|
The kyoto protocol failed |
 |
 |
The Kyoto Protocol
failed. That is a bold statement to make, seeing as how the time period
for cutting greenhouse emissions ends in 2012. The Kyoto Protocol was
an addendum to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. Countries were free to become signatories to the Protocol, but
were under no obligation to make any changes in order to meet
guidelines. For the accord to come into effect, it had to be ratified
by countries making up 55% of the emission levels that were present in
1990. That was done, and as of January 2009, 183 parties had signed on
to the Kyoto Protocol. The United States, despite signing, declared
their intention not to ratify, despite being one of the largest
producers of carbon dioxide in the world. Several reasons were given,
from the then President George Bush denying the effects of global
warming, to the Protocol putting the American economy at risk, to
concerns over why developing countries were given a free pass by being
overlooked. This is part of why the Kyoto Protocol failed to secure the
help of the US and also fail to really bring about a forward thinking
coalition for the greater good of the planet, and not just of political
one up-manship. When countries like India and China get left out,
two
of the biggest atmosphere polluters, one has to ask questions as to
why.
Why the Kyoto Protocol failed to set targets that would really make a
difference, is a question that scientists across the globe have been
searching for an answer for. The levels were at a 5.2% cut in emissions
across the world, but this did not appear to be a very bold statement
of intent, for it would take a reported 60% cut in emissions from 1990
levels just to sustain the planet from avoiding, or delaying at least,
catastrophic disasters. This is one area of the Kyoto Protocol which,
for a lot of people does not add up.
But there are economic costs to bear in mind, and that could partly be
why the number was set at what it was. The cost of implementing green
changes to countries is staggering. Just the research alone into
alternative energies, cleaner burning fuels and upgrading machine plant
for example to more efficient modern ones to meet emissions guidelines
is staggering. The latter often comes at the expense of jobs too. One
other key area, in which the Kyoto Protocol failed to make any strong
headway, was over the application of the emission cutting programs. The
agreement is not legally binding in anyway, and there are flexible
mechanisms within the Protocol which enables countries to buy their way
out of going green, and even the Protocol can be resigned from with a 1
year period of notice.
Perhaps the Kyoto Protocol failed in certain areas of application.
Maybe the guidelines weren't stern enough and maybe the fact that there
were no penalties for not hitting targets, or for leaving the club,
made it seem weak. The intention was there though to make a difference
and that is something which can be learnt from for future years.
Perhaps that 60% emission cut will never be reached, but it is in
mankind's best interest to try as hard as possible to get there.
|
