Controlling Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Essay Example

70% of global warming among six significant greenhouse gases targeted by the protocol alongside methane and nitrous oxide. Greenhouse gases are measured using Global Warming Potential (GAP), which determines exchange rates between them - reducing one tonne of methane earns credits equivalent to cutting down on twenty-one tonnes of carbon dioxide under Kyoto Protocol regulations.The "basket" method provides added flexibility, potentially resulting in cost savings when it is more expensive to control 21 tons of carbon than to mitigate one ton of methane. However, accurately estimating emissions presents technical challenges, as only fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions can be measured with an acceptable margin of error using GAP values that are arbitrarily determined. Alternative methods that do not require GAPs exist but remain complex and underdeveloped.

The Protocol allows for "emission trading," enabling Annex I countries to exchange credits and debits if they adhere to the emission targets. This system mimics the successful sulfur dioxide emission trading program in the US, which makes economic sense by focusing on emission controls in Hungary rather than the US. However, environmental groups and some Kyoto delegates viewed this trading as an American tactic to avoid controlling emissions. Despite objections, delegates agreed to establish an emission trading system but struggled with designing its governing rules because it was as challenging as creating a new monetary system.

As diplomats strive to establish a functional emission trading system, they are aware of the significant implications it holds. The allocation of emission permits for each country would depend on Kyoto's target objectives, with these permits being valued at over $700 billion and potentially exceeding $1 trillion. This asset value reflects their worth rather

than the mere rental cost for a year. Furthermore, industrialized nations can purchase emission credits from developing countries through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which allows them to earn tradable credits. Developing nations are often hesitant to set targets for emissions control as they fear that it may hinder their economic growth. However, CDM addresses this issue by introducing project-by-project systems in developing countries where companies can invest in efficient energy practices and gain credits while offering access to new technology to those countries. Emission trading or CDM provides benefits to both parties while reducing climate change and keeping costs under control.The estimation of the "baseline" of emissions that would have occurred without any specific project makes the issue of carbon credits highly controversial. This leads to the challenge of ensuring a transparent distribution of worthwhile credits. While private investment is already flowing into developing countries, excessive credits given to projects that would have taken place anyway pose a significant risk to the credit system's integrity. One solution could be an international regulatory body assessing each CDC project individually, but this may incur high transaction costs and uncertainty deterring firms from investing. Currently, the United States operates a program reviewing projects called the "United States Initiative on Joint Implementation," which is difficult to use and results in lower investment than potential.

Deciding whether or not to prepare for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol is essential as three strategies exist; however, pursuing all simultaneously will not result in acceptable compliance with Kyoto emission targets. The US can attempt to control emissions within its borders without international emission trading or CDC, but this scenario is impossible.The US cannot

achieve a 32% reduction in emissions within a decade due to the long lifespan of energy equipment. By 2000, 80% of US electric power generation capacity had already been built. To meet emissions standards, the options are to shut down parts of the economy or replace existing energy equipment before it reaches the end of its useful life. Even with maximizing various gases for compliance, it won't be any easier. Methane contributes to most non-CA greenhouse gas emissions in the US but progress is expected through EPA programs by 2012. It's unlikely that much more can be done to solve this environmental problem. Figure 1 shows trends in CA emissions from fossil fuel combustion while historical data suggests Europe and Japan have more stable emissions compared to steep rises seen in US since the early 1900s; carbon sinks like forests and soils and non-CA greenhouse gases are excluded from chart analysis. The best way for the United States to achieve Kyoto Protocol targets is through accounting tricks using carbon dioxide as both emissions and carbon sinks are included under Protocol guidelines.As plants grow, they collect carbon dioxide in their biomass including trunks, stems, roots, leaves and surrounding soils. Trees and agricultural soils are two important sinks for this carbon. The United States is experiencing rapid forest growth due to former farmland being converted back into forest; Connecticut has shifted from mostly pastures and crops to almost entirely woodland. Growing forests can sequester up to 1 billion tons of carbon dioxide annually which offsets greenhouse emissions equivalent to approximately 6.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalents. Carbon dioxide accounts for 5.3 billion tons of this figure

while other greenhouse gases make up the remainder. Agricultural soils are the second sink for carbon with increased tilling since 1910 reducing soil's carbon content; however, no-till techniques have caused an increase in soil's carbon content in the United States since the 1970s by reducing soil erosion. Although there is a lack of accurate data on the amount of absorbed carbon by soils, it is possible to generate significant figures through chance and shrewd bookkeeping methods. However, utilizing these sinks to fulfill a substantial portion of our Kyoto commitment presents issues as these trends predate concerns about global warming and carbon emissions.The Kyoto Protocol states that credits should only be given for human activities aimed at reducing global warming, but there are no established guidelines for these credits. It is unwise to pursue lenient rules for claiming credit for sinks due to various reasons. Many industrialized nations can take advantage of these rules such as Russia whose carbon sink from trees surpasses other countries like the United States, Europe, Japan, and Australia with expanding forests. Furthermore, it is uncertain which countries may benefit in claiming agricultural sinks since they optimize soil management techniques. There is currently no practical approach available to determine proper credit allocation for soils and forests. While good verification methods exist for well-monitored plots' carbon balance measurement, measuring the whole country's carbon balance remains inadequate under international legal agreements like the Kyoto Protocol. Thus it is vital to develop effective methods for including forest and soil carbon; however, compliance with only the Kyoto Protocol could lead to an unstable foundation for future emission accounting systems. Since complying with Kyoto targets within American

