Global Warming, United States and the World

Global Warming, United States and the World

There are concerns that the natural ecosystem and human society is not capable of handling rapid changes in climate. Trying to deal with this challenge in a proper manner, a number of international treaties have been drawn up and many different activities have been arranged. In the year 1994, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) came into being. Since that year, 192 countries have ratified it. Then in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was proposed and put into motion in the year 2005. By the 13th of May, 2008, the EEC (a regional economic integration organization) and 181 nations has ratified, approved or accepted the terms of this agreement (Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification, 2008). In two of the European Climate Change Programs (ECCP) the European Union decided to go beyond the stated demands of the Kyoto Protocol. They are also trying to take the lead in worldwide policy initiatives regarding the climate change fight.

If we look at the UNFCC, we see that this treaty looks at the various ways that global warming can be reduced along with possible solutions to any consequences that may arise due to changes in temperature. Convention parties are in agreement that any changes in climate are a collective responsibility and are affected by the GHG emissions. All governments who have agreed to the Convention meet and exchange information regarding GHG emissions. They also discuss their national policies, best practices being employed and try to decide on the national level strategies that can help reduce GHG emissions. Other topics of discussion include deciding strategies through which society can adapt to any expected climate changes and what kind of technical and financial support needs to be given to any developing nations. These nations make it a point to work together in preparing for the changes that will have to be made because of changes in climate (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Essential Background, 2008).

The one downside to this Convention is that it only asks countries to lower their GHG emissions and it is not binding. Due to this, the Kyoto Protocol was added to the treaty and approved by many nations. The 1997 Protocol included a number of legally binding actions that would help in reducing global greenhouse gas emissions (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Essential Background, 2008). In 2001, during the 7th Conference of the Parties (COP7), the comprehensive rules to be implemented under the Kyoto Protocol were adopted. This agreement is also referred to as the 'Marrakesh Accords' (Kyoto Protocol, 2008). In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol was put into force.

Binding goals were set for the 37 industrialized and the European nations (also known as Annex I countries4) under the Protocol. The goal is to lower GHG emissions down to a 5% average in comparison to 1990 recorded levels. Furthermore, this reduction has to be realized within the 2008-2012 time frames. It has been noted that industrialization has been the main source of accumulation of GHG emissions. Furthermore, the developed and industrialized nations have been noted to have the most emissions. Due to this, the Protocol determined a larger burden for all economies on the basis of similar yet differing responsibilities. It is expected of the developed countries that in order to help the developing countries implement their commitments; they will aid such countries through financial resources. It is compulsory for the non-Annex I and Annex I Parties to co-operate in (a) systematic and research observation of the world's climate system; (b) the development, implementation and management of technologies that are friendly to the climate; (c) improving the data gathering methodologies for greenhouse gas; (d) and educate, train and create public awareness with regards to climatic changes (Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual on Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amounts, 2007).

Three new mechanisms were introduced by the Kyoto Protocol, namely clean development mechanism or CDM, emissions trading and joint implementation, in order to help the economies achieve their commitments. According to the treaty's Article 17 (Decision 18/CP.7, 2001), countries can follow the emissions trading guidelines presented here such as selling spare emissions to countries who have crossed their limits. Emissions Trading Scheme was introduced as a new market by European Union in 2005 for trading for new commodity known as GHG emissions, which soon became the largest emissions market (Emission Trading Scheme, 2008). By 2006, the EU ETS accounted for, in terms of value, almost 81% of the total global carbon market and in terms of volume, accounted for 67% of the global carbon market. It was desired in the first two years of ETS operations that a critical mass for the market is enabled in order for the market to operate efficiently. The initial assessment, according to the accompanying document to the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87 / EC (2008), showed that the market had achieved the desired credibility because the trading has evolved to help the economies achieve their commitments of the Kyoto Protocol.

The reason for this is that clean development mechanism helped stimulate investments in the projects of emission reduction. As stated by the Article 12 of the Action taken by the Conference of the Parties that were part of the convention that took place of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol during the very first session that it had in the year 2006. The main aim of the clean development mechanism is to assist the non-Annex I Parties in the Kyoto Protocol to achieve a sustainable growth and development which ultimately contributes to the overall aim of the Protocol as well as assists the Annex I Parties to achieve their goals and commitments to the limitation and reduction of emissions in the developing countries as stated under the Article 3 of this Protocol. A definition of joint implementation is presented in the Kyoto Protocol's Article 6. Joint implementation is a method through which the commitment to limitation or reduction of emission can be achieved in order for the country to meets its target to remove emission in another country of Annex B. Party set under the Kyoto Protocol such as the ERUs (which is equivalent to the one ton of CO2). This joint mechanism according to the Joint Implementation (2008) allows the countries not only to fulfill their Kyoto commitments but also helps in transfer of technology and FDI to developing countries which can add to their growth and development.

In this paper, we will discuss how the Kyoto Protocol and the United States' attitude towards it, highlights the primary problems that the United States has with the global warming measures across the globe. The introduction was merely an introduction of the demands of the Kyoto protocol and the attitude of the majority countries towards it. We will now discuss how the same protocols were dealt with in the United States and discuss why they had such a negative attitude towards it.

United States and the Kyoto Protocol

Various attitudes can be observed across different developed countries towards the Kyoto Protocol. Even though United States withdrew from the Kyoto treaty; Australia, because of its political leadership change, ratified the Kyoto treaty in 2008. United States withdrew from the treaty under the Bush Administration in 2001 from the 1997 climate change treaty of the Kyoto Protocol because the country would then have to reduce its greenhouse gases by 7% below the levels of 1990 during the period of 2008-2012. This led to negative economic consequences due to which many countries like China and India were exempted from the Protocol (President Bush discusses global climate change, 2001).

The government of U.S. claimed that the industry would be bearing a loss of over $400 billion if the mandatory units remain under the Kyoto protocol (United Nations Foundation, 2002). Similarly, jobs will encounter a loss approximating at 4.9 million as well. This was the only economic rationale behind the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by U.S. that resulted from the estimates to be borne by U.S. leading towards a disproportionate share of the burden of adjustment. The successful implementation by Kyoto mandates will result in a loss of 1.7 million jobs in the period of 2007-2010 (Kyoto Protocol and Beyond: The High Economic Cost to the United States, 2002). Moreover, studies confirm the degradation in GDP as well by 2.9% in the Kyoto compliance period of 2008-2012, which would mount up to 3.0% to 3.5% by the year 2020. A rough estimate of about 5.5 trillion USD is considered to be required for completion of the Kyoto mandates by the economy in U.S.. Energy related activities in the U.S. contribute nearly three quarters of the greenhouse gas emissions, and are considered to be the biggest source of GHG emissions. Transportation forms one third part of the GHG emissions while half of them come from factories and power plants. As customers tend to make an adjustment with the rapidly increasing living costs, the overall consumption will decrease too. This is due to the prediction of 4.2% decline in the business capital stock resulting from 3% decrease in the economy's potential. (Kyoto Protocol and Beyond: The High Economic Cost to the United States, 2002).

Bush Administration put forward the 'Clear Skies and Global Climate Change Initiatives' in 2002, which aimed at achieving three fundamental goals. These included firstly reducing the worst of the three recognized air pollutants by an amount of 70%. Secondly, it aimed at cutting down the intensity of GHG by 18% in the upcoming ten years. Thirdly, it aimed at accomplishing goals comparable to the Kyoto Protocol by using approaches from the market (Policies in Focus: Environment, 2008). The U.S. aimed at reducing emissions by shifting towards the use of clean fuels and organizing voluntary programs within the industry. It also aimed at making the people aware about enhancing the efficacy of energy use through proper dissemination of information and incurring appropriate technology improvements. The U.S. goal revolved around decreasing 183 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in the year 2002 to 151 metric tons per million dollars of GDP in the year 2012. This policy had been criticized by many including the economist Paul Krugman. In his opinion, the Bush administration had not proposed anything significant, because they aimed at reducing the GHG emission ratio by 18%. However, GHG intensity was the volume of GHG emissions divided by the GDP. According to a majority of forecasts, GDP was to expand by 30% or more within the same period, which will eventually increase the rate of emissions too (Krugman, 2002).

