Poor nations say wealthy countries became rich using coal, oil and gas and that they must be allowed to burn fossil fuels to escape poverty. Rich nations say major developing economies, such as China, India and Brazil, must submit to emissions cuts if the world has any chance of halting dangerous climate change. -- Last chance to save Kyoto deal at climate talks
More reading:
‘Vulnerable countries consider “occupying” COP17 talks’
Some additional information:
The objective of the Kyoto climate change conference was to establish a legally binding international agreement, whereby all the participating nations commit themselves to tackling the issue of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, USA is not a signatory of the protocol
U.S. History with the Protocol, from Wikipedia
Clinton Administration
Vice President Al Gore was a main participant in putting the Kyoto Protocol together in 1997. President Bill Clinton signed the agreement in 1997, but the US Senate refused to ratify it, citing potential damage to the US economy required by compliance. The Senate also balked at the agreement because it excluded certain developing countries, including India and China, from having to comply with new emissions standards.
Bush administration
Similar objections to the Kyoto Protocol were why the Bush administration refused to sign. They argued the division between Annex 1 and developing countries was unfair, and that both countries needed to reduce their emissions unilaterally. President George W. Bush claimed that the cost of following the Protocols requirements will stress the economy. “George Bush made campaign promises in 2000 to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. However, in 2001, George Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto accords as one of the first acts of his presidency. Bush dismissed Kyoto Protocol as too costly, describing it as "an unrealistic and ever-tightening straitjacket." The Bush administration questioned the validity of the science behind global warming, and claims that millions of jobs will be lost if the US joins in this world pact.
Al Gore accused Bush of showing the world "a stunning display of moral cowardice." "Kyoto's ability to survive the near-fatal attacks of the Bush administration is testimony to the urgency of the climate problem." Worldwatch Institute Laurie David, Natural Resources Defense Council said, "As the world celebrates the global warming pact's debut, Bush continues to pander to the energy industry."
Obama Administration
President Obama was elected under widespread belief that shortly after arriving in office he would take swift and decisive action to join the world in reducing GHG emissions and therefore helping battle global climate change. According to The American, “Obama was widely expected to quickly pass a Kyoto-style domestic cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases, positioning America to take the moral high ground in Copenhagen, thus luring (or compelling) China and India to accept emissions targets.". Signing the Kyoto protocol seemed like the logical first step so it came as a surprise when he rejected the Kyoto protocol for reasons similar to those of former president Bush. According to The American, “the treaty’s fundamental flaws were well understood: It set very ambitious—and costly—targets for the United States while allowing emissions from the developing world to continue to rise unchecked. (And indeed today, despite Kyoto’s ratification, China has become the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases. Americans don’t mind contributing to a solution, but Kyoto asked a lot of sacrifice for little reward.”. President Obama was also expected to represent the U.S in Copenhagen and negotiate terms for the extension of the Kyoto Protocol past 2012. Yet instead of the U.S. contributing to the development and signing of a Kyoto-like treaty, the U.S. is suggesting extreme modifications of the Kyoto emission management system and precipitating intense debates and clashes over the treaty which will follow Kyoto.
Objections to the Kyoto Protocol and U.S refusal to sign
The Kyoto Protocol was a huge leap forward towards an intergovernmental united strategy to reduce GHG’s emissions globally. But it wasn’t without its objections. Some of the main criticisms were against categorizing different countries into annexes, with each annex having its own responsibility for emission reductions based on historic GHG emissions and, therefore, historic contribution to global climate change. “Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based on the idea of climate justice." This has particularly centered on the balance between the low emissions and high vulnerability of the developing world to climate change, compared to high emissions in the developed world.” Other objections were the use of carbon off-sets as a method for a country to reduce its carbon emissions. Although it can be beneficial to balance out one GHG emission by implementing an equal carbon offset, it still doesn’t completely eliminate the original carbon emission and therefore ultimately reduce the amount of GHG’s in the atmosphere.
