Hostname: page-component-68945f75b7-qf55q Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-06T07:47:13.677Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Curbing Global Warming the Easy Way: An Alternative to the Kyoto Protocol*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Marco Verweij
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Global Warming Poses the Gravest of Ecological Risks, and presents numerous hurdles to international environmental agreement. A major initiative to pre-empt this threat is the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In this article, I argue that this treaty constitutes an ineffective attempt to curb global warming, and should be replaced by an alternative set of domestic and international policies.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , 2003 , pp. 139 - 161
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2003.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

I would like to thank Raimund Bleischwitz, Christoph Engel, Henry Farrell, Archon Fung, Frank Hendriks, Adrienne Héritier, Alkuin Kölliker, Joanne Linnerooth-Bayer, Susanne Lohmann, Barbet Punt, Steve Rayner, Michael Thompson, Jan Zielonka and an anonymous reviewer for their insightful comments on an earlier version of this article. I am also indebted to Tom Heller for several stimulating discussions on the topic of the essay.

References

1 Greenhouse gases include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, chloro-fluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulphur hexafluoride, water vapour, black soot and tropospheric ozone.

2 E.g., Young, Oran A. and Osherenko, Gail, ‘International Regime Formation: Findings, Research Priorities and Applications’, in Young, Oran A. and Osherenko, Gail (eds), Polar Politics: Creating InternationalEnvironmental Regimes, Ithaca, New York, Cornell University Press, 1993 Google Scholar.

3 A range of critiques of the global-warming thesis can be found at: http://www.ncpa.org/hotlines/global/gwhot1.html.

4 For example, one study puts the minimum costs of stabilizing atmospheric CO2 concentrations at US$550 trillion and the maximum costs at US$940 trillion. (These costs are meant to be the total costs for the whole world over the period 1990–2100, and are stated in 1990 prices.) Roehrl, R. Alexander and Riahi, Keywan, ‘Technology Dynamics and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation: A Cost Assessment’, Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 63 (2000), p. 250 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Schelling, Thomas, ‘The Cost of Combating Global Warming’, Foreign Affairs, 76 (11/December 1997), pp. 8–14 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 See: http://www.unfccc.de/resource/convkp.html.

7 Malakoff, David, ‘Thirty Kyoto Protocols Needed to Control Warming’, Science, 278 (12 1997), p. 2048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Pianin, Eric, ‘Emissions Treaty Softens Kyoto Targets’, Washington Post, 29 07 2001 Google Scholar.

9 Michel den Elzen and André de Moor, Evaluating the Bonn Agreement and Some Key Issues, RIVM report no. 728001016, Bilthoven, The Netherlands, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, 2001, p. 5.

10 See: http://unfccc.int/resource/natcom/index.html.

11 Two other such mechanisms are ‘joint implementation’ and the ‘clean development mechanism’. Ronald Brunner has argued that these proposals amount to ‘technocratic hubris’, while Robert Repetto has labelled these plans an ‘institutional nightmare’ that would breed moral hazard problems. See Brunner, , ‘Science and the Climate Change Regime’, Policy Sciences, 34 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Repetto, R., ‘The Clean Development Mechanism: Institutional Breakthrough or Institutional Nightmare?’, Policy Sciences, 34: 3–4 (2001), pp. 303–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Victor, David, The Collapse oftheKyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2001 Google Scholar.

13 Frank Convery, ‘Emissions Trading and Environmental Policy in Europe’, Working Paper No. 1, CATEP, Dublin, The Environmental Institute, University College, 2001, p. 14.

14 Other allocation mechanisms are possible. ‘Bench-marking’ would make the size of emission permits dependent on some form of business activity (e.g., a steel firm would have permission to emit a certain amount of greenhouse gases for each ton of steel that it produces). However, in case of unexpected economic growth, this allocation mechanism runs the risk of not reaching the absolute targets that the Kyoto Protocol foresees. This might necessitate extra policy measures, which could affect the prices of the permits. ‘Auctioning’ would entail letting companies obtain permits by having them bid for them. From an administrative point of view, this is the most practical allocation mechanism. But it is also the system most vehemently rejected by companies. See European Commission, ‘Green Paper on Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading within the EU’, available at http://www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/0087_summary.pdf (23 June 2002).

15 Confidential author's interview at the Seventh Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC, Marrakesh, 3 November 2001.

16 IPCC, ‘Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer’, Geneva, 2000. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/emissions/national/trends.html (17 September 2002).

17 For instance, Edmonds, Jae, Scott, Michael, Roop, Joseph and MacCracken, Christopher, International Emissions and Global Climate Change, Washington, DC, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 1999 Google Scholar.

