Science and Environmental Politics in Global Climate Change - Geography 135, Spring 2006
Politics of the Kyoto Protocol
To reach a consensus among 168 participating parties is an impressive task; to do so on an issue of economic and political importance to nations is nothing short of amazing. But the process of reaching such an agreement at Kyoto and fulfilling the requirements for implementing has been, at times, highly charged. During negotiations about the Protocol, a number of issues and divisions arose. Some countries, including the US, had questions about the scientific evidence used as a premise for international action. A few countries even felt that they might benefit from the climate change, such as turning frozen areas into lands with enough warmth to support farming. Larger countries or blocs tended to have a greater voice in decision-making. However, the approach towards curbing emissions in industrialised vs. developing countries was probably the most divisive issue.
Industrialised Countries
Although there was a significant division between the industrialised and developing countries, there were different approaches even among industrialised countries. The EU, for example, was allowed to have a group target; it then subdivided requirements differently among member states. Some ratifying countries did not feel that they would particularly be harmed or benefitted by their agreement. Others had strong reasons for or against the specific elements and provisions that were negotiated in the Protocol.
The US' position on Kyoto has been based on a few different elements. Early opposition seemed to be to agreeing to mandatory restrictions set by an outside entity. Before negotiations formally occurred in 1997, the US Congress passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, which effectively prohibits the US from agreeing to Kyoto in its present form. The authors of the resolution were concerned that ratifying the Protocol, with its mandatory reduction targets, would harm the US economy through significant job loss, trade disadvantages, and/or increased energy and consumer costs. After the negotiations in Kyoto, President Clinton was faced with a hostile Republican-controlled Congress, rendering him effectively powerless to get approval to ratify the Protocol. The first days of the Bush administration saw him rejecting Kyoto outright, to much domestic and international criticism. Among his reasons then was a dismissal of the scientific evidence that supported the existence of human-caused climate change. Bush has since stated that he prefers to approach the issue of reducing emissions domestically through a combination of voluntary action and cleaner energy technologies. However, he was highly concerned - and opposed - to developing countries not having mandatory targets, particularly in light of China and India rapidly industrialising and significantly increasing their contribution to the global emissions problem. Despite the changing reasons for his withdrawal, Bush has stood firm in his opposition.
Russia, under President Putin, held off on ratifying Kyoto for a number of years; many Russians were concerned about the potential detriment to the economy at a time when the country was already in a severe economic situation. With the US' steadfast refusal to join, and no committment from Russia, the criteria which required ratification by countries that collectively produced 55% or more of emissions could not be met. However, in the autumn of 2004, Putin changed his mind and decided Russia should ratify the Protocol. Russia became a signatory on 18 November 2004, and the 55% criteria was finally met. This allowed the agreement, with its binding targets, to come into force on 16 February 2005. The collapse of communism in the early 1990s, which precipitated the shutdown of virtually all heavy industry in the country, and the lingering economic depression have actually put Russia in a good position within the Kyoto framework. Their emissions are some 35% below 1990 levels, leaving the country with credits to sell under Kyoto's emissions trading mechanism; large tracts of land that could be afforested offer opportunities for bargaining with other countries for carbon sink credits. However, perhaps the most direct reason for Putin's change of heart was a bargain struck with the EU exchanging Russian ratification of Kyoto for support for Russia's application to join the World Trade Organisation.
Australia is the other significant non-signatory to the Kyoto Protocol. Under John Howard, a relatively conservative prime minister, Australia has steadfastly refused to ratify the Protocol. Howard's reasons reflected those of the US, primarily opposing Kyoto because of differential treatment of developing countries, particularly China and India. Some Australians were further concerned that if they joined Kyoto, it might put them at a competitive disadvantage against the US. The Australian rejection of the Protocol is somewhat confusing in light of the fact that they were allowed an 8% increase under the agreement!
Developing Countries
Under the Protocol, developing countries are not currently required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Despite a strong push from some industrialised countries, particularly the US and Australia, no binding reduction targets were set for developing countries. While the Protocol was being negotiated, developing countries argued several points:
- Developing countries (excluding China and India) contribute very little to global greenhouse gas emissions and should not be held responsible for the problem or the solution.
- The current situation was created largely by the industrialised countries during their development stages, and thus they should be financially responsible for solutions to it.
- Developing countries should have a right to develop their economies in the same way the now-industrialised countries did: through increased pollution during the earlier days of their development.
- Denying developing countries' citizens the ability to have a standard of living on par with industrial countries (through restricting economic growth) brings up issues of racial and socioeconomic discrimination.
- Developing countries simply do not have the money for such frivolities as evironmental regulation when they sometimes cannot even provide the basic necessities for life to their citizens.
China and India pose the biggest problem to the Kyoto agreement. These two countries, labelled as developing under Protocol criteria, are no longer insignificant polluters. Rather, China is the third-worst world polluter, second only to the US and European Union; India ranks sixth in greenhouse gas emissions. Both of these countries are experiencing rapid economic growth, fuelled by heavy industrial activity. India and China have gotten a good political deal out of Kyoto: they are free to develop as they wish without restrictions, and other countries might fund projects providing economic and environmental benefits within their borders in order to remain in compliance.
Related Links
Mechanisms for reducing greenhouse gas emissions as laid out by the Kyoto Protocol
Ratification status of each country