Worn Trails is Back

It has been a while since I wrote my last post and a lot has happened in that period of time. I am now living in Oregon going to Lewis & Clark Law School. I worked for Reuters News Agency and Earthjustice this past summer working on a ton of environmental issues and getting experience in environmental journalism, politics, and lobbying.

Now a semester through law school, I am eager to get back to writing for this site. I decided to restructure the website and change its look. I have also come up with a ton of new material for everyone. I have big plans for this site and I need your help to get there. Please share this website, subscribe, and follow the Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, and Flickr pages--all of which can be found at the tabs on the left of the page. 

I run this website for you, the readers. The material that I have lined up is new to Worn Trails and I know you will enjoy all of it. I look forward to sharing my experiences from over the past year, and going forward. 

Keep on living. 

The Failure That Is The Kyoto Protocol: Challenges That Were Faced And Ideas For The Future

            The 1992 United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil is most known for establishing the concept of “sustainable development,” a widely known, broadly defined idea that calls for environmental and social consideration during economic development.[1]  However, this same conference created the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), arguably the most important international environmental body.[2]  Three years later, the UNFCCC met in Berlin, Germany for the first Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC—COP1.[3]  This conference set the stage for international climate change discussions by determining national and global greenhouse emission targets with the hopes that the international community will be able to successfully combat climate change.[4]  In 1997, COP3 convened in Kyoto, Japan to establish legally binding emissions targets for all parties.  At the time, what transpired was thought to be one of the most comprehensive and successful international environmental agreements to date.[5]

Figure 2: IPCC Carbon Limit and Expected
Temperature Increases

estimates that, with current laws in place, “energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from developing countries will be 127 percent higher than in the world's most developed economies by 2040,” “carbon emissions will grow 46 percent in 2040 from a 2010 baseline,” and “energy-related emissions will total around 45.5 billion tonnes in 2040, up from a reference level of 31.2 billion tonnes in 2010.”[44]  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released their fifth assessment report on climate change this year.  In it, the IPCC formally endorsed a cap on carbon emissions, stating that no more than one trillion tons of carbon can be emitted without irreversible changes.[45]  Figure 2 on page 11 shows this limit.[46]  There is currently almost one-half of one trillion tons of carbon that have been emitted and the IPCC expects that the trillion ton will be emitted in 2040.[47] 

            The UNFCCC defines the Kyoto Protocol as “an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which commits its Parties by setting internationally binding emission reduction targets.”[6]  As stated above, these agreements are legally binding to the signatory countries and those that ratify the Protocol.  The Kyoto Protocol also recognizes that developed nations, such as the United States, China, certain European Union nations and Canada, among others, are primarily responsible for anthropogenic greenhouse emissions that have exacerbated climate change and its negative impacts on the planet and its peoples.[7]  However, it was not until 2005 when Russia and Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol that it was brought into effect.[8] 

            There were 192 parties and 83 signatories to the Kyoto Protocol, including the United States.  Each state pledged a specific target emissions reduction based off of a certain year.  However, of the 192 parties, only one did not ratify the Protocol—the United States of America.[9]  Politics, special interests and the reoccurring resistance to international governance of U.S. policy drove this inaction by the United States.[10]  At the time, not only was it an embarrassment that the United States did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but the United Kingdom, France, Israel, North Korea, China, Iran, Cuba, Iraq and Somalia – our closest allies, political adversaries and wartime opponents – did, many of which called on the United States to join them.[11] 

            The United States not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol would eventually be a blow to the treaty in itself.  However, the treaty was doomed from the start.  Based off of unrealistic expectations and models, the Kyoto Protocol aimed to be something that it could never be and has proven to be an ineffective tool in combating climate change.  Certainly some signatory states have reduced their overall emissions, but the states that the treaty wanted to target – the heavily emitting, developed nations – have barely reduced emissions, if at all.  In fact, global carbon emissions have increase nearly 20 ppmv (parts per million volume)—around 379 ppmv in 2005 to 395 ppmv in 2013.[12]  In addition, year-to-year emissions have been exponentially increasing, proving yet again that this treaty has been ineffective. 

