Since its creation billions of years ago, the earth and its environment have been in a constant state of fluctuation. One of the many parameters that have been subject to this variability is surface temperature: for example, in the Mesozoic Era, the earth was ten degrees warmer than it is today. That the earth has had an inconsistent temperature over a long time horizon is an accepted and valid scientific fact. However, as many people in today’s world realize, the earth is quantifiably getting warmer. Global warming, as this concept is popularly known, is often linked with severe environmental consequences: severe coastal flooding and droughts are often cited as end results of the upward trend in world temperature. Even more concerning is the strong correlation between increases in temperature and the rapid industrialization of the planet over the course of the past century: global warming is a manmade phenomenon. Because of this fact, the issue of global warming has become highly visible, especially in the international stage. Policymakers and world leaders are faced with the same question: how can these the environmental disasters mentioned above be averted? The answer lies in stabilizing the disturbing trend observed in global temperature measurements taken over the past several decades. However, current efforts to achieve this result have been inadequate at best. As it turns out, the current proposals to resolve global warming have strong social and economic ramifications, which will be discussed at length in this paper.
Global warming as it is known today is actually the extension of a natural phenomenon known as the greenhouse effect (Michaels, 23). To understand the greenhouse effect, it is necessary to consider the interplay between the sun and the earth's atmosphere. The thermal energy emitted by the sun is necessary for life on earth; this energy is distributed unevenly over the earth’s surface. For example, the equatorial regions of the planet receive a higher percentage of the sun’s rays than the polar region. The way in which the energy is actually absorbed is dependent on the characteristics of the terrain upon which it is incident. For example, the dark blue of the ocean is very efficient at absorbing radiation, whereas the white snow is prone to reflect it (Michaels, 25). The heat taken in by the water and the landforms on the planet’s surface is emitted back into space, but a portion of this energy is intercepted by molecules present in the earth’s atmosphere. Compounds such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, and methane (so-called "greenhouse" gases) direct some fraction of this energy back at the planet. This is the "natural" greenhouse effect; without it, the surface temperature of the earth would be colder by about sixty degrees Fahrenheit (Michaels, 25). In fact, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are regularly injected into the atmosphere, through such natural avenues as forest fires and volcanic activity. However, in the last several hundred years, natural contributions of gases such as carbon dioxide have been outstripped by contributions resulting from human activity (Michaels, 26).
Greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are byproducts of human industrialization. The industrialization of American and European societies in the nineteenth century led to a proportionately higher consumption of resources known as fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are nonrenewable carbon-based energy sources accumulated beneath the earth's surface over a long period of time (Brown, 245). These fuels, which include coal, natural gas, and oil, were and continue to be instrumental in the development of modern society. Fossil fuels form the cornerstone of the energy industry: they are used for heating, for power, and are consumed in other products, such as automobiles. Home heating and transportation are two examples of modern conveniences that have become tightly integrated into our society; they are parts of the residential and transportation sectors which are two very heavy contributors of carbon dioxide.
In developing a sound policy for dealing with global warming, the most fundamental issue is balancing the various costs involved. What happens if the earth’s temperature increases as it has been for the past century? Will the results be as grim as they are depicted in the latest Hollywood blockbuster? There undoubtedly will be environmental shifts as a result of global warming, and the polar regions of the planet will see some of the most significant changes. However, the rate at which this change will occur is usually sensationalized: it is certainly not an overnight process. Rather, the melting of the icecaps is taking place very gradually as temperatures continue to rise. But as temperatures continue to rise, the glaciers will tend to recede more quickly. In fact, it is hypothesized that up to one-half of the existing mountain glacial mass could disintegrate by the end of this century (Johansen, 123). These disruptions are progressively destabilizing the ecology of the regions.
The most serious concern associated with the thawing of the polar regions however is more related to its impact on humans. This event is causing the level of the oceans to rise, which has a profound influence on the human population located along the coastlines. The oceans have been rising slowly for much of the twentieth century, significant enough to produce visible erosion on almost seventy percent of the planet’s sandy beaches (Johansen, 154). Consider the following statistics: over twenty percent of the human population lives within thirty kilometers of the shore, and this population is rapidly growing, twice as fast as its inland counterpart (Johansen, 154). Flooding of these areas could be particularly problematical to nations like Bangladesh and the Netherlands, both of which are lowland countries barely above sea level. In addition to increases in sea levels, the oceans of the earth will also incur temperature increases themselves.
