21-8 What is Being Done to Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions?

What Is the Kyoto Protocol? A Controversial International Agreement

In December 1997, more than 2 200 delegates from 161 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate a treaty to help slow global warming. The resulting Kyoto Protocol required 39 developed countries to cut emissions of CO2, CH4, and N2O to an average of about 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012. The initial steps of the protocol were directed at these 39 countries because they were responsible for a majority of the world’s CO2 emissions (58% in 1999) and thus should take the lead in reducing their emissions.

As an alternative to Kyoto, the Bush administration pursued a “made-in-the-U.S.A.” solution that involved reducing power plant emissions and offering incentives to businesses to voluntarily curb production of greenhouse gases by an estimated 4.5% over 10 years.

What Is Canada’s Position on the Kyoto Protocol? Inconsistent

In 2006, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper followed the example set by George W. Bush and pro- posed what he called a “made-in-Canada” solution to the problem of greenhouse gas emissions. In October of that year, Harper’s minority Conservative government unveiled its Clean Air Act, which sought to cut green- house gas emissions by 45% to 65% by 2050. The opposition parties and environmental activists attacked the proposed legislation for not imposing fixed caps on greenhouse gas emissions until 2050. Moreover, the Clean Air Act made no reference to the Kyoto Protocol.

Canada formally withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in December 2011 amid strong criticism from the international community. Environment Minister Peter Kent said that Canada would not be able to meet its Kyoto commitments and would face enormous financial penalties under the treaty unless it withdrew. As well, he suggested that the Kyoto Protocol would not work because it didn’t include the two largest emitters of greenhouse gases, China and the United States

What Are Some Countries, Businesses, and Cities Doing to Help Delay Global Warming? Good News

Many countries are reducing their greenhouse gas emissions. For example, by 2000 Great Britain had reduced its CO2 emissions to its 1990 level, well ahead of its Kyoto target goal. It did this mostly by relying more on natural gas than on coal, improving energy efficiency in industry and homes, and reducing gasoline use by raising its tax on gasoline. Between 2000 and 2050, Great Britain aims to cut its CO2 emissions by 60%, mostly by improving energy efficiency and by relying on renewable resources for 20% of its energy by 2030. To help accomplish this goal, the government has greatly increased research and development spending for renewable energy and tax breaks for renewable energy.

How Can We Prepare for Global Warming? Get Ready for Change

According to global climate models, the world needs to cut current emissions of greenhouse gases (not just CO2) 50–85% by 2050 to stabilize concentrations of such gases in the atmosphere. That large reduction in emissions is extremely unlikely for political and economic reasons because it would require rapid, widespread changes in industrial processes, energy sources, transportation options, and individual lifestyles. As a result, a growing number of climate analysts and economists suggest that we should also begin preparing for the possible effects of long-term atmospheric warming and climate change.

Why Are Global Warming and Climate Change Such Difficult Problems to Deal With? A Complex, Long-Term, and Controversial Challenge

Several characteristics of global warming and climate change pose difficult and often controversial scientific, economic, political, and ethical questions about how to address these threats.

First, these problems have many complex and still poorly understood causes and effects.

Second, they are long-term problems. Elected officials who have to make tough decisions about dealing with these issues will be long gone when the beneficial or harmful effects of their actions occur. The long-term effects of climate change also raise an important ethical question. How much are we willing to change or sacrifice now for benefits that may not be realized in our lifetimes but could greatly benefit our children, grandchildren, and the plants and animals that we share the planet with?

Third the harmful and beneficial effects of climate change are uneven. There will be winners and losers. Winning nations are less likely to bring about controversial changes or spend large sums of money to slow down something that will benefit them. The catch: we do not know which countries and parts of countries will be winners and losers until it is too late to avoid harmful effects.

Fourth, reducing greenhouse gas emissions will take unprecedented international response to a global problem that is of uncertain magnitude. And this must be done using political and economic systems not designed to deal with long-term threats.