The use of the Kyoto Protocol for environmental purposes has been a subject of close relations and deviant practices in regard to the environment to stay effective only from the lens of future perspectives. However, it is not only by chance that the protocol did not work very well in the framework of the global perspectives. The reason was that many countries, including the 55 most developed states, were about to neglect environmental problems and social issues related by means of the wastes disposal quotas. The “greenhouse effect” was hidden under the umbrella of international policy of different states who stayed active in trading the norms of wastes disposal, and among them, carbon dioxide CO2 can be considered as the major interest that is shared between countries. The U.S. was the largest country that could not manage without trading quotas as it appeared to be true because it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. In this relation, quota trading has become one of the major aspects in the context of which the international community policy was activated with the sentential that the U.S. failed to meet obligation under the Kyoto Protocol in terms of the global effect of gases disposal into the atmosphere that could be the sign of increase in the global warming. For example, the expectations in the worst scenario could be the following: global warming could have been raised as the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere has contributed to the global warming of +2º Celcium. The overheat of the Earth can be the sign of the bad and challenging consequences, according to which the Sun effects can be extreme for the forestry and water scarcity.
However, the environmental issues are not the only ones that can be regarded as close in regard to differentiating between nature and humanity. Somewhere in the middle, social issues of the Kyoto Protocol can be regarded, particularly on the matter of carbon dioxide extra use in the atmosphere and soil. On the one hand, carbon gases ruin the atmosphere, and on the other hand, they pollute soil and water that can be a major negative effect on the environment. Socially, it can cause negative impacts on people’s health, leading to cancer, nasal diseases, and allergies. In this relation, more of the gas is being used, the more effective it may cause on the relevance of the attitude that was suggested by the Kyoto Protocol.
Aim & Focus
This research is aimed at highlighting the position of the U.S. in regard to the Kyoto Protocol in the context of international policy on the global warming strategy that can be implemented effectively only when highly developed manufacturing countries can reduce their impact on the atmosphere.
The angle of view of this research can be effectively focused on stating the correct prospects that can be well measured only within the right developed contexts of global capitalism. Both economically and socially, the environment is being regarded only as an instrument that allows people to stay active with traditional relationships toward the growth of productivity and improvement of the performance portfolio reports, instead of caring about the reduction of pollution. The effect of capitalism is influential in some ways: on the one hand, it gives people the feeling of success, and on the other hand, it is an instrument that socially impacts on development of harmful individualism and lack of care about countries who are destined to get involved into environmental quotas trading for they are indeed raising extra funds for their budgets.
Socially, climate skepticism is related to doubt in the scientific consensus on climate change as it goes in bulk with misunderstandings that may arise discussing the initiatives of the World Bank. The subject of investment is discussed for the international policy of global environmental quotas investment. The doubt about environmental trading expressed by the general public may be partly the product of coverage of the topic of climate in the media as a controversial and uncertain issue. This may contradict the wide-spread point of view that it is missing the major aspects of social ethics.
It is not by chance that 97-98% of climate researchers support scientific knowledge of anthropogenic climate changes. Humanity does not lose its interest in the climate changes due to the measurements of successful manufacturing, consumerism, and the raising industrialization that are of the major effect for the short-term and long-term initiatives on developing effective strategies on the basis of the environmental ethical decisions.
This argument can be supported by the methodology: selecting proofs on the Kyoto Protocol determines its role and issues for the development of practical solutions to the effect that this document has on global capitalism, and reversely. The aspect of a capitalistic approach to the global environmental initiatives is being measured by relations between capitalism and global changes with the directly proportional relevance between them. It is understandable that the more capitalistic relationships have been developing, the more negative impact they have on the environment.
The methodology for this research includes mainly a literature review to define the scope of the research and highlight the benefits of their use in constructing the background for the discussion on the nature of capitalism and its consequences on the climate changes in the global environment.
This study presents the strengths and weaknesses of the traditional literature review methodology. It deals with the experience and scientific achievements of the researchers and questions on anthropogenic climate change. It explicably shows the high measurement of the probability of danger of climate change for the Earth. However, the weakness of this methodology is presented in a certain lack of empirical data for this assignment. The argumentation and the topicality of this issue present interest for further discussions on how to deal with the effects of capitalism and rising consumerism on the environment.
The problem of determining the necessary efforts to mitigate climate change in different countries is considered on the basis of the need to enable economic development for the developing countries (principle of justice of the Copenhagen Treaty). The method to support the argumentation is useful for this research in terms of the conviction that this study uses the framing analysis within the formal scenario pathway assumptions and scenario of the pathway development.
