Climate Change and Ozone Loss - Environmental Science - page 381

x

In December 1997, more than 2,200 delegates from 161
nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate a treaty to
help slow global warming. The resulting Kyoto Protocol
would require 39 developed countries to cut, by 2012,
their emissions of CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O to an average of
about 5.2% below 1990 levels. The initial steps in the
protocol were directed at these 39 countries because
they are responsible for the majority of the world's
CO 2 emissions and thus should take the lead in reduc-
ing their emissions.
The Kyoto Protocol would not require poorer de-
veloping countries to cut their greenhouse gas emis-
sions until a later version of the treaty is adopted. It
also would allow greenhouse gas emissions trading
among participating countries. In such a program, gov-
ernment regulation would be needed to set caps (maxi-
mum amounts) on total emissions, distribute emission
permits, and penalize (with fines) participants that
emit more greenhouse gases than their permit allows.
For example, a country or business that reduced its
CO 2 emissions or planted trees would receive a certain
number of credits. It could use these credits to avoid
having to reduce its emissions in other areas, bank
them for future use, or sell them to other countries or
businesses. Participants devising innovative ways to
reduce greenhouse gases would be rewarded by in-
creased profits from sale of their permits, while partici-
pants producing excess amounts of greenhouse gases
would face increased costs because they would have to
pay fines or buy extra permits from other participants.
By the fall of 2004, 126 countries, enough for it to
go into effect, had ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Some
analysts praise the Kyoto agreement as a small but im-
portant step in attempting to slow projected global
warming and hope the conditions of the treaty will be
strengthened in future negotiating sessions. But ac-
cording to computer models, the 5.2% reduction goal
of the Kyoto Protocol would shave only about 0.06°C
(0.1°F) off the 0.7-1.7°C (1-3°F) temperature rise pro-
jected by 2060.
In 2001, President George W. Bush withdrew U.S.
participation from the Kyoto Protocol, arguing that it
was too expensive and did not require emissions re-
ductions by developing countries such as China and
India that have large and increasing emissions of
greenhouse gases. This decision set off strong protests
by many scientists, citizens, and leaders throughout
most of the world. They pointed out that strong leader-
ship is needed by the United States in this area because
it has the highest total and per capita CO 2 emissions of
any country. Scott Barnett, an expert on environmental
treaties, counters that the Kyoto Protocol is a badly
thought out agreement that will not work. Neverthe-
less, most analysts felt that the United States should
use its influence to improve the treaty rather than
abandon it.

H OW W OULD Y OU V OTE ? Should the United States
participate the Kyoto Protocol? Cast your vote online at
http://biology.brookscole.com/miller11.

Politics: Moving Beyond the Kyoto Protocol
Countries could work together to develop a new
international approach to slowing global warming.
In 2004, environmental law experts Richard B. Stewart
and Jonathan B. Wiener proposed that countries work
together to develop a new strategy for slowing global
warming. They conclude that the Kyoto Protocol will
have little effect on future global warming without
support and action by the world's largest current and
future greenhouse gas emitters—the United States,
China, and India.
Stewart and Wiener urge the development of a
new climate treaty by the United States, China, India,
Russia, and Australia, and other countries that are
major CO 2 emitters. The treaty should also create an
effective emissions trading program that includes de-
veloping countries omitted from the trading plan un-
der the Kyoto Protocol. In addition, it should set
achievable 10-year milestones for reducing emissions
over the next 40 years and evaluate global and na-
tional strategies for adapting to the harmful ecological
and economic effects of global warming.
This or other alternative approaches would allow
the United States to provide much-needed leadership
on this important global issue instead of being seen as
a “spoiler.” Such a parallel treaty could be used as a
basis for overhauling the Kyoto Protocol, or countries
participating in that protocol could agree to join the
new treaty.

Solutions: What Are Some Countries, States,
Cities, and Businesses Doing to Help Delay
Global Warming?
Many countries, states, cities, and companies are
reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, improving
energy efficiency, and increasing their use of carbon-
free renewable energy.
Many countries are actively reducing their greenhouse
gas emissions. For example, by 2000 Great Britain had
reduced its CO 2 emissions to its 1990 level, well ahead of
its Kyoto Protocol target goal. It did so mostly by relying
more on natural gas than on coal, improving energy effi-
ciency in industry and homes, and reducing gasoline
use by raising the tax on gasoline. Between 2000 and
2050, Great Britain aims to cut its CO 2 emissions by 60%,
mostly by improving energy efficiency and relying on
renewable resources for 20% of its energy by 2030.
According to a 2001 study by the Natural Re-
sources Defense Council, China reduced its CO 2 emis-
sions by 17% between 1997 and 2000, a period during