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