            Oxford University Professor Steve Rayner suggests that the Kyoto Protocol’s design set it up to fail.[13]  He argues that it was set up based off of three analogous systems with similar objectives, but which all had extremely different components: (1) Ozone Depletion: Kyoto attempted to mimic the successful chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) reduction of the Montreal Protocol.  However, CFCs are a fairly simple agent, are artificial and had readily available substitutes.  In addition, only a limited number of nations and companies manufactured and used CFCs.[14]  (2) U.S. EPA Sulfur Cap-and-Trade Program: this market-based approach was successful in reducing sulfur levels, but was once again limited to a limited number of firms and was overseen by one authority.[15]  (3) Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty: Rayner suggests that then-Vice President Al Gore’s concept of a gradual reduction of nuclear weapons was adopted for the Kyoto Protocol to gradually reduce greenhouse gas emissions.[16] 

The issue with the Kyoto Protocol’s design is that these systems are not applicable at an international level, nor are they applicable to manage the complex system of greenhouse gas emissions in Kyoto.  Trying to mimic the Montreal Protocol failed because there are no readily available substitutes that can be implemented in the short-term and on a global scale.  Secondly, instead of a small number of firms that used and manufactured CFCs, there are many nations that emit greenhouse gases.  For Rayner’s second point, the sulfur program targeted one gas, whereas Kyoto targeted six in the 1997 version.[17]  The EPA was also the sole oversight body to the program.  The Kyoto Protocol relies on each member state to regulate it’s greenhouse gas emissions to ensure that it will meet the agreed upon reduction target.[18]  There is no international enforcer to regulate each state’s success or failure to meet the target.  Finally, his third point suggests that Kyoto attempted to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a similar way to reducing the number of nuclear warheads.  In theory, this concept may have seemed plausible, but in practice it is not realistic.  The number of warheads does not fluctuate in a manner similar to greenhouse gases.  Therefore, a gradual reduction cannot be relied on when the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is not steady. 

            Rayner is not alone to suggest that the Kyoto Protocol’s design was a failure.  Dieter Helm, economist and professor at Oxford University, argues that the Kyoto Protocol was founded on the idea that “the developed countries accept caps on carbon production from power stations, industrial installations and the like within their borders. Developing countries take measures but need not apply caps.”[19]  Helm suggests that there are three fundamental issues with Kyoto: (1) it does not take into account carbon consumption; (2) it neglects the issue of coal; and (3) the issue of free riding.[20]  The Kyoto Protocol, Helm states, focuses on carbon production, which is the carbon a nation emits.  However, carbon consumption is the amount of carbon in the goods and services that a nation consumes and may be more of an issue than carbon production.  He cites an example from the United Kingdom: “from 1990 to 2005, its carbon production fell by around 15%. But carbon consumption went up by around 19% once the carbon embedded in imports is taken into account.”[21]  These carbon imports are products that are developed by the high-carbon emitting China and India.  Helm states that it is for this reason that emissions can dramatically reduce in Europe while dramatically increasing globally.[22]  This is exactly what has been observed; many EU nations were near or met their 2012 reduction target even though global emissions for carbon increased.[23] 

The Kyoto Protocol also fails to mention coal.  As one of the dirtiest forms of energy, “coal has risen from supplying 25% of the world’s primary energy [since the 1990’s] to 30% now.”[24]  China and India are most at fault for using coal; Helm states that China accounts for 50% of the global coal trade, and that 80% of their energy production is from coal-fired power plants.[25]  China and India also add a combined three coal-fired power plants to their energy generation portfolios each week.[26]  The EU is also guilty of using increasing amounts of coal due to the high prices of cleaner natural gas.[27]  The United States, a non-ratifying Kyoto state, has reduced its reliance of coal and replaced it with natural gas, which has assisted in reducing its carbon emissions.[28]  However, by not addressing the use of coal at a global level, the Kyoto Protocol neglects to address the threat of a significant increase in coal-fired energy generation by 2020, resulting in continued rise in greenhouse gas levels.[29] 

Free riding is a concept that suggests if certain nations act on an initiative and are successful, it will than reduce or eliminate the incentive for other nations to act on the same issue and contribute to the overall objective.  Because some nations place a cap on the price of carbon and others do not, certain nations do not have to pay for the price of carbon and will benefit from other nations spending money to meet a certain target emissions level.  The result, as Helm suggests, is a trade distortion that favors the countries without a capped carbon price.[30] 

The overlying concept from these two experts is that the design of the Kyoto Protocol ultimately set this treaty, those that ratified it and the overall objective up for failure.  Had Kyoto’s strategy actually worked, emissions levels would have dropped 5% below 1990 levels at the end of 2012.[31]  Instead emissions have continued to increase. 