Given that global warming has been given progressively more attention in the media and public eye over the past several years, it comes as no surprise that today’s leaders address it as a real danger. But awareness of the issue is only the precursor to mitigating the trend in temperature: what is needed (and what is still currently lacked) is an effective policy response. There has been a significant amount of work done in the international community to formulate methods designed to stave off the threats such as those described previously. The most well-known of these strategies is the Kyoto Protocol.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol and its predecessor, the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) comprise the basis for an international framework designed to address the problem of climate change (Baumert, 30). It acknowledges the responsibility and commitment of its participants to damping the speed at which the climate is changing. The 186 countries involved are subdivided into two classes (Annex I and Annex II); Annex I is a label that is essentially mapped onto industrialized countries, and Annex II is comprised predominantly of developing countries (Baumert, 38). The agreement’s main objective is to curb the emissions rates of greenhouse gases by imposing ceilings on the amount that industrialized nations can produce. The logic behind this idea is that first world nations have a longer history of contributing to the problem and also have higher emissions rates. Furthermore, these countries also have the resources and infrastructure to pursue such an undertaking. Annex I countries, by signing the protocol, have a legal responsibility to curtail their emissions rates and reduce them to their nominal levels from the previous decade, with 1990 cited as the target year. The requirements on the Annex II nations are not so stringent, but these nations are expected to use funding from first world nations to advance development of more environmentally-sound technologies and to report on internal climate policy (Baumert, 38).
Recall that emissions of gases like carbon dioxide and methane increase the amount of thermal energy that stays trapped within the earth. Therefore, presumably reducing society’s contribution should stabilize the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. These greenhouse gases come from various sectors of society, and are predominantly produced as byproducts of some sort of industrial process. The Kyoto Protocol stumbles into a very thorny set of economic issues in that regulation of emissions essentially reduces to regulation of these industries. In capitalist societies, regulation generally works against the basic ideas of free-market economics. Thus, it comes as no surprise that the very act of influencing emissions of greenhouse gases through policy has very strong economic repercussions. These potential economic repercussions are apparent in the fact that the Kyoto Protocol is a multilateral agreement: in other words, it involves dozens of nations. Governments are reluctant to work alone to address this issue, for the simple reason that other nations will benefit from their costly efforts. The bulk of most of a nation’s emissions come from transportation, agriculture and the power industry, so regulating these markets would be detrimental to national security and economic growth. This is an example of a basic freeloader’s problem: improvements made to a collective resource (in this case, the environment) must be made jointly. There is no incentive for an individual or small minority to shoulder the burden.
Although some aspects of it are contractual in nature, the Kyoto Protocol includes three different mechanisms that permit some flexibility in the terms governing the policy of the industrialized Annex I nations. Perhaps the most interesting and flexible proviso is a stipulation that permits emission trading. Under the Protocol, a nation’s total emissions are quantified and compared to a cap. If that nation is below the maximum, then it has a surplus of emission “credits,” a small portion of which can then be traded to other Annex I nations having difficulty meeting the limits. This would then allow nations to purchase credits with the intention of increasing the cap until they are in compliance (Baumert, 39). Another policy, known as joint implementation, rewards Annex I countries for funding projects that reduce emissions within another Annex I country. Such projects can include things like reforestation. A final device within the Protocols is a variant of the joint implementation idea, known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The most important feature of CDM is its involvement of developing countries. It rewards Annex I nations for financing operations within Annex II regions that are designed to decrease proliferation of emissions (Victor, 109).
In devising the agreement, the drafters of the protocol did not take into account the complexity of the emissions trading scheme. This is one of the primary flaws with the architecture of this agreement: it essentially attempts to partition the atmosphere amongst the various nations of the world. An efficient and equitable means of allocating these divisions among the numerous countries involved in the protocol has not yet been found (Victor, 25). The diplomats responsible for creation of the treaty did not specify how such a system would be realized. Furthermore, the targets for each nation were specified in such a way that the vast majority of participants would be unable to realistically meet these requirements unless emissions trading were allowed. And in some extreme cases, targets were set in such a way that some nations would be able to easily meet their earlier 1990 levels. For example, the emissions rates in the Soviet Union during the early nineties were significantly higher than at the current time. However, owing to recent economic collapses in the late nineties and a slow recovery, these former Soviet nations would most likely never reach this peak even in the absence of any policy such as the Kyoto Protocol. In contrast, in order to meet the protocol’s 100 dollar-per-household estimates for compliance, the United States would be forced to purchase seventy-five percent of its abatement overseas (Victor, 29). As a result, nations such as Russia and the Ukraine have significant overages which are estimated to be worth upwards of 100 billion dollars (Victor, 30), wealth which was generated out of thin air by the Kyoto Protocol. Such one-sided benefits afforded by the protocol are reasons why some nations are reluctant to sign it.
