Write 2 pages analysis of the Kyoto Treat and the recent Paris Agreement. At the conclusion of your analysis consider why the US Senate might be hesitant to approve the Kyoto Treaty.
Adopted in 1992 at the UN Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro and in force since 1994, the convention establishes objectives and principles, commitments for different groups of countries, and a set of institutions to enable its member states to monitor the convention’s implementation and to continue discussions on how best to deal with the problem. The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is the “stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. . . .” (means “arising from human activities.”) Although the convention does not define it does state that ecosystems should be allowed to adapt naturally, the food supply should not be threatened, and economic development should be able to proceed in a sustain- able manner. The principles adopted by the convention are meant to address two main political problems: (1) how to distribute the burden of reducing emissions among different countries and (2) how to deal with scientific uncertainty. The principles of and address the first of these. In other words, the convention recognizes that industrialized countries have historically been the main source of the problem and have more resources to address it, and that the developing countries are more vulnerable to its adverse effects and have the fewest resources to address the problem. It therefore requires industrialized countries to take the lead in modifying long-term emission trends, and it calls on the richest countries to provide financial and technological resources to help developing countries stabilize their greenhouse gas emissions. To deal with the second political problem, that of scientific uncertainty, the convention adopts the precautionary principle. This principle, also incorporated in the Rio Declaration, responds to the dilemma that, while there are many uncertainties still surrounding climate change, waiting for full scientific certainty before taking action is almost certain to be too late to avert its worst impacts. Article 3(3) of the convention, accordingly, calls for member states to adopt “precautionary measures” to combat climate change, stating that “where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures.” The convention divides its member countries into two main groups. Developed countries— currently 41 are members 91 —are known as countries (because they are listed in the convention’s Annex I). Other member countries are known as countries. Article 4 says that both groups of member countries have general obligations. These include the obligations to (1) promote programs to address greenhouse gas emissions; (2) protect carbon and (forests and other natural systems that remove carbon from the atmosphere); (3) assess the environmental impact of their social and economic policies; (4) develop and share climate-friendly technologies and practices; (5) promote education, training, and public awareness of climate change; and (6) submit reports (known as) on the actions they are taking to implement the convention. In addition, Annex I countries have an obligation to adopt climate change policies and measures with the “aim” of returning their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. This aim was supposed to have been achieved by the year 2000, but it proved to be too ambitious, especially as it was a nonbinding commitment. The institutional structure set up by the convention consists of a Conference of the Parties, two subsidiary bodies (the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation), and a secretariat. The Conference of the Parties meets annually to review the national communications and to negotiate substantive new commitments; the two subsidiary bodies carry out preparatory work for the Conference of the Parties; and the secretariat, with a staff of 150, provides support. At the Conference of the Parties meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, the member countries drafted the to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 92 The Kyoto Protocol would legally bind the developed Annex I countries to reduce the amount of their greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels during the five-year period Supplemental agreement to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Control drafted in 1997. It requires developed member countries of the convention to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels.
between 2008 and 2012. The objective is the “stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” For the Kyoto Protocol to come into force, it had to be ratified or acceded to by (1) 55 percent of all member countries and (2) Annex I parties accounting for 55 percent of that group’s carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. 93 As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities had ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6 percent of emissions from Annex I coun- tries). Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia. The only developed Annex I country to indicate that it is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol is the United States. The reasons for the U.S. refusal to participate are described in Reading 2-2. The Kyoto Protocol was favored by the Clinton–Gore administration, but was never submitted to Congress for approval; neither Clinton nor Vice President Gore believed that it would pass muster in the U.S. Senate. In June of 2001, President Bush was critical of the Kyoto Protocol’s “dual-track” approach, binding developed nations like the U.S. to targeted greenhouse gas emissions, and leaving out developing nations like India and China. 