lank tangles

ChE 195 (Chemical Engineering Laws & Ethics) Reading Assignment and Reaction Paper: The Emissions Problem

 

"Human life is possible because of the greenhouse effect in which atmospheric gasses such as water vapor and carbon dioxide block solar energy from escaping, after being reflected from the Earth’s surface. Evidence is maintaining that since the 19th century, owing to human burning of fossil fuels that increase levels of greenhouse gasses, the Earth’s climate is warming. The change is small, but even a few degrees of ”global warming” could well enough melt the polar ice caps to raise the ocean level a few feet and thereby cause severe flood damage. Other effects include major disruptions in weather patterns, such as increased drought and increased storms. The complexity of the issue has divided the scientific opinion, but an emerging consensus led to the 1997 Kyoto Agreement, signed by 150 governments, to reduce carbon emissions to 5.2% below the 1990 levels by 2012. In 2001, President Bush announced that the US would abandon the agreement because it was anti-ethical to American business and also unfair because it did not place stronger requirements on developing countries. Research the current state of the scientific and political debate. Present and defend your view as to whether or not the US should do more to show leadership on the issue." (Source: Schilizinger and Martin, Ethics in Chemical Engineering, 4th ed.)

It’s surprising how misunderstood the issues of greenhouse gasses and global climate change are. Secondary school students in Los Baños happen to think that the greenhouse effect is the culprit in this global warming, and that it should be eliminated. Though the impression is certainly not wrong, it is not entirely correct either. The greenhouse effect has been sustaining this planet’s life forms for millions of years, since way before the humans ever came into existence. It is not the presence of the greenhouse gasses that is affecting humans; rather, it is the excess of these gasses that is making the natural processes go wild, thanks to none other than the humans themselves. It is surprising more to know that, given their superior mental capacity, humans simply do not want to recognize and take full responsibility for disturbing the planet peaceful existence. They refuse to acknowledge the fact that it is their need to make their lives easier, to control what cannot be to suit their folly, that is messing up the natural way of things. The planet apparently isn’t taking any of that ignorance well, and eventually, smarter people began to notice and the effects of man’s meddling began to matter. The anthropogenic greenhouse gasses causing the greenhouse effect to go on overdrive, or what we’ll refer to as the emissions from this point on, has to be controlled (for it is impossible to stop them, of course). Thus, the formulation of the Kyoto Protocol of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

The emissions objectives of the Kyoto Protocol are not based on any ultimate environmental objective — they are instead simple and easily understood guidelines of holding emissions constant. The Kyoto Protocol, in a nutshell, contains legally binding emissions targets for Annex I (developed) countries for the post-2000 period, with a deadline set on 2012 by which time they should have achieved those targets, with reference to their 1990 levels. The Protocol’s ultimate objective is to move the international community closer to achieving the prevention of "dangerous man-made interference with the climate system" (Europa Commission, 2008) by arresting and reversing the upward trend in greenhouse gas emissions that started in these countries 150 years ago.

Among these greenhouse gasses, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are the three most important. The remaining three are the long-lived industrial gasses – hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6). These six greenhouse gasses cited by the Protocol are to be combined in a "basket", with reductions in individual gases translated into "CO2 equivalents" that are then added up to produce a single figure (Europa Commission, 2008).

The Protocol was adopted on December 11 of 1997, and was implemented on full on February 16 of 2005. As of May 2008, 182 parties have ratified the protocol. Thirty six of these are developed countries required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to the specified levels, with three more countries intending to participate; one hundred thirty seven are developing countries that have ratified the Protocol, but have no obligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions.

On March 28, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that the United States would not implement the Kyoto Protocol on global warming (Coon, 2001).

This outrageous announcement proved to be a shock to the United Nations, the other countries that were at the time in full support of the Protocol, and the common people of the world. Who in their right and selfless minds would dare contest such a noble cause, after all?

Aside from being the most powerful country in the world, the United States is also one of the most industrialized countries, and consequently, one of the major producers of greenhouse gasses in the world. The total US greenhouse gasses emissions rose 14.7 percent since 1990 to 2006, when it totaled 7,054.2 Tg CO2, and have continued to rise up to present. Carbon dioxide was the primary greenhouse gas produced, representing approximately 84.8 percent of total greenhouse gas emissions, and is caused mostly by fossil fuel combustion (US EPA, 2008).

Countless studies have been conducted by various experts, scientists and critics on the subject of the Kyoto Protocol. The conclusions derived from the assortment of methods and models used to scrutinize its effects have come up with one common argument: that the Protocol was flawed in more aspects than one – adding, therefore, to the soundness of the decision of the US to back out of the treaty.

A paper by Nordhaus and Boyer (1999) from the Yale University said that the Kyoto Protocol will have an unexceptional impact on global warming. Because it does not succeed in put a ceiling on the emissions of non-Annex I countries, the long-run impact of the Protocol on carbon emissions and global temperature will be extremely small, as will be discussed a bit further. They also observed that that the strategy behind the Kyoto Protocol did not have any background in economics or environmental policy. Keeping emissions constant for a group of countries does not relate with quantified changes in atmospheric conditions, nor to an economically-oriented strategy that would balance the costs and benefits of greenhouse gas reductions. The cost of the implementation of the Protocol varies enormously for different settings.

