'Kyoto Protocol' for the Worlds Media: A Curse or a Boon??

'Kyoto Protocol' for the Worlds Media: A Curse or a Boon??

The Kyoto Protocol or Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is an international treaty on climate change.

Description: The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

Objectives: Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases. The objective is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" UNFCCC-2.The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted an average global rise in temperature of 1.4° (2.5°) to 5.8°C (10.4°) between 1990 and 2100 (see report ). Some current estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will not provide a significant reduction in temperature despite the large cut in emissions. Because of this, many critics and environmentalists question the value of the Kyoto Protocol, should subsequent measures fail to produce deeper cuts in the future. Proponents also note that Kyoto is a first step Ucar.edu, as requirements to meet the UNFCCC will be modified until the objective is met, as required by UNFCCC Article 4.2(d).UNFCCC-4.

Status of the agreement: Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where dark green indicates countries that have signed and ratified the treaty and yellow indicates states that have signed and hope to ratify the treaty. Notably, Australia and the United States have signed but, currently, decline to ratify it. The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The agreement came into force on February 16, 2005 following ratification by Russia on November 18, 2004. As of January 2006, a total of 160 countries have ratified the agreement (representing over 61% of emissions from Annex I countries) UNFCCC.int Duwe, Matthias . Notable exceptions include the United States and Australia According to terms of the protocol, it enters into force "on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in total for at least 55 per cent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession." Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached on May 23, 2002 when Iceland ratified. The ratification by Russia on 18 November 2004 satisfied the "55 percent" clause and brought the treaty into force, effective February 16, 2005.

Details of the agreement: According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Programme. "The Kyoto Protocol” is an agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride HFCs and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland." It is an agreement negotiated as an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, which was adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 All parties to the UNFCCC can sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to the UNFCCC cannot. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC in 1997 in Kyoto Japan Most provisions of the Kyoto Protocol apply to developed countries, listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC.

Financial commitments: The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay, and supply technology to, other countries for climate-related studies and projects. This was originally agreed in the UNFCCC.

Emissions trading: Main article: Emissions trading each ratifying Annex I country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So, for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, to Canada for instance. This rewards countries that meet their targets, and provides financial incentives to others to do so as soon as possible: Countries also receive credits through various shared "clean energy" programs and "carbon dioxide sinks in the form of forests and other systems that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. A Washington D.C.-based NGO, in the report pdf.wri.org "Getting It Right: Emerging Markets for Storing Carbon in Forests", assumes values of $30-40/ton in the US and $70-80/ton in Europe. On 18 April 2001 The Netherlands purchased credits for 4 megatons of carbon dioxide emissions from Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic; this was part of the ERUPT procurement procedure. These purchase agreements however contained conditions precedent, e.g. referring to the financing of the underlying projects. Since several of these conditions have not been met, the amount of purchased credits has since then decreased.

Tony Blair backs away from Kyoto

The most important news to emerge from Bill Clinton's "Global Initiative," was a statement from Tony Blair that the mainstream media completely ignored. Blair, a long time advocate of the Kyoto Protocol, told the star-studded gathering that "My thinking has changed in the past three or four years. No country is going to cut its growth" to accommodate Kyoto, or any other climate change treaty. After years of staunch support for the Kyoto Protocol, Blair has realized that England cannot meet the treaty's requirements, and if it could, the result would be economic disaster. The emissions targets imposed by Kyoto upon the developed nations that have ratified it, are supposed to be achieved by 2012. The Protocol's governing body will meet in Montreal in December to continue negotiations for the second phase, the period after 2012. Blair says that fast-growing nations such as China and India, which were excluded from the treaty, are not going to shut down their economies or constrain future growth, which is the inevitable consequence of the Kyoto Protocol. Instead, Blair says that nations must work together to advance science and technology, rather than try to reverse the expansion of development and the improved living conditions development brings.