94 Good morning. I’ve just met with senior members of my administration who are working to develop an effective and science-based approach to address- ing the important issues of global climate change. *** The issue of climate change respects no border. Its effects cannot be reined in by an army nor advanced by any ideology. Climate change, with its potential to impact every corner of the world, is an issue that must be The Kyoto Protocol was fatally flawed in fundamental ways. But the process used to bring nations together to discuss our joint response to climate change is an important one. That is why I am today committing the United States of America to work within the United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop with our friends and allies and nations throughout the world an effective and science-based response to the issue of global *** There are only two ways to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases. One is to avoid emitting them in the first place; the other is to try to capture them after they’re created. And there are problems with both approaches. We’re making great progress through technology but have not yet developed cost-effective ways to capture carbon emissions at their source, although there is some promising work that is being done. And a growing population requires more energy to heat and cool our homes, more gas to drive our cars, even though we’re making progress on conservation and energy efficiency and have significantly reduced the amount of carbon emissions per unit of GDP. Our country, the United States, is the world’s largest emitter of man- made greenhouse gases. We account for almost 20 percent of the world’s man-made greenhouse emissions. We also account for about one-quarter of the world’s economic output. We recognize the responsibility to reduce our emissions. We also recognize the other part of the story—that the rest of the world emits 80 percent of all greenhouse gases. And many of those emissions come from developing countries. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world’s. The world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto. These and other developing countries that are experienc- ing rapid growth face challenges in reducing their emissions without harming their economies. We want to work cooperatively with these countries in their efforts to reduce greenhouse emissions and maintain economic growth. *** Kyoto is, in many ways, unrealistic. Many countries cannot meet their Kyoto targets. The targets themselves were arbitrary and not based upon science. For America, complying with those mandates would have a negative economic impact, with layoffs of workers and price increases for consum- ers. And when you evaluate all these flaws, most reasonable people will understand that it’s not sound public policy. That’s why 95 members of the United States Senate expressed a reluc- tance to endorse such an approach. Yet, America’s unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdica- tion of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. We recognize our responsibility and will meet it—at home, in our hemisphere, and in the world. My Cabinet-level working group on climate change is recommending a number of initial steps and will continue to work on additional ideas. The working group proposes [that] the United States help lead the way by advancing the science on climate change, advanc- ing the technology to monitor and reduce greenhouse gases, and creating partnerships within our hemisphere and beyond to monitor and measure and mitigate emissions. *** I’ve asked my advisors to consider approaches to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including those that tap the power of markets, help realize the promise of technology and ensure the widest possible global participa- tion. As we analyze the possibilities, we will be guided by several basic principles. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. Our actions should be measured as we learn more from science and build on it. Our approach must be flexible to adjust to new information and take advantage of new technology. We must always act to ensure continued economic growth and prosperity for our citizens and for citizens throughout the world. We should pursue market-based incentives and spur technologi- cal innovation. And, finally, our approach must be based on global participation, including that of developing countries whose net greenhouse gas emissions now exceed those in the developed countries. In December 2007, the government of Indonesia hosted a United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali that included representatives of over 180 nations, along with many observers from the media, NGOs, and IGOs. Over 10,000 people participated in various meetings, including Conference of the Parties sessions under the UNFCCC, and meetings of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Bush administration was criticized internationally for its positions during the early stages of the conference. 95 Still, the conference culminated in the adoption of a road map charting the course for a new negotiating process to be concluded in 2009. The intention was to have a post-2012 agreement on climate change, as the original Protocol ended developed nations’ commitments at the end of 2012. 