The Kyoto Protocol and the Protection of the Environment

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

The Kyoto Protocol and the Protection of the Environment

On February 16 last year, the Kyoto Protocol came into effect as a legally-binding treaty. The Kyoto Protocol was agreed in principle and later ratified by most countries in the face of the pressure and demands put forward by the world’s scientists and people that governments should address the problem of climate change. The Protocol calls for 40 industrialised countries to make reductions in greenhouse gas emissions by 2012. The most recent round of United Nations climate negotiations took place in Montreal last November. Many scientists consider the Kyoto Protocol to represent a minimal beginning to solving the serious environmental problems facing humanity; people must demand that it be carried out to the full and extended.

The current situation is that the Kyoto Protocol is being severely undermined, particularly by the world’s big powers. The biggest and most immediate attack on the Protocol came from the US, which has refused to ratify the treaty. It has been attacking the Protocol from "outside" ever since. In July, it spearheaded the "complementary" Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate, which speaks of developing, and transferring new technology and involving the private sector, while being non-binding. There is no mention of any reduction targets for greenhouse gasses.

At the same time, the Kyoto Protocol has been under attack from the inside, and it is the British role in this that should be denounced. The government has been pushing for compromise with the US position all along the line. At the end of last year, Tony Blair began to campaign for a so-called "Kyoto-Lite" agreement, which would not actually call for reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions, but would rather focus on developing new technologies – in essence, a complete capitulation to the US position.

Tony Blair has recently been taking things further in this direction. At the G8 summit of energy and environment ministers in London, he said that people were very nervous about talks of specific frameworks and targets: "People fear some external force is going to impose some internal target on you which is going to restrict your economic growth." He claimed that "The solutions will come in the end, in part at least, through the private sector in developing the technology and science." He has also been spreading doubts recently on the prospect of any further treaties setting binding targets on greenhouse gas emissions. All of this has been fuelling speculation about "the end of Kyoto".

Britain’s role in undermining the Kyoto Protocol, which, though minimal, represented a step towards serious action, should be condemned. Talk of solutions coming "in the end" through the "private sector" shows no serious concern at all and represents a very backward step away from dealing with the problem.

At the same time, the International Council for Capital Formation (ICCF) released reports intended to warn the European powers of the "economic repercussions" of the Kyoto Protocol. Their summary "The Cost of the Kyoto Protocol: Moving Forward on Climate Change Policy While Preserving Economic Growth" illustrated what, according to their "in depth studies", will be the negative influence on GDP and jobs in Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain.

In their own words, the ICCF "is a unique European think tank in its focus on public policies to promote saving and investment in the private sector. Reducing tax, regulatory, anti-trust, and trade barriers will promote business investment, strong job growth and to enhance countries’ competitiveness … Its mission includes strengthening ties between EU, US, and business leaders internationally."

This report is clearly intended to back up the US and big-business arguments, which are now also openly being pushed by the British government, that are raised to reject the Kyoto Protocol. Such criticisms centre on perceived damage to "the economy" and loss of jobs. These amount to self-serving propaganda in the name of studies, facts and analysis which allegedly show that taking measures to protect the environment and the health of human beings and develop sustainable production are negative factors in relation to the economy. How can this be so? How can the consequences of our way of life and industrial production be separated from the economy? Should not the consequences of production methods, types of energy use and culture norms such as the reliance on the car be automatically considered using the best science available? Should they not be part of the economy and automatically factored in as part of the cost of production?

The capitalist system with its emphasis on maximum profit likes to separate negative consequences to human health and the environment from the cost of production. The individual capitalist likes to ignore such messy business and leave it until the problem has grown so large the society as a whole has to deal with it. The capitalist sees the cost of controlling pollution and producing at a sustainable manner as outside the responsibility of the particular production company or even the society. Quite simply, they want to sweep such problems under the rug and ignore them. Only the resistance of the workers in a work site or concerned people in the society has forced capitalists to clean up their production centres.

The destruction of the environment is such a serious issue that all people must demand that the Kyoto Protocol be implemented, regardless of the US stance, which should not be used as the motivation or as an excuse for any capitulation or watering-down of the Protocol. The working class and people must hold the government to account over its manifesto pledges on implementing the Protocol. They must demand laws which protect the environment in the interests of human existence so as to restrict the damage to the environment caused by the narrow interests of the monopolies and bring about a sustainable environment fit for human beings. In this respect, the working class must strive for political power itself so as to be in the position to bring the relations of production, which are now based on private ownership of the means of production, into harmony with the social forces of production.