concern themselves with tricky economic issues - until they become developed anyway. For those who are interested, Singapore has not yet acceded to the Kyoto Protocol, and officials have made non-committal, ho-hum responses to KP, which is seldom a sign of affirmation. Malaysia and Indonesia, on the other hand, have acceded to the KP. The more cynical among us will immediately note that the latter two are developing nations, and Singapore, a developed one. Coincidence? Of course, a dichotomy like this will never hold. Astute observers will realize that UK and Japan have signed on.
The problem with the KP is that it forces administrations to prioritize their aims and objectives. The results of this exercise might not be accepted by everyone governed by the administration, but the only alternative is a "softer" protocol that pays lip service to environmental issues and does not really attempt to solve the problem. With such a hard-hitting protocol, UN and the world must know that it will never be internationally accepted.
Interestingly though, author Michael Crichton has something to say about the KP in his latest novel "State of Fear". Now, if I didn't have immense faith in humanity's decency, I'd say that Mr. Crichton is trying to pull a "Da Vinci Code" publicity stunt. But then again, if humanity is always decent, then there wouldn't be the need for a KP now would there? Nations will always conscientiously cut back on carbon emission without the need for some fancy penalties like emission trading (who thinks up of these new-fangled ideas anyway. What's next? Oxygen rationing?). We're a screwed up species, oh yes we are.
0 Comments
Post a Comment
<< Home