96 The 2007 Bali Climate Change Conference (COP 13) culminated in the adoption of the Bali Road Map, which consists of a number of forward- looking decisions that represent the various tracks that are essential to reaching a secure climate future. The Bali Road Map includes the Bali Action Plan, which charts the course for a new negotiating process designed to tackle climate change, with the aim of completing this by 2009, along with a number of other decisions and resolutions. But the discrepancy between the two groups grew even wider during the round of climate change talks that ended in Bonn, Germany, in May of 2008. Expectations were high for the conference of the parties in Copenha- gen in December of 2009 (COP 15). The Copenhagen Climate Conference FIGURE 2.8 February 18, Source: Lou Linwei/Alamy was originally set as the time and place for another major agreement that would replace the Kyoto Protocol, which more or less failed because the U.S. rejected it. U.S. President Barack Obama arrived in Copenhagen at the Conference of the Parties with commotion in the streets and discord in the rooms. In the midst of large protests in the Danish capital, ongoing disputes took place between the developed nations and the developing nations as to who should be taking the lead on emissions curbs. Bolivian President Evo Morales noted that the U.S. had shown the inability to pass this otherwise universally approved-of treaty, and said this was a sticking point and was indicative of the United States’ willingness to cooperate. To others, the sticking point was China, which had risen to almost-superpower status from its position as a poor, developing nation. While it is still a developing nation, it is now the second largest carbon- emitter, and has 16 of the world’s 20 most polluted cities (see Figure 2.8). Obama spoke to the gathering, but most observers were disappointed that there was no clear indication of cooperation between the U.S. and China on the “two-track” issue. The COP process went on, of course, with subsequent meetings in Cancun in November of 2010, and in Bonn in June of 2011. Some of the developed countries opposed the Second Commit- ment Period at talks in Cancun, and the meeting in Bonn further underlined basic differences. In November of 2011, a summit of climate change officials from the parties to the Kyoto Protocol were to meet in Durban, South Africa, to address the fact that the first commitment period under the Protocol was set to expire at the end of 2012, twenty years from the creation of the UNFCCC in Rio in 1992. A month in advance of the Durban conference, climate-change min- isters from Brazil, South Africa, India and China (also known as the BASIC countries), reached a consensus on a range of issues—including the Second Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol. China’s top climate change official, Xie Zhenhua, said that “[t]here must be a Second Commitment Period of the Kyoto Protocol,” after the Ninth BASIC Ministerial Meeting on Climate Change in Beijing on in October of 2011. [Xie was deputy director of the National Development and Reform Commission, the country’s top economic planning group.] Because developed countries are subject to binding targets on green- house gas emissions under the Protocol, while developing economies make their cuts on a voluntary basis, Japan, Russia, and Canada have rejected an extension of the Kyoto agreement. The United States does not favor an extension, either. On behalf of China, however, Xie said that all decisions should be based on the common understandings that the countries have reached in the past 20 years and the principles of equal, common, but dif- ferentiated, responsibility. “Differentiated responsibility” preserves the very notion that the Bush Administration rejected. The BASIC ministers emphasized that financing will be another press- ing priority in the negotiations when they meet in Durban. They agreed that the conference should decide to initiate the operation of the Green Climate Fund, thereby ensuring adequate financial support for developing countries, and they urged the developed countries to capitalize the fund from their public resources. The developed countries have already committed to provide a com- bined $30 billion as “fast-start” funding for the project and then to increase that figure to $100 billion annually between 2013 and 2020 to avoid a funding gap. Martin Khor, executive director of the South Centre think tank, said the months in late 2011 would be critical for the future of the Kyoto Protocol. “Developed countries think they have done and offered enough, but actually have not,” Khor said, adding it would be “ugly” for developed countries to walk away from their compulsory responsibilities. Yang Fuqiang, a senior consultant on climate change and energy at the U.S.-based Natural Resources and Defense Council, said that a regula- tory gap is unlikely to be avoided, because even if the countries reach a deal at Durban in late 2011, it will take time for governments to ratify the agreement. “There are only 18 months left before the first commitment of the Kyoto Protocol expires at the end of 2012. It will be a huge challenge to bridge the differences in time,” said Yang. Developing countries are already pledging greater cuts in greenhouse gas emissions than developed countries, according to a recent study pub- lished by the international Charity organization Oxfam. The report estimates that at least 60 percent of emission cuts by 2020 currently on the table are likely to be made by developing countries. In June of 2011, Xie stated that noting that developed countries have strong economies and advanced low-carbon technologies, while developing countries have neither of these things. “Developed countries should fulfill their commitment to provide financial support and technological transfers in order to help developing nations tackle climate change and promote low-carbon development,” said Xie in June