This was a debate project. Unfortunately, I am not for the Kyoto Agreement, so I had to force myself to discover the good in it. I do believe that the concept is fit for the world, however, I think it was poorly executed this time around. I am happy that Bush did not force us into it, as of now. That move was probably the ONLY I've ever agreed with. I have decided to upload a some of my papers, seeing as they're relevant. What are your thoughts on Kyoto?
One of the most pressing issues on the international table is the effects of global warming and what can be done to halt or reduce the consequences. The United States, a nation of preemption, has stepped back from the issue, waiting for conclusive evidence that greenhouse gases are the immediate cause of global warming. The nation stepped back from the treaty due to inconsistencies in research, the short-term goals, and the perceivable economic consequences. However, the European Union has put aside its immediate economic profit for the long-term penalties ahead for the whole world. The EU has adopted the principle of precaution, reasoning that the “risk of a negative outcome is reason for action.” In fact, the Kyoto Agreement would be not just in the world’s interest, but as well as in the United States advantage to join. Since President Bush’s recognition of global warming, he has been pursuing a “voluntary” leadership ideal. This treaty would be the vindication of President Bush’s seven years of squandering around.
First and foremost, all democracies must consider one important issue of policy-making: public opinion. There is a significant minority in the United States that seeks to reduce damage caused by high energy use. Environmentalism feels more modern to today’s society than profligate energy use does. According to Dr. Robert Watson, former chairperson of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United States is the “only superpower with the moral and ethical responsibility to the world.” Without the United State’s involvement in the pact, the other 55 nations must pick up the slack, furthering the burden on their own economies. Despite the crudeness and the flawed statistics the emission-reduction targets were created from, it can be said that the treaty still nudges in the right direction by focusing attention on a global problem. The United States has a duty to the world seeing as it is one of the biggest polluters at 36 percent of all carbon emissions. By ratifying the treaty, the nation would regain and solidify its position of global leadership. Moreover, the U.S. cannot use the argument that the treaty is not in its best self-interest after the nation of Russia signed the treaty. Arguably, the accords are not significantly profitable to Russia’s economy either seeing as it could benefit from a warmer Siberia and the nation is also an exporter of oil and coal to Western Europe. Yet, the question “why” is answered on a political basis, Russia can now present itself as a virtuous friend of the EU.
Not only will the United States reclaim its place on the political spectrum, but the nation could become more strategically secure. As new technology is put in place, all countries will become self-sufficient as well as at ease with international relations. Under the Convention, both developed and developing countries agree to take measures to limit emissions and promote adaptation to future climate change impacts; submit information on their national climate change programs and inventories; promote technology transfer; cooperate on scientific and technical research; and promote public awareness, education, and training. These goals are set in place to increase the amount of peaceful international diplomacy. In addition, the accords remain short-lapsed in order to spur further agreements and serve as a global foundation for new treaties. Fifty-five nations have recognized global warming as a problem that ignores international boundaries and have set an example of international co-operation for a common good. Because the only global precedent set before Kyoto was the Montreal Protocol of 1987 banning the use of CFC’s, the treaty is politically motivating to reprioritize the development of global issues such as water, energy, health, agriculture and biodiversity.
Most importantly, the Kyoto Treaty encourages new technology, creates a secure global market and reduces overall dependence on foreign oil and gas. One of the biggest drawbacks, according to Christopher DeMuth, author of The Kyoto Treaty Deserved to Die, is that China and India are exempted from any reductions completely. Nevertheless, there was a reason for exempting the two fastest growing producers of greenhouse gases. One, the restrictions would be deadening to the fragile economies of the developing world and two, even though China and India are not bound by the treaty, they are still forced to become cleaner. Both countries have overwhelming power shortages, so it is their self-interest to expand in the “greenest” way possible. How? Both countries use technology developed in the new world. In effect, the countries bound by the accords are consequently compelling the rest of the world to become “green” as well. Another criticism of the Kyoto Protocol is the differing target projections of specific countries such as the eight percent reduction for Switzerland while Norway can increase its emissions up to one percent. By working with an overall “quota” on emissions, the treaty balances what each economy may take without having an extreme negative effect on any explicit country. Additionally, the Kyoto Protocol has taken the growing global market into account to ease more of the stress off of nations unable to maintain their allowances. Other countries may actually go over projected and in doing so, can seek economic incentives by “selling” their surplus units. Kyoto’s emphasis on trading has accelerated the development of greenhouse gas markets worldwide. Furthermore, when dependency on gas and oil are removed, countries such as Russia must find new ways to increase their profits which can be achieved through the greenhouse gas market. Ultimately, the United States’ population will continue to grow and gas prices (because they are a finite resource), will always remain high. By finding new technology and relying on alternative energy resources, the U.S. will benefit not only itself, but the entire world.
The Washington Post states that, “This is stuff of legacy… If the president continues to sit on the sidelines… history… will judge him poorly.” Since November 2006, the Democrats have had control of the Senate. The system of divided government has reemerged in order to push through legislation appealing to the centrist electorate. Once again, the United States is a democracy, and because of that, public opinion affects the policy agenda picked up by Congress and the President. Since 2000, President Bush has failed to take action about climate change; The Washington Post believes it to be one of his major failings as the President. The American people are ready for action to be brought against global warming, and by joining the Kyoto Global Emissions Treaty, the world would be able to take a sigh of social, political, and economic relief.
