Can the Kyoto Protocol save the environment?

Joanna
Meridian Junior College
Singapore

Ever since it was adopted in late 1997, the Kyoto Protocol has been the subject of a heated debate regarding the environment. The world's rising temperatures and freak weather changes, as well as the rising number of endangered animals, have prompted many countries in the world to look for solutions to protect the environment. The Kyoto Protocol went into effect on 16 February 2005, as a preliminary step forward to start saving the environment. Despite its implementation, there are still debates as to whether the Protocol can lead the way in saving the world. In my opinion, the Kyoto Protocol is a conscious effort to start the process of saving the world, but it is not a total solution to the world's environmental woes.

There is no doubt about the aim of the Kyoto Protocol. It aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from every country. As greenhouse gases are the main cause of global warming, it is logical to set out an agenda to reduce these pollutants. Unfortunately, the Kyoto Protocol has not taken into account the greenhouse gases emitted since the 1960s, when industrialisation started to occur at a fast pace. Contrary to what some reports suggest, global warming will not come to an end if the world simply stops producing greenhouse gases. For example, carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere for approximately 50 to 100 years after it has been emitted. Thus, even if the world stopped burning fossil fuels immediately, global warming would continue for at least another decade. As much of the Protocol aims for a reduction in greenhouse gases, it is likely that it will not save the environment in the short run. Therefore, I feel that the aim of the Kyoto Protocol cannot do much to stop the immediate climate changes caused by years of global warming, making it an ineffective strategy to protect the environment.

Under the governance of George W. Bush, the USA has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol. The USA is responsible for a quarter of the greenhouse gas emissions that have been blamed for global warming. Without support from the USA, I feel that it is hard to reach Kyoto's targets of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. After all, the USA is the world's largest producer of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol may have been set into place even without the support of the USA, but experts have suggested that the Kyoto aim of a five per cent cut in greenhouse gas emissions will accomplish little, particularly without the USA on board. Furthermore, without support from the USA, other countries are not as dedicated to meeting the targets set out for them by the Protocol. For instance, Canadian critics predict that their country's economy will suffer, as they have to compete with an American economy that does not face restrictions from the Protocol. There are doubts that Canada will reach the target cuts by the end of Kyoto's first phase, as it remains skeptical of the success of Kyoto without its ratification from the USA. Thus, I think that the Kyoto Protocol cannot hope to save the environment without the concerted effort of all the countries involved in global warming.

Another strike against the Kyoto Protocol is its unequal treatment of all countries. In fact, this is the reason why the USA is reluctant to ratify the protocol. The USA may be the current largest emitter of greenhouse gases, but two of the world's biggest growing polluters are excluded from the Protocol, as well. India and China are considered developing countries and are not subject to any emission reduction caps under Kyoto. In my opinion, without the support and implementation of caps on greenhouse gas emissions by India and China, the Protocol is unlikely to succeed. It seems unfair that China and India are allowed to develop and produce more greenhouse gases in the process, while developed countries have to compete with them in terms of production, as well as to battle to keep within Kyoto's emission targets. This is why much of the criticism surrounding the Protocol is over the political realities and the limitations of the treaty. Therefore, I feel that the Kyoto Protocol cannot succeed due to its unequal terms.

Some environmentalists argue that the Kyoto Protocol is the most conscious effort so far in trying to save the environment. It is true that Kyoto has had the most publicity for its aims, more so than the Montreal Protocol, which aimed to reduce chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere and has enjoyed success to a large degree. However, although the motivation behind the Kyoto Protocol is for the benefit of the environment, I feel that the protocol has been marred by the many problems it has come across, as well as its unjust policies. It may be an effort to save the environment but it is not an effective one. Its shortcomings outweigh its direct benefits, which is why I believe that the Kyoto Protocol cannot save the environment.

In my opinion, the Kyoto Protocol cannot save the environment without the support of major developed, as well as developing, countries. I feel that it may be able to achieve a greater level of success if the policies are refined to ensure fairness, such as placing emission reduction caps on developing countries as well. This would reduce the reluctance of developed countries to adhere to the terms of the Kyoto Protocol. After all, the aim of the Kyoto Protocol is to save the environment, not to adjust its aims to suit some countries and not others. I concede that the Kyoto Protocol is a major step forward in the right direction: towards saving the environment. It certainly has heightened the world's awareness of the severe environmental problems that we are facing today. However, without proper implementation and better policies, Kyoto may never be able to achieve its target of saving the environment and stopping erratic climate changes.

Top     Senior Presentations     Discuss this presentation     Previous     Next