Opposition to
Kyoto
The two major countries currently
opposed to the treaty are the United States and Australia. Some
public policy experts who are skeptical of global warming see Kyoto
as a scheme to either retard the growth of the world's industrial
democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they
claim is a global socialism initiative. Others argue the protocol
does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions (Niue, The Cook
Islands, and Nauru added notes to this effect when signing the
protocol UNFCCC ).
Many environmental economists have
been critical of the Kyoto Protocol. Many see the costs of the
Kyoto Protocol as outweighing the benefits, some believing the
standards which Kyoto sets to be too optimistic, others seeing a
highly inequitable and inefficient agreement which would do little
to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It should be noted, however, that
this opposition is not unanimous, and that the inclusion of
emissions trading has led some environmental economists to embrace
the treaty.
Further, there is a controversy to use 1990 as a base
year, or not to use a per capita emission as a basis. Countries had
different achievements in energy efficiency in 1990. For example,
the former Soviet Union and eastern European countries did little to
tackle the problem and their energy efficiency was at their worst
level in 1990 as the year was just before their structural change,
on the other hand Japan as a big importer of natural resources had
to improve their efficiency after the 1973 oil crisis and their
emission level in 1990 was better than most developed countries.
However, such efforts were set aside, and the inactivity of the
former Soviet was overlooked and could even generate big income due
to the emission trade. There is an argument that the use of per
capita emission as a basis in the following Kyoto-type treaties can
reduce the inequality feelings among the developed and developing
countries alike as it can reveal inactivities and responsibilities
among countries.