There is still no federal-provincial consensus on the legitimacy of the targets and costs of the Protocol, and many of the Canadian provinces have consequently refused to cooperate. Last year, the global community witnessed a series of heated debates between Canada’s federal government and many of its dissenting provinces. Ontario and Alberta opposed ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, because of the heavy economic burden they would have to carry. Ontario alone estimated that it would be forced to bear 35 percent of the economic burden of reducing emissions, a commitment that is expected to entail huge job losses, a substantial drag on the provincial economy, and billions of dollars of lost revenue. Consequently, the Ontarian administration threatened to sue the federal government on the grounds that it did not have a constitutional right to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without the consent of all thirteen provinces and territories. Although litigation never ensued, there is still a deep rift between the provinces and the Canadian federal government on this issue. As a result, Ottawa has desperately resorted to independent bilateral agreements with any province willing to negotiate. Given that many of the provinces are unlikely to successfully if at all execute emissions reductions, it is highly doubtful that Canada will meet its imposed target.

Forecast for the Future

With the US rejection, the pending Russian withdrawal, and the probable Canadian failure, the prospect of turning the Kyoto Protocol into a comprehensive and effective treaty is looking dimmer and dimmer. In fact, because Kyoto requires its countries to collectively represent 55 percent of world GHG emissions, Russian and Canadian failures to ratify would render the treaty obsolete. Since the United States, Canada, and Russia together constitute approximately one third of the world’s total GHG emissions, an emissions reduction treaty devoid of their participation seems almost pointless.

Moreover, without the cooperation of these three industrial giants, the financial burden of the Kyoto Protocol will now substantially fall on the 15 members of the European Union. Since the European Union represents the majority of countries with designated emissions targets, they will also represent the majority of countries suffering from the economic impact of considerably reducing emissions. This might have the effect of slowing down the European domestic market as firms find new ways to continue producing goods in more “environmentally-friendly” ways. Europe has already come close to successfully reducing its emissions to 1990 standards; however, it will be almost impossible and rather unfair for the European Union to finance both its own emissions reductions and those of the rest of the developing world, especially if the rest of the developed world continues emitting unremittingly. Therefore, Europe’s net emissions will decrease considerably, but current European-financed emissions efforts in developing countries may be effectively impeded.

Developing countries present a significant problem for climate change mitigation. Under the current Kyoto framework, developing countries will not be held accountable for reducing their emissions after the treaty goes into effect, and will be able to continue emitting greenhouse gases indefinitely. In just five years, however, it is estimated that developing countries will account for nearly 45 percent of total global emissions—a percentage that will be even higher if the Protocol goes into effect and other countries cut emissions. It is expected that by 2020, China and other developing countries will be responsible for over 50 percent of all global greenhouse gas emissions—emissions that still will be neither accounted for nor diminished by the Kyoto Protocol. Thus, while the developed countries cut back their emissions, developing countries will increase their emissions, thereby undermining the global effort to reduce current emissions levels.

The Search for a New Alternative

The fact that so many governments have found the ratification process distressingly difficult at the national level begs the question of whether there is a better alternative. Prominent scientists in both the United States and Russia have expressed public doubt about the benefits of the Protocol, and environmental economists all over the world have suggested implementation of a more cost-effective treaty. The Kyoto Protocol was an important first step in seriously addressing global climate change. However, it is now time to step farther by finding an option that is more fairly tailored to the needs of each member in the international community.

Many countries in the developed world have been especially put off because developing countries are not held to emissions standards, nor will they ever be held to emissions standards under the current terms of the protocol. Global climate change is, as the name suggests, a global issue. No matter where their point of origin, GHG emissions will ultimately distribute themselves uniformly throughout the atmosphere. Every emitting country has an undeniable impact on the international community and, consequently, a truly successful treaty will eventually include each of these emitting countries.

One of the most important issues for environmentalists, then, is how to best incorporate developing countries into a comprehensive emissions reduction treaty, while still allowing them room for rapid economic growth. Richard Cooper, Professor of International Economics at Harvard University, has astutely pointed out that developing countries are more concerned with economic development than with GHG reductions. As a result, they are highly unlikely to voluntarily enter into any international agreement that will prospectively hamper real growth.

Cooper consequently suggests stratifying the incorporation of developing countries by waiting to include them until they have shown a high rate of growth. This strategy aims to allow developing countries to continue with business- as-usual trajectories until their emissions have reached a level near the current average emissions level of first world countries. Once they have approximately reached this level, they can be given small emissions reductions targets that will increase over time. Furthermore, as Cooper indicates, the international community can continue to research new technologies that allow for rapid growth without increasing GHG emissions. With such technology, developing countries will be able to progress without hindering the emissions reductions efforts.

An even more encompassing problem with the Kyoto Protocol is that it is unlikely to be cost-effective. The European Union's swift change of opinion after the withdrawal of the United States signalled to the world that it is concerned with addressing global climate change quickly rather than practically—an unhealthy mindