|
|
|
|
International Climate Accord Ratified by 178 Countries Without U.S. Participation |
| Published On: 12-13-2001 |
|
Related Issue Briefs:
|
|
|
One hundred and seventy-eight countries ratified the Bonn Agreement on international climate change, in July 2001, while the United States refused to sign. The agreement is an outgrowth of the 1997 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and its Kyoto Protocol , an environmental accord that would require 32 industrialized countries to adopt specific targets for cutting emissions of the six principal greenhouse responsible for global warming gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFCs, PFCs, and sulphur hexafluoride). The accord does not require developing countries to reduce their emissions, expecting them to only slow their growth.
The Kyoto Protocol was driven by the need to find a solution to the challenges posed by global warming. According to findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations, the global average temperature has increased by 0.6°C over the 20th century. The IPCC also projects that temperature will raise by 1.4 to 5.8°C between 1990 and 2100, which is a much larger upsurge than the observed changes during the 20th century. Global warming comes with other climate changes, including a retreat in glaciers and ice caps and a rise of the sea level, which are also expected to continue throughout the century.
Most scientists believe that global warming is caused by the increasing concentration of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), in the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, the concentration of CO2 has increased by 31 percent since 1750, and three-fourths of this rise is due to the burning of fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and gas. The rest of the increase is mainly due to the emissions produced by the burning of wood and deforestation.
As an attempt to remedy this problem, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol requires 38 industrialized countries to reduce by 2012 their combined annual gas emissions to 5.2 percent below the levels measured in 1990. It establishes a different target for each country; Japan, for example, accepted a target of cutting gas emissions back to 6 percent below the 1990 levels. Those targets were negotiated in 1997 and remained the same in the July 2001 compromise.
The recent agreement differs from the 1997 Kyoto Protocol because it includes a funding package of $550 million to help developing countries adapt to climate change, and it sets rules for countries to meet their emission targets with greater flexibility.
For example, Japan insisted on a provision to allow countries to receive credit for reducing emission targets by preserving their forests, which act as a kind of "carbon sink", absorbing CO2. The accord also enables countries to buy and sell credit earned by reducing CO2 emissions. This system encourages pollution cleanups where it can be done effectively, so that countries can achieve their targets at the lowest possible cost.
Although the treaty is largely unclear about what happens to countries that fail to meet the cuts in the 2008-2012 period, the relevant provision suggests that these countries will have to reduce their emissions even more during the following period.
The United States, which by some accounts emits about 25 percent of all greenhouse gases worldwide, decided not to participate in the agreement, although it did not seek to prevent other countries from signing. President Bush described the treaty as "fatally flawed" because it does not require developing countries, such as India and China, to cut their emissions. Bush also argued that the accord was too costly to the U.S. industry. Compliance with emission targets would be burdensome to U.S. companies, and would have damaging consequences on the U.S. economy, such as layoffs of workers and higher prices for consumers.
The 1997 version of Kyoto was killed in the U.S. Senate for these same reasons, bringing together a coalition of industry groups and labor unions to oppose the treaty on the basis that the U.S. would be too disadvantaged while developing countries had to take minimal action.
It is unclear whether the United States' rejection of the agreement will benefit U.S. companies in the long term. Many people believe that U.S. corporations will be advantaged because they will not be compelled to maintain the environmental standards required in other industrialized countries.
However, some people argue that the United States will eventually have to join in the fight on global warming. If this is the case, then foreign companies that begin to reduce their CO2 emissions now may be better prepared than U.S. corporations to cope with future emission targets.
Critics of Bush's decision argue that the dismissal of the treaty projects a unilateralist approach to foreign policy and an unwillingness to work with European allies, as well as a lack of concern for the problem of global warming. However, despite his refusal to ratify the accord, Bush acknowledged the importance of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Bush also created a task force to submit an alternative emissions control strategy before the next climate summit, in October 2001. For the United States, the question is not whether global warming is real, but what should be done about it. |
| Visit: http://climatechange.unep.net/ for more information |
|
|
|
