The Kyoto Protocol Provisions

Posted by Laurence O'Sullivan Aug 26, 2008

While reading and researching the Kyoto Protocol and its various Assessment Reports it became clear to me that, to fully understand it, I would need degrees in Law, Medicine, Chemistry, Biology and Astronomy. There is no doubt that the first great international effort at controlling climate change was worth it. Even the controversy surrounding its application and acceptance helped to make people more aware of the environmental effects of Carbon dioxide.

I came away with the impression that on the whole the International Panel on Climate Change did a good job, with a few notable exceptions.

Setting binding levels of Carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2012 was good, but not applying these limits to very large developing countries, such as India and China, allowed some developed countries, notably the United States and Australia, a good excuse to opt out from the whole process. Australia has since opted in due to a change in government and many States in America have adopted many of the limits proposed by Kyoto, especially California.

Kyoto encouraged the use of renewable energy and any such encouragement is to be welcomed, but I remain skeptical on the whole concept of carbon trading and carbon credits. This doubt was really brought home to me when I read the yearly report from the company for which I worked most of my life, The Electricity Supply Board of Ireland. They have set targets for 2015 of 20% energy by renewables, mainly wind and water, which is good, but by the same year they claim they will be a “Carbon Neutral” company, while still producing 80% of their energy from fossil fuels.

I think the whole concept of carbon trading can induce a sense of complacency in the developed world.