Global warming crimes and the Bush administration

The inception of Bush's era when he took office clarified his Administration's stance on global warming and environment. As an example, we can consider the fact that Bush promised the reduction in emissions from coal fired power plants, which are the biggest contributor of global warming gases. However, with the consultation of Haley Barbour, of Barbour, Griffiths and Rogers, which was the most influential lobby in Washington at the time, this campaign pledge was reversed by G.W. Bush. Barbour was also the president of the former Republican National Committee (1993-1997). Bush was in the favor of rolling back instead of promoting stricter power-plant emission canons, during a discussion. He emphasized that in order to increase its economic production, America needs to rollback to help make the energy it needs. It was the time when America's potential to generate electrical power was at its peak. In addition to that, the position of Bush opposed the standpoint taken by the Secretary of State, Paul O'Neil (the former CEO of Alcoa Aluminum). O'Neil gave his resignation when he insisted Bush to become the first president and take a standpoint on global warming, but he was unsuccessful (as cited in Lynch, Burns, and Stretesky, 2010).

The vice president, and the former Chairman and CEO of Halliburton, presided the May 2001 report of the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG) in which the Bush Administration's approach to energy and environment was brought forward. During the second week of Bush's inaugural ceremony, this group came into being. The representatives of energy industry gave value to their welfares over those of the general population, and the policies presented by the NEPDG document were very much influenced by them. This happened by the encouragement to the support of fossil fuel economy. This policy was also influenced by Chevron, Enron, Peabody Energy and Halliburton. One thing which shouldn't be coming as a surprise was that the positions in those companies were being formally taken by the committee members who were part of the Bush administration. The meetings of NEPDG were secretly conducted, in defilement of the legal provisions according to the Federal Advisory Commission Act (FACA; § 5 U.S.C. app. 2). In order to notify the report, multiple requests were filed by the House Committee on Energy, The Congressional Committee on Government Reform and U.S. General Accounting Office, regarding process of consultation. All the requests were denied. It was found that VP had violated 31 U.S.C. § 716(b) by denying the request, when another request for the information was filed by U.S. GAO (112). It was important to ascertain the details about such secret meetings, and that is why Sierra Club, National Resources Defense Council, and Judicial Watch used the "Freedom of Information Act" as a tool to file independent suits in the perspective of transparency and record keeping provisions. However, when G.W. Bush left White House, the request was still left unaccepted. Nevertheless, New York Times was successful in providing details about this secret meeting. The information was gathered with the help of interviews, according to which there were 200 consultants to the NEPDG that were comprised of 13 consumer organizations and environmental groups, 22 labor unions, and 158 corporate trade alliances and energy companies (as cited in Lynch, Burns, and Stretesky, 2010).

Bush white house-corporate sector links

Establishing and defining state-corporate intersections and influences is an important element of conducting government-corporate crime research. One can find lobbyists of energy sector in the Bush's Cabinet for energy policies. James Connauhghton, who chaired the White House Council on Environment Quality, had worked in an electrical and power company (as cited in Lynch, Burns, and Stretesky, 2010).

Assistant Secretary for Lands and Mineral Management, Rebecca Watson, had served as a lawyer in methane drillers and mining companies. Rebecca Watson was famous for advocating mining in federally protected lands (as cited in Lynch, Burns, and Stretesky, 2010).

David Bernhardt, the Director of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, is a well-known lobbyist in the sector of pipeline, mining, and petroleum. Moreover, Bernhardt advocated oil drilling in Arctic region during Bush administration (as cited in Lynch, Burns, and Stretesky, 2010).

A new team was appointed in the Bush government comprising of the former working people on different positions. Bush appointed Camden Toohey as an In-charge of Interior Department of Alaskan Public Region and he also worked as Executive Director of Arctic Power. Bernhardt also joined to help him in this field. A former client of the Alliance for Constructive Air Policy, Jeremy Holmstead, who once charged EPA on air production standards, was now appointed as Assistant Administrator of Radiation and Air at EPA. Mike Smith, who was appointed as Assistant Secretary of the department of Fossil Energy, was previously working as an operator of Gas and Oil Company and also an advocate in an oil company of Arctic National Wildlife Preserve. This list included Peabody, Assistant Attorney General of Environment and Natural Resources; Thomas Sansonetti who was previously working as client for Arch and Coal; Former lobbyist J. Steven Griles for mining, gas and oil was then appointed as Deputy Secretary of Interior, and as policy maker for monuments and national parks, wildlife policies, and also policy related on energy) amongst others. Also, a former lobbyist of Exxon Mobil, Larisa Dobriansky, was then appointed as Deputy Assistant Secretary in the sector of National Energy Policies at Energy department (as cited in Lynch, Burns, and Stretesky, 2010).