The Kyoto Protocol

The United States' rejection of the Kyoto Protocol once again demonstrates how far nations still are from making the world a better place to live. Principles are easy to proclaim and acknowledge, but when the time comes to suit the action to the word, each nation's self-interest comes first.

The truth of this dictum was glaringly made evident last week when officials of the Bush administration in Washington made it known on Wednesday that the United States would not implement the Kyoto Protocol -- a treaty aimed at combating global warming -- signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, by 38 industrialized countries, including the U.S. The treaty commits the signatories to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases -- mainly carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels -- in their respective countries, by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels, by 2012 to prevent disastrous weather changes caused by global warming.

The U.S. bases its rejection of the protocol mainly on the argument that the treaty fails to impose the same obligations on developing countries, mainly China and India, to abide by the agreement. More to the point, however, is the fact that, as President Bush unambiguously told visiting German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder last week, "the idea of putting caps on carbon dioxide does not make economic sense to America." The United States, it may be noted, produces about a quarter of the greenhouse gases that are the main cause of global warming.

Little wonder the U.S. stance on the issue provoked an immediate barrage of protests and statements of alarm worldwide. The most gloomy critics predict that the withdrawal of the U.S., the biggest offender, from the agreement, is certain to spell doom for the treaty. Environmentalists around the globe condemned the U.S. for undermining global progress for selfish reasons. Curbing emission of those gases would certainly have an adverse impact on the economy of the country already beset by domestic troubles. The same, however, is true for industrial countries elsewhere, such as those of Europe and Japan, whose leaders have joined in the criticism of the Bush administration's decision to withdraw.

Christine Whitman, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator in Washington, on the other hand defended the Bush administration's stance, saying the U.S.'s withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol -- which she said was "seriously flawed" -- did not affect Washington's desire to continue working with other nations to combat global warming. Despite his rejection of the Kyoto agreement, Whitman said, President Bush remained "absolutely committed to a full engagement with the international community" on the issue of global climate change. President Bush for his part has defended his stance by saying that putting strict limits, at the present moment, on greenhouse gas emissions would further weaken the U.S. economy and worsen the energy shortages that are already hurting parts of the country.

It is well, though, for President Bush and members of his administration to remember that no country or nation in our present world can afford to live in isolation of the mishaps and misfortunes of others. It is true that an economic recession in the U.S. could seriously affect other regions of the world, but the reverse could also be true -- not to speak of the threats of boycotts by environmentalist groups against Washington.

In any case, now that the die has been cast, let us hope that reason will prevail. The world is waiting to see what results the flurry of diplomatic activities between European and Japanese leaders, and Washington will bring. As the only remaining superpower in the world, the U.S. must bear the heavy responsibility of heeding the welfare of the world at large.