The Kyoto treaty took effect February 16th 2005. With more than 150 signatories, Kyoto is praised as a great achievement to curb global emissions of greenhouse gases.

Except that no one is complying with it.

Last month, the Wall Street Journal published this article: Kyoto's Dead Hand

It seems that many of the signatories are not moving towards compliance:



This report published in 2003 predicts that the EU countries will not meet their Kyoto obligations by 2010.



The 2005 Report is even worse:



Of the 15 EU members, 2 will meet their targets by reducing emissions. Four are relying on future policies to reach the goal. Four are relying on future policies and "Kyoto mechanisms" (i.e. carbon credits and emission reduction programs in developing countries) to reach the goal. Five openly admit that they cannot meet the goal.

In Canada (one of the first countries to sign Kyoto), the debate has gone on for years about what to do. A few years ago, there were reports that Canada might pull out of Kyoto. Last year, the Sierra Club said that Canada had passed no laws to promote Kyoto compliance. Canada is 20% above its 1990 emission levels and will almost certainly not be able to meet its Kyoto target of 6% reduction.

According to this article, Japan's emissions are up 18.9%Here is another article regarding the EU's and Canada's current levels.

The United States' emissions are up 16.7% since 1990, which is actually lower than many signatory countries.

Question for debate:

Is the Kyoto Protocol dead?

Should Kyoto be reworked?

Should the US sign Kyoto?

I am surprised nobody has responded to this, seeing that the perceived idea by many is that the United Stated is such a horrible contributor to greenhouse pollution.
I was surprised by the numbers. Thanks for posting them Amlord, they will come to good use in later debates I am sure.

I can't find the story but I remember not too long ago Canada wanted the US to foot part of the bill for supposed medical expenses from pollution from states that border with them. Ironic isn't it.

Is the Kyoto Protocol dead?

It sure seems like it to me.

Should Kyoto be reworked?

Yes it should be it needs to take into account that as we move forward our population will increase and that needs to factor in the reduction goals.

Should the US sign Kyoto?

Unless more nations are going to abide by the Protocol I don't see why we should.

Maybe to set a good example to the rest of the world? Have you ever thought about that. It doesn't matter if the nations that signed Kyoto are not reaching the targets set. What is important that they at least try to do something about pollution on a global scale. It is a difficult task but somewhere we have to start. The U.S. under the Bush administration has not even tried to make a start.



How? The U.S. is still the biggest polluter in the world. That doesn't change.

The Kyoto treaty was only designed as a first step in lowering the additions to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. CO2 releases will have to eventually be reduced by 50 to 70% to begin any reduction in levels of that gas in the atmosphere. If the US had participated in Kyoto, the world might now be in the midst of negotiations for the next step.

It should be no surprise that others are dragging their feet when the country that contributes the greatest gross quantities of GH gases (and by far the greatest per capita releases) fails to participate. The situation is a classic problem of the commons. There is little incentive for one country or one person to reduce its release unless most other countries and people are obligated to reduce theirs. Its like dumping ones garbage and sewage in the river. Most of us like the benefits of clean rivers but most would go on with the convenience of using the river to dispose of wastes unless others are regulated or given incentives not to dump their wastes. This is doubly true when businesses or countries gain a competitive advantage if they avoid the cost of compliance.

Is the Kyoto Protocol dead?

No it is not dead but it is largely ineffective without US participation. Many US states and cities have set targets to comply and a number of countries continue to struggle to meet their targets. Any effort is better than none and the effort itself causes the various government entities to analyze ways that greenhouse gases can be reduced.

Should Kyoto be reworked?

Certainly, more stringent targets have to be set and newly industrializing nations need to be included. (Parenthetically, it is interesting to note that a significant portion of these countries' carbon release is a product of the manufacture of goods eventually consumed by Americans). Perhaps something entirely different needs to be adopted like a massive internationally funded crash program to convert all new power generation to renewable sources followed by the gradual conversion of existing fossil fuel facilities. With evidence mounting that the earth may be reaching a tipping point (melting peak bogs, glacial melting, receding ice field in the Arctic Ocean, a slow down of the "great conveyor" current in the North Atlantic, and unusual intense weather events around the world), it is important to begin doing something effective soon!

Should the US sign Kyoto?

Should is the operative word. We should have signed it and sought to comply with it. However, even the Clinton Administration wouldn't have signed because of the resistance of a Republican Congress. It is probably more practical politically for the US to try a different tact. Perhaps a massive energy independence program based on massive improvements in energy end use efficiency and renewables. I'm not holding my breath given an administration and Congress tied to fossil fuel interests.

TedN5,

How do you reconcile your statements with the fact that Canada's emissions have increased faster than those of the evil United States? The same statement can be made of Spain and Ireland.

I agree with you somewhat that



as one of the United States' main objections was that China and India were excluded. You agree that this was the wrong approach, although I doubt China would sign on regardless. I have seen estimates that China (currently #2 on the global emitters list) will surprise the emissions of the United States, the EU and Japan combined within a few decades.

Otherwise, the argument that someone else would not agree to a treaty does not absolve a country of its obligations under it. Why haven't Canada, Ireland, or Spain made much of an attempt to comply, since they are signatories?

Is the Kyoto Protocol dead?

It's too early to tell.

