Should the United States Ratify the Kyoto Treaty?

In 1992, at the Earth Summit meeting in Rio de Janeiro, members of the Global Warming Convention developed a plan to reduce the world's global warming gas emissions and hopefully reduce global warming.[1] When the convention met five years later in Kyoto, Japan, many of the EDCs had shown no progress in their goal of reducing emissions. Negotiations in Kyoto then took place, leading to the Kyoto Treaty. In this treaty, EDCs are required to reduce greenhouse emissions by 2012 to about seven percent below their 1990 levels.1 The treaty also allows EDCs to trade emissions quotas among themselves, and no sanctions are set for failure to meet each country's goals. Also included in this treaty is the fact that LCD's were exempted from binding standards.1

In order to be put into play, the treaty has to be ratified by they 55-55 rule, which states that "...at least 55 ratifications (are needed) by industrialized countries emitting 55 percent of the CO2, including the EDCs, Russia, and Eastern Europe".1 President Clinton supported the Kyoto Treaty, but due to the amount of opposition against the treaty, did not sign it himself. Instead, he had a diplomat sign in his place. Clinton also did not send it to the Senate to be ratified.1

Once President Bush was sworn into office, he withdrew the United States' signature on the Kyoto Treaty. Bush believed that the treaty would be costly to the economy. "We'll be working with our allies to reduce greenhouse gases," Bush told reporters, "But I will not accept a plan that will harm our economy and hurt American workers."[2] Bush's decision was supported by many, especially with the big businesses. The CONSAD Research Corporation did an economic analysis of the proposed Kyoto Protocol in May 1998. According to their findings, the Kyoto Treaty would have a number of negative effects on the economy, especially in areas of employment, economic output, and the American citizen's standard of life. The results of the analysis states, for example, that if the treaty were to pass, businesses would have to pay a higher energy costs as a result. This in turn would result in an increase in consumer good prices.[3] Other problems that the researchers predicted will occur include increased levels of unemployment, as businesses are lost to international markets. Because of the increase in levels of unemployment and the higher energy costs that would increase the price of consumer goods, the American households would have less money to spend and would have to budget. With less money being spent, the economy would falter.3

This negative impact on the economy is the main argument against the Kyoto Treaty. However, there are arguments that although the Kyoto Treaty may slow the United States' economy in the short run, it may in fact save it in the long run. According to Alex Kirby in her article, "Climate Treaty Will Boost Economies", the World Wide Funds published two reports which say that the economies of those countries who ratify the Kyoto Treaty, especially in Europe and Japan, will experience a boost in their economies. This economic boost will come from industries developing new technology in order to reduce emissions and meet the goals of the treaty. The reports also say that each country "...could achieve 85% to 95% of its Kyoto target without damaging its economic competitiveness."[4] Using Europe as an example, the reports go on to describe how the technological inventions would lead to financial savings on repairing damages caused by acid rain, air pollution, etc. The reports estimate that the money saved in repairs alone would cover the economic costs of meetings the treaty's goals.4 For Japan, the reports estimate not only in increase of the GDP of Japan itself, but also of its trading partners in the south-east Asia and in Europe as a result of spill over benefits. For the United States' refusal to ratify the treaty, the reports predict at least a 0.6% decrease in the GDP. This will not only leave the United States behind other economically, but also technologically, for Europe and Japan "...will gain a competitive advantage."4

Another reason why the United States should ratify the treaty is the responsibility of the United States has as being one of the largest polluting countries in the world. The United States is responsible for 25% of the emission gasses that are attributed to global warming, more than any other country in the world.[5] According to an article in BBC News Online, "Anger at US Climate Retreat", the United States produces over 5,000 million tones of carbon dioxide a year. That is 2,000 million tones more than the second largest producer, China, who produces over 3,000 million tones per year.5 In her article, "US Should Ratify Kyoto Treaty", Akira Hayakawa states, "Such things as air pollution and global warming are not only America's problem. They expand and effect other countries...The United States would take more responsibility for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gasses, since it emits more (of them)."[6]

Others warn that unless some plan is put into action soon, the problem of global warming and pollution could lead to economic problems. In his article, "Environmentalists Predict Economic Collapse if Trend Continues," Lester Brown states that the world must "...either bring its economy into line with the demands of the environment, or prepare for decline and eventual collapse."[7] Brown believes that the economic growth will soon lead to an exhaustion of the most natural resources in which the economy is dependent on. "Our current economy is slowly destroying its support systems." Brown states, and continues on with examples of economies that collapsed in the past from using up their supplies of natural resources. Brown warns that if reducing both carbon emissions, which the Kyoto Treat would help do greatly if ratified, and reducing population growth are not done soon, most of the damaged ecosystems on Earth will become beyond saving. With this approach, ones could argue that if the Kyoto Treaty would slow the economy as Bush fears, it might still be worth ratifying because it would save the economy from collapse in the long run by saving the natural resources on which the economy is dependent on.

