The Kyoto Protocol took effect on Wednesday. It requires 35 industrialized nations to cut their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to levels equal to or below what they emitted in 1990 by the end of 2012. The United States is not a party to the treaty. In the Thursday issue of The Eagle, Paul Perry labeled the inception of Kyoto "one large step (back) for a superpower, and one giant leap forward for everyone else." Mr. Perry would have been quite correct in his characterization if the U.S. had adopted Kyoto, because it would have hurt the American economy while allowing the rest of the world a free ride.
Mr. Perry praises the European Union for "taking a position of leadership on the issue of climate change" because members are picking up the slack for countries that cannot meet their targeted emissions reduction standards. They had bloody well better pick up the slack. Among the major signatories, Russia, Germany, Great Britain, Ukraine and Poland are already emitting less greenhouse gas than they were in 1990. The United States is emitting much more. It would be much harder for the United States to reduce its emissions to 1990 levels than it would be for the other major signatories. They are setting a goal with which they are already in compliance. So much for leadership.
And no one else is taking responsibility either, since only fully industrialized nations are required to reduce their emissions. Never mind that China, India, Brazil and Mexico emit more in aggregate than the United States., nor that their developing economies will emit far more in the future. These countries are subject only to "voluntary compliance." That is diplomacy-speak for "We will give you a free ride if we can use your support as leverage against the United States."
Most people and certainly most scientists believe that greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming, and Mr. Perry makes sure to note that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences concurs with this consensus. Since the Bush administration opposes Kyoto, Mr. Perry argues, the Bush administration must necessarily be ignorant, stubborn and anti-environment. Never mind that the U.S. Senate overwhelmingly rejected Kyoto in 1997.
Why would the Senate do this? When the Clinton administration was negotiating Kyoto, the Senate unanimously adopted the Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing its opposition to any treaty that would exempt developing nations and result in "significant harm to the economy of the United States." When does the Senate ever speak with unanimity on a controversial subject? When it sees that the United States is getting a raw deal.
Mr. Perry faults the Bush administration for hypocrisy because it "prides itself on following the Reagan-esque tradition of stomping out free-ridership" while expecting a free ride on Kyoto. He is mistaken. The United States is not asking for a free ride, but simply that all nations, industrialized or otherwise, be asked to bear the same proportional costs. Why should the United States make economy-crippling concessions that would put American businesses at a competitive disadvantage when the rest of the world would not be so affected? It is an issue of fundamental fairness.
The solution should be obvious. All nations, regardless of their progress toward industrialization, should commit to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. This includes not only the United States and the European Union, but China, India, Brazil and Mexico, too. No responsible American official would subject his country's economy to the rigors of Kyoto without assurances that all other countries would do the same. It would be a disservice to the American people. The sooner other world leaders recognize this fundamental fact, the sooner global warming can be addressed effectively and fairly.
Jonathan D. McPike is a freshman in the School of Public Affairs; he is also a former district-level delegate from Ohio to the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston.