Figure 1: Continued Rise in Carbon Emissions[32]

The economic crisis of 2008 certainly did not help the international effort to reduce emissions.  Many nations, including the United States, were looking for ways to increase economic productivity and, in an attempt to do so, used fossil fuel energy to run their economies.  However, the crisis was not the sole reason for failure—Kyoto was failing before 2008, and continues to fail after the crisis.  Continued emissions prior to, and after 2008 can be observed in Figure 1.

            In 2012, the UNFCCC met once again in Doha, Qatar for COP18.  This conference added an amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, which would allow for its continued implementation into the future, which is known as the Doha Amendment.[33]  However, two years before the conference, Japan and Russia stated that they would not be participating in the second commitment period, and in 2011 Canada completely withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol.[34]   Three of the world’s largest emitters joined the United States in not having an emissions agreement with the rest of the international community, arguing that the Kyoto Protocol does not require developing nations, including China, to set emission reduction targets.[35] 

            The exit of Russia, Japan and Canada may be another example of the ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.  One must ask, if not the Kyoto Protocol, than what?  There is not a simple answer to that question, just as there is not one answer to solving climate change.  Certainly the current system is not working as it had hoped to be, and international conferences have been useless in trying to reach to an agreement on climate policy (Durban, Rio+20 and Warsaw).[36]^{, [37], [38]}  In addition, the United States, Canada, Russia and Japan all stated that they would not join any new international emissions agreement or reform to the Kyoto Protocol.[39]  To an extent, it is understandable why the United States et al. would not want to be tied down to what may be another inevitable failure.  However, the United States is the number two greenhouse gas emitter in the world,[40] and to neglect the responsibility it has to fix the damage it has greatly contributed to is irresponsible. At some point within the next five to ten years, an international agreement to mitigate the effects of climate change and the components that drive it will have to be established.  Said agreement will not be similar to Kyoto, nor will it try and apply regional or national policies at an international level.  This agreement will need to be unique and considerate of the socio-economic inequalities and the imperativeness of short-term results. 

            Dieter Helm believes that any international agreement must have in place a tax on carbon consumption.[41]  It is clear that by designing an agreement on the idea of pricing carbon production, global emission levels are not actually reduced.  However, by basing the price off of consumption, an incentive to correct any inequalities in carbon pricing by placing import “border taxes” is established.  These taxes, he suggests, will also incentivize the exporting country to better price carbon in their country and may even drive the transition from coal generation to natural gas generation since natural gas emits less carbon than coal.[42] 

            Steve Rayner suggests that aside from carbon mitigation, adaptation must be a top priority to any agreement.[43]  Many nations are already experiencing the effects of climate change.  A common concept when recovering from a disaster is to rebuild what was lost where it was before the storm.  However, this does not solve the problem.  After Hurricane Sandy devastated New Jersey, Governor Chris Christie had the boardwalks be rebuilt in the same spot where it was destroyed. Houses and communities that are lost due to flooding from intense rains or tropical storms are rebuilt where they once stood.  Cities continue to build closer to the ocean and this will only make matters worse when another storm impacts the area, or when sea levels eventually rise too high.  Adaptation calls for preparing island nations for sea level rise, and relocating people if necessary.  It also calls for better city planning and restoration planning if something is lost in a disaster.  The seas are rising and will continue to rise, regions will become drier and wetter, and storms will become stronger, but it is a matter of ensuring the thousands of coastal cities and communities are adapting to the current changes in climate and are prepared for the future ones. 

            A main argument amongst the developing nations is that they have the right to emit carbon attempting to establish or grow their economy just as the current developed nations had to do decades ago to get where they are today.  This is logical and understandable, however it is not realistic.  The planet cannot afford to have the level of atmospheric CO₂ increase another 100 ppmv as a result of the developing nation’s Industrial Revolution equivalent.  The U.S. Energy Information Administration

            To address these concerns, developed nations must agree to act and assist the developing nations establish an economy without having to do through historical industrial methods.  This new agreement may include financial assistance to create cleaner power plants that use natural gas instead of the coal, oil, which many developing nations currently rely on.  As seen in the United States, an economy that uses more natural gas than coal and oil can emit far fewer carbon emissions.  In addition, by not having to pay as much of a cost for carbon, developing nations will be able to transition to alternative forms of energy faster.  A larger concern is that 1.6 billion people do not have access to reliable energy and nearly three billion are still reliant on biomass (wood) and coal for fuel.[48]  In a world that is and will be dependent on reducing carbon emissions and using the cleanest technology possible, these methods are not acceptable and can be addressed though foreign development assistance. 

