Global Warming and U.S. Reluctance to Sign Kyoto Protocol

The Bush administration has gone under fire from environmentalists for its refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol. The agreement, which is an amendment negotiated in 1997 to the United Nations Framwork Convention on Climate Change's treaty, is aimed at reducing the emission of green house gasses across the world. It calls for developed (Annex I) countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below their 1990 emissions average by 2012. Not a lot is being done in the protocol to regulate non-developed countries however, which is where much of the U.S. opposition comes from along with worry that it will hurt the economy.

China as well as 77+ "developing" countries who are signing the protocol argue that it is unfair for them to be expected to reduce emissions in the wake of their industrialization because the Annex I developed nations had no regulations during their industrialization periods. This arguement is irresponsible, environmentally insensitive and entirely fueled by financial greed. China is the second highest green house gas emitter and is expected to become the number one emitter by 2010, they also have one of the fastest growing economies in the world at the moment. At what point is China going to be considered developed? These so called "developing" countries need to realize we are not living in the same world and environment as we were 100 years ago during the climax of industrialization. We have scientific advances now that have helped us realize our effects on the environment and we now know that something must be done. Their disregard for gas emissions will not only hurt the rest of the world working to reduce theirs, it will hurt them too in a way that will not make the economic gains worth it.

Another arguement for no restrictions is that the developing countries do not have the resources and technology to work on reducing their emissions. (Then why are they bothering to even sign the agreement if they refuse to help? So that they can take part in tying the hands of larger more developed nations?) Some say a remedy for this arguement is that Annex I countries should donate money to developing countries so that we can all benefit from their reduction of gasses. This would cost billions of dollars, and the developing countries would of course not be expected to foot any of the bill. Why? Well I guess that's just not fair to expect them to take responsibility and Annex I countries should have to pay because developing nations were a little slow on the industrial uptake. (Note the sarcasm)

Some also say that the United States is refusing to actually accept the Kyoto Protocol because well we just don't want to do it. And that is partially true, putting the agreement into affect would cost the U.S. billions of dollars that other countries wouldn't be expected to spend. As a result of this, industrialized sectors of the U.S. economy will be put a great deal below the same sectors of developing nations not expected to adhere to the agreement. Since we are already seeing our factory jobs here in the U.S. be shipped overseas to avoid costs, this would force more and more to outsource or have so many here just shut down because they can't compete after the affect of new costs from gas reducing technologies. Now, all of this isn't an excuse to completely ignore controlling our emissions, but it's unreasonable to expect all countries of the world to have the same emissions reducing goals.

Another silly aspect to the Kyoto Protocol is it allows countries who are below their emissions allowance to sell the rest of their emissions to countries who are above their alloted pollution levels. Doesn't that just put us back to zero where we started? Stricter enforcements must be made all around, and part of the Protocol does call for that. Countries who haven't met their goal by 2012 will see a 1.3% raise in their goal. Once again this doesn't make much sense because they didn't reach their lower standard, how would they be able to reach a higher one?

I believe part of the reason countries are allowing the Protocol to be so lax is that they don't really care or believe in the environmental affects they're preaching. Maybe if we placed economic sanctions on the countries refusing to be involved in emissions reductions, they would think twice about how serious this is. Why don't we place sanctions on all of the industrialized goods coming from China until they agree that they can't disregard this anymore.

Since the environmental regulations and economic situations affect each other so much it's hard to come up with any one solution that will benefit everyone in the world. However, critics of the Bush administration need to take a closer look at what the effects on our economy of just enforcing the Kyoto Protocol as it currently is. We need to call on the rest of the world to re-evaluate where we all really stand in relation to our environment, since in the long run a healthier planet will be better for everyone, developing countries included.