The methodology of this study provides a list of practical actions. An immediate start will lead to reducing the pace of emissions by 8-10% per year in developed countries. However, according to Anderson & Bows (2010), these rates are clearly incompatible with economic growth.
The Kyoto Protocol Prehistory
Negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol were part of the struggle for the implementation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The first attempt on the implementation was made on December 11, 1997. It could be treated as the commitment of the industrialized nations to the legally specified procedures encouraging the reductions of emission of six greenhouse gases, including CO2. Fletcher calls the United States to be “a target of reducing greenhouse gases by 7% below 1990 levels during a “commitment period” between 2008-2012. The protocol was aimed at eliminating the base for carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and in relation to the U.S., the carbonization was expected to be reduced to lower than 7%.
The United States Alienated Position
The U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol on November 12, 1998. However, there were some issues that could not be properly addressed since there was a strict position on the capitalization of incomes via investments into the protocol quotas. In reality, the U.S. held the PR position, playing useful schematic games for the position in the strategic attempt of Clinton administration that indeed did not submit the Kyoto Protocol to the U.S. The Senate consent and discussion, when it was acknowledging that there was one condition, outlined S. Res. 98. It was passed in mid-1997 in terms of the meaningful participation of the developing countries to reinforce the binding commitments that were limiting greenhouse gases. In fact, the position of the U.S. was strictly active; and as a result, the reduction of carbon dioxide was not committed by the country. The adverse effect of the U.S. activity came into stabilization when late in March 2001 the Kyoto Protocol was crushed by the Bush administration that rejected the Kyoto Protocol completely. Further, the popularity of the Kyoto Protocol helped the United States to continue attending the annual conferences, but the country did not participate in the Kyoto Protocol-centered negotiations. Since February 2002, due to a decision, the President Bush announced the U.S. policy for prevention of the climate change to rely only on domestic initiatives, expressing voluntary actions of the U.S. national economy that were aimed at reduction of the greenhouse gas intensity (emissions to economic output ratio) produced by the U.S. economy by 18% in the forthcoming 10 years. However, still, such expectations are far from reality. The significant initiatives are valuable, but they are insufficient in terms of the development of rationalized attempts to differentiate between capitalistic approaches to the global economy in relation to the current needs of the U.S. production market. It can be explicated by the statement that the U.S. used populist methods in the promotion of their activities that were aimed at generating deliverables toward quotas that could be sold and bought. Environmental quotas trading under the Kyoto Protocol could be the way by which the countries were sharing responsibility for carbon dioxide used in terms of investing and generating profits into unethical decisions.
Emissions trading started in California in 2013. The decision on the support of emissions quotas trading for some countries that had poor national economies was the chance to successfully determine the needs for funding national budgets. In this relation, there is no wonder that emission trading was initiated by means of World Bank support. The countries that formed the “umbrella group” signed the international treaty to support each other in terms of quota trading benefits. Supporting the U.S. economy was the lucky chance for the country to win the major benefits among the other national economies in the world. The U.S. rejected the protocol in terms of CO2 wastes disposal into the atmosphere. They rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and this failure was the action against the environmental ethics; it was conceptually the decision of inequality in regard to the other national economies that did not reveal determination for success by caring about nature.
The “umbrella group,” in which the U.S. was joined by New Zealand, Japan, Canada, Australia, Russia, Ukraine, Norway, and Iceland, opened the road to the adverse effect of the environmental investment that would have become the unethical resolution decision. The administration stated that the goal, to be met through voluntary action, is to achieve efficiency improvements that would reduce the 183 metric tons of emissions per million dollars of gross domestic product (GDP) to 151 in 2012. However, the protocol initiatives failed in regard to the globalism of rising capitalism.
Green Investment Scheme
The green investment mechanism is the method to trace the efficacy of environmental ethical standards. According to the World Bank initiative,
A Green Investment Scheme (GIS) refers to a plan for achieving environmental benefits from trading surplus allowances (AAUs) under the Kyoto Protocol and a mechanism in the framework of International Emissions Trading (IET) [that] is designed to achieve greater flexibility in reaching the targets of the Kyoto Protocol while preserving environmental integrity of IET (Carbon Finance at the World Bank 2011).