The future of the Kyoto Protocol took a major blow in the summer of 2001 when President George W. Bush announced the withdrawal of the United States from the agreement. Bush’s rationale for his policy towards global warming was based primarily on scientific uncertainty, its cost to the American economy, and lack of commitments from poorer developing nations (Brown, 40). This position was harshly criticized by United States allies as well as countries in the developing world. Bush’s actions have reignited an even more interesting debate concerning global warming, namely whether or not industrialized nations have an ethical responsibility to combat the problem. Since the environment is a collective resource, the impacts of an individual (i.e. a nation) can adversely affect other individuals (other nations). European and American societies are largely responsible for most of the early pollution responsible that has accelerated global warming; since their behavior constitutes a negative externality, these industrialized countries, according to the argument, should accept the brunt of the responsibility. It is also argued that the poorer nations of the world will suffer the most from the consequences of unchecked global warming. As discussed earlier, severe coastal flooding could decimate impoverished densely-populated nations such as Bangladesh. Diseases such as malaria, which run rampant through the developing world, are expected to proliferate with a more vicious intensity as a result of climate changes induced by global warming. Agricultural food supplies in these nations are also under significant threat: owing to the arid nature of their climates, these countries could suffer greatly from minor variations in temperature and precipitation. A small deviation in either of these factors could result in serious droughts or alterations of the growing season. Finally, poorer nations are ill-equipped to deal with problems such as flooding. Wealthier countries have many resources that poor countries do not: irrigation systems, air conditioners, and barriers to ward off coastal flooding are just a fraction of the items unavailable in most of the world (Brown, 92). Thus, developing nations are more outspoken about formulating an effective policy to combat global warming, whereas most Annex I nations do not face as steep a potential price.
There is of course no legal apparatus that would force the United States or any other wealthy first-world power to devote resources, time, and energy into helping solve the global warming problem. Rather, the underlying principles that would motivate such policy are grounded in the idea that this is a problem generated by a minority that adversely affects a majority. Equity is a major issue in this problem. Consider the statistics: roughly 20 percent of the world’s population, concentrated in the industrialized world, is responsible for 63 percent of the total carbon dioxide emissions built up in the atmosphere (Baumert, 7). Handling this division between rich and poor, between industrialized and developing nations, is perhaps one of the most delicate aspects of this problem. There is a significant amount of distrust on either side. Industrialized nations fear relocation of their energy industries to developing nations where no stringent emissions policies exist. Expected growth of emissions rates in many Annex II countries are expected to increase significantly, partially due to relocation of first world industries (Baumert, 6). Industrialized nations also criticize the lack of initiative by the developing countries; indeed, this was one of Bush’s reasons for withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol in the first place. Tensions between these two groups have increased steadily since the close of World War II, and while the industrialized world enjoyed a significant economic boom in these years, many third-world countries stagnated. The abject poverty of many of these regions is constantly in the background during any sort of international discourse. In all likelihood, developing nations will continue to regard with skepticism any global warming policy aimed at restriction of their economies (Brown, 71).
Shortly after renouncing the Kyoto Protocols, Bush unveiled his new energy policy to the world. As critics immediately noted, under his plan, the United States levels of oil consumption would jump by 33 percent, and energy use would increase by 45 percent (Brown, 41). Instead of adopting a leadership role in global environmental policy, it appears as though the United States has chosen to play the role of the obstructionist. Politicians in this country did ultimately begin to consider environmental issues (especially global warming) more seriously in the later part of the twentieth century, but how much of what they have done is merely lip service and empty rhetoric? The same questions must similarly be asked of leaders in other nations.
The grave miscalculations inherent in the Kyoto Protocols indicate the complexity of the problem at hand: economic, environmental, and even ethical costs all factor prominently into the global warming issue. In these times, many Americans are living very luxurious lives, loaded with conveniences like expensive sports utility vehicles, heating, and so forth. It comes as no surprise that Americans will in all likelihood continue to lead the world in emissions. With no regulation upon emissions, there will be a heavy ecological price that will be paid years from now. But if future generations are to be spared from paying it, then these aforementioned economic and ethical factors should be put aside in the common interests of global wellbeing.
Baumert, Kevin A. ed. Building on the Kyoto Protocol: Options for Protecting the Climate. World Resources Institute, 2002.
Brown, Donald A. American Heat: Ethical Problems with the United States' Response to Global Warming. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002.
Johansen, Bruce E. The Global Warming Desk Reference. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2002.
Michaels, Patrick J. and Robert C. Balling Jr. The Satanic Gases: Clearing the Air about Global Warming. Washington, D.C.: The Cato Institute, 2000.
Victor, David G. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2001.
Essays
This page is best viewed using a standards-compliant browser.
You are using an old, non-CSS-supporting browser. This site will look better with a newer browser (we recommend this). However, the site is still otherwise functional (completely, we believe, but feel free to try to prove us wrong).