Many countries fear these new treaty additions will paralyze negotiations and stop many of the countries currently under the Kyoto Protocol from resigning as well as stop new countries, like China and India, from signing. “the Obama administration’s proposals could undermine a new global treaty and weaken the world’s ability to stave off the worst effects of climate change.” Many people feel that the combination of the U.S not signing the Kyoto Protocol (ensuring it will run out in 2012) and the U.S. attempt to change almost the entire architecture of the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen means the end of the Kyoto Protocol as we know it and perhaps a new global climate treaty. “If Kyoto is scrapped, it could take several years to negotiate a replacement framework, a delay that could strike a terminal blow at efforts to prevent dangerous climate change. In Europe we want to build on Kyoto, but the US proposal would in effect kill it off. If we have to start from scratch then it all takes time. It could be 2015 or 2016 before something is in place, who knows."
-----
My take on this is very simple: China has become the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases but based on carbon emissions per capita, U.S. is ranked 12 while China 78, Brazil 124 and India 145, all behind U.S. and even Singapore. In the 2011 report on HDI, U.S. was ranked 4 while China was 101, i.e. China still has a lot to do in terms of Human Development. Although the major disagreement with the Protocol seems to lie in the fact that countries such as India and China and smaller developing countries were not restricted, I wonder if it is fair for less developed and developing countries (particularly China, India, Brazil) to be subjected to restriction at this point when their economies are rapidly expanding and they have been in a way being brought to this point and made to bear the climate effects of the developments that failed to equitably benefit their economies in the past centuries. Why then shouldn't the Protocol also take into account the retrospective accountability of today's climate change?
I found this excellent paper that exactly echoes my thoughts and I love this quote:
‘‘The idea that developing countries like India and China must share the blame for heating up the earth and destabilising its climate (…) is an excellent example of environmental colonialism.’’ (Agarwal and Narain, 1991, p. 1).
I hope when the day comes that polar bears go into extinction, Bush and Obama and everyone who voted against the ratification of the Protocol is able to sleep at night
More reading:
‘Vulnerable countries consider “occupying” COP17 talks’
Some additional information:
The objective of the Kyoto climate change conference was to establish a legally binding international agreement, whereby all the participating nations commit themselves to tackling the issue of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions, USA is not a signatory of the protocol
U.S. History with the Protocol, from Wikipedia
Clinton Administration
Vice President Al Gore was a main participant in putting the Kyoto Protocol together in 1997. President Bill Clinton signed the agreement in 1997, but the US Senate refused to ratify it, citing potential damage to the US economy required by compliance. The Senate also balked at the agreement because it excluded certain developing countries, including India and China, from having to comply with new emissions standards.
Bush administration
Similar objections to the Kyoto Protocol were why the Bush administration refused to sign. They argued the division between Annex 1 and developing countries was unfair, and that both countries needed to reduce their emissions unilaterally. President George W. Bush claimed that the cost of following the Protocols requirements will stress the economy. “George Bush made campaign promises in 2000 to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. However, in 2001, George Bush pulled the US out of the Kyoto accords as one of the first acts of his presidency. Bush dismissed Kyoto Protocol as too costly, describing it as "an unrealistic and ever-tightening straitjacket." The Bush administration questioned the validity of the science behind global warming, and claims that millions of jobs will be lost if the US joins in this world pact.
Al Gore accused Bush of showing the world "a stunning display of moral cowardice." "Kyoto's ability to survive the near-fatal attacks of the Bush administration is testimony to the urgency of the climate problem." Worldwatch Institute Laurie David, Natural Resources Defense Council said, "As the world celebrates the global warming pact's debut, Bush continues to pander to the energy industry."