However, the official explication of the green investment term and mechanisms is missing for the green investment is not a compulsory feature of the Kyoto Protocol. For better or worse, the green investment mechanism allowed to construct the forthcoming initiatives within the frameworks of the contemporary practical solutions as the parts of modernized environmental initiatives on CO2 reduction with atmospheric values.
In fact, CO2 may be evaporated and disposed of, but it can be hardly solvable by the earth, water, and air substances. The most dangerous that CO2 may cause is to create the so-called “greenhouse effect” that can be the sign of negligence in regard to nature. The related problem of global warming can be the major effect of its disposition as a waste. The worst effect of CO2 in this relation can be greatly dependable on its concentration. For example, CO2 in the global sense is not only becoming part of the global air but also global water. Due to the scarcity of water resources on the planet, it is understandable that the water resources and the air above the surface of the planet can be saved from the CO2 disposal by making suitable decisions on CO2 use reduction.
However, in spite of the high need to reduce CO2 use; global capitalistic relations will definitely not allow it to reduce it by at least 7-8%. As for the U.S. as the country of the transnational economy, the global nature of their international trade relationships can be under the closer discussion considering the benefits and risks due to the target U.S. markets flattered by the need for the carbon dioxide reduction. This need in the form of a request from the 55 most powerful countries of the world can be effective for distributing relevant highly exposable behavioral principles that are good for reinforcement of the principles of elimination of global warming and the related issues.
The problem of the rising consumerism in the formulated principles of the industrial revolution can prevent countries from the reduction of CO2 use in the industrial spheres. Within the global initiatives, the perspectives on manufacturization of the U.S. economy are vivid. The country has over 100 million people who employ carbon as a constituent of chemicals in everyday use. The effect of such an environment is the challenge that should be addressed on the part of the global leadership community. However, there are still no effective mechanisms that can stimulate the highly developed countries to reduce the global temperature by the accessible instruments of reduction of CO2. The substance in the form of gasoline is suitable for the benefits of industrial efficacy. However, the consumerized environment of the West is angry with the statements of the Kyoto Protocol for it makes restrictions on country’s chemicals use and their disposal to the environment.
Global capitalism does not allow to stand apart from wastes disposal. Even more, it provides effective measurements for the global liberalization of the approach toward the significance and the importance of the Kyoto Protocol. It is evident from this research that there are huge manipulations and speculations with the termination of the protocol that was provided on the part of the U.S. as the leading economy that failed to achieve the required determination of values between the 55 countries, the leaders in the global climate change.
In this relation, it would be possible to draw the conclusion on the role of capitalism as the destructive source for the environmental changes in the global perspective. Moreover, it would be possible to place this problem into the strict frameworks of the U.S. However, this approach to wastes disposal to the poor countries, including Ukraine and China, shows how the globalized economies are ready to solve problems and troubles within the context of narrowing their skillful minds to the countries that are in need of funding. Selling quotas under the Kyoto Protocol is the sign of the capitalistic movement in making changes to their understanding of the global nature of the wastes problem.
In the context of this work, the outrage perspective can be drawn in the following way: the greenhouse investment is driven by the U.S. and so-called “umbrella group” is the way how capitalistic environment is absorbing the relevant and suitable solutions in a compromising manner. The quality of such decisions is arguable; however, they are being presented in bulk from time to time to show the U.S. extra care and support toward the poor countries. However, the capitalistic relationships are not that much traceable within the perspectives of the short-term outcomes as they have long-term consequences. Since the U.S. did not accept the Kyoto Protocol in full, they started to stay aside looking for the most profitable solutions to avoid consequences from being fully responsible for their political decisions. In fact, the U.S. was not the only country that did some attempts to avoid the original idea of protocolling the enacted decisions.
The relationships between the global capitalistic countries are a social problem that is mirrored by the lack of care about poor countries that are being under the economic and political exploitation in the worldwide performance of the active players. In this relation, the problem of rejection of the Kyoto Protocol by the U.S. is the evident sign of disrespect to people from the countries with the less economic growth. Socially, this problem is traceable in the scale of capitalistic issues. The social problems of consumerism as addition to the wastes of material culture are what can be expected as the major outcome of disrespecting the Kyoto Protocol by the United States. Technological breakdown, manufacture growth, IT development, strategic decisions on care about the quality and quantity, or the production units can tackle the problem at a wide range, supporting the point of view that the perspectives of the Kyoto Protocol could be higher if the U.S. would have supported the decision on reduction of CO2 disposal into the atmosphere. Unluckily, this decision was misused when the United States of America rejected the Kyoto Protocol for the sake of the new initiatives on consumerization.