From Article 3 of the treaty itself (available here) the goal is to take necessary steps to reduce greenhouse emissions (carbon dioxide AND methane and other such gases) to 5% below 1990 levels "in the commitment period 2008 to 2012"

Measurements of performance to date are just that - they show how countries are doing in getting there.

In the 2005 interim report, Britain and Sweden get the equivalent of "good work, keep it up", and other countries get variants of "must try harder". The exams are still a few years away, some students are going to have to work a lot harder than they otherwise would have done because they've been slacking so far, and some of the slower pupils already look like they are going to flunk out no matter how hard they try between now and the big day.

To put it another way, if this is a race, these reports are the lap times, not the chequered flag.

Kyoto does require of it's signatories that they should have made demonstrable progress towards the goal by 2005, but it doesn't do much to define exactly what constitutes "demonstrable progress". Does it mean "less emissions than you would have had if you hadn't done anything, even if that's still way more than you had in 1990" or does it mean "less than when you signed up but not 5% less than 1990"?

That's a weakness in the treaty I wasn't aware of before I read it just now, so thanks for poking me towards enlightenment, Amlord Clearly, any replacement or extension of Kyoto needs to be clearer on this point.

Should Kyoto be reworked?

I'm not sure Kyoto itself needs to be - it's only scheduled to last another six years anyway, so it's probably too late for it to be expanded now. Obviously, it needs to be replaced with something, and that something needs to include Kyoto stay-at-homes like China, India and the USA.

The monitoring of emissions used in Kyoto has been something of a success - nobody is in dispute that they figures are not a realistic or true assessment of the progress they have or have not made, so that could and should be taken forward pretty much as is into any replacement treaty.

Should the US sign Kyoto?

No, but as I said it should play an active part in negotiating, and should sign up (and live up) to whatever replaces it, rather than just gripe form the sidelines as it did and has done all the way through the Kyoto process.

I think Britain might stand a good chance of becoming the Kyoto poster boy. Sure, the decline of coal-fired power stations gave us the head start we currently have, but "alternative energy" is booming (especially windfarms) and there is a serious review of nuclear power underway (not only concerning costs and waste disposal, but whether it's in fact carbon neutral, since the ore is dug out of the ground with oil-fuelled machines and has to be shipped around the world to get to the UK) to see if we can continue on the same trajectory.

If we can - which remains to be seen - and if our economy can continue to grow - at anaemic rates by US standards, but we haven't had a recession, unlike continental Europe, despite massive increases in public sector investment - then we might become the model for how to meet economic and environmental concerns at the same time in a large economy (No disrespect to the Nordics who are also doing relatively well on Kyoto, but they are not big enough economies to convincingly demonstrate to China or the US that Kyoto-like disciplines might work for them too.)

America's core objection to Kyoto has always been that it's economy would suffer, and would suffer disproportionately more than it's competitors. IF (and it's still an if, albeit quite a possible one) Britain can prove the first part wrong, perhaps the UK and the USA together can then help to bring China and India on board, and prove the second part wrong too.

Kyoto might not then have dramatically reduced emissions - since the US cooled on the idea, nobody has seriously thought it would - but it might prove to be the test case that convinces the world that the ideas of energy efficiency and renewable source utilisation are essentially sound - surely a good thing in a $80 barrel world, even if global warming is a natural process?

I don't pretend to have a clear understanding for the factors involved with each of these countries, but I can make a few observations about factors that may account for some of the differences between the US and Canada. While Canada has diversified its economy considerably, it still has a substantial growing extractive industry and a growing manufacturing sector. Both are heavy contributors to the carbon cycle. The US, on the other hand, has been reducing its manufacturing sector and consuming more products manufactured elsewhere, including Canada. At the same time, the extractive sector in the US has been fairly stable. Canada also has a growing tar sands industry that contributes significant green house gases and is building coal fired electrical generation facilities that feed the grid in the US. In many ways we are one economy and to some degree, so is the whole world.

For that reason, a better way to monitor greenhouse gas contributions would be to ascertain the total carbon dioxide, methane, and other green house gas releases attributable to each countries consumption. If the total carbon (and GHGs) cycle was calculated for the production, transportation, and utilization of each American and totalled along with that for other countries, I feel confident that our relative contribution would look significantly worse than the 25% bandied about.

Is the Kyoto Protocol dead?
In the eyes of America Kyoto never came to life.
But Kyoto is more than just numbers that have to be fulfilled. It started in some countries a discussion about the future of energy production. In Germany it helped to form the mantra: Energy Reduction, Energy Efficiency and Alternative Energy. For the lack of natural resources in Germany it seems like the best way to be somewhat autonomous of foreign resources in the long run whilst promoting reproductive energy systems.
The alternative energy industry is superbly growing sector, and the technology is exported throughout the world, contributing to Germany's number one position in exports.
Furthermore additional tools for energy reduction have been implimented in Europe. Emission trading could be far more effective in the long run than any other legislative restrictions.

Should Kyoto be reworked?
There has to be an agreement following the Kyoto protocol, for the sake of future generations.

Should the US sign Kyoto?
As the number one contributor to the climate change the US should not only sign the agreement, but it is its moral obligation to do so. Some states like California seem to recognize the necessity of a concept in matters of energy production, unfortunately the oil-powered US-government does not share that insight. Of course, that is, what industrial sector would promote it's own demise.