borders is no longer feasible, other strategies such as purchasing credits through the emission trading system must be considered.Russia and Ukraine have the cheapest emission credits due to their high emission targets negotiated at Kyoto, which they agreed to freeze emissions at 1990 levels. However, the collapse of the Soviet economy in the early 1990s resulted in lower than expected emissions. This led to windfall permits being available for sale to countries with emission deficits such as the United States, potentially earning Russia and Ukraine between $50 to $150 billion (with most going to Russia). These permits are a result of accomplished diplomacy at Kyoto rather than actual efforts towards minimizing emissions, and could replace legitimate attempts at emission control without reducing global warming. It is unlikely that Congress would fund large transfers of money to Russia, making this idea doubtful. The existing proposals for addressing windfall permits are insufficient because capping emission trading at 50% of each country's efforts towards meeting Kyoto targets would not prevent windfall permits from being transferred from Russia and could encourage countries to disregard legitimate permits on the international emission trading market.In addition, implementing such a cap would establish an undesirable precedent for future carbon trading systems as unrestricted trading offers the greatest efficiency. The main issue at hand is that Russia has been unfairly favored in the Kyoto allocation of quotas, requiring permits to be reallocated and the protocol to be renegotiated. An alternative approach involves earning credits through the CDC; nevertheless, it seems unlikely that the US could fulfill more than five percent of its Kyoto commitment this way. It is unreasonable for businesses to invest billions

in developing countries before 2008-2012 to create ecologically friendly projects generating significant amounts of CDC credits. Despite time constraints, governments have yet to agree on regulations or institutions overseeing CDC projects. Though the CDC presents an opportunity to involve developing nations and disseminate advanced technology throughout emerging economies, establishing a successful system proves difficult, costly, and time-intensive with limited impact expected by 2008-2012. While other industrialized countries face decisions too, most do not experience these same challenges.Due to special circumstances and slow economic growth resulting in low emissions, achieving Kyoto targets through their own actions is simpler for some countries. In Britain, the switch from coal to gas and nuclear power has decreased carbon dioxide emissions, with natural gas emitting 50% less than coal and nuclear power having essentially no emissions. Tony Blair supports Kyoto and the UK is considering exceeding its obligations. Germany incorporated the former communist East, replaced inefficient equipment, went through an economic recession, and cut emissions; together with Britain they have brought the EU close to its Kyoto target. Japan kept emissions low due to economic troubles but still faces difficulties meeting Kyoto targets along with all other countries. Meanwhile, despite strong economic growth since the mid-1990s, US emissions continue to increase dramatically creating a widening gap between actual US emissions and Kyoto targets. Although it is suggested that no effort should be made by the United States to ratify Kyoto because of this issue, openly making such a decision may anger supporters both domestically and abroad hurting efforts towards building a sensible alternative while also undermining climate change mitigation efforts altogether.It is advisable not to formally decide on Kyoto. The

Clinton administration's inability to meet its commitments under Kyoto has become apparent to those closely following the situation. It would be more advantageous to gradually reveal this negative information and hold the previous administration responsible, rather than making a formal announcement of abandoning Kyoto and risking one's own administration. Additionally, rejecting Kyoto officially would eliminate a useful framework that creates essential regulations and institutions such as carbon accounting systems for forests and agricultural soils necessary for any global cooperative effort in mitigating global warming. These precedents will serve as a foundation for establishing a successor to Kyoto, which U.S diplomats are actively involved in developing. They should prioritize implementing rules based on economic and scientific principles instead of those aimed at attaining emission targets easily. Despite some nations not ratifying the agreement, there will be immense political pressure to maintain the fundamental structure due to significant investments already made in it by several parties supporting Kyoto. Consequently, supporters of Kyoto will aim to extend deadlines and adjust targets towards compliance facilitation; however, simple diplomatic adjustments cannot resolve the shortcomings of the protocol's unrealistic goals and timelines.To achieve significant and necessary changes, consultations with the United States and the Climate 6 (which comprises of the European Union, Japan, China, India, and Brazil) are required to develop a new and superior framework. These countries are currently responsible for most greenhouse gas emissions and likely to remain so in the future. If an alternative is needed, prompt tangible results must be produced to gain acceptance; otherwise, blame may fall on the United States if Kyoto collapses. Top advisors and key allies should be consulted in developing this new

framework.