Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
States, had signed but not ratified the protocol. Although
the United States had signed the protocol in 1997, it
chose not to ratify the protocol in 2001. One ratio-
nale for the pullout was that controlling CO
2
(g) emis-
sions would damage the U.S. economy. The same argu-
ment was made by the automobile industry prior to the
passage of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1970,
which required 90 percent reductions of three pollu-
tants from automobiles by 1976: CO(g), NO
x
(g), and
hydrocarbons. Despite opposition to them, the 1970
amendments motivated U.S. automobile manufacturers
to invent the catalytic converter by 1975. The inven-
tion not only eventually reduced pollutant emissions as
mandated, but also produced profitable patents. Neither
the U.S. economy nor the automobile industry suffered
as a result of the 1970 regulations. From 1970 to 2000,
for example, the number of vehicles in the United States
doubled, whereas the population increased by only one-
third. The U.S. gross domestic product in fixed dollars
also doubled, and the unemployment rate decreased
from 4.9 to 4.0 percent during this period. Stringent air
pollution regulations under the Clean Air Act Amend-
ments had no overall detrimental effect on the U.S.
economy.
Since the Kyoto Protocol, many of the countries that
promised to reduce emissions have done so, but others
have increased emissions. As indicated in Figure 12.9,
global CO
2
(g) emissions continue to rise unabated, indi-
cating the insufficiency of the Kyoto Protocol in tack-
ling global warming.
During December 2009, nations of the world met for
the fifteenth time under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, this time in Copen-
hagen, Denmark. The
Copenhagen Summit
resulted
in little substantial progress because both China and
the United Stated resisted commitments to mandatory
emission limits. They did agree through the
Copen-
hagen Accord
to recognize the importance of climate
change and to take action to keep temperature increases
in the global average below 2
◦
C.
Asixteenth meeting occurred in Canc un, Mexico,
from November 29 to December 10, 2010. Again, little
progress was made because no new emission reduction
targets were set. One outcome was an agreement to
develop a
Green Climate Fund
,which would be over-
seen by a board of twenty-four members. Wealthy coun-
tries would contribute to the fund, which would be used
by poorer countries to pay costs associated with reduc-
ing emissions and adapting to climate change. However,
no agreement was reached on how to raise money for
the fund.
Table 12.5.
Percentage change in emissions allowed
for industrialized countries under Kyoto protocol
Percentage change
in emissions
Country(ies)
Switzerland, central Europe,
European Union
−
8
−
United States
7
−
Canada, Hungary, Japan, Poland
6
Russia, New Zealand, Ukraine
0
Norway
+
1
Australia
+
8
Iceland
+
10
the emission of greenhouse gases. According to the
agreement, industrialized countries were required to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the first commit-
ment period (2008-2012). Such gases included carbon
dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexaflu-
oride [SF
6
(g)]. Reductions in CO
2
(g), CH
4
(g), and
N
2
O(g) emissions would be relative to 1990 emissions.
Reductions in the emission of others gases would be
relative to either 1990 or 1995 emissions. Emissions
reductions did not apply to emissions from international
shipping and aviation.
Table 12.5 lists the allocation of emissions reductions
originally mandated for industrialized countries. Some
countries were allowed to increase emissions. The net
change in emissions, weighted over all industrialized
countries, was 5.2 percent. Countries required to reduce
emissions were allowed to meet the reductions in one
of many ways. One mechanism was to finance emis-
sion reduction projects in developing countries, which
were not subject to emission limits. This mechanism is
referred to as
emission trading
.Treeplanting, protect-
ing forests, improving energy efficiency, using renew-
able energy sources, reforming energy and transporta-
tion sectors, creating technologies with zero emissions,
and reducing emissions at their sources with existing
technologies were other mechanisms.
If a country that ratifies the protocol does not meet its
emission reduction commitment on time, the country is
penalized by being required to reduce emissions by an
additional 30 percent beyond that of its original com-
mitment. The country is also suspended from using an
emission trading program to make emission transfers
with another country.
By the end of April 2010, 191 nations had signed
and ratified the Kyoto Protocol. One country, the United
Search WWH ::
Custom Search