The U.S. Withdrawal From Kyoto Protocol: Causes and Effects Essay (Critical Writing)

Global warming occurred as the most considerable issue of the twentieth century since it influenced the earth by putting an increment to earth’s average temperature. The well known gases that contribute to global warming are mainly carbon dioxide along with those that help in retaining heat in the atmosphere. The result that appears to us serves as the main threat to the earth which evokes the need to stabilize the effect of greenhouse gas concentrations in the air. This need was escorted by an international environmental treaty UNFCCC to lay the foundation of ‘Kyoto Protocol’ which not only established legal binding to reduce four greenhouse gases and other two groups of gases (annex I), but also in January 2009 ratified the protocol with the help of 183 nations worldwide.

Kyoto Protocol also presented flexible procedures to cope up with global warming such as emissions trading and joint implementation to allow annex I countries to support financial exchanges through conducting operations and projects in non-annex I countries. The important members of the annex I group are U.S, Japan, Russia and Germany who managed to act as signatories by agreeing upon the greenhouse gas (GHG) portfolios which on the other hand provided an opportunity to the non-annexed nations to bear no restrictions on GHG emissions. Non-annexed economies possess some financial incentives in the form of carbon credits to be sold to annex-I economies. Among the signatory nations, the United States adopted a diplomatic policy by neither ratifying nor withdrawing from the Protocol. This was heavily criticized by global legislators who blamed the US for buying time to make the decision, and was later condemned when in 2001 Bush’s epoch formally announced a withdrawal from the Kyoto legislation.

From Political Decisions to US Withdrawal

Apart from the political decisions influenced from worldwide legislation, this withdrawal put an impact upon the economical side of the political debate. On one hand the response to the global warming issue that initiated in the 90s and which witnessed US government’s promises revolves around the political sphere that includes but are not limited to the role played by UNFCCC and some EU Climate Change Programmes. On the other, the 2001 withdrawal of the US has illustrated the rhetoric of many leaders of the US who were once favoring reduction of greenhouse-gas emissions that flowed freely during the late 1990s. During that epoch, actual emissions were on the average rising in almost all the nations of the world, which later made the global warming policy so as to create awareness among the public from the aftermath dangers. Contemporary era indicates much awareness to the issue that even points out some impediment that reflects the lack of a viable architecture for international cooperation.

It has been eighteen years since governments have been building a framework for limiting global warming. However, after 1992 at the ‘Earth Summit’, diplomats adopted the Framework Convention on Climate Change that was only limited to create systems for reporting data on emissions of greenhouse gases and other essential functions. This framework has been completed by adopting the ‘Kyoto Protocol’ which has set targets and timetables for 38 nations to control emissions of greenhouse gases. But there lies a huge difference between setting targets and achieving targets. US withdrawal has made this notion true when it comes to implementing the Kyoto Protocol.

Victor (2001, p. viii) suggests that on average during the years 2008–2012, emissions from the countries in the European Union must be 8% below the 1990 level, Japan’s required cut is 6%, while the United States committed to reduce its emissions 7%. It is only in the late 2000 that global scientists and diplomats, after trying to work out accounting rules and other crucial issues, analyzed what they left vague in Kyoto. This analysis brought many agreements and legislatures in the industrialized countries to decide whether to ratify and implement the commitments they made in Kyoto. Even countries like US who worked along with costly crash programs escorted Kyoto limits to reach up substantial and politically unrealizable costs on their economies. Apart from the US, many European nations who were able to afford emission controls were reluctant to comply with the Kyoto limits due to some reasons: Being the biggest polluters, they were restricted to manage their transportation while making better usage of renewable energy sources.

However, the US considers the issue of global warming among one of its top priorities and is engaged in seeking alternatives to the problem, but has refused to support the Protocol. This paper is the exploration pertaining to find the reasons behind US withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol from an economic and political point of view. The research surrounds the impending crisis that reveals the gap that existed between US political and economic infrastructure, held responsible for the US ‘changed’ school of thought. Critics say such an irresponsible attitude on behalf of the US reveals the lame targets of the Bush’s administration in Kyoto participation and suggests the fake promises of the government to deliver more than they could during their deal pertaining to Kyoto. It would be better to say that such gaps reflects the barriers and flaws in regulating a system that is entirely based on setting targets and timetables for controlling emissions of greenhouse gases.

Conditions of the Protocol

Since December 1997, when the protocol was initiated in Kyoto, Japan, it remained open for signature until 1999. The terms of the agreement declared some conditions under which the Kyoto Protocol would not be beneficial to be implemented until 3 months after being ratified by 55 countries. These countries must be a significant contributors of the UNFCCC and must fulfill the criteria set by Protocol conditions that ratifying countries to be represented at least 55 percent of the world’s total CO2 emissions. This condition was met by Iceland when it became the 55th country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. However, Russia ratified the Protocol in 2004 after which the Protocol was able to enter into force in 2005. Under the reign of Bush who promised to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, US withdrew the agreement for the Kyoto Protocol and proposed a plan which provided better incentives for businessmen to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the maximum by 2010. The US energy department supported Bush’s plan for the reason that the plan promised a 30 percent increase in US GHG emissions according to the treaty requirements.