            An emissions limit cannot be included in any agreement.  It has proven to be highly unsuccessful in the Kyoto Protocol and, at least at the international level, is not an effective management tool.  Economist G. Cornelis van Kooten from the University of Victoria in British Columbia suggests, “to mitigate climate change, it will be necessary for countries to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by some one-half of what they were in 1990. Emission reductions on that scale are simply unrealistic, while the ability and will of countries actually to make such significant cuts is likely weak.”[49]  In addition, any agreement that includes emission targets automatically eliminates the United States, Japan and Russia from any involvement.  As some of the largest emitters in the world, it is important to have an agreement that they will be involved in, even if these states do not ratify it.  To do so, emissions reductions must be left to the state itself and alternative measures must be taken at the international level.

            Another key factor in a potential international agreement is to have a single authority that oversees all operations.  This may require an entirely new branch of the United Nations.  Just as there are international organizations that oversee international trades and tariffs, similar system will be important to this agreement since there will be a carbon taxing system.  Although the taxes will be implemented by each member state, an international organization can ensure that everything the taxes are legal.  In addition, as part of this agreement, portions of the revenue generated through these taxes could go towards domestic mitigation technologies or to investments in developing nations.  This overseeing body will also monitor the situations in developing nations, adaptation plans and the domestic policies of member states that may counter any progress. 

            It is not likely that the United States and other defect nations would opt to join this, or any, international climate agreement.  Yet for a future agreement to be in any way successful, it cannot be anything similar to the Kyoto Protocol.  It is clear that the overall success of the Kyoto Protocol has been minimal at best.  Many nations have been and will struggle to come close to their emissions targets.  At this point, due to the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, alternative measures must be taken to mitigate climate change.  While the United States has been somewhat successful reducing it’s overall emissions, it still exports carbon rich fossil fuels to other nations, simply passing along the problem to others.  Establishing emission reduction targets are politically, economically and practically unrealistic for most nations.  The international community must agree on a new strategy that will have similar, if not better, impacts on greenhouse gas emissions.  By placing a tax on carbon, assisting developing nations grow their economy without using dirty technology, investing in green technology and adapting the international community to the current and future climate changes, an agreement that is a viable option for nations that are historically skeptical of international environmental agreements may be made.

[1] United Nations. "Earth Summit." UN News Center. http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html (accessed December 16, 2013).

[2] United Nations. "Earth Summit." UN News Center. http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html (accessed December 16, 2013).

[3] United Nations. "Gateway to the UN System's Work on Climate Change - The UN Climate Change Convention

and the Kyoto Protocol." UN News Center. http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/pages/gateway/the

negotiations/the-un-climate-change-convention-and-the-kyoto-protocol (accessed December 13, 2013).

[4] United Nations. "Gateway to the UN System's Work on Climate Change - The UN Climate Change Convention

and the Kyoto Protocol." UN News Center. http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/pages/gateway/the-

negotiations/the-un-climate-change-convention-and-the-kyoto-protocol (accessed December 13, 2013).

[5] United Nations. "Gateway to the UN System's Work on Climate Change - The UN Climate Change Convention

and the Kyoto Protocol." UN News Center. http://www.un.org/wcm/content/site/climatechange/pages/gateway/the-

negotiations/the-un-climate-change-convention-and-the-kyoto-protocol (accessed December 13, 2013).

[6] United Nations. "Kyoto Protocol." United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (accessed December 13, 2013).

[7] United Nations. "Kyoto Protocol." United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (accessed December 13, 2013).

[8] United Nations. "Kyoto Protocol." United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php (accessed December 13, 2013).

[9] United Nations. "Status of Ratification." United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php (accessed December 13, 2013).

[10] Mistrick, Janine. "Kyoto Protocol: Good Intentions, Failed Legislation?." Pensive Thoughts and Frivolous Musings. http://sites.psu.edu/mistrickblog/2013/02/21/kyoto-protocol-good-intentions-failed-legislation/ (accessed December 13, 2013).

