Posted by Juan Non-Volokh: Kyoto Comes into Force: Yesterday the [1]Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change -- aka the UN global warming treaty -- [2]came into effect. This became a done deal after Russia agreed to ratify the agreement. By its terms, Kyoto enters into force on the 90th day after at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions in 1990 ratify the agreement. Contrary to some claims, [3]the U.S. never "withdrew" from Kyoto the way it withdrew from the International Criminal Court. The U.S. remains a party. Nonetheless, this nation is not bound by its terms because the U.S. has not ratified it. Most other developed nations have ratified Kyoto, however, and are bound by its terms -- at least in theory. Many of Kyoto's signatories in Europe are well behind their emission reduction goals, and developing nations are not required to reduce their emissions at all. As Julian Ku [4]notes at [5]Opinio Juris, many Kyoto signatories are heading in the "wrong direction." The Bush Administration has been the subject of substantial [6]criticism for refusing to endorse Kyoto. But is this criticism warranted? The Clinton Administration signed the treaty, but never submitted it to the Senate for ratification. The Senate passed the [7]Byrd-Hagel Resolution 95-0, unanimously rejecting the substance of the agreement. Even some who believe global warming is a pressing policy concern doubt Kyoto represents a responsible strategy to address climate change concerns. The underlying assumption of much anti-Bush Kyoto commentary is that the Bush Administration is doing nothing on the issue. Even if one sets aside the tens of millions [8]the administration has spent on climate-related research and technology R&D on the assumption that such federal projects rarely bear fruit, the charge that the Administration is sitting on its hands rings hollow. As Gregg Easterbrook [9]notes in The New Republic, the Administration's "[10]Methane to Markets" initiative represents a substantial step toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. (For non-TNR-subscribers, Julian Ku summarizes the article [11]here.) While few have noticed this program, it could do as much to reduce the threat of global warming as Kyoto as methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. Despite its promise, I would not expect too many environmental activists to cheer "methane to markets. First, as we have seen in other contexts (see [12]here and [13]here), the major environmental groups are loathe to give a conservative Republican administration much credit for any environmental initiatives. Second, although "Methane to Markets" could bear fruit, it does not require stringent regulations of coal-fired power plants, limitations on fossil fuels, or controls on SUVs. Third, as Ku suggests, there is often a preference for grand international agreements (like Kyoto) over less-formal -- but not necessarily less-effective -- agreements like "Methane to Markets." It will be interesting to see whether this agreement is a one-shot deal, or a harbringer of more to come.
References 1. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html 2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27318-2005Feb15.html 3. http://commonsblog.org/archives/000334.php 4. http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/2005/02/kyoto-experiment-begins.html 5. http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/ 6. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9444-2005Feb8.html 7. http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html 8. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/02/climatechange.html 9. http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w050214&s=easterbrook021405 10. http://www.epa.gov/methanetomarkets/basicinfo.htm 11. http://lawofnations.blogspot.com/2005/02/bush-plan-could-reduce-global-warming.html 12. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0412.whitman.html 13. http://commonsblog.org/archives/000287.php _______________________________________________ Volokh mailing list [email protected] http://highsorcery.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