Bush was not alone in making this decision, at his back was the support of the US Senate who passed a resolution stating that US should not be restricted by any agreement that fails to include any unnecessary limitations for both developing and industrialized nations. The senate condemned the protocol for creating a possibility to hurt the already downtrodden economy of the US. In the course of rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, pro-Bush supporters stated that the Protocol demands too much. However, the point to note is that 178 other nations who accepted the protocol never blamed the conditions as a harm to their economies.

The failure of worldwide legislatures in the light of economic collapse

In Dec 1997, when worldwide legislatures initiated the decision to ratify and implement the policies of the Kyoto Protocol, it was considered as the foremost step that counts towards slowing the greenhouse effect. Despite the tough requirement that the protocol uphold towards each industrialized nation by setting the target at specific levels, the budget period till 2012 was declared to be set as a target for the long term future budget periods. At that time the legislatures were so determined to do something about global warming that they weighed the cost of maintaining worldwide cooperation before even ratifying the Kyoto deal. However, time revealed the defeat of global legislators who later blamed the economic collapse for their failure to lower the cost of capping emissions.

Along with the economic scientists, politicians blame the economic crunch after 2001 for deviating Bush’s Administration from the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC. This has occurred by eliminating the US signature from the agreement which illustrate the true extent to which US government’s stated rationale considered the global warming treaty as a burden to frustrate the American economy. One of the reasons for such rationale is the unacceptable loss of finance and jobs in the U.S economy.

Bush politics in the wake of the Kyoto negotiations

US while withdrawing from Kyoto ought to consider European economic development and annex economies that are not good in charge of influential economic development. The truth suggests the possibility that since European emissions have actually reduced to some extent from 1990 onwards and along with the economic collapse and modernization in most of the annex nations, the reduction in economic development has remained a prominent feature. This has escorted the energy market reforms in the UK to transform from a bit from carbon intensive coal mechanism to carbon-light natural gas and zero-carbon nuclear power. Yet, these features and events have never determined to be a cause to put the 15 countries of the European Union off track to break their promise with their Kyoto commitment. What changed the US mind were those regulating emission quantities that referred to problematic scenarios in Bush’s regime. This was so because behind emissions are those factors that influence technological change and sets criteria for economic growth policy makers, who finds it difficult to control or anticipate perfectly. Despite the fact that US GHG emissions have doubled in the past 14 years and reached to the highest point in 2004, Bush’s administration refusal to cut heat pollution is an irresponsible act of leadership that reflects a vulnerable economy being unable to contribute in GHG emissions and global warming. Bush’s administration in this regard remained adamant to accept any mandate for international negotiations. Though people expected an alternative approach in lieu of the withdrawal of Kyoto from Bush’s administration, but the question is that will contemporary administration of Obama follow an alternative formulation by willing to support international cooperation that goes beyond clean energy technology cooperation loosely under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.

One reason behind recognizing the Protocol as ‘dead’ at the compromising table that has also produced undesired results is the unnecessary pressure from the European governments by rejecting even minor modifications to the Kyoto emissions-reduction targets. These were done in the Hague talks in which the participants were suddenly forced to confront the reality which Wirth suggests as that the entire agreement might collapse if the Protocol were not completed (Wirth, 2002). At last all the efforts remained in a failure to save the treaty, therefore, European governments had no option left other than to made substantial concessions to the Japanese to complete the Protocol.

Reasons to Regret the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol

One of the causes that illustrates the step to withdraw from Kyoto defends the US government’s position on the issue of global warming by depicting a shortage of incentives for businesses, state and local governments as these parties were already deprived to invest in technologies that improve efficiency and reduce emissions. Although these emissions targeted both the domestic use and export purpose, it is nonetheless clear why Kyoto Protocol participants used the new carbon trading mechanisms to commence their emissions of GHG. The situation defends in favor of the American companies who already possessed lesser incentive as compared to those firms that ratified the Protocol that on the other hand also encouraged efficiency and competitiveness.

Many researchers believe that since the activities of Kyoto Protocol participants possess their own noticed value in the US, there were largely a number of confident business leaders who after envisioning the infliction of emissions restrictions to the Protocol were worried about the probability of losing battle to overseas competitors. Technically speaking the US may come to regret its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol for the reason that contemporary American companies could find themselves cut out of the bidding processes for Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects. These projects were of advantage to the US since they allow the transfer of emission credits to non-annex I economies as discussed above or their partner companies in exchange for participation in GHG-reducing projects. US had this opportunity because renewable energy companies could find US participation in the CDM as a reference to deal with the US for other projects. Behind the ratification would be the World Bank which through a number of carbon funds for Kyoto parties could be providing discounted emissions credits and brokerage assistance to companies and states engaged in CDM projects. But the withdrawal of US without even ratifying the Protocol initiated a new threat to most of the business leaders to either shut out their respective project negotiations or find themselves in a clumsy situation where they compete with others to override financial gain.