18 Wallace, David, Environmental Policies and Industrial Innovation, London, Earthscan, 1995, p. xx Google Scholar.

19 Sarewitz, Daniel and Pielke, Roger, ‘Breaking the Global-Warming Deadlock’, The Atlantic Monthly, 286: 1 (2000), pp. 54–64 Google Scholar.

20 KPMG, Solar Energy: From Perennial Promise to Competitive Alternative., report of project 2562, The Netherlands, Hoofddorp, 1999.

21 Dooley, James, Runci, Paul and Luiten, Esther, Energy RD&D in the Industrialized World, Richland, Washington, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 1998 Google Scholar.

22 KPMG, Solar Energy, op. cit.

23 See IPCC, ‘Methodological and Technological Issues…’, op. cit.

24 Ross Heather, ‘Changing the Market Climate for Emissions Trading’, Weathervane, http://www.weathervane.rff.org (19 August 1998).

25 Figures taken from US Department of Energy, Choices for a Brighter Future: Perspectives on Renewable Energy, http://www.eren.doe.gov/power/choices.html (10 July 2001); and from U.S. Department of Energy, State Energy Alternatives, http://www.eren.doe.gov/state_energy/technologies.cfm, (10 July 2001).

26 Commission, Morse, Sardar Sarovar: Report of the Independent Review, Ottawa, Resource Futures International, 1992 Google Scholar; Rich, Bruce, Mortgaging the Earth, Boston, Mass, Beacon Press, 1994 Google Scholar; and Gyawali, Dipak, Water in Nepal, London, Zed, 2003 Google ScholarPubMed.

27 Fraenkel, Peter, ‘Flowing too Slowly? Performance and Potential of Small Hydro-Power’, Renewable Energy World, 2 (03 1999)Google Scholar.

28 See the Photovoltaic Power Systems Programme of the International Energy Agency: www.euronet.nl/users/oke/PVPS/faqs/econom.htm (28 January 2002).

29 Scheer, Hermann, ‘Unerschöpflich und sauber: Solarthermische und photovoltaische Energien’, AgV Forum 1 (01 2000)Google Scholar.

30 KPMG, Solar Energy, op. cit.

31 Hintsches, Eugen, ‘Retten Brenstoffzellen die Mobilität?’, Max Planck Forschung, (Spring 2001) pp. 42–4Google Scholar; ‘The Fuel Cell's Bumpy Ride’, The Economist, 24 03 2001, pp. 35–37 Google ScholarPubMed.

32 Scheer, Hermann, ‘Das unterschätzte Potential der Biomasse und deren Rolle im künftigen Energiemix’, Fachzeitschrift: Energie und Management (11 2000)Google Scholar.

33 Scheer, Hermann, A Solar Manifesto, London, James & James, 2001, ch. 5Google Scholar.

34 KPMG, Solar Energy, op. cit., pp. 12-15.

35 ‘Ireland to Get World's Biggest Offshore Wind Farm’, The Irish Times, 11 01 2002 Google ScholarPubMed.

36 US Department of Energy, Choices for a Brighter Future, op. cit., p. 7.

37 International Energy Agency, ‘Energy Technology R&D Statistics’, http://data.iea.org/iea/link_wds.asp (12 February 2001).

38 J. Dooley, P. Runci, and E. Luiten, Energy RD&D in the Industrialized World, op. cit.

39 In terms of the models that have been built to predict the costs of combating climate change, I am siding here with the conclusions that follow from ‘bottom-up models’, and against the results of ‘top-down models’. For this distinction, as well as a useful overview of the literature on modelling the costs of climate change, see Edmonds, Jae, Roop, Joseph M. and Scott, Michael J., Technology and the Economics of Climate Change, Washington, DC, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, 2000 Google Scholar.

40 D. P. van Vuuren and H. J. M. de Vries, Mitigation Scenarios in a World Oriented at Sustainable Development, RIVM Report 49020001, Bilthoven, the Netherlands, National Institute of Public Health and the Environment, 2000.

41 Schumpeter, Joseph, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, New York, Harper & Row, 1942, pp. 81–6Google Scholar.

42 Douglas-Westwood Limited, The World Renewable Energy Report 2001–2010, Pett Bottom, Canterbury, Douglas-Westwood Limited, 2001, p. 178 Google Scholar.

43 Rip, Arie and Kemp, René, ‘Technological Change’, in Rayner, Steve and Malone, Elizabeth (eds), Human Choice and Climate Change, Volume 2, Columbus, Ohio, Batelle Press, 1998 Google Scholar.

44 Scheer, Hermann, ‘Mit Solarenergie zu einer ökologischen industriellen Revolution’, Gewerkschaftliche Monatshefte (03 1996)Google Scholar.