The earth is warming up.

The opinion of the majority of scientists is that this

warming is man-made, a result of the greenhouse gases � particularly carbon dioxide
� that are a by-product of transport, industry and energy production. It is hard to
predict how severe global warming will be. However, even a rise of 3oC (which is by
no means the worst case scenario) could result in large-scale crop failures, the
flooding of vast areas of low-lying land and more frequent extreme weather events
(such as hurricanes).
As a response to climate change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) was negotiated at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. This
treaty, which has been signed by 192 nations, set up a series of negotiations on
climate change � a process that resulted in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Under the
Kyoto Protocol (often just called Kyoto), industrialised countries are committed to
capping their greenhouse gas emissions. By 2008�2012, the EU, for example, must
reduce the amount of greenhouse gas it produces by 8% compared to 1990 levels.
Overall, Kyoto will lead to a total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from the
developed world of 5.2%. In addition to these targets, a system of emissions
trading was introduced. A state is allowed to exceed its target if it buys 'spare
capacity' from another nation which has not filled its quota. Developing nations
are exempted from any targets so as not to hinder development. The Kyoto Protocol
finally entered into force in February 2005, following Russia's ratification of the
treaty.
In July 2005 an alternative strategy, the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean
Development and Climate (APPCDC), was unveiled. The driving forces behind APPCDC
are the USA and Australia, neither of which have ratified Kyoto out of fear that it
will lead to domestic job losses. Rather than imposing compulsory emission cuts,
APPCDC advocates a technological solution to global warming. The six contracting
states (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the USA), which have a
combined population of over 2.5 billion and together produce 50% of the world's
greenhouse gas emissions, have agreed to develop and share clean technology.
Although APPCDC describes itself as a partnership which will �complement, but not
replace, the Kyoto Protocol�, its opponents see APPCDC as a direct threat to Kyoto.

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________

Arguments

Pros

It is untrue, as the opposition claim, that APPCDC places too much emphasis on non-
renewable resources. APPCDC encourages the development of many different types of
power sources � renewable and non-renewable. It is sensible to encourage the
development of clean non-renewable energy sources for a number of reasons. First,
renewable energy cannot come close to satisfying the world's energy needs in the
short and medium terms. Second, developing countries are in any case going to use
the cheapest and easiest power source available: coal. It therefore makes sense to
develop technology which can mitigate the effects of coal-fired power stations.
Finally, APPCDC promotes the development of many different non-renewable resources
as part of a balanced energy mix. In this way minimal strain is placed on any one
resource. When used in combination, and supplemented by renewable energy sources,
oil, coal, gas and uranium still have the capacity to last for a long time yet.
cons

APPCDC is a short-sighted agreement because it places too much emphasis on

developing non-renewable energy sources. APPCDC, for example, encourages the use of
natural gas and 'clean' coal. Even ignoring the question of how clean coal can ever
be, reserves of gas and coal are limited and APPCDC merely entrenches their use.
APPCDC also encourages the use of civilian nuclear power. Uranium (the fuel for
nuclear power stations) is, however, also in short supply. In fact, if nuclear
power were adopted worldwide, uranium reserves would only last another 30 years!
There is a second danger in APPCDC's promotion of nuclear power. As part of the
agreement, the United States has agreed to share nuclear technology with India.
India is, however, not a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This sets a
dangerous precedent and will make future US counter-proliferation efforts � in
Iran, for example � much harder.

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________

pros

The Kyoto protocol will slow economic growth. If the USA was to ratify Kyoto,
American businesses would be left with an nasty choice. To cut their carbon dioxide
emissions they could either simply produce less or they could buy very expensive
clean technology. Either way, American industry would become less competitive,
economic growth would be slowed and jobs would be lost. This problem is made worse
by the fact that, under Kyoto, developing nations are not subject to the same
binding targets that are required of the USA. Developing nations, because their
labour standards are much lower, can already produce goods much more cheaply than
the US; Kyoto would make this advantage much greater. In contrast, American
industry benefits under APPCDC because it will promote the development of clean
technology which businesses can take up when it is to their economic advantage to
do so.

cons

It is mistaken to believe that Kyoto will cost jobs. Kyoto will spur on the
development of clean technology much faster than APPCDC. Clean technology, because
it is uses resources more efficiently, can save industry money in the long run.
Countries that chose to invest in clean technology not only benefit from increased
efficiency but can also make money through emissions trading. The other side to
this is that countries which are unable to meet their targets can buy additional
emission credits and, in this way, their industries need not suffer. The UK
introduced an emissions trading scheme in 2002, for example. It is based on the
same principles as global emissions trading, except that companies, rather than
countries, trade emission credits. In the first three years of that scheme
participating companies reduced their emissions by almost 23% and did so without
damaging their competitiveness. This is clear evidence that emissions trading can
work. However, even if does not, and jobs are lost, Kyoto is ultimately a necessity
because of the scale of threat posed by global warming.
___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________

