The Kyoto Agreement on Global Warming
Global warming appears to be an increasing problem. “Global warming” is the term used to describe the average increase in temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and oceans over time. Commonly, theories of global warming attribute the increase in temperature and greenhouse gases to human activity. [1]The most current scientific evidence that research has produced shows that the average temperature of the earth’s surface has risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius since the 1800s and is expected to increase by a further 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.[2] The greenhouse gases that are thought to be mainly responsible for this increase are crucial to life on earth but in certain amounts. These high levels present today are inevitably altering the climate. If this increase continues at the predicted rate it is expected to cause extinctions of common plants and animals. Humans will not be affected in the same way as plants and animals but it is believed to still carry devastating effects. For example, if the sea level continues to rise at the current rate then coastlines that are heavily populated could end up washed away by the overflowing oceans.[3] This is evident already along some coastlines where cliffs are being eroded and buildings have fallen into the sea.
This chart shows the annual fossil fuelcarbon dioxide emissions, in million metric tons of carbon, for a variety of non-overlapping regions covering the Earth:
.
[edit]
The first stage of the Protocol began in 1992 at the earth summit in Rio de Janeiro when world leaders pledged to combat global warming. There were further negotiations in Berlin in March and April of 1995. The aim of these negotiations was to provide stronger and more in depth details of how their goals were going to be achieved. Following two and a half years of intensive negotiations the protocol was agreed to on December 11th 1997. It was based upon the principles set out in a previous framework. The Protocol is legally binding upon those nations that have signed up to reduce the emissions of five greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2% below their 1990 levels by the period between 2008 and 2012.[4] Countries have to put in place domestic measures and policies to accomplish the targets. Before the Kyoto Protocol to come into force, there were two requirements that had to be met. First of all it had to be ratified by at least fifty-five countries. Secondly, it had to be ratified by nations accounting for at least fifty-five per cent of emissions from what the Treaty calls ‘Annex 1’ countries. [5]
The first requirement was met in 2002 but, following the decision of the United States and Australia not to ratify the protocol, Russia’s position became crucial. The ratification from Russia on November 18th 2004 satisfied the second requirement and effectively brought the treaty into force on February 16th 2005. The protocol acknowledges that developing countries contribute less to climate change and therefore many developing countries that have signed it do not have to commit to specific targets but instead have to report their emissions levels and develop national climate change mitigation programmes. By ratifying the Protocol countries are also allowed to partake in emissions trading. This refers to the idea that countries can buy and sell allowances of green house emissions, allowing countries to buy ‘credits’ from others that are allowed to emit higher levels than they do.[6] There are also penalties built into the Protocol to encourage the ratifying countries to stay within their targets. If a party fails to meet its emissions’ target, it must up the difference in the second commitment period, plus a penalty of 30%. In addition, it must also develop a compliance action plan, and its eligibility to ‘sell’ under emissions trading will be suspended.[7]
It is debatable how much effect the Kyoto Protocol will actually have on global warming. Already a majority of countries are behind in reducing their emission levels and trends indicate that they will not be able to meet their targets by the year 2008. In addition to this possibility, an argument is that the level of reduction outlined in the protocol will do little to actually change the net amount of emissions worldwide. From this point of view the Kyoto protocol is of more political importance than practical, with the belief that it is a stepping-stone for more significant reductions in the future. Others still question whether global warming is as real a threat as some scientists suggest.
The Kyoto Protocol presents a collective action problem. Mancur Olsen in The logic of collectiveaction states that the ‘larger the group, the less it will further its common interests.’[8] The issue of global warming presents a worldwide ‘collective action’ problem. In relation to game theory this can also be known as a social dilemma game. In short, lets say one person is in a group of five people; each member of the group has an initial holding of $15. Based upon that person’s actions and the actions of the others in the group they have the opportunity to earn an additional amount or to lose some or, depending on the outcome, their entire initial holding. Each member of the group including that person has the choice of two actions, left or right. By choosing left, the person earns $25 and their action has no effect on any other group member. By choosing right, the person earns $50 but their action also imposes a cost of $10 on each member of the group including him. The person’s goal is the same as every other member of the group and that is to maximise their own earnings. In relation to the Kyoto Protocol, choosing left means cutting back on the emissions of greenhouse gases and choosing right means not cutting back. So, lets say that if a person were to choose right then they would pay a cost of $25, which could for example be the cost of the new regulations in place to reduce emissions, but their action also produces a gain for everyone of $10 - this would be from the benefits reaped from the deduction of greenhouse gases and would be shared by everyone worldwide. Therefore the net cost is $15. If however the same person chooses right and decide not to reduce emissions, but there is also no contribution to the improvement of the global climate, they do not have an impact on anyone else’s payoffs. [9]To make this clearer let consider the following:
Number who choose Each Player wins, depending So the group wins as
On whether he/she chooses a whole
Left / Right / Left / Right1. / 5 / 0 / $25 / - / $125
2. / 4 / 1 / $15 / $40 / $100
3. / 3 / 2 / $5 / $30 / $75
4. / 2 / 3 / -$5 / $20 / $50
5. / 1 / 4 / -$15 / $10 / $25
6. / 0 / 5 / _ / $0 / $0
These are the same pay offs that would exist if the Kyoto Protocol was drawn out in this way. From this it is evident that everyone is better off if everyone chooses left, however everyone has an individual incentive to choose right.