Climate Change and Network News

How well do the major broadcast media of the U.S And U.K who are the two most powerful media monopolies cover the enormous and complicated story of climate change? According to a study from their coverage is both superficial and heavily slanted toward an alarmist point of view. It often slights mainly on the negative aspect of the issue, such as the high economic cost of the Kyoto Protocol. Among the 165 network news stories on climate change and also all the 51 global warming stories that aired on five early evening cable and broadcast news programs - ABC’s World News Tonight, CBS Evening News, CNN’s Inside Politics, the Fox News Channel’s Special Report with Brit Hume, and NBC Nightly News - from January 20 (Inauguration Day) through April 22 (Earth Day). That were aired between January 20, 2001 and September 30, 2004 in biggest news in the world it was found that:-

· Stories that emphasized the potential harms of global warming outnumbered stories that mentioned problems with the Kyoto Protocol by a three-to-one margin (46 percent to 12 percent)

· Three networks-NBC, CBS, and CNN-BBC-ITN(UK),CH-7,Channel 9(Australia) never mentioned any of the estimates of the potential cost of Kyoto to the American economy, not even estimates produced by the pro-Kyoto Clinton administration. Only ABC and FOX News mentioned cost estimates, and these were only brief references in larger reports. Not one network ran a story devoted solely to discussing Kyoto’s economic cost.

· Of all 165 stories, only one mentioned the Byrd-Hagel resolution of 1997, in which the Senate voted 95-0 (including John Kerry) to oppose features of the Kyoto Protocol that the Clinton administration accepted. Instead, most stories cast the blame for the U.S. rejection of Kyoto solely on the Bush administration.

· Only CNN and FOX consistently attempted to include equal input from Kyoto critics or climate science skeptics in their broadcasts.

· The view that human-induced global warming is leading to catastrophic climate change received six times as much attention as the views of scientific skeptics who argue that such gloom-and-doom scenarios are either exaggerated or wrong.

· There were only seven references to the existence of global warming skeptics. Six of those were on the Fox News Channel, while the other was a single reference by a CNN correspondent to a statement by President Bush about "the incomplete state of scientific knowledge."

· The three broadcast networks, ABC, CBS and NBC, totally excluded the views of global warming skeptics from their coverage.

· In spite of unanimous opposition to the Kyoto treaty in the U.S. Senate, the networks provided Kyoto supporters with more than twice as much airtime as backers of Bush’s decision to scrap the treaty (69% to 31%).

· By a nearly two-to-one margin (65% to 35%), the networks also skewed the debate over Bush’s decision not to regulate carbon dioxide emissions in favor of his critics.

· Free market opponents of new restrictions on industrial activity such as those included in the Kyoto deal were outnumbered 20 to 3 by spokesmen for environmental groups, none of whom were ever labeled as "liberal."

· Now the question aeises is how the public is to understand the issue when the media does not convey important aspects of the debate, such as the potential economic cost and the adverse attitude of the U.S. Senate and U.K parliament, which would have to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

By refusing to show any of the thousands of scientists who are skeptical of environmentalists’ belief that only regulatory schemes such as the Kyoto Protocol could halt the climate damage they say is being caused by industrial burning of fossil fuels, the networks - apart from Fox News -ITC,The Washington,The Christien Calender, made the President’s actions appear to be short-sighted economic decisions based on unsound science. Furthermore, by showcasing the President’s critics in the aftermath of each decision, these networks created the impression that Bush’s actions were environmental errors, not reasonable policy choices.

Kyoto's Cost, Billions of Dollars, Millions of Jobs: Slogan of the Western Anti- Kyoto media!

The western media never forgets to remind their audience about the cost of the implementation of the proposals under the Kyoto protocol for pollution reduction. They harp of the negative factors such as loss of jobs, effect on economy, unfair treatment with respect to the developing world, especially India and China. Rather than trying to strike a balance between positives and the short term sacrifices that have to be made. The media’s to those countries which are opposed to the 'Kyoto Protocol' have indulged in a propaganda mission and malign and falsify the Kyoto protocol.

