Kyoto Protocol – Is it just another political show?

Last month, European Commission president claimed that the EU will take a leading role on alleviating the problem of climate change. The EU has promised a further cut of CO2 emission 20% below 1990 level by 2020. Will this move bold enough to entail significant improvement in emission problem?

Well before the above announcement, the EU has already promised 8% cut by next year in the Kyoto Protocol. This new target seems to be less ambitious that it sounds. The fundamental problem of Kyoto Protocol is that reaching target is impossibly ambitious, environmentally inconsequential and inordinately expensive. The cost is enormously high and only a few countries could afford it. It is particularly true for the EU because Europe is a costly place to cut CO2, and the effect is inconsequential, because the EU will only account for about 6% of all emissions in the 21st century.

Some countries like the United States and Australia chose to opt out of its stringent demands; other countries like Canada and Japan pay lip service and will essentially miss the target. Some scientists predict that even if everyone had participated and continued to stick to the emission target, it would have no significant environmental effect. The treaty’s effect on temperature would be immeasurable by mid century and it would only postpone warming by 5 years in 2100.

International agreement on CO2 emission is nothing new. We saw the failure of the West to keep their promise in the past. In Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the West promised to stabilize emissions, but overshot by 12%. In Kyoto, they promised a 7% reduction in world emissions, but will achieve only 0.4%. All these promises were made by politicians who will most likely on longer be in office when the time comes to fulfill them.

We have wasted a lot of time on the debate topic -‘Is CO2 the culprit of global climate change?’ Oil companies and governments putting development first as a doctrine see ‘scientific uncertainty’ of global warming as a sound reason of delaying any moves of curbing CO2 emission. Kyoto Protocol will not lead us to a ‘Green new world’. It will only postpone global warming in the next half or full century. We need to find a viable, long-term strategy that doesn’t require inordinate sacrifice for trivial benefits. Fortunately, investing in R&D of non-carbon emission technologies would leave our future generations some feasible and cost effective cuts. A new global warming treaty should mandate spending of 0.05% of GDP on R&D in the future.

The EU’s new global warming agreement may help leaders secure their votes from voters scared by the doomsday of climate change. But it will do virtually no good, at high cost, and – as with many other lofty promises from the EU – it will only be a born failure. Let’s hope that technologies and political determination of leaders from all over the world will bring us a cost effective way of cutting down emission.

Reference:
Project syndicate