pros

APPCDC is a more effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions than Kyoto.
Even Kyoto's advocates admit that it is flawed because the emission targets set by
Kyoto are unlikely to make much difference. A recent study published in the journal
Nature suggests that by 2050 Kyoto will reduce the temperature rise due to global
warming by between 0.02oC and 0.28oC. Although it is true that the UNFCCC does, in
theory, allow stricter quotas to be imposed, it is hard to see this being realised
in practice. For this reason, even if quotas help in the short term, they can
actually be a hindrance in the long term. Furthermore, were the US to ratify Kyoto,
it would quickly become unpopular with Americans because of the resulting job
losses (see point 1). This would make any future agreement on climate change much
harder to sell to the American public. In contrast, APPCDC will stimulate
technological developments which have the capacity to reduce emissions much further
than the Kyoto limits. It will also create jobs and thus prevent bad feeling toward
the green movement.

cons

A Kyoto-style cap is the most effective way of preventing global warming. It is

imperative that greenhouse gas emissions be curbed. A cap provides the guarantee
that this will happen. It may be true that by itself Kyoto will only have a limited
effect on curtailing global warming but is part of a much longer process, which
will ultimately see all countries signing up to tough emission targets. As the
effects of global warming begin to be seen, a growing consensus will emerge about
the need to limit emissions further. Relying purely on the development of clean
technologies, as APPCDC does, leaves too much up to chance. Furthermore, it is also
flawed to think, as the proposition do, that quotas and a technological solution
are incompatible. As discussed in point 1, quotas can actually stimulate the
development of clean technologies.

___________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________

pros

APPCDC in no way undermines the Kyoto Protocol. APPCDC is an agreement to develop

and share clean technology. This is not mutually exclusive with caps on emissions.
It is perfectly possible for a nation to be a member of both Kyoto and APPCDC at
the same time. Indeed, China, India, Japan and South Korea are in exactly this
position. As for the United States and Australia, they had decided against Kyoto
long before the creation of APPCDC. Moreover, APPCDC actually helps the Kyoto
Protocol to achieve its aims. The best way for developed countries to reduce their
emissions is for them to have access to cheap clean technology � exactly the kind
of technology which will result from APPCDC. Without APPCDC, the US and Australia
would be doing comparatively little to help prevent global warming. With APPCDC,
the US and Australia are developing the means to prevent climate change.
cons

APPCDC undermines the Kyoto Protocol. The main drivers behind APPCDC are Australia
and the USA, two countries which are totally opposed to emissions capping. APPCDC
is their way of pushing an alternative strategy for combating global warming. It
gives their approach legitimacy and provides them with an excuse for not ratifying
Kyoto. It is hard to escape the conclusion that, in spite of claims to the
contrary, APPCDC's real aim is to undermine Kyoto. In the worst case scenario,
nations may leave Kyoto in favour of APPCDC, severely damaging attempts to prevent
global warming in the process. APPCDC also undermines Kyoto in a more subtle way.
Solving global warming will require co-ordinated action by every state. Agreeing on
that action requires a global forum, such as the legitimate one currently provided
by the UNFCCC. APPCDC is a rival and a distraction. Because APPCDC's six members
account for about 50% of global emissions, its creation has effectively split the
world into two. Ultimately, this split will make future agreements on climate
change even harder to negotiate.

___________________________________________________________________________________
___________________________

pros

The opposition claim that by ratifying Kyoto the United States would generate
goodwill. They would like to believe that foreign policy works on a system of
favours: if the US ratifies Kyoto, then other states will do something for the US
in return. This analysis is na�ve because states make decisions based on their own
national interest. Whether the US has done them a favour in the past doesn't enter
into this calculation. Ultimately, states are much too hard-nosed to worry about
whether the USA has ratified Kyoto or the Convention on Landmines when, for
example, deciding on whether to refer Iran to the Security Council over its
development of nuclear weapons. Since other states act based on their self-interest
then so should US. Kyoto is not in the American interest; the USA should,
therefore, not ratify it.

cons

Ratifying Kyoto would generate a lot of goodwill for the United States. The USA has
recently created a lot of resentment by its refusal to work through international
law. The war in Iraq, its failure to ratify either the Convention on Landmines or
the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and its refusal to sign up to the International
Criminal Court have all damaged America's reputation abroad. This makes it harder
for the US to achieve its foreign policy goals. America's refusal to ratify Kyoto
is a case in point. America has only 4% of the world's population and yet it
produces over 25% of the world's carbon dioxide. The US produces twice as much
carbon dioxide per head than any other state. The goodwill that the United States
would generate by ratifying Kyoto would help it achieve its broader foreign policy
objectives. It would make it easier, for example, for the US to create a coalition
in favour of referring Iran to the UN Security Council for its development of
nuclear weapons.