Reduction Of The Carbon Dioxide Emissions example essay topic

Is the Kyoto Protocol the Wrong Approach? Climate change is a relevant issue today that should be on the minds of people. In 1972, scientists discovered that CFC's (chlorofluorocarbons) might destroy the ozone layer. In 1985, scientists discovered that the destruction of the ozone layer was occurring quite rapidly and recommended that country leaders should take action as soon as possible to decrease CFC levels. In 1987, in Montreal, representatives from all over the world, came together to ban CFC's. This was the first successful collective action taken against global warming.

But now the problem is larger than just banning the gas from refrigerators. The world continues to warm fast enough to alarm geologists, meteorologists, and others who study climate change. International initiatives to offset global warming began on 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, organized by the United Nations. However, the result was a weak non-bonding agreement aimed to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.

Five years later, in Kyoto, Japan, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNF came up with a treaty call the Kyoto Protocol (UNF ). The Kyoto Protocol is based on the idea that 38 nations needed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 emissions levels. However, this is not the solution to global warming. The main reason being that only industrialized countries are committing to reduce their emissions, and developing countries have been left out of the treaty.

In addition, large emitters of carbon dioxide such as the US and Australia didn't choose to ratify the agreement. The Kyoto Protocol will have a low impact in the reduction of greenhouse gases, but it will create a significant economical and social benefit, generating jobs and economic growth in Canada. The Kyoto Protocol is the wrong approach to reduce greenhouse gases below 1990 emissions levels. As Tennesen suggests, the Kyoto Protocol will be in progress during 2008 to 2012. During these years, developed countries will have to reduce their carbon dioxide levels by 5.2 percent below 1990 emission levels. Countries such as the United States, Japan and the European Union have to reduce their emissions levels, he suggests, whereas The Russian Federation, Ukraine and New Zealand need to increase their emissions (215).

Tennesen also states, "the agreement placed limits on six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, , per fluorocarbons, and sulfur " (216). The treaty focuses the most on the reduction of the carbon dioxide emissions. However, methane gas is also a very powerful greenhouse gas that should be treated with the same priority as the carbon dioxide. The reason why they are not giving so much importance to methane is because methane gas only stays in the atmosphere for a period of 10 years, whereas carbon dioxide stays for a period of 100 years. Also, methane can be cleaned more easily: fixing natural gas pipes, putting more soil on landfills, and feeding the cows with something that does not give them so much gas (Tennesen 219).

However, the Kyoto Protocol is flawed because not all the countries ratified to the agreement. For instance, the United States and Australia, who are major pollutants of carbon dioxide, did not ratify the agreement. The United States emits around 25 percent of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions. Even though the United States took part in the argument to build up the treaty, it didn't ratify, because its major excuse is that developing countries are not obligated to meet the targets of the Protocol.

The United States said that at least developing countries should get into the accord even if the targets allowed an increase in their emissions of carbon dioxide. The biggest setback to the process was on the Bush administration in the year of 2001, in spite of the evidence on global warming and the important role that they would play since they are the largest emitters of carbon dioxide. Many environmentalists greeted the announcement with loud dismay (Tennesen 222). Australia, afterwards, put a step out of the accord since the largest emitter would not ratify the agreement. Australia states that the Kyoto Protocol is not going to work due to the absence of the major and potential pollutants such as China and India.

Furthermore, developing countries were not required to control their emissions of carbon dioxide during the period of the treaty. The reason for this decision is because industrialized countries such as the United States are the major responsible's for the current amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, and they should take the first step to offset global warming (Tennesen 222). Countries like China, India, Mexico, Brazil and Latin America are many of the countries that are not obligated to meet the targets and timetables, because they are not large emitters currently. However, developing countries will lead the emissions of carbon dioxide at the end of the 21st century. Thus, leaving out important future emitters from the treaty is one of the flaws of the Kyoto Protocol to offset global warming.

Therefore, the central flaws of the Kyoto Protocol are: long-term participation in the protocol will end up only with countries that don't share a large amount of world greenhouse gas emissions, which would only reduce the rate of warming slightly, no prevent it entirely; and the Kyoto Protocol "emphasis on targets and timetables for emissions reductions" (McKibbin and Wilcoxen 52-53). This means that, even if the Protocol continues its process without the United States, the remaining countries will be below those targets by 400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Another flaw is that emissions would be in force only during the first period of the protocol: 2008-2012. Moreover, after the first period 2008-2012, the "limits for future periods remain to be negotiated" (McKibbin and Wilcoxen 59).

To sum up, the Kyoto Protocol will do hardly any reduction on greenhouse gases emissions. On the other hand, the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on the competitiveness of the Canadian Industry is a key consideration in developing Canada's approach to climate change. Canadian exports account for about 37 percent of its GDP, and 87 percent of this exports go to the United States. Consequently, Canada has to be responsive to the needs of its trading sectors due to the decision of the United States to not ratify the agreement (Canada 17). According to the Government of Canada, The AMG competitiveness review also examined the issue of investment "leakage" (the relocation of capital as a direct result of climate change cost). It observed that an increase in costs could induce investment outflows from Canada due to changes in relative rates of return or even curtail new investment that would otherwise flow into Canada.

At the same time, it is recognized that investment flows are governed by a wide range of factors such as: labour skills, productivity and cost; capacity to innovate; taxation levels; investment incentives; live able cities; and the regulatory climate. (17) However, AMG competitiveness consultation examined industries, where the Kyoto Protocol would provide opportunities of investment. Those industries include renewable energy, energy efficiency, alternate transportation fuels, urban transit and environmental services (Canada 18). "The extent of the benefit to the Canadian economy will depend in large part on our [Canadian Government] capacity to supply the technology and equipment associated with growth in these sectors", states AMG (Canada 18). The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in Canada would end up having "the impact of reaching our [Canadian] target at between 0 and -2 percent of GDP by 2012" (Canada 16).

