Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol

Refusing Ratification: The US's Big Blunder

Measured in parts per million by volume

"The world's got a pretty simple choice here. It's between President Bush and grandchildren."

-- Australian Senator Bob Brown, calling for a U.S. oil boycott because of George Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto climate change treaty (Green, Kyoto Accord, Internet).

The United States has but 4 per cent of the world's total population. Yet it produces an embarrassing 25 per cent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. To top it all up, the Bush administration refuses to lower the emission by even as little as 5.2 per cent. They wrongly claim that this would be too burdensome for the U.S. industry (Bush Defends..., Internet). But 38 other developed countries have agreed to cut emissions and thus prevent global warming by adopting the Kyoto Protocol (Bong, Kyoto Agreement, Internet). This treaty was developed under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Control to lower gas emissions to about 5 per cent of 1990 levels by 2010. The protocol establishes that countries may limit their emissions in many ways, like simply being energy efficient or even by trading carbon credits (Craig, Australia's..., Internet). Under the carbon credit trading system, each country will be given a particular number of credits. These credits will allow the country to pollute to a certain level. Should a country deem it necessary to pollute more, it can purchase credits from countries that do not need to pollute as much (Wilson). But even though the Kyoto Treaty has many economic benefits, the United States still rebuffs the treaty. It can profit greatly from the creation of new jobs and businesses by putting in place policies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but if the Bush Administration continues to act negligently, the consequences could be exceptionally dire for American citizens and the world at large.

First and foremost, it is quite irresponsible to fail to do anything to prevent global warming. This is especially deplorable when there is a great deal of evidence that the negative externalities that result from their actions could be exceptionally destructive. Any benefits that the administration claims to have will be insignificant when compared to the havoc the upcoming natural disaster can wreck. In addition to an ailing industry, President Bush says that he does not wish to ratify the treaty because developing countries like China and India have not been asked to reduce emissions. But he fails to notice that, "the average person in India uses less electricity in a year than the average American uses every two weeks," (Bush Administration Errs..., Internet). The rejextion of the treaty is not justified at all "in terms of America's responsibilities to the rest of the world, as the only super power and the biggest consumer of resources and emitter of pollutants," (Bruce, Truthout Editorial, Internet). As the developed countries emit 75 percent of pollution, it is morally bankrupt that they do not lead the drive to reduce emissions (Bush Administration Errs..., Internet).

Moreover, reducing harmful gas emissions is not hard as the present administration makes it to be. The Kyoto policies of emission reduction can be easily met through just being efficient with energy. Such a practice can increase the profits of companies by improving their "economic performance over the long run," (Bush Administration Errs..., Internet). One way to be energy efficient is to slowly phase out fuel subsidies. This will not only cut emissions but also lighten the burden such support places on taxpayers. Also, higher taxes on energy and carbon emissions, as well as on road use, can also help to rein in emissions (Kyoto Agreement Could..., Internet). Yet another of many ways is ensuring the production of efficient cars that guzzle less fuel. Oil reserves will last longer and oil companies can raise prices, as customers will have money from using efficient vehicles. Oil companies will not lose money but make money. Yet foolish oil companies want to have fuel-inefficient vehicles (Green,