[11] United Nations. "Status of Ratification." United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php (accessed December 13, 2013).

[12] Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC). "Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations at Mauna Loa Hawaii." Scripps Institute of Oceanography Monitoring Sites. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/SIOMLOINSITUTHRU2008.JPG (accessed December 13, 2013).

[13] Rayner, Steve. "Why the Kyoto Protocol Failed and a New Way Forward." YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxL7jN4akw (accessed December 13, 2013).

[14] Rayner, Steve. "Why the Kyoto Protocol Failed and a New Way Forward." YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxL7jN4akw (accessed December 13, 2013).

[15] Rayner, Steve. "Why the Kyoto Protocol Failed and a New Way Forward." YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxL7jN4akw (accessed December 13, 2013).

[16] Rayner, Steve. "Why the Kyoto Protocol Failed and a New Way Forward." YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxL7jN4akw (accessed December 13, 2013).

[17] Rayner, Steve. "Why the Kyoto Protocol Failed and a New Way Forward." YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxL7jN4akw (accessed December 13, 2013).

[18] Rayner, Steve. "Why the Kyoto Protocol Failed and a New Way Forward." YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxL7jN4akw (accessed December 13, 2013).

[19] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[20] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[21] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[22] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[23] European Union. "Kyoto emissions targets: Joint fulfillment, 'burden sharing' and base years." European Commission. http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/g-gas/kyoto/index_en.htm (accessed December 16, 2013).

[24] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[25] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[26] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[27] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[28] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[29] Helm, Dieter. “Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[30] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[31] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[32] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[33] United Nations. "Doha Amendment." United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php (accessed December 13, 2013).

[34] United Nations. "Annex B." Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol. http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kp_doha_amendment_english.pdf (accessed December 13, 2013)

[35] Agence France-Presse. "Kyoto deal loses four big nations." The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/kyoto-deal-loses-four-big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[36] Bandoim, Lana. "Landmark COP17 Climate Pact is Still a Failure." Yahoo! News. http://news.yahoo.com/landmark-cop17-climate-pact-still-failure-204700314.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[37] Walsh, Bryan. "Science & Space." TIME.com. http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2118058,00.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[38] Zammit-Lucia, Joseph. "COP19: the UN's climate talks proved to be just another cop out." theguardian.com. http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/cop19-un-climate-talks-another-cop-out (accessed December 13, 2013).

[39] Agence France-Presse. "Kyoto deal loses four big nations." The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/kyoto-deal-loses-four-big-nations-20110528-1f9dk.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[40] World Bank. "CO2 emissions (kt)." Data. http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.ATM.CO2E.KT/countries/1W?display=default (accessed December 13, 2013).

[41] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[42] Helm, Dieter. "Climate policy: The Kyoto approach has failed." Nature 491, no. 7426 (2012): 663–665. http://www.nature.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/nature/journal/v491/n7426/full/491663a.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[43] Rayner, Steve. "Why the Kyoto Protocol Failed and a New Way Forward." YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcxL7jN4akw (accessed December 13, 2013).

[44] Leader, Jessica. "Developing Countries' Carbon Emissions Will Vastly Outpace Developed Nations, U.S. EIA Says." The Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/25/carbon-emissions-developing-countries_n_3651513.html (accessed December 13, 2013).

[45] Gillis, Justin. "U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions." New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?_r=0 (accessed December 13, 2013).

[46] Gillis, Justin. "U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions." New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?_r=0 (accessed December 13, 2013).

[47] Gillis, Justin. "U.N. Climate Panel Endorses Ceiling on Global Emissions." New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/28/science/global-climate-change-report.html?_r=0 (accessed December 13, 2013).

[48] United Nations. "The Renewable Energy Sector in North Africa." United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. http://www.uneca.org/publications/renewable-energy-sector-north-africa-1 (accessed December 13, 2013).

[49] Cornelis van Kooten, G.. "Smoke and Mirrors: The Kyoto Protocol and Beyond." Canadian Public Policy / Analyse de Politiques 29, no. 4 (2003): 397-415. http://www.jstor.org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/stable/3552178?seq=2 (accessed December 13, 2013).

