Analysis of USAs Climate Change policies - Essay Example

Analysis of USA's Climate Change policies "Anthropogenic climate change refers to the production of greenhouse gases emitted by human activity", (www.global-greenhouse-warming.com). Scientists are convinced through the examination of the polar ice cores that human activity has increased the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere over the past few hundred years (www.global-greenhouse-warming.com). "Green house gas blankets the Earth and keeps it about 33 degrees Celsius warmer than it would be without these gases in the atmosphere" and this is what we call the "greenhouse effect" (Nick Hopwood). Among the greenhouse gasses, the most potent are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N20) and these are results of anthropogenic climate change (www.global-greenhouse-warming.com). The Kyoto Protocol Recognizing the hazard that greenhouse gases have and that these climate changes are anthropogenic, there have been efforts from around the world to address the problems. One of these is the Kyoto Protocol. It is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change that sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries for reducing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (UNFCCC). "While the convention encourages industrialized nations to stabilize GHG emissions, the protocol commits them to do so" (UNFCCC). The Kyoto protocol states that the Parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker fuels. Therefore, the parties in Annex I are expected to enact policies and measures necessary to minimize the adverse social and economic impact of climate change (UNFCCC) The protocol identified 3 mechanisms of reducing greenhouse gasses aside from the individual national measures. They are "Emissions Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation to allow Annex I (industrialized) economies to meet their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limitations by purchasing GHG emission reductions credits from elsewhere, through financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies, from other Annex I countries, or from Annex I countries with excess allowances" (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.). "The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first step towards a truly global emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and provides the essential architecture for any future international agreement on climate change" (UNFCCC). USA's Proposals and Policies Unfortunately, even after sending delegations to the Kyoto Protocol, "the United States steadfastly refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and actively works against the efforts of the world community to reach its full implementation" (KyotoUSA). Since USA alone emits 25% of the world's greenhouse gasses, its failure to support the Kyoto Protocol would mean that the goal of dramatically reducing green house gasses is unlikely to happen (KyotoUSA). Observing USA's dwarfism in airing its own concerns during the talk is such a humiliating, childish behaviour. The conference was supposed to be meeting of concerned countries to draft a solution to a dire worldwide problem. The protocol is supposed to be a commitment of each country involved to each and every stipulation made, but USA did otherwise, stating that the world's problem on anthropogenic climate change cannot be solved by just one treaty. The joint implementation might have been offensive to the US government, given that it would require them to pay for an extra GHG emission, revealing the country's fear of not being able to reduce greenhouse gasses below the limit. This is such an obvious weakness and USA cannot just fool other countries with this. The USA delegation presentation to post-Kyoto talk reveals that the delegation, together with the previous US administration believes that "the Kyoto (protocol) is structurally incapable of delivering the reductions in GHGs so desperately needed" (Chris). Specifically, their sentiments is that the focus of the talk should mainly be on GHG reductions, not on development, on abating poverty neither on giving aid (Chris). Instead, they have voiced out that a new treaty should be in place; "a treaty about reducing GHG emissions and doing it dramatically, quickly and globally" (Chris). Their primary point is that "targets should not be defined in terms of changes in surface temperature or sea level or atmospheric carbon because all of these are part of complex systems many of whose variables are not anthropogenic (Chris). Hitting the fairness issue of the protocol, USA delegations said that there is a need for a more equitable design of emission reduction since countries have different emission profiles (Chris). Using science and economics to its advantage, USA delegation reasoned that "both carbon neutrality and the target date are both to some extent arbitrary because no one knows whether atmospheric GHG concentration would be stabilised even if human civilisation became carbon neutral. It is not inconceivable that natural processes might be such that even at carbon neutrality, atmospheric GHG concentrations will continue to rise to levels which pose a serious threat to human civilisation and other species. In this event, those then living will have to set new more stringent targets to compensate for the dangerous effects of nature. Conversely, it may be discovered as absolute anthropogenic emissions begin to reduce that atmospheric GHG concentrations can be stabilised at higher levels of GHG emissions than previously thought. In this event, the emissions targets can be relaxed accordingly" (Chris). To abate the emission of green house gasses is exactly what the Protocol also aims. To do this, there should be a concerted effort of the involved countries. The joint implementation which requires an Annex I country to trade in case its GHG emission goes beyond the limits is not designed to aid the non-industrialized country. It was instituted as a means of control to any country which heavily emits GHG. It was not designed to be a business for the poor countries to profit, although maybe a necessary compensation to the bulky contribution of the industrialized country to the global warming. And this is not in any way unfair because all countries in the world suffer for acts carelessly and selfishly committed by some. An article from Indiana university says that 'emissions trading ingeniously corrects the failure of traditional government regulation to generate the cost-effective outcomes hypothesized for an ideal free market" (David M. Driesen). Instead of adhering to what has been agreed upon in the