In laying down the groundwork for the Protocol, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to a few conditions that ultimately proved to be the Protocol’s very weakness. The conditions, or rather assumptions, made and agreed upon are that: (1) the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries; (2) per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low, and (3) the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs. In other words, China, India, Brazil and other developing countries, were not included in any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not yet main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions in the period when the Protocol was conceptualized. These so-called developing countries at the moment have the largest workforce and labor requirements, brought about by the multitude of worldwide companies flocking to put up industrial units in these countries because of the dirt-cheap cost of labor.

Take a look at China. According to the Dutch Environmental Assessment Agency, China overtook the USA as the world’s largest emitter in 2006 (Wang and Watson, 2007), exceeding US emissions by 8%. The Dutch report cited the most immediate reason to be the growth in coal-fired electricity generation and cement production in China. China already gave out a statement in defense of itself, stating that since it has maintained low emissions per capita and a low population count, it should be looked at as a contributor to the environment instead, and that majority of its emissions result from exports for consumption by developed countries (Wikipedia, 2008). The last argument is valid, but it is not an excuse for them still to hold no bars in their emissions, as if it isn’t even partly their fault that big companies are after their cheap labor. And countries should be concerned with emissions due to the production of goods that they consume as much as those produced within their borders.

It would make sense to say that an agreement that allows the developing countries to continue emitting greenhouse gases would in effect negate the efforts of the countries trying to reduce them. In the long run, if this process is allowed to continue, the prices of gasoline, electricity and fuel oil in the Annex I countries would rise drastically and eventually cause significant harm to their economy. Developing countries, on the other hand, while enjoying the freedom from the rules set by the Protocol, would not need to raise their energy prices or product prices as the industrial countries would after implementing steps to meet their targets.

Coon (2001) also cited other reasons in support of the US’s refusal to ratify the treaty. The Protocol’s projections are based on scenarios that predict population change, fuel use, technology development, international trade, and rate of development. In short, the Protocol is bordering on idealistic, without any thought about the implications the conditions would have in the long run to the economies of the world. It makes no distinctions regarding human and non-human factors affecting the climate change, thus having no real basis that policymakers could use to make intelligent decisions on how to reduce human contributions to climate change and how to prepare for changes that are due to forces outside of human control. Also, the Protocol’s targets are unrealistic in such that essentially many countries will not be able to meet their emissions targets, and even if they did, their efforts would be offset by the rising emissions of the developing countries. And finally, there is too much emphasis is placed on carbon dioxide and not enough on other greenhouse gases and heat-trapping substances. Furthermore, Bush objected to the fact that the US pays almost two-thirds of the global cost of the Protocol in the central Annex I case. He has expressed that he would rather deal with the issue of global climate change based on sound science, offering to support the development of technologies, incentives and other approaches that would address the factors involved more effectively.

It is highly unfair for the supporters of the Protocol to heap so much criticism on Bush’s decision regarding the ratification of the Protocol, considering that China and other developing countries aren’t affected by such limitations. Their the claiming that unless the US reduces its carbon dioxide emissions under the agreement, the Earth's temperature will rise with catastrophic results, such as massive floods, coastal erosion, and water shortages is unfounded. These allegations make them appear desperate to condemn US for something, which may be their own shortcomings. It is much more logical to criticize the US for poking their noses in the business of Middle East and Asian countries, than for being sharp about the issue of global climate change.

This paper was not written to go against that the Kyoto Protocol, or to say it should be disregarded for its flaws. Rather, it is a petition for the greater population in need of a big wake-up call to, like, wake-up to the reality that it takes much more than assumptions and pointing fingers at who should pay the biggest to save this planet. Bush’s decision regarding the treaty deserves respect simply because he was thinking of millions of Americans that are counting on him to keep the US standard of living as it is. It deserves respect because there are, in fact, better and more effective and realistic ways in dealing with this problem of emissions, though, it is always important to keep in mind that the point of reducing emissions is to reduce future damages. The Kyoto Protocol is a start, it is not perfect, and one prominent man’s firm decision to not give in to the pressure of so many to just go along is a signal that something needs to be improved or reworked so that it can work for more, if not all, people.

 

References:

Brahic, C. 2007. “China's emissions may surpass the US in 2007.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: New Scientist, <http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11707-china...>.

Coon, C. 2001. “Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: The Heritage Foundation, Leadership for America, <http://www.heritage.org/Research/EnergyandEnvironment/BG1...>.

Frankel, J. 2000. “The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol and Global Climate Change Policy.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: <http://ksghome.harvard.edu/~jfrankel/KyotoKSGForumWeather...>.

“Kyoto Protocol.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: Wikipedia, <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol>.

Nordhaus, W. and J. Boyer. 1999. “Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: <http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Kyoto.pdf>.

“The Kyoto Testimony”. Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: Energy Information Administration, <http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/press/press109.html>.

“US Greenhouse Gas Reports.” Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: US Environmental Protection Agency, <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/usinventoryrep...>.

Wang, T. and J. Watson. 2007. “Who Owns China’s Carbon Emissions?” Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research. Retrieved: 11 August 2008. Available at: < http://tyndall.webapp1.uea.ac.uk/publications/briefing_no...>.