In this particular instance the main players or actors are the nations involved or more specifically the governments of those nations. These players were influenced by a number of things. First of all their stance was influenced by the scientific knowledge but also their perceived or real interests. An example of this would be a nation’s dependence on production and use of fossil fuels. This can be referred to as ones’ ‘polluter’ interests. A country’s vulnerability to the impacts of climate change varies this will inevitably have an effect on their stance. Players’ goals are also influenced, although to a lesser extent, by issues such as institutional structures or even cultural pre-determinations. [10]A nation’s ability to finance these changes is crucial to some of the less economically developed countries. There are more than 170 countries involved in the Kyoto Agreement. The simple model outlined above gets more complex when you consider that each of the actors/nations involved have different ‘weights’.
The United States and Russia for example have more weight than smaller nations such as Fiji. Australia is not part of the agreement but this is not as significant as the United States. The United States accounts for over a quarter of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions. The protocol was signed by Vice President Al Gore but President George W. Bush has refused to ratify the protocol and has stated that he has no intention too either.[11] The United States is the only country to have done this, signed up and then not ratified. Bush argues that the reduction of these gases could have a detrimental effect on the United States’ economy. He also expressed concern about the pressure on the ‘industrialised’ countries to cut back on carbon dioxide, while developing countries were not expected to. As the world’s largest contributor to greenhouse gases it was significant that it did not ratify and implement targets to be met. One has to question if the Protocol is as effective or significant with them not on board. This non-participation by the United States meant that Russia had more weight than they had previously. Russia was now under pressure to ratify, as without it did not meet one of the two requirements to account for at least fifty-five per cent of emissions.
Another complication is based upon the undeniable fact that each of the nations involved have different levels of ‘wealth.’ This means that some countries are more capable of implementing the new arrangements required to carry out to meet the desired targets. Also, some countries have acquired this wealth over a long period of time, for example with the aid of means that have produced large-scale emissions for over one hundred and fifty years. This may influence countries that are just getting started down this path into feeling that they may be at an economic disadvantage by ratifying the protocol. If we consider the various weights in terms of the social dilemma game outlined above the payoffs may change but the overall outcome, that each has a self interest to choose right but it is in the general good of the group to choose left, would be the same.
The goals of the players who have decided to ratify the protocol would be to meet their targets set for a reduction in the emissions of greenhouse gases. If these aren’t met there are penalties. Looking to the larger picture the aim would be to improve the conditions of the climate for future generations by reducing emissions.
The opportunities for communication were vast. This is evident in the fact that negotiations over a global warming agreement began in 1992 and it was a total of five years until it became legally binding. There were meetings in Rio de Janeiro and Berlin before the finalisation in Kyoto, Japan. It could be argued that strategic intelligence could include the scientists putting forward the argument for the influence of humans on climate change, and then the relevant people within a nation’s government doing a cost-benefit analysis and deciding if they were going to act in their self-interest or in the interest of others. In this case there was not really the need for deception.
Players are making choices openly. This is evident from all the summits on the topic. There is no need for secrecy as there are no immediate damaging effects on country’s that chose to not ratifying. Each country makes their decision independently with no repercussion as such. They will be contributing to the detrimental effects of global warming, however they will not suffer such consequences as a military attack because of it.
If the Kyoto agreement does not prompt any further agreements then it may be classed as a one shot game. Although there were negotiations before hand the final product arrived. But if the Kyoto Protocol is infact a foundational stepping-stone for future more effective agreements on global warming then it could in effect be part of an iterated game with each new protocol being even more successful than the previous one.
If we take the case of the United States it may appear that their commitments are not that credible, by first signing and then not ratifying could mean that if in the future they decide they want to join, others may be sceptical. The only threats involved are the repercussions that exist if the targets are not met.
The Kyoto Agreement on Global Warming is a social dilemma game, if all palyers act to benefit the collective good then the protocol has a promising future. Currently there are over one hundred and seventy countries involved each with their own individual targets. If this number continues to grows the effects can only be positive. If however you have the view that the Kyoto Agreement is not going to be effective in combating global warming or that the scientific evidence is not substantial then the entire validity of the global warming is questionable.
Bibliography
Books
Oberthur, S., & Ott, H., The Kyoto Protocol: International Climate Policy for the 21st Century, Germany, Springer, 1999
Olson, M., The Logic of Collective Action, USA, HarvardUniversity Press, 1965
Web sites
BBC Q&A: The Kyoto Protocol
Wikipedia
United nations Framework on Climate Control
Essential background
BBC weather centre: Climate Change
Lectures/ Public address
N, Miller, “The Social Dilemma Game”, University of MarylandBaltimoreCounty, 2/2/2005
1
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]Olson, M., The Logic of Collective Action, USA, Harvard University Press, 1965,p36
[9]N, Miller, “The Social Dilemma Game”, University of MarylandBaltimoreCounty, 2/2/2005
[10]Oberthur, S., & Ott, H., The Kyoto Protocol: International Climate Policy for the 21st Century, Germany, Springer, 1999,p5
[11]