The Kyoto Protocol

Introduction

The Kyoto Protocol, and its ratification by the international community is the most controversial piece of news of the past few months. It is especially a touchy subject because the United States of America's governing body decided not to ratify it, thereby creating an international rift between the European Union and the superpowers like China and Russia, countries that have ratified the agreement. Nonetheless, the U.S. is the biggest economic power in the world, and the nation that produces the greatest amount of greenhouse gas per capita. Usually, our international policy and sometimes even our national policy follow in the footsteps of our southern neighbors, who pushed us into such agreements as NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement), which was the subject of tremendous controversy at the time. Though we depend on the U.S. for our exports; we also need to be aware of global issues such as pollution. In this paper, I will attempt to examine, simplify, and deliberate on the Kyoto Protocol, and the importance of its ratification or rejection. I will examine both the pros and the cons to this sensitive issue. I will also closely examine an economic region in Canada, namely Alberta and Saskatchewan, and voice my own opinion on the subject at hand.

Advantages for the national economy of ratification.

Canada has several economic regions, all drawing their strength first of all from their natural resources, their export/import, as well as their various industrial infrastructures, which generate the backbone of their economies. These micro economies fuel the larger national economy, which in turn interacts through its policies with other nations, establishing policies, which are advantageous to the national economy. Following this structural model, it is no surprise that the west coast, the great plains, the economic zones of Ontario and Quebec, and the Maritimes all feel very differently as to how the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol would affect them. The ratification of the Protocol would definitely reduce the changing climate, which draws more and more attention to it each passing day. Global warming is also one of the factors that create concern of which most of us are aware, but know not the complex details or cause and effect that of choosing one position over another. In addition, the environmental factor of melting polar ice caps, an apparent effect of global-warming and its consequent impact on the broader eco-system. Therefore, adoption of the Kyoto Protocol balances some of these issues and should provide new jobs in high-tech, and construction industries.

Fossil-fuel consuming vehicles, such as cars must meet new emission standards as the countries, which ratify the accord plan to reduce the CO2 greenhouse gases, while "alternative fuel" research will take the forefront, and boost the national economy. Already, there have been several mixed fuels, which burn cleaner than fossil fuels like XXXXXX, which have been introduced on a trial basis all across the nation. Fuel, made from corn, would decimate the OPEC, who will lose markets. The industry behind the creation of these new fuels would be economically productive, environmentally sound, and gleaming with a bright future. In terms of economics, the costs of complying with the Kyoto Protocol would be extremely high, though very worthwhile in the long run, as the fossil fuels are finite, and non recyclable. The development of cleaner fuels would be an amazing feat. We have to examine what the costs would be: Emission testing of existing vehicles, and those in the future; development of environment friendly fuels; restructuring of automotive infrastructure (not a small task, seeing as our way of life is based on the automobile). Hence, various interest groups would like to see the Kyoto Protocol ratified. They have a vested interest in the ratification due to the fact that it would make their existence far simpler than what has been in the past. Other countries (not the countries, but rather their governing bodies) have made up their minds about the Kyoto Protocol, and have either said "Yay" or "Nay" with a definite voice. Canada has the obstacle of being a large country and not a homogeneous country like China, and Russia, where the absence of lobby groups, special interest groups and the structure of the governments makes it easier to do just that: govern and make decisions that will affect the whole of the country. Those two countries do not have the number of vehicles that the North American nations of Canada and United States.

Disadvantages for the national economy of ratification.

As I examined the reasons of the accord, its ratification is necessary. According to some experts, the climate changes that are taking place are a natural progression of an earth-like planet, but then again, we tend to come up with various new explanations of what is happening, according to what suits the media, population, political parties, elected officials and general population. As for the polar ice caps melting, how much of a change does the ENTIRE planet has to make in order to make a significant change? Will the K.P. (Kyoto Protocol) be significant enough to affect the lives of everyone? Each time we discus change in Canadian national policy, we have to take into account the number of jobs that will either be created or lost when the changes take effect. It seems that the success or failure of any change is only measured by job creation and job loss. Does it make sense to abandon an idea that will eliminate a certain number of jobs, while in five years; the same move will create twice as many opportunities of employment? The projected immediate job loss from the ratification alone is between 67,000 and 240,000 jobs. In a manner contrary to the way job cuts could be measured, the effects of an environmental change could not be measured. It would be a tremendous undertaking