In 2001, heads of energy department of G8 gathered in Italy to finalize an important document—the Kyoto Protocol. The biggest news was not the document per se, but the rejection from the US president George W. Bush who promised to cooperate on this issue before 2000 presidential election. As suggested in the memoir by Whitman, the president practically tipped her off.

So what things in Kyoto protocol scared George Bush away? I don’t trust much about news media because they emphasize more on politics than on science. I want to make decisions based on my own research. Therefore, I checked out the Kyoto document itself.

The document is very long but I found two most important items worth commenting.

The first is to define the purpose of the protocol: “The Parties included in Annex I shall, individually or jointly, ensure that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A do not exceed their assigned amounts, calculated pursuant to their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments inscribed in Annex B and in accordance with the provisions of this Article, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.” (Emphases were made by myself).

It is clear to me that there was some discussion on how to calculate the assigned amounts. Yes, Montreal protocol did just that. But is the way they calculated the ratification correct? Indeed, George W Bush questioned this as one of reasons for refusing to sign the Protocol. Now NY times reported that there is a meeting going on in England just for this.

Furthermore, who is powerful enough to allocate the ratification? The United Nations? Well, we have seen that the United Nations has little power punishing large countries like the US. If it can’t rule its members, the ability of the United Nations to assign the ratification is questionable.

The number “ 5%” is scary too. To see this, consider the trend of CO₂ emission from 1990-2002 in the US. EPA data estimates that there is a 1% yearly increase of CO₂ emission during that period. To go from the positive to the negative, it is much harder to do than to think. With the expanding economics and the case of California energy crisis in 2001, George W Bush was firmly convinced that a CO₂ emission cut would harm the economic development.

The Second interesting piece in the Kyoto Protocol is the transaction of ratification among countries. “ For the purpose of meeting its commitments under Article 3, any Party included in Annex I may transfer to, or acquire from, any other such Party emission reduction units resulting from projects aimed at reducing anthropogenic emissions…”

In every introductory economics textbook, there is an example on the transaction of air pollutants among members. It assumes that a rationale member will evaluate to the cost of change facilities to reduce pollution compared with that of buying pollution allowance. However, the key is whether there is any punishment for those violates the Protocol. Based on the document, it seems that nothing will happen if you disobey the rule. Ha, no punishment, who cares?

Nevertheless, the Kyoto Protocol is based on its members’ voluntary efforts. The US President George W. Bush has rejected the Kyoto Protocol, partly disputing the scientific evidence of global warming, mostly being pressed by energy industry. In addition, he was also presiding over an economic recession and eager to recover the economics. Under this circumstance, his promise before 2000 election didn’t matter anymore.

One of the US complains was that emerging economic giants — China, India, Brazil and South Africa were not on the list. However, Kyoto members are powerful enough to press the new comers to reduce their emissions in the same way as they have done in the world trade organization. It is irreverent to cite other countries when one was making decision. If you don’t want it, just say so. Don’t shove your responsibility to others.

Do we have ways to reduce the CO₂ emission? Yes, we do. There are several demonstrating projects right now in the United States. For example, the Midwest Twin Cities is advocating adding insulation to residential buildings to save energy. The energy saving plan in municipal buildings has reduced CO­₂ emission by more than 18,000 tons annually. It also saved $160 million per year. Industries are also starting saving energy and reducing their own CO₂ emissions. Green power usage from wind increases. It is doable and the cooler future is reachable.