Now that meathead is in charge, this question is more important than ever:

Should the United States Ratify the Kyoto Protocol?
By Larry West, About.com

The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty intended to
bring countries together to reduce global warming and to cope with the
effects of temperature increases that are unavoidable after 150 years of
industrialization. The provisions of the Kyoto Protocol are legally binding
on the ratifying nations, and stronger than those of the UNFCCC.

Countries that ratify the Kyoto Protocol agree to reduce emissions of six
greenhouse gases that contribute to global warming: carbon dioxide, methane,
nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs and PFCs. The countries are allowed
to use emissions trading to meet their obligations if they maintain or
increase their greenhouse gas emissions. Emissions trading allows nations
that can easily meet their targets to sell credits to those that cannot.

Lowering Emissions Worldwide
The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce worldwide greenhouse gas
emissions to 5.2 percent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. Compared
to the emissions levels that would occur by 2010 without the Kyoto Protocol,
however, this target actually represents a 29 percent cut.

The Kyoto Protocol sets specific emissions reduction targets for each
industrialized nation, but excludes developing countries. To meet their
targets, most ratifying nations would have to combine several strategies:


place restrictions on their biggest polluters
manage transportation to slow or reduce emissions from automobiles
make better use of renewable energy sources-such as solar power, wind power,
and biodiesel-in place of fossil fuels
Most of the world's industrialized nations support the Kyoto Protocol. One
notable exception is the United States, which releases more greenhouse gases
than any other nation and accounts for more than 25 percent of those
generated by humans worldwide. Australia also declined.

Background
The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997. It was
opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed a year later. Under terms
of the agreement, the Kyoto Protocol would not take effect until 90 days
after it was ratified by at least 55 countries involved in the UNFCCC.
Another condition was that ratifying countries had to represent at least 55
percent of the world's total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990.
The first condition was met on May 23, 2002, when Iceland became the 55th
country to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. When Russia ratified the agreement in
November 2004, the second condition was satisfied, and the Kyoto Protocol
entered into force on February 16, 2005.

As a U.S. presidential candidate, George W. Bush promised to reduce carbon
dioxide emissions. Shortly after he took office in 2001, however, President
Bush withdrew U.S. support for the Kyoto Protocol and refused to submit it
to Congress for ratification.

An Alternate Plan
Instead, Bush proposed a plan with incentives for U.S. businesses to
voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions 4.5 percent by 2010, which he
claimed would equal taking 70 million cars off the road. According to the
U.S. Department of Energy, however, the Bush plan actually would result in a
30 percent increase in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions over 1990 levels
instead of the 7 percent reduction the treaty requires. That's because the
Bush plan measures the reduction against current emissions instead of the
1990 benchmark used by the Kyoto Protocol.

While his decision dealt a serious blow to the possibility of U.S.
participation in the Kyoto Protocol, Bush wasn't alone in his opposition.
Prior to negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol, the U.S. Senate passed a
resolution saying the U.S. should not sign any protocol that failed to
include binding targets and timetables for both developing and
industrialized nations or that "would result in serious harm to the economy
of the United States."

Arguments For
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that reducing greenhouse gas emissions
is an essential step in slowing or reversing global warming, and that
immediate multinational collaboration is needed if the world is to have any
serious hope of preventing devastating climate changes.
Scientists agree that even a small increase in the average global
temperature would lead to significant climate and weather changes, and
profoundly affect plant, animal and human life on Earth.

Warming Trend
Many scientists estimate that by the year 2100 the average global
temperature will increase by 1.4 degrees to 5.8 degrees Celsius
(approximately 2.5 degrees to 10.5 degrees Fahrenheit). This increase
represents a significant acceleration in global warming. For example, during
the 20th century the average global temperature increased only 0.6 degrees
Celsius (slightly more than 1 degree Fahrenheit).

This acceleration in the build-up of greenhouse gases and global warming is
attributed to two key factors:


the cumulative effect of 150 years of worldwide industrialization; and
factors such as overpopulation and deforestation combined with more
factories, gas-powered vehicles and machines worldwide.
Action Needed Now
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol argue that taking action now to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions could slow or reverse global warming, and prevent
or mitigate many of the most severe problems associated with it. Many view
the U.S. rejection of the treaty as irresponsible, and accuse President Bush
of pandering to the oil and gas industries.

Because the United States accounts for so many of the world's greenhouse
gases and contributes so much to the problem of global warming, some experts
have suggested that the Kyoto Protocol cannot succeed without U.S.
participation.

Arguments Against
Arguments against the Kyoto Protocol generally fall into three categories:
it demands too much; it achieves too little; or it is unnecessary.
In rejecting the Kyoto Protocol, which 178 other nations had accepted,
President Bush claimed that the treaty requirements would harm the U.S.
economy, leading to economic losses of $400 billion and costing 4.9 million
jobs. Bush also objected to the exemption for developing nations. The
president's decision brought heavy criticism from U.S. allies and
environmental groups in the U.S. and around the world.

Kyoto Critics Speak Out
Some critics, including a few scientists, are skeptical of the underlying
science associated with global warming and say there is no real evidence
that Earth's surface temperature is rising due to human activity. For
example, Russia's Academy of Sciences called the Russian government's
decision to approve the Kyoto Protocol "purely political," and said that it
had "no scientific justification."

Some opponents say the treaty doesn't go far enough to reduce greenhouse
gases, and many of those critics also question the effectiveness of
practices such as planting forests to produce emissions trading credits that
many nations are relying on to meet their targets. They argue that planting
forests may increase carbon dioxide for the first 10 years owing to new
forest growth patterns and the release of carbon dioxide from soil.

Others believe that if industrialized nations reduce their need for fossil
fuels, the cost of coal, oil and gas will go down, making them more
affordable for developing nations. That would simply shift the source of the
emissions without reducing them.

Finally, some critics say the treaty focuses on greenhouse gases without
addressing population growth and other issues that affect global warming,
making the Kyoto Protocol an anti-industrial agenda rather than an effort to
address global warming. One Russian economic policy advisor even compared
the Kyoto Protocol to fascism.

Where it Stands
Despite the Bush Administration's position on the Kyoto Protocol,
grass-roots support in the U.S. remains strong. By June 2005, 165 U.S.
cities had voted to support the treaty after Seattle led a nationwide effort
to build support, and environmental organizations continue to urge U.S.
participation.
Meanwhile, the Bush Administration continues to seek alternatives. The U.S.
was a leader in forming the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development
and Climate, an international agreement announced July 28, 2005 at meeting
of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN).

The United States, Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, and the People's
Republic of China agreed to collaborate on strategies to cut greenhouse gas
emissions in half by the end of the 21st century. ASEAN nations account for
50 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption,
population and GDP. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes mandatory
targets, the new agreement allows countries to set their own emissions
goals, but with no enforcement.

At the announcement, Australian Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said the
new partnership would complement the Kyoto agreement: "I think climate
change is a problem and I don't think Kyoto is going to fix it...I think
we've got to do so much more than that."

Looking Ahead
Whether you support U.S. participation in the Kyoto Protocol or oppose it,
the status of the issue is unlikely to change soon. President Bush continues
to oppose the treaty, and there is no strong political will in Congress to
alter his position, although the U.S. Senate voted in 2005 to reverse its
earlier prohibition against mandatory pollution limits.

The Kyoto Protocol will go forward without U.S. involvement, and the Bush
Administration will continue to seek less demanding alternatives. Whether
they will prove to be more or less effective than the Kyoto Protocol is a
question that won't be answered until it may be too late to plot a new
course.