kyoto protocol 1997

Student:
Instructor:
Course:
Date:
Kyoto Protocol 1997
The Kyoto practice refers to the worldwide agreement that is associated with the U.N outline settlement on environment alteration. It commits it members by setting up international mandatory emission decrease targets. Taking into accounts that most of the developed nations are mainly responsible for the existing states of GHG emission in the atmosphere due to the long period of industrial activities, the Kyoto protocol places more burden on the industrialized countries through the principle of common but distinguished responsibility. In this regard, we have the Annex I parties which involved all industrialized states that were associates of the OECD as well as countries with high economies in a shift. These included the Baltic State, Eastern European, and Central States. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997, but it came into force in 2005. It is viewed as one of the major steps taken towards the achievement of truly international emission reduction ruling that will stabilize the GHG emissions as well as providing the architecture for the future global agreement on the climate change. The Kyoto main feature is that it has a compulsory aim on the greenhouse gas production for the leading global economies that have agreed to it. These goals range from positive 10 percent to negative 8 percent of the total countries production levels that were recorded in 1990 with the view of decreasing the overall release of such gasses by 5 percent below the prevailing levels in the commitment period of 2008 to 2012.

According to the protocol requirements, the nation’s actual obligation is to be monitored and accurate records kept on the number of trading activities carried out within a particular country.
BATNA is the standard that guards a person or country against accepting terms and conditions that are may seem unfavorable as well rejecting terms that would be to it interest accept (Lesley, pg.111). It also refers to the best alternative that a state can take in the absence of a clear agreement. For the country to adopt a certain alternative, it must a have a clear understanding of the situation, the available resources to be utilized and the general situation at hand. In regard to the Kyoto agreement, the U.S. signed the protocol in 1998, but the administration of the current president rejected it in 2001 (Noriko, pg. 144). This lead to the general delay in putting Kyoto into power as U.S. was deemed as an important contributor in greenhouse gas emission. U.S. decision in making this staunch decision despite destroying its good reputation was facilitated by the fact that countries such as India and China that followed in a gas release after the U.S. – were not restricted to decreasing gas emission. In this regard, there was also Senate rule that restricted the state from signing any agreement that involved climate change without the involvement of both developing and developed nations. Since U.S. walked away due to lack of agreement with other nations, Bush insisted that his administration was going to pursue some BATNA with completely different strategies. This was a unique BATNA with not only new strategies but also strange systems. Though the Kyoto Protocol involved all countries around the globe that were structured into customary regional blocs, the APP was composed of only six founding countries in the pacific areas. Due to the small scale makeup, the negotiations composed of the developing and yet wealthy countries in APP (Lesley, pg. 91). The U.S. did don have to approach very many countries unified as one he bloc expecting it to lead according to the climatic change protocol. Regarding the climatic change provision, the APP acted contrary to the Kyoto Protocol practice which mainly focused on the quantities reduction on the gas produced. Contrary to the quantitative approach, APP readdressed the climatic change focus to the technological operations that could help in the production of the nuclear power and the clean coal (John, pg. 146-188). Moreover, U.S. was now in a good position of including all the suggestions that were dismissed in the Kyoto negotiation in the APP. This included the association though nonbinding with the developing countries that were expected to produce a lot of gasses in the future. It is important to note that through the alternative action of forming the APP, the U.S. was able to fulfill the main state interests that could not have been accommodated in Kyoto Protocol. First, U.S. through the APP association meets the basic Senate requirement that prohibited it from any binding agreement regarding the climate change. Secondly, the APP association helped to secure the economic interest of the U.S. the process of employment of market-based strategies such as the partnership between public and private entities. Lastly, the development of the alternative strategy helped to uphold the U.S. global reputation through the proof that the state does not relinquish its obligations. In this case, it is clear that the APP association served as an effective BATNA for the U.S. in both securing the United States interest as well as the proactive response to the climatic changes of the state.
Work Cited
Lesley Masters, “The G-77 and China in the Climate Change Negotiations: A Leaky Umbrella?,” Institute for Global Dialogue, 111 (2014)
Noriko Fujiwara, “The Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate: What it is and what it is not,” Center for European Policy Studies. 144 (2007).
Lesley Masters, “Africa, Climate Change and Copenhagen: A Post Mortem,” Institute for Global Dialogue. 91 (2010).
John Vidal, “African Nations Make a Stand at UN Climate Talks,” The Guardian, November 3, 2009.