Obama Administration
President Obama was elected under widespread belief that shortly after arriving in office he would take swift and decisive action to join the world in reducing GHG emissions and therefore helping battle global climate change. According to The American, “Obama was widely expected to quickly pass a Kyoto-style domestic cap-and-trade program for greenhouse gases, positioning America to take the moral high ground in Copenhagen, thus luring (or compelling) China and India to accept emissions targets.". Signing the Kyoto protocol seemed like the logical first step so it came as a surprise when he rejected the Kyoto protocol for reasons similar to those of former president Bush. According to The American, “the treaty’s fundamental flaws were well understood: It set very ambitious—and costly—targets for the United States while allowing emissions from the developing world to continue to rise unchecked. (And indeed today, despite Kyoto’s ratification, China has become the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases. Americans don’t mind contributing to a solution, but Kyoto asked a lot of sacrifice for little reward.”. President Obama was also expected to represent the U.S in Copenhagen and negotiate terms for the extension of the Kyoto Protocol past 2012. Yet instead of the U.S. contributing to the development and signing of a Kyoto-like treaty, the U.S. is suggesting extreme modifications of the Kyoto emission management system and precipitating intense debates and clashes over the treaty which will follow Kyoto.
Objections to the Kyoto Protocol and U.S refusal to sign
The Kyoto Protocol was a huge leap forward towards an intergovernmental united strategy to reduce GHG’s emissions globally. But it wasn’t without its objections. Some of the main criticisms were against categorizing different countries into annexes, with each annex having its own responsibility for emission reductions based on historic GHG emissions and, therefore, historic contribution to global climate change. “Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based on the idea of climate justice." This has particularly centered on the balance between the low emissions and high vulnerability of the developing world to climate change, compared to high emissions in the developed world.” Other objections were the use of carbon off-sets as a method for a country to reduce its carbon emissions. Although it can be beneficial to balance out one GHG emission by implementing an equal carbon offset, it still doesn’t completely eliminate the original carbon emission and therefore ultimately reduce the amount of GHG’s in the atmosphere.
Many countries fear these new treaty additions will paralyze negotiations and stop many of the countries currently under the Kyoto Protocol from resigning as well as stop new countries, like China and India, from signing. “the Obama administration’s proposals could undermine a new global treaty and weaken the world’s ability to stave off the worst effects of climate change.” Many people feel that the combination of the U.S not signing the Kyoto Protocol (ensuring it will run out in 2012) and the U.S. attempt to change almost the entire architecture of the Kyoto Protocol in Copenhagen means the end of the Kyoto Protocol as we know it and perhaps a new global climate treaty. “If Kyoto is scrapped, it could take several years to negotiate a replacement framework, a delay that could strike a terminal blow at efforts to prevent dangerous climate change. In Europe we want to build on Kyoto, but the US proposal would in effect kill it off. If we have to start from scratch then it all takes time. It could be 2015 or 2016 before something is in place, who knows."
-----
My take on this is very simple: China has become the world’s leading emitter of greenhouse gases but based on carbon emissions per capita, U.S. is ranked 12 while China 78, Brazil 124 and India 145, all behind U.S. and even Singapore. In the 2011 report on HDI, U.S. was ranked 4 while China was 101, i.e. China still has a lot to do in terms of Human Development. Although the major disagreement with the Protocol seems to lie in the fact that countries such as India and China and smaller developing countries were not restricted, I wonder if it is fair for less developed and developing countries (particularly China, India, Brazil) to be subjected to restriction at this point when their economies are rapidly expanding and they have been in a way being brought to this point and made to bear the climate effects of the developments that failed to equitably benefit their economies in the past centuries. Why then shouldn't the Protocol also take into account the retrospective accountability of today's climate change?
I found this excellent paper that exactly echoes my thoughts and I love this quote:
‘‘The idea that developing countries like India and China must share the blame for heating up the earth and destabilising its climate (…) is an excellent example of environmental colonialism.’’ (Agarwal and Narain, 1991, p. 1).
I hope when the day comes that polar bears go into extinction, Bush and Obama and everyone who voted against the ratification of the Protocol is able to sleep at night
