The kyoto protocol – business ethics case (final) assignment

They only have to “ develop, periodically update, publish and make available to the Conference of Parties, their national inventories of GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks”[1] as well as the rest of Annex I countries. Moreover, they are allowed to trade their gas emissions and also benefit from the help of developed countries to meet their sustainable development objectives. If we want to assess this “ common but differentiated responsibility”, we have to evaluate the rationales behind these principles which served as the basis to reach a common agreement in terms of environmental protection.

Thus, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to set these differentiated provisions because they considered that developed countries have been the largest contributors in terms of greenhouse gas emissions regarding historic and current statistics. In other words, developed countries assumed that they should do bigger efforts and accept greater reductions to tackle climate change because they have been the main responsible element in comparison to developing countries as their levels of emissions were much more higher in the pre-treaty industrialization period.

Thus, some critical voices and political interests around the world use these arguments to criticize the implementation of the treaty. Certain political parties and experts are very critical with the Kyoto Protocol as well because they stress that it supposes a break in the world economic growth, and more in particular, for the developed countries. They point out that the measures adopted in the agreement slow down the economic growth of developed countries and it implies a transfer of wealth to the developing countries.

However, there also are opponents on the contrary side who criticizes the protocol for being too lenient and not curbing the negative tendencies and consequences on climate change derived from greenhouse gas emissions. Under this international scenario cited above, it is difficult to obtain the necessary forceful and unquestionable response and engagement of the different countries, political parties, institutions, citizens, etc. to adopt the strong measures needed.

If they fail in assuming their part of responsibility this implies a negative reinforcement for the rest of countries which as in many other aspects of life follow the steps of the leader. For these reasons, the fact that the new president had publicly committed to revise the position of his country in relation to the treaty could be interpreted as a very positive sign. This change in their initial position can be a turning point to ensure that the objectives set in the Kyoto Protocol are fulfilled and subsequently this treaty becomes effective in its purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and minimize the impact of humans? ctions on climate change. 4. The impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Spain In relation to the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Spain, it is important to point out that this country is framed inside the European Union’s provisions. That is why, the European Union, as a particularly important agent in the concretion of the Protocol, committed to reduce its total gas emissions by 8% during the period 2008-2012 taking 1990 as the baseline.

Thus, a different target was given to each country inside the European Union regarding their diverse and particular economic and environmental characteristics. The distribution of commitments resulting from these principles for the European Union members was the following: Germany (-21%); Austria (-13%); Belgium (-7, 5%), Denmark (-21%), Italy (-6, 5%), Luxemburg (-28%), Netherlands (-6%), The UK (-12, 5%), Finland (-2, 6%), France (-1, 9%), Spain (+15%), Greece (+25%), Ireland (+13%), Portugal (+27%) and Sweden (+4%)[3].

First of all, regarding delivered prices to households and industry, “ implementing limits on carbon dioxide emissions would dramatically increase delivered prices of energy to consumers and businesses. As a consequence, the price of home heating oil would rise by more than 32%; gasoline and diesel prices would be 11% and 14% higher, respectively, than the baseline estimates; and industry would pay nearly 42% more for its natural gas, and electricity prices would be nearly 24% above the baseline estimate”[5].

Regarding the impact on energy consumption, as a consequence of these increases in energy prices consumers will be forced to cut their consumption of energy. Thus, in a longer term, traditional sources of energy will be replaced by alternative ones which a lower price due to the lack of restrictions. Moreover, the industry sector will try to reduce energy consumption implementing some changes in processes; more efficient capital instead of the traditional energy-consuming capital and, “ to the extent ossible, production of energy intensive goods would move to non-participating countries” 5. In addition to this, other predictable consequences of the treaty are the decline in the use of coal and its substitution by natural gas or renewable energies. Finally, regarding the economic impacts on Spain, the Kyoto Protocol will cause output and employment losses. Moreover, consumers? purchasing power and disposable income will decline due to the higher cost of using energy because of the increase in energy prices which will be translated into high prices for all goods and services.