Kyoto Protocol, the US delegations made their own proposals which apparently contain both deviations and amendments to the protocol. The USA's post-Kyoto proposed 15 recommendations. The first of which is the use of global carbon intensity target (CIT) given that 'the moral argument is not simply about reducing GHGs but equally as importantly it's about getting the most value from the GHGs that are emitted" and they have proposed to set a two-stage target for these: 2025 and 2050 (Post Kyoto USA). They believe that each country should be allowed to reduce GHG emissions at their own pace, as they "converge on the agreed (2025) target of a 25% reduction against baseline" requiring at least 5% reduction each year from 2015 (Post Kyoto USA). "The baseline for establishing the CITs will be the average carbon intensity for each state in the three consecutive years of which the second one will be year of signing the agreement" (Post Kyoto USA). USA practically wants to change the standard to be met in reducing global warming and anthropogenic climate change. They have designed ways different from the protocol, even suggesting other means of abating green house gasses. The proposal wishes to be enveloped by two conditions which apply to the two CIT: "Firstly, as global GDP increases (or falls) the two CITs will be adjusted pro rata. Thus if global GDP doubles, the CITs will be halved. In this way the CITs will operate as an effective cap on absolute emissions. This adjustment will be made each year and all CITs and pre-declared trajectories will be dynamically adjusted each year" (Post Kyoto USA). From this first condition alone, a loophole is so obvious, which is the apparent tying up of environmental concerns to economic prosperity, as if the latter is enough to compensate for the former. It is an absurd substitution indeed, s faulty argument which reveals the truth about USA's unwillingness to pay for its green house gas emissions. The second condition says that "because the science linking emissions to atmospheric carbon concentration, and atmospheric carbon concentration to changes in GSMT is subject to uncertainty, if in the future the IPCC declares that the agreed CIT targets are likely not to be sufficiently stringent to slow or even reverse rises in GSMT, the CITs will be reduced accordingly [specific criteria need to be inserted here]. In the contrary scenario they may be relaxed. This process of review will be undertaken at least every four years as part of the IPCC report" (Post Kyoto USA). This second condition exposes USA as being scientifically crippled as they are hitting for targets they are not sure to be beneficial. The conditions given do not reveal the urgency that they have been flaunting about. USA wishes to deviate from the Kyoto protocol because they want a quicker and more effective solution to the problem of reducing green house gasses causing anthropogenic climate change. The problem seems to be so easy to understand without much complication, but requires sincere commitment from each country. But here comes USA dispelling its commitment to the Kyoto Protocol and creating its own course, which is an obvious cheat so as not to bear the cost of reducing GHG emissions. Obviously, they would want to tie GHG reduction to economic measures such as GDP because apparently, they are concerned more about escaping from their obligations rather than facing the problem. There is apparently a free riding here on the part of USA. A sky-rocketing nation's income will not in any way reduce the effect of global warming unless we carry out the solutions seriously, sincerely and unselfishly. On a positive note, it is found that favourable climate brings much more that economic well-being but non-economic factors as well such as happiness so that a particular study have observed that "anthropogenically induced climate change might alter dramatically the distribution of happiness between nations, with some countries moving towards a preferred climate and others moving further away" (Katrin Rehdanza). To woe the countries with apparent freedom and ease, USA proposed that "Each state will be free to introduce those measures it thinks most appropriate for its circumstances to achieve the required reduction in carbon intensity. These can include arrangements specific to regions within a state, as well as those operating at a national, regional or global scale. They may be bilateral or multilateral. They may involve the use of incentives or penalties or combinations thereof" (Post Kyoto USA). This feature is also found in the Kyoto Protocol, which gives much priority and respect to national measures. In order to promote the nobility of their proposals, it plans to involve the comprehensive and independent regulations of the United Nations Environment Programme. The UNEP is proposed to be the one to oversee the entire project. As a form of control, "States will make reports at least annually of their progress against their pre-declared trajectory to the next CIT. A mechanism will be established to penalise states which for [three] consecutive years fail to meet their pre-declared trajectory. This will be based on a penalty tariff applied to all exports from that state until such time as it reverts to the pre-declared trajectory. This penalty tariff will increase with continued failure and increasing divergence from CIT trajectory targets and is designed to depress that state's GDP so as to force a reduction in absolute emissions that would have been achieved had the CIT been met" (Post Kyoto USA). With all other proposals adhering to the USA designs, they were able to come up with a solution to the problem in a way that they will not bear their true cost. This should be obvious to the international community, not allowing USA to cheat on its responsibility. Instead, "the U.S. and the other industrial nations on the list have an obligation to lead this transition. They have caused most of the build up of gases to date, and they have the largest per capita emissions, the greatest wealth and the most technology" (Holdren). On a positive note, USA has never stopped discovering ways to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. It has involved various parts of the society such as the business sector and the masses to carry out its project. The U.S Climate Policies are categorized into four: Current and Near-Term Greenhouse Gas Reduction Initiatives, Climate Change Technology Program, Climate Change Science Program and International Cooperation. There are two programs under the current and near-term greenhouse gas reduction initiatives - the EPA Greenhouse Gas Reduction Initiatives and Other Federal Greenhouse Gas Reduction Initiatives. The