Foreign Ministry and the Kyoto Protocol

On the eighteenth of May a number of us had the opportunity to visit with members of the foreign ministry in regards to the world’s climate crisis, how New Zealand is planning on combating carbon emissions, and the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an international environmental treaty produced by the United Nations and is intended to achieve stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations as to prevent interference of local and global climates. It establishes a legally binding commitment for the reduction of four greenhouse gases in all participating countries (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and sulphue hexafluoride) and two additional gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perflourocarbons) in Annex I countries, countries that were industrialized/developed as of 1990. The protocol aims at reducing the carbon emissions of each participating country to the 1990 carbon levels of that particular country. There are "flexible mechanisms" built into the protocol, such as emissions trading. This allows Annex I economies to meet their greenhouse gas emission limitations by purchasing GHG emission reductions credits from elsewhere, through financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies, from other Annex I countries, or from Annex I countries with excess allowances. In practice this means that Non-Annex I economies have no GHG emission restrictions, but have financial incentives to develop GHG emission reduction projects to receive "carbon credits" that can then be sold to Annex I buyers, encouraging sustainable development. Currently 183 countries have ratified the protocol, including New Zealand. Countries such as the U.S and China have not ratified the protocol, despite being the leading contributors of green house gases. However, under Obama the U.S is seriously considering the ratification of the protocol.

Members of the panel stressed that New Zealand is making great strides in reducing their carbon footprint. Currently the country is powered by seventy percent renewable resources, such as wind, geothermal, hydropower, etc. They hope to increase the number of renewable power sources to ninety percent over the next twenty years. This is very ambitious because of cost and limited resources, but the New Zealand public and government seem to be extremely committed to making this a reality and have made it clear that they will remain a nuclear free country and have no plans to continue building coal burning power plants. New Zealand has also improved carbon emissions by importing a number of emission friendly cars from Japan. These cars are smaller, use less fuel, and are more environmentally friendly than many of the cars driven in the U.S and other developed countries. However, while New Zealand has been able to lower the carbon emissions in both transportation and energy, they have not been able to significantly lower their carbon footprint as a whole because fifty percent of their carbon emissions come from agriculture. Agriculture is a huge part of the New Zealand economy, as they are one of the leading countries in the export of dairy products, sheep products, and sheep/cattle meat products. As a result of the economic significance of agriculture it is extremely difficult to decrease carbon emissions any further because reducing agricultural emissions would worsen the New Zealand economy. In this situation the only viable option for reaching the goal of reducing carbon emissions to that of the 1990 level would be to buy emission credits from another country. Overall, New Zealand has made such great strides in reducing their carbon footprint that it is difficult to feasibly lower it any further.

My personal opinion of the Kyoto Protocol is that it is a step in the right direction. The world is in crisis and obviously facing a large number of climate problems. If these problems are not aggressively addressed in the near future the world will undergo a number of changes; species will go extinct, low lying coastal communities will be endangered, world health will decrease, natural resources will be depleted, etc. However, while being a step in the right direction, there are foreseeable problems with the protocol, especially with the “trading flexibility” within it. Countries such as New Zealand will need the credit trading system to sustain their economies because they have lowered their carbon emissions nearly as low as possible. The problem with the trading system is that small countries like New Zealand have significantly less money than other developed countries (i.e. United States) and there is nothing in the protocol that stops larger countries from buying all of the credits. If all the GHG credits were bought by a larger country there would be none left for small countries. As a result they would not be able to meet the required carbon emission level and would be fined large amounts of money. The only way to prevent this from happening is to put a limit on the amount of credits that any one country can buy, but it is these very limits that have kept the U.S from ratifying the protocol. Therefore, putting a limit on it would deter the large carbon emitting countries from joining the cause. In conclusion, the Kyoto Protocol is a good idea that has too many loop holes to be effective. In the end it should not be the small carbon emitting countries like New Zealand leading the fight against global warming. It is the responsibility of the United States, as the leading carbon emitter, to step up to the plate and lead the way.