Emissions Trading effect on the US Companies

Empirical studies suggest a number of economic advantages to the US government if they engage in global warming environmental issues and strategies. For example the employment sector holds the potential for creating significant job provided the US government invests seriously in renewable energy. A comprehensive study conducted by Shaffner (2007) indicates that “the renewable energy sector creates more jobs per unit of energy delivered as compared to other fuel-based sector and that investment in renewable sector is likely to contribute to the economic and geographical areas of the US that have gone through the highest levels of unemployment in the past”. In short, US has lost an opportunity to participate in the renewable energy programme that could have helped the U.S manufacturing sector to cope up with the overall unemployment situation in the country.

Chambers (2001, p. 123) suggests that “the political stance of the US to withdraw from the protocol has caused the country to deviate from emissions trading which could have been more attractive to US companies than are carbon taxes because the latter scheme extracts revenues from firms without offering any compensation”. US has suffered through many of the political difficulties of introducing such taxes for which even if a firm had to buy permits to cover all of its emissions, it would have acquired the value of those additional permits by selling them in the long run if its actual emissions proved to be lower than the allowed limit. This in turn would have been beneficial for the US to create incentives for firms to comply with their caps (Chambers, 2001, p. 123).

The Effect of withdrawal negotiations

Kyoto protocol ratification allows limited conditions according to which two countries’ presence is essential, US and Russia which together emit 51.65% of CO2 emissions of the Annex I. Being one of the most significant players of the Kyoto game, both possess the authority and their alliance could block any agreement. Therefore, after US if Russia also refuse to enter into the negotiation the protocol will no more exist. US possess the highest authority of the Annex I economies after which lower power economies exist with the normalized indices. Similarly the weight of the voting mechanism is highest in the US, Russia and Japan which respectively weigh 35.02%, 16.62% and 7.84% (Merlin et al, 2004).

Global politics has changed once again after the US withdrawal because the European coalition has reshaped the Kyoto game by changing the set of players along with their weights. This withdrawal has influenced the Kyoto game on the basis of priori power distribution and the global environmental arena has lessened one player. As a result the CO2 quota has raised and the weights of the players are modified. Thus, the US by withdrawal has given its power to other big players to pave the way for small players to increase their capability to block the protocol.

US withdrawal has no doubt weakened the power of the EU and Russia which has given Japan the benefit to enlarge its power. In the present scenario US has made the two players (EU and Russia) vulnerable because even if they loose a power share, they will retain only theoretical power in the withdrawal cases. One thing that is clear from the US back-down is that though it appeared difficult to convince the giant CO2 emitters to ratify the protocol, and despite the fact that US is the most pollutant country other than the Russian Federation and Japan, Japan never followed US footsteps and ratified the Kyoto protocol in return for new flexibility mechanism in 2002 increased its credits for the amount of permits.

Moreover, the US withdrawal resulted in having two effects on the decisional power of Japan and Russia which according to Merlin et al (2004) influences Russia since it obtained an increasing decisional power. This increased Russia’s hope who expected a decrease in prices of emission permits as Russia was the biggest permits supplier. Critics also points out that US withdrawal gave no particular exceptional opportunity to Russia because it lost on one side what it earned on the other side. Japan reacted differently to such a situation because US withdrawal increased its decisional power which it later utilized by acquiring GHG permits. In this manner Japan reached its emissions goal through US withdrawal. Later it cut down the cost of the permits in the international market.

Ending Thoughts

From Bush’s proposed axis of terror to the axis of evil in the world which is surrounded by ignorance, disease and environmental disorder, the actual terror is from environmental hazard that denies the reality of 2,500 United Nations scientists. These scientists reveal the necessity to discover ways to put an end to global warming. Until then, danger of an increase in severity in the temperature of sea levels could swell up to the extent where millions of homes could be submerged under our present day oceans. The crisis in climate change alone in the US is responsible for 25 percent of the worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. The US must ratify this problem at the earliest because supporting or quitting the Kyoto Protocol is not the issue. What needs to be addressed is plotting the solution to the problem of dealing with global warming.

References

1. Chambers, W. Bradnee. (2001). Inter-Linkages: The Kyoto Protocol and the International Trade and Investment Regimes: United Nations University Press: New York.
2. Merlin Vincent, Tensorer Le Jerome & Lahrach Rahhal. (2004). Who benefits from the US withdrawal of the Kyoto Protocol.
3. Shaffner Eric. (2007). Repudiation and Regret: Is the United States Sitting out the Kyoto Protocol to Its Economic Detriment? Environmental Law, 37(2), p. 441.
4. Victor, G. David. (2001). The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming: Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.
5. Wirth, E. Timothy. (2002). Hot Air over Kyoto: The United States and the Politics of Global Warming. Harvard International Review, 23(4), p. 72.