The Kyoto Protocol
Author’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
The Kyoto Protocol
Introduction
This paper posits to explore the Kyoto protocol as a resolution that is involved with environmental regulation. This paper will explore the history, intent as well as the implementation of this protocol. In 1972, the United Nations (UN) held a Conference on Human Environment in Stockholm, where Nations actively addressed the global environmental concerns. The focal point of the conference was on international cooperation concerning the problems the world’s environment was experiencing. Following this Stockholm conference, another U.N conference on development and environment was held in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro, two decades after Stockholm. In the Rio de Janeiro conference, the topic of the conference suggested that the participating nations must focus on a broader concern, namely, the connection between development and environmental trends at the international and national levels.
This convention, also referred to as the “Earth Summit” created the Rio Declaration as well as Agenda 21, which was an action plan for the UN agencies, governments, as well as major groups in regions whereby human activities were negatively impacting on the environment. The Earth Summit led to an agreement on a couple of legally binding conventions namely, the Biological Diversity, and Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) (Essex, 2010).
The FCCC may be considered as the most important outcome of the Earth Summit in terms of laying the foundation for the Kyoto Protocol. The Framework Convention on Climate Change was endorsed by 154 nations in 1992, and its chief points were:
The stabilization of the quantity of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the environment, while also guaranteeing the food production was not jeopardized, and facilitating for economic development.
The industrialized nations should assume the leading role in minimizing the levels of GHGs in the atmosphere.
The participating nations agreed to meeting at Conferences of the Parties (COPs) on a regularly to deliberate on the execution of the goals of the Convention.
Following two COPs meetings in Geneva and Berlin, the member nations primed the Kyoto Protocol finally on the third COPs that was convened in Kyoto, in 1997.
The resolutions of the Kyoto Protocol included:
Emission-cutback targets of GHGs for every member country.
A GHGs emission-trading agenda.
Convening future meetings to lay down penalties for the violators of the created targets as well as, regulation system of the emission-trading agenda (Essex, 2010).
The Kyoto Protocol was implemented in 2005, seven years after it was initially negotiated, when the objective of getting nations accountable for a totality of 55% of the worldwide emissions was realized with Russia ratifying the article. In 2009, the interested entities to the FCCC convened in Copenhagen to negotiate on two momentous goals. The first goal was to discuss a new record of emissions reduction commitments in the context of the Kyoto Protocol. It is essential to mention that since Kyoto enforces mandatory targets on industrialized nations only, this first goal was the prime focus of the developing countries’ negotiators. The second goal was to proceed on a record of new deals that would supplement Kyoto or substitute it on the whole. Several large emitters in the developed nations prioritized the second goal and were particularly content to see Kyoto grow weaker. Whatsoever the relative eminence placed on these goals, the Copenhagen meetings were intended to restore and fundamentally shape the embryonic international climate system (Essex, 2010).
Implementation of the Protocol
The legitimately binding nature of Kyoto and the responsibility to inscribe obligations in a multilateral accord resulted in discouraging involvement, in the regime. All through the history of global warming talks the developing nations have categorically opposed any attempt to impose responsibilities on them. These nations have highlighted the historical duty of the industrialized nations in relation to GHGs emissions, and the common but eminent responsibility presented to them in the FCCC. The developing nations began to embrace Kyoto in the mid-1990s, as soon as it became evident that the Non-Annex 1 nations would not be subjected to the cutback targets. Developing nations waited until they were certain that there would be structures for technology and aid transfer to the South. The Annex 1 regimes were obviously concerned in regard to entering into a deal that would bind them to a strategy with severe and partly unforeseeable economic and political implications (Cooper, 2009).
Additionally, in contrast to political pacts or quasi-legal accords, hard-law settlements necessitate a potentially intricate endorsement process. This was a considerable hindrance for key countries like the United States, Japan, Australia, and Canada which experienced global pressure to follow and also significant antagonism from domestic interest parties as well as, sub-national governments. It is of note that the United States could not realize the necessary support from the Senate essential for endorsement. Eventually, the lack of participation had a distressing impact on momentous involvement in the protocol’s mitigation goals. However, four in the five top countries, accounting for roughly 50% of global GHGs emissions, do not have obligations for mitigation under this protocol. These nations include the U.S, Brazil, India, and China. Russia ratified this protocol in 2004 thus its GHGs emissions could not be considered for several years following the endorsement of Kyoto. The same applied for Japan and Canada, which endorsed the protocol in 2002, as well as Australia, which ratified Kyoto until 2007. Extraordinarily, these countries only ratified once consecutive negotiations assured that Kyoto would be suppler and the obligations less repressive (Pilkey, 2008).
Lessons from Kyoto
As the environment regime develops, its design and degree of justification has changed ultimately. A particularly compliant FCCC in 1992 instituted nominal and vague objectives. As a result, in1997 the involved parties concurred to a significantly strict Kyoto Protocol, with mandatory targets and schedules for industrialized countries as well as, regulations and measures on how to affect them, and scrutinize conformity. In contrast, the pendulum has now swayed back in the reverse direction. The most recent set of accords in Copenhagen and Cancun return to expansive objectives and do not endeavor to institute explicit, mandatory obligations at the multilateral plane. So far, the Kyoto Protocol connotes the summit of validation as far as environment regime is concerned. The protocol’s emissions reduction pledges for 39 industrial countries are regarded as the ultimate attribute. This would denote that the greatest achievement of Kyoto protocol is the legally binding goals (Cooper, 2009).
Additionally, these goals are supported by rationally vigorous screening systems, with nationalized communications certifiable centrally by expert review teams. These teams bear the authority to implement in-country trips and to present cases of suspected non-conformity to a Compliance Committee, which includes a facilitative and enforcement branch. Without contesting that several of these institutional developments were vital in the regime’s evolution, it remains essential to identify the negative side of shifting to a hard-law technique and consider several obstinate penalties of doing so. There are two effects that ought to be considered, namely the narrow policy incentives as well as limited participation (Pilkey, 2008).
References
Cooper, H. (2009). Global Warming: The Absolute Briefing. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Essex, M. (2010). Politics & Policies of Global Warming. Toronto: Porter Books.
Pilkey, G. (2008). Why Environmental Experts Can’t Forecast The Future. New York: Columbia U.P.