EPA is designed to "encourage voluntary reductions from large corporations, consumers, industrial and commercial buildings and many major industrial sectors" (http://www.epa.gov). Most of the programs are created by having voluntary partnerships with the different states and companies. The Clean Environment State partnership is voluntary state-federal partnerships while the Climate Leaders and the High GWP Gas Voluntary Programs are formed through voluntary partnerships with the industry. The latter aims to reduce US emission of high global warming potential (high GWP) gasses which are usually manufactured for commercial use or generated as waste by-products, therefore industry initiative is very important (http://www.epa.gov). Another voluntary partnership is the Green Power Partnership which involves organizations who are interested in buying green power, an environment-friendly electricity product (http://www.epa.gov). Aside from voluntary partnerships and cooperation, the US government has also resorted to incentive programs such as Targeted Incentives for Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Sequestration and Tax Incentives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The former encourages "wider use of land management practices that remove carbon from the atmosphere or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases" (http://www.epa.gov). The Climate Change Technology Program is committed to "investing in a diverse portfolio of energy technologies with the potential to yield substantial reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases" (http://www.epa.gov). On the other hand, the Climate Change Science Program is a "multi-agency effort focused on improving our understanding of the science of climate change and its potential impacts". In terms of international cooperation, USA boasts of its bi-lateral and multi-lateral partnerships and UNFCCC commitments, less the Kyoto Protocol. Two flaws are evident in the USA's effort to mitigate anthropogenic climate change: one is its failure to reach a final agreement with the international community by not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol and the second is its loose and weak efforts to solicit support from the states, organizations and industry. Examining its near-term greenhouse gas reduction initiatives, one will clearly say that the government does not in any show heavy authority and stronger teeth in carrying out the programs. This is an obvious stand on the part of the government. The question now is given the problem of green house gas emissions, how far will the incentives and voluntary schemes go An observation by Professor Karin Thorburn of Dartmouth College says that given this scheme, "climate change policy therefore ultimately depends on how profitable it is for companies to voluntarily reduce their carbon footprint" (Thorburn). With the ultimate goal of making profits, will the companies really make voluntary efforts in reducing greenhouse gasses How much are the companies willing to give in exchange for this endeavour A necessary response would be whatever the company can take financially; with profits as the primary consideration still. Since the technology and research programs may entail large sums of money, every company will be willing to play a free rider, especially on the aspect of research. The study touched on "the stock market's reaction when companies joined Climate Leader", and she found out that when companies announce that they are joining Climate Leaders, their stock prices dropped significantly (Thorburn). On the other hand, looking at the portfolios of industry competitors, there has been little movement in their stock prices when their rivals join an environmental program (Thorburn). This reveals that joining an environmental program is a negative investment on the part of the firm, therefore continuing with such is a violation to the profit maximizing motive. These figures basically reveal that "reliance on voluntary measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will likely prove unsuccessful" (Thorburn). The government then is left with no other solution but to only strict federal regulations are feasible in achieving the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. President Obama has a more detailed and viable proposals for climate change mitigation. Some of the highlights of his programs are the 'cap-and-trade" program, creation of new green jobs and reducing green house gas emissions by 80% on 2050 (Obama). The most popular among these programs is the "cap-and-trade" program which is an economy-wide and market driven approach. Specifically, this program will be carried out through two approaches; the "upstream" program that requires fossil fuel producers (or shippers in the case of natural gas) to be covered by allowances that equal the emissions released when the fuel is combusted" and the "hybrid" program that includes a downstream cap applied to GHG emissions from large stationary sources (e.g., covering 80% of the emissions from the fewest possible number of sources) combined with an upstream cap or another policy tool applied to the carbon content of fossil fuels used by remaining sources" (World Resources Institue). The Obama's programs, although not as numerous as with president George Bush's is much more effective because it is in line with the profit maximizing goal of the firms. We expect that the companies will buy this "cap-and-trade" program in addition to their social responsibility. Over-all, the Obama administration shows more promise in terms of climate change policies that its predecessor. Works Cited Chris, Robert. Post Kyoto USA. 14 April 2009. David M. Driesen. "Sustainable Development and Market Liberalism's Shotgun Wedding: Emissions Trading." Indiana Law Journal (2008). Holdren, John. October 2008. http://www.sciam.com. 19 April 2009 . http://www.epa.gov. 25 March 2009. 19 April 2009 . Katrin Rehdanza, David Maddison. "Climate and Happiness." Ecological Economics (2003): 111-125. KyotoUSA. http://www.kyotousa.org/. 18 April 2009 . Nick Hopwood, Jordan Cohen. http://www.umich.edu. 17 April 2009 . Obama, Barack. 26 January 2009. http://www.whitehouse.gov. 19 April 2009 . Post Kyoto USA. Post Kyoto Outline. 19 March 2009. Thorburn, Karin S. 16 April 2008. http://www.voxeu.org. 19 April 2009 . UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int. 17 April 2009 . Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. http://en.wikipedia.org. 17 April 2009. 18 April 2009 . World Resources Institue. 19 March 2008. http://pdf.wri.org. 19 April 2009 . www.global-greenhouse-warming.com. www.global-greenhouse-warming.com. 17 April 2009 . Read More