In the seven years since Kyoto was tentatively agreed to, there have been several economic surveys about its impact on the U.S. These reports estimate signing the accord would cost the U.S. between $225 billion to more than $400 billion per year. The U.S. Energy Information Administration also predicted Kyoto would cause widespread employment loss nationwide ranging from 1.1 million to 4.9 million jobs. They added that it would cause a major spike in energy prices, predicting an increase of prices that could hit as high as 100 percent if the treaty were signed. These estimates were rarely reported on the five networks news programs we studied.
While many experts question the economics of Kyoto, others continue to find flaws in the science behind it. Recently, the Russian Academy of Sciences added its voice to the growing list of those who question the thinking behind Kyoto. That didn’t stop eight state attorneys general from starting the latest round of the fight. They filed suit against U.S. power companies to force cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. The attorneys general represent New York and California and are headed up by New York State Attorney General Elliot Spitzer. He has been in the news a great deal for filing a series of corporate wrong-doings lawsuits. The outspoken Democrat, who is eyeing the governor’s seat in 2006, also has taken on executives at Merrill Lynch, Enron, WorldCom and Tyco.

A new climate change report landed in the middle of this ongoing dispute in August 2004. “Our Changing Planet,” by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research, indicated that manmade gases like carbon dioxide are linked to global warming. Two Bush Cabinet members, Secretary of Commerce Don Evans and Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham, signed the letter introducing the paper to Congress.

The network newscasts haven’t been bystanders in the debate on warming. Their stories have taken on a theatrical nature predicting cataclysm after cataclysm. Here is only part of a sample from Patricia Sabga at NBC Nightly News (Aug. 6, 2003):

“Europe is burning, sweltering in one of the hottest summers in memory. Temperatures topping 104 degrees from Lisbon to Berlin. Searing heat, high winds and drought sparking forest fires throughout the continent. In Portugal, officials asked NATO for water-dropping planes to battle blazes that have killed a dozen people. The French nuclear reactor was hosed down to keep it from overheating. Rail service in parts of Britain slowed or suspended for fear the train tracks will buckle in the heat. Across Europe, crop damages from drought estimated in the billions of dollars. “

Such reports are all too common. If you didn’t know any better, you would think climate change already is a problem of Biblical proportions. The potentially devastating impact of climate change is consistently emphasized on a routine basis in network news reporting.

The network news bias strongly favors reporting about the potential impact of global warming over any potential impact from signing the Kyoto agreement. Reported consequences of global warming showed up in 44 percent (73 stories) of the stories while any reference to the impact of signing the pact occurred in only 13 percent (22 stories). That’s an incredible difference of more than 3 to 1.

The networks love “scary” weather stories. They don’t seem to love explaining the “scary” consequences of signing the climate change pact. The networks rarely mentioned any financial impact in those 20 stories we analyzed. That sounds far better than it really was. In fact, most comments were extremely minor - either limited explanations by reporters or a one- or two-sentence quote from President Bush. On several occasions, the networks relied on versions of the Bush quote, “harm the economy” to elaborate on the possible impact of the treaty. The few times the networks mentioned the potentially positive effects of global warming, they were also buried beneath more statements about the perceived horrors of warming.

That didn’t stop the networks from going into amazing depth about the potential impact of global warming. In nearly half of the total stories, the five networks focused on the harsh “realities” of global warming.

Most of the articles were consistent in tone and style. Bad things are happening out there, they claimed, and many of those things can be traced back to global warming. Drops in lobster catches, hot weather, cold weather, more rain, less rain and a host of other occurrences were all linked in some way to global warming.

CBS was disaster central. A full 55 percent (27 stories) of their stories discussed some sort of negative impact of climate change. That eclipsed their stories on the impact Kyoto might have by more than a 3-to-1 margin.

The network even blamed warming for heightening our danger to terrorism by allowing terrorists to potentially take ocean routes previously impassible to naval traffic. On May 31, 2004, CBS reporter Jerry Bowen explained, “But Dennis Conlon, who helped write a recently declassified document exploring the military implications of a watery Arctic, says an open Northwest Passage makes America open to new threats.”

ABC’s World News Tonight had the worst record of the five news shows studied in this area. While they covered the impact of warming in only 40 percent (17) of their stories, less than their broadcast competitors, they only covered the impact of signing the pact three times. That means warming received nearly six times as much coverage. In the newscasts we studied, cable was less hysterical. CNN only mentioned the consequences of Kyoto in 30 percent (three) of their reports - the lowest percentage among any network. The Fox News Channel cited the potential consequences of warming 38 percent (six), or only one-and-a-half as many times as they discussed the impact of Kyoto. That ratio of 1.5 to 1 was the lowest of any of the networks.