of 2011. In June of 2011, the UN’s top climate official said that after three years of talks, countries would not agree in time to a “full deal” to follow on from the Kyoto targets that bind nearly 40 industrialised nations to emissions cuts in 2008–2012. Even if the talks in Durban in November of 2011 were successful, the states would have to ratify any new deal in national parliaments for it to have equal legal force with the Kyoto Protocol. Prior to the Durban meeting, many thought that such ratification would be well-nigh impossible. The earliest a deal could be agreed is in Durban at the end of this year, said Christiana Figueres, head of the UN’s climate secretariat, speaking on the first day of the June 6–17 climate talks in Bonn, Germany. “Even if they were able to agree on a legal text for a second commitment period (of Kyoto), that requires an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, it requires legislative ratifications on the part of three-quarters of the parties, so we would assume that there’s no time to do that between Durban and the end of 2012,” Figueres told reporters. “Countries have realized this, that they actually stand before the potential of a regulatory gap, and are involved in constructive negotiations as to how they’re going to deal with that,” she said. As of November 2011, a deal in Durban was widely viewed as unlikely. The European Union’s chief climate negotiator told reporters that 2014 or 2015 was now a more realistic target for a full legal framework. “Let’s say 2014, 2015 is a broadly realistic time, but if parties could agree to do that earlier the EU would be happy to do so,” said Artur Runge-Metzger. He said such a timetable would dovetail with the publication of the next major report by the UN panel of climate scientists in 2014, and a review from 2013–2015 of existing, voluntary commitments. Other international treaties dealing with the climate and air pollution are the 1979 Geneva Con- vention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution, the 1985 Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer with its 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, and Annex 16 on Environmental Protection to the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. Toxic Waste Toxic and other wastes are regulated by the 1989 Basel Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous Wastes and Their Disposal, which came into force in 1992. 97 The convention forbids the export of “hazardous wastes and other wastes” to nonstates parties and to states parties unwilling or incapable of safely accepting them, and it forbids states parties to import wastes unless they can safely manage them. It also requires states parties to take appropriate actions to minimize their own production of hazardous wastes. Nuclear Materials The is the primary IGO respon- sible for supervising the use of fissionable materials. 98 Its Statute (a multilateral convention that came into force in 1957) 99 makes the IAEA responsible for setting up safety standards for the protection of health and for minimizing injury to life and property. It also gives the IAEA responsibility for promoting the peaceful use of atomic energy, for ensuring that its own nuclear materials and assis- tance are not misused, and for overseeing the nuclear devices and materials of certain “non–nuclear weapons” states to ensure that they are not diverted to military uses. One of the IAEA’s main functions is to oversee compliance with the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. In doing so, the IAEA carries out inspections at nuclear facilities in some 60 non–nuclear weapons states. In July 1991, the IAEA determined that Iraq had not been submitting nuclear materials and certain of its facilities to inspection, and it adopted a resolution of noncompliance that it forwarded to the UN Security Council. Following the Gulf War and Iraq’s expulsion from Kuwait, Iraq agreed to allow the IAEA to conduct special inspec- tions of its nuclear materials and facilities, including an examination of documents showing how and from whom it had obtained equipment that it intended to use for the production of nuclear weapons. In mid-1994, North Korea similarly refused to allow IAEA inspectors to examine its nuclear facilities. At one point, North Korea announced that it was withdrawing from the Non- Proliferation Treaty, but it later said that it would continue its membership after the United States and South Korea agreed to high-level negotiations over the normalization of relations between the three countries. Protection of Natural Resources In October 1982, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the 100 The charter declares, simply, that “[n]ature shall be respected and its essential processes shall not be impaired.” In this regard, the charter states that “living resources shall not be utilized in excess of their natural capacity for regeneration” and that all “ecosystems and organisms, as well as the land, marine, and atmospheric resources that are utilized by man, shall be managed to achieve and maintain optimum sustainable productivity . . . [without endangering] those other ecosystems or species with which they coexist.” Principle 11 of the World Charter for Nature also declares that states need to establish proce- dures to control “activities which might have an impact on nature.” In particular, it calls upon states to (1) avoid activities that are likely to cause irreversible damage to nature, (2) conduct “exhaus- tive” examinations to demonstrate that the expected benefits outweigh the potential damage to nature before proceeding with activities that are likely to pose a significant risk, and (3) prepare