Asian Pollution and the Kyoto Protocol
Today news came out that pollution in Asia is changing Pacific Ocean weather patterns:
Pollution from Asia is helping generate stronger storms over the North Pacific, according to new research. Changes in the North Pacific storm track could have an impact on weather across the Northern Hemisphere. Satellite measurements have shown an increase in tiny particles generated from coal burning in China and India in recent decades, researchers report in Tuesday’s issue of Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
If Asian countries like China and India are causing so much pollution than why aren’t environmentalists demanding they implement the Kyoto Protocol? It is because they are considered "developing nations" and are exempt from the protocol. This is the fundamental weakness of the Kyoto Protocol because it picks and chooses who would have to cut emissions. If the threat of global warming is so great than why isn’t everyone required to cut green house gas emissions?Â
So how does global warming and the Kyoto Protocol effect Korea? Fortunately for Korea, not much because they are considered a "developing country":
For the time being, Korea is freed from concerns over the impact of the climate pact on the economy as it is categorized as a developing country.
The Kyoto Protocol requires only industrialized economies to accept obligations to cut emissions of carbon dioxide to an average 5.2 percent of 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012, as “a first step.’’
I always find it humorous that Korea is considered a developing nation. Korea is not a developing nation. Korea has hosted the Olympics, the World Cup, and a APEC summit to form a short list of the many international events they have hosted. A developing nation would not be able to host such events or have the world’s 11th largest economy. The developing nation tag is just something the Korean government uses as political cover to avoid having to implement the Kyoto Protocol.Â
So what effect would the Kyoto Protocol have on Korea?:
However, many industrialized countries are expected to suggest Korea should adopt similar obligations beyond 2012 as Korea is one of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) member nations and the 9th biggest green gas producing country in the world.
If Korea has to comply with the climate pact, the report warned it would probably lose its competitiveness against China and India, both of which refused to accept the protocol, especially in the manufacturing sectors.
“The costs facing Korea from policies to reduce its emissions to meet any Kyoto target would exacerbate the stiff competitiveness challenge it already faces with China and India, which will never accept a binding Kyoto target,’’ the report concluded.
Korea shares the same position as the United States that economic growth shouldn’t be sacrificed unless all economic competitors share that same sacrifice. Take a look at Japan the name sake of the Kyoto Protocol. Japan is an industrial and manufacturing nation that has tried to do everything possible to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol and reduce greenhouse emissions, but Japan has not been able to do and has actually increased overall greenhouse gases:
The Kyoto Protocol entered into force in February last year, more than seven years after it was adopted at the third Conference of Parties to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, or COP3, in the ancient Japanese capital in late 1997. Under the protocol, industrialized countries must reduce their emissions of several greenhouse gases by an average of 5.2% from 1990 levels during the first commitment period of 2008-12. The protocol sets separate gas-reduction targets for individual industrialized countries — 6% in Japan’s case.
Despite its firm commitment to the Kyoto Protocol, however, Japan’s emissions have actually risen by 8% from 1990.
Resource-poor Japan, which imports almost all of its oil, has made strenuous energy-saving efforts and technological innovation since the two oil crises of the 1970s. The country is now the most energy-efficient in the industrialized world and faces great difficulties making further dents in greenhouse-gas emissions through domestic measures alone, such as further energy-saving efforts and carbon "sink" plantation projects.
This example of Japan is what I have always found hypocritical about the Kyoto Protocol. The economy of a nation like Switzerland is based around non-polluting industries, which make implementing the protocol easy for them compared to a manufacturing nation like Japan. However, what if the protocol forced nations who signed the agreement to not purchase any products from countries that did not implement or meet the standards of the protocol?
That would leave countries like Switzerland without the products that they rely on manufacturing nations to provide for them. I think these nations would not have signed the agreement under those circumstances and at the very least would have to resume manufacturing within their own countries to produce these products increasing emissions in their own country. By keeping the agreement the way it is now these same countries can play the holier than thou card while still enjoying all the benefits of buying cheap goods from "developing nations". How is an agreement like this considered caring about the environment?
from the OP:
"If Asian countries like China and India are causing so much pollution than why aren’t environmentalists demanding they implement the Kyoto Protocol? It is because they are considered "developing nations" and are exempt from the protocol. This is the fundamental weakness of the Kyoto Protocol because it picks and chooses who would have to cut emissions. If the threat of global warming is so great than why isn’t everyone required to cut green house gas emissions? "
The living standards of the people of China and India are much lower than the living standards of people in the US. The economy that sustains 300 million Americans spits out 20% more carbon emissions that the one that feeds, houses, and clothes 1.2 billion people. It's a bit rich for a nation whose large middle class drive two cars and live in 2,500 squ. ft. homes to tell the Chinese, "You have to cut back, too."
Do you know how carefully ordinary Chinese families conserve precious and expensive energy? In cities north of Shanghai, heating is government-regulated. In Beijing, with a climate comparable to Minneapolis, the heat is turned on in schools, offices, and apartment complexes in mid to late October and turned off in April. The thermostat is set at 61 degrees during the day, lower at night. Upper middle class and upper class Chinese supplement with their own heating units that run on electricity.
That is in the cities. Many Chinese in the countryside do not have installed heating. Kids in the villages surrounding the city where I lived had to collect firewood to burn to keep their school's temperature above freezing. Most of China that lies south of Shanghai does not have heat yet experience cold spells in the winter.