The problem of global warming and pollution could also lead to a decrease in the standards of living. According to Lisa Schlein in her article, "WWF Warns That Without Preservation, Global Standards of Living Will Fall," a conservation group called WWF International issued a report saying that the rates at which the Earth's resources are being consumed cannot support the population for much longer. According to the report, after the year 2030 the states of human welfare "will go into steep decline unless urgent action is taken to save the Earth's resources"[8] The Kyoto Treaty can help to limit the uses of natural resources along with air pollution. If the Kyoto Treaty were to be ratified, and it were to prove to be successful, countries would e more willing to try to solve other problems affecting the environment, such as population growth, deforestation, etc. in the same setting of global cooperation that is present in the Kyoto Treaty.

Bush has promised in speeches that the issue of global warming is a serious issue to him, and that he will work on reducing the emissions of global warming gasses in the United States. Some might argue that his "Clear Skies" initiative of global warming proves that he is working to reduce these emissions. The Clear Skies legislation would call for voluntary measures to slow down the growth in global warming gas emission. The plan encourages companies and household to reduce emissions by offering tax credits, over $4.6 billion total.[9] It also allows companies to trade their pollution. But Bush's legislation draws criticism from many areas. Environmentalist groups "see it as pandering to the interest of large corporation"9. By making the plans voluntary, large corporations participate only if they want, not if there is a need. Environmentalist Chris Hewett states that "Overall, the proposal is disappointing."9 Hewett goes on to say that the Bush plan allows for an increase in carbon emissions as the United States economy grows, thereby failing in its goals. Debbie Roger, another environmentalist, states that "Probably the most serious flaw is...that he asks for voluntary reductions...we have seen time and time again that voluntary reductions don't work."[10] Japan also criticized the proposal and stated that Japan will ratify the Kyoto Treaty, even without the United States' participation.[11] Clearly this proposal falls short of the Kyoto Treaty in many ways. Not only is this proposal voluntary, but it is also domestically concentrated. For a program to have a significant impact on global warming, it would have to be implicated globally, like the Kyoto Treaty. More participation from other countries would lead to more success. Also, having a global implemented plan that is successful would pave the way to more globally implemented plans that could extend beyond environmental issues. As a result, relationships between countries could be strengthened.

[1] Rourke, John T. International Politics on World Stage. Connecticut, U.S: McGraw-Hill Dushkin, 2003.

[2] News Max "Bush Defends Rejection of Kyoto Treaty." 30 March 2001. Available: http://www.newsmax.com/archives.articles/2001/3/29/164418.

[3] CONSAD "Sectoral and Regional Economic Impact Analysis." May 1998 Available: http://www.consad/com/reports/kyoto/htm

[4] Kirby, Alex. "Climate Treaty Will Boost Economies." 14 Feb. 2002. Available: http://greennature.com/aricle878.html.

[5] BBC News Online. "Anger at US Climate Retreat." 29 March 2001. Available: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1248278.stm

[6] Hayakawa, Akira. "U.S Should Ratify Kyoto Treaty." 30 May 2001. Available: http://www.sculb.edu/~d49er/archives/2001/spring/opinion/V8n121-treaty.shtml.

[7] Brown, Lester. "Environmentalist Predicts Economic Collapse if Trends Continue." 19 Feb. 2002. Available: http://greennature.com/article877.html

[8] Schlein, Lisa. "WWF Warns That Without Preservation, Global Standards of Living Will Fall." 9 July 2002. Available: http://greennature.com/article1403.html

[9] Knox, Kathleen. "European Criticism of Bush Climate Change Policy." 15 Feb. 2002. Available: http://greennature.com/article878.html

[10] Robinson, Dan. "Environmentalists Criticize Bush Climate Change Policy." 15 Feb 2002. Available: http://greennature.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=articles&sid=839

[11] VOA News "Japan Disappointed With Bush Global Warming Plan." 15 Feb 2002. Available: http://greennature.com/article846.html