This would cause a backward movement in the economic growth for Canada. However, the social cost-benefit of introducing the treaty would increase the quality of life of Canadians because it would provide "cleaner air, reduced health costs and other environmental improvements" (Canada 16). Moving towards a regional view of the Kyoto Protocol implementation in Canada, British Columbia is not a greenhouse gas intensive region. Due to its only 16 tons of carbon dioxide per capita, British Columbia is the lowest emitter province in Canada after Quebec.

Hydroelectric generation in the region lead to relatively low industrial emissions as well as British Columbia most important industry: pulp and paper, which uses wood waste, is a non-greenhouse gas emitting fuel. However, transportation is the first largest emitter in the region followed by the industrial and commercial sector. The transportation emission rate is increasing faster than the population growth rate. In addition, Vancouver has the highest average commuting time in Canada and costs of transportation are higher than those in Ontario and Quebec.

To convince Vancouver ites to move from cars to public transit, however, may be problematic (Jaccard 146). Nevertheless, British Columbia would have a relatively limited emission reductions due to the structure in its economy, which makes costs more expensive compared to other provinces. British Columbia will have a greatest emission reduction in the transportation sector, while a lesser emission reduction in the industrial sector (Jaccard 147). For British Columbia transportation, Jaccard suggests, 46 percent of greenhouse gases would be reduced due to improvements in transit, speed control measurements, and vehicle efficiency standards. $205 per household per year would be the transportation emission reduction cost.

However, in the industrial sector, costs would be double than those of transportation sector, and will contribute to far fewer reductions (Jaccard 148). According to Jaccard, Of the industry sector reductions that remain, about 1 megaton of carbon dioxide emission occurs in natural gas extraction. Pulp and paper mills contribute the next largest share, 0.4 megaton of carbon dioxide emission. This subsector's emissions already decline from 1990 levels (... ) due mainly to high wood-waste and electricity use. Despite this already significant reduction, additional reductions occur from technology improvements (in particular by using more efficient process equipment in chemical pulping) and through further use of wood waste. Other manufacturing, which in British Columbia is compromised mainly of wood products and food processing, also makes more reductions.

(148) Now we have clear that the Kyoto Protocol will be beneficial in a social and economic aspect, but it will not have a major impact in the reductions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Therefore, evaluating an alternative policy to reduce greenhouse gases is now a priority, knowing the flaws of the Kyoto Protocol. This new alternative policy to reduce greenhouse gases emissions is called the Hybrid Policy. The Hybrid policy is a permit system that takes two market-based instruments control pollution: emission taxes and tradable permits (Hollander).

The hybrid policy features "a fixed number of tradable, long-term emissions permits" that are "supplemented by an elastic supply of short-term permits good only for one year (annual permits) " (McKibbin 69). Countries that participate in this policy would be allowed to assign long-term emission permits equal to the country's 1990 emissions. These permits, also called perpetual permits, could be given away, auctioned or distributed. Once distributed, firms could be bought or sold these permits among firms. Also, these permits could be traded or leased without restriction and each permit has the equivalent of one ton of carbon emissions per year. Furthermore, the government would be allowed to sell annual permits for a specified fee.

Firms would be required to have emissions permits equal to the amount of emissions they produce per year. These permits could be perpetual permits or a combination of both, perpetual and annual permits. Thus, firms would have an incentive to reduce emissions within the range of perpetual permits. Otherwise, if they produce over the perpetual permits assigned, they would have to buy annual permits from the government and their costs of production will increase (McKibbin 69-73). Moreover, the Hybrid policy "avoids huge transfers of revenue to the government and creates a constituency (the owners of perpetual permits) that has vested interest in maintaining the climate policy" (McKibbin 73). The existence of a large group of permit owners would make it harder to the government to abandon the policy.

Furthermore, highly valuable perpetual permits would give an incentive to firms to investigate more in new methods or technologies of production, in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the case of developing countries, the Hybrid Policy works better than the Kyoto Protocol. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, the Hybrid Policy does not require the cessation of political sovereignty. Governments in developing nations could also make it easier for their local firms. Firms could be assigned with perpetual permits that would exceed their current emissions, because the Hybrid Policy is independent and governed by each country.

This means that firms in developing countries could continue producing without cutting back in their output for sometime until they reach the limit in emissions in perpetual permits. Moreover, this would "allow countries to commit themselves to full long run participation in the agreement without imposing large burdens on their economies in the short run" (McKibbin 79). To conclude with the Hybrid Policy, Warwick McKibbin states, In summary, the hybrid policy combines all of the important strengths of both an emissions tax and a tradable permit policy. Like a tax, it is economically efficient given uncertainties of climate change. Like a permit policy, it can easily be adjusted to achieve a variety of distributional effects. As a result, it is far more realistic than either of the alternatives.

Because it does not require signatories to commit achieving a specific emissions target regardless of the cost, it is more likely to be ratified than the Kyoto Protocol. Because its distributional effects would be much more acceptable, its political prospects are much better than those of the carbon tax. Overall, a hybrid policy is an efficient and practical approach to climate change". (101) In conclusion, the Kyoto Protocol would do nothing to reduce the emissions of greenhouse.

Although it would make a good contribution to the social an economic aspect of the Canadian economy, the Kyoto Protocol is flawed due to its targets and timetables, which are only in force during a four years period, 2008-2012. The Hybrid Policy is the best next alternative after the Kyoto Protocol. With its market-based instruments, emissions taxes and tradable permits, the Hybrid Policy is a more attractive climate policy for countries and firms to ratify, and it is a more realistic approach to offset global warming.