Of course, most people don't own automobiles and depend entirely on public transport. Some of my Chinese friends were so cost-conscious, they'd let the 30-cent bus pass and wait for the 15-cent jalopy crowded with passengers.
Telling China it must cut emissions is to tell a nation of 1.2 billion people who subsist on about $1,000 a year that it must slow development, so we can maintain our standard of living. I wish you and every other American could live as an ordinary Chinese lives for one year and then you'd understand the REAL unfairness in the distribution of the world's resources.
Sonagi,
I know very well the conditions in China. That is why I'm not advocating to have the Chinese or the Indians to continue to live in poverty. I am advocating for economic development in both countries. I have lived and visited third world countries, I don't wish it upon anyone.
I intentionally answered my own question in the posting by showing economic growth shouldnt' be sacrificed for "global warming". China isn't going to sacrifice, Korea isn't going to sacrifice it, and the US isn't going to sacrifice economic growth either.
I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of nations that don't rely on manufacturing for their economy to ask the nations that do to take an economic hit for the alledged "good of the world". If these nations are so concerned about global warming why don't they offer to build energy efficient non-polluting power plants for these developing nations and take an economic hit like they are asking the US to do?
If the Japanese can't meet this protocol how would the US be expected to meet it? That is why the protocol is ineffective because not everyone is sharing the same level of economic impact. The US is just stating the obvious. All this protocol does is allow foreign politicians to play the holier than thou card against the US.
I'm going to have to do a follow up posting on this.
"I’m pointing out the hypocrisy of nations that don’t rely on manufacturing for their economy to ask the nations that do to take an economic hit for the alledged “good of the worldâ€. If these nations are so concerned about global warming why don’t they offer to build energy efficient non-polluting power plants for these developing nations and take an economic hit like they are asking the US to do?"
This point is valid. Nations that do not manufacture either buy finished products or add value to unfinished products from manufacturing nations; consumers are as much to blame as manufacturers.
Hi GI Korea,
I think your comments are a valid; however, I want to point out a couple of things.
First a minor point, China is a signatory to the KP. They ratified the agreement in August 2002, although they did not agree a reduction target on the grounds you point out, i.e. they are a "developing†nation, but they can host reduction projects, which are invested by parties in “developed†countries.
There is some validity in this argument I think though, as they are a newly developing nation with very low per capita CO2 emissions. The US, EU et al are quite the opposite and have contributed to global CO2 emissions for quite some time at large and increasing rates. The climate change risks we face today are a result of these historic emissions patterns. There is therefore a sense that “developed†nations have a greater obligation to make some cuts in emissions first and provide an example for others to follow.
As you point out though, the impact of these "carbon" constraints" on a national economy is complex, but I would try and point out though that the EU has taken some first steps and has reaped some important benefits.
1. A large and important carbon reduction trading system has been established in the EU which is generating a huge amount of new capital for those that participate, which in turn is being invested back into the economy. (Interestingly, the idea of trading emissions was pioneered successfully in the US with SO2. Also, interestingly, many companies protested until they figured out how to make money from it.)
2. Another consequence is that whilst EU companies may be experiencing some adoption challenges they are becoming "carbon-ready". This is important, as even in the absence of serious environmental concerns and regulations for CO2 reductions, there are important political and energy security risks, which are driving energy efficiency incentives (as well as the incentive of financial benefits from reducing energy usage). If you are improving efficiency then why not get some extra credit for reducing CO2? Moreover, if companies/customers want to improve efficiency then a huge new market for products and services emerges.
Being “carbon-ready†also differentiates a company in the global market for capital, talent and customers. Interestingly a number of US companies are making similar moves, as they take note of the benefits their competitors are creating overseas. No doubt moves in some US states towards introducing various regulations is being driven by big US corporates who are already making investments and are thereby differentiating themselves as market leaders, and to a certain extent are now interested in forcing their domestic competitors who are lagging behind to absorb the same costs to reach new minimum standards, but without receiving the same leadership halo from being in front.
A key uncertainty remains though, which is how/when the US will move. A recent UK govt report by a former chief economist of the World Bank and a senior economist to the UK Treasury noted that if we continue with "business as usual", climate change could cost the world up to a fifth of its entire wealth – some £3.68 trillion per year by 2050.
But you are right, tackling climate change is estimated to be very costly – thought to be about 1% of global GDP or £184 billion annually, but doing nothing about the problem looks very likely to ultimately cost more – anything from 5 to 20 times more. Taking action to reduce emissions will is estimated to ultimately save the world economy £1.32 trillion per year.
The end result is that the market is shifting to create new opportunities and risks. Being left behind may mean the benefits will accrue elsewhere. The role of government is to create an environment for the economy and its people to prosper – for the US, Korea, China this means taking a very close look at the KP and making a move when the economic, environmental and political benefits offsets the costs. Personally I suspect that moment is coming soon. No-one advocates slowing economic growth to save the environment, rather creating economic incentives to de-couple economic growth from CO2.
The KP is by no means a perfect mechanism for all the reasons you point out, but it was the best deal that could be made at the time and has since become an economic and political reality.
Hope you don’t mind the long post.
Roberto,
I don't mind the long post. It was good and on topic. I will post a follow up post on this subject probably later on today.
[…] In a prior posting, I posted about how the changing Pacific Ocean weather patterns were caused allegedly by pollution from Asia along with Asia’s participation in the Kyoto Protocol. I have been meaning to post a follow up to the prior posting and news that Korea experienced its warmest winter in a century has given me the perfect excuse to: […]