Number 35

"The supreme reality of our time...is the vulnerability of this planet." - President John Fitzgerald Kennedy

Today marks the 50-year anniversary of the death of one of our nation's greatest leaders - President John F. Kennedy.  As a political idol of mine, I have studied President Kennedy from his time in the U.S. Congress to his last days in the Oval Office.  Disturbed by the social and political conundrum at the time, he pushed for change; tired of the racial inequalities and segregation, he pushed for civil rights; discontent with education in the United States, he sought reform from pre-school to post-college.  Unbeknownst to many, President Kennedy was also a progressive environmental thinker and made decisions that would forever change environmental policy in the United States.  

It is reported that President Kennedy was influenced by environmental legend Rachel Carson's Silent Spring.  As a result, he formed a committee to research and investigate the impacts of pesticide use on the environment and human health.  The committee's report was highly critical of the pesticide and chemical industries and weak government regulations.  This decision by President Kennedy, and the results of the committee, laid the groundwork for the creation of the Environmental Protection Agency (1970) and the ban of DDT (1972).   

Kennedy also advocated for clean air, a stance that his brother - Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy - spoke passionately about during his presidential campaign.  The president acknowledged that all we have is Earth and that we all breathe the same air.  

Kennedy envisioned an energy policy that decreased our dependence on oil and replaced it with zero-emissions atomic energy - a relatively new concept at the time.  By using nuclear power, he was answering the concerns of conservation and environmental impacts: 

"There are two points on conservation that have come home to me in the last 2 days. One is the necessity for us to protect what we already have, what nature gave to us, and use it well, not to waste water or land, to set aside land and water, recreation, wilderness, and all the rest now so that it will be available to those who come in the future. That is the traditional concept of conservation, and it still has a major part in the national life of the United States. 

But the other part of conservation is the newer part, and that is to use science and technology to achieve significant breakthroughs as we are doing today, and in that way to conserve the resources which 10 or 20 or 30 years ago may have been wholly unknown. So we use nuclear power for peaceful purposes and power."

He sought to implement the Rural Area's Development Program that would expand access to electricity, increase the use of resources and improve the economy.  Harping on conservationism, Kennedy planned on comprehensive dam projects and the use of the natural resources such as wildlife, water and land to fuel the economy--no pun intended.  In a speech at the University of North Dakota, where he would lay out this plan to develop America's rural communities, President Kennedy stated:

"We are seeking, in short, true parity of opportunity; but it will not come overnight.  To achieve it will require a new impetus in electrification development, new starts in our multipurpose dam programs, and new greater use of our land, water, timber, and wildlife resources."

Kennedy also established the Youth Conservation Corps and the Peace Corps, two organizations that have had profound impacts on the protection and restoration of the environment both at home and abroad.  The Youth Conservation Corps, a branch of the National Park Service, allows young citizens to partake in outdoor activities, enjoy America's wilderness, become education on conservation and environmental issues and participate in NPS projects.  The Peace Corps has rapidly expanded into an organization that improves the lives of others in every corner of the globe. Corps members help create sustainable communities, tackle water quality issues and educate citizens of other countries on how to maintain a clean and healthy environment. 

As an avid sailor, Kennedy understood the human connection with the sea and offered a deep thought as to why we strive to protect it at the Australian Ambassador's Dinner for the America's Cup Crews:

"I really don't know why it is that all of us are so committed to the sea, except I think it's because in addition to the fact that the sea changes, and the light changes, and ships change, it's because we all came from the sea.  And it is an interesting biological fact that all of us have, in our veins the exact same percentage of salt in our blood that exists in the ocean, and therefore, we have salt in our blood, in our sweat, in our tears.  We are tied to the ocean.  And when we go back to the sea - whether it is to sail or to watch it - we are going back from whence we came."

Much of what we have today - the agencies, the programs, the ideas and the promise of a future - is because of President Kennedy.  His legacy has been instilled in the generations that were fortunate enough to witness his greatness, and those that came after his time.  I am proof of that; many environmentalists are proof of that.  His predecessors, Republican and Democrat alike, praise him for his progressive thinking fueled by his youth and unique persona - which dubbed his presidency "Camelot."  However, as President Kennedy noted, the vulnerability of Earth and of its many ecosystems, is one of our greatest challenges.  We mustn’t fail to protect future generations, just as JFK made it his goal to protect the unborn.  Failure is not an option.  

I leave you with one last thought of President Kennedy's that summarizes the hope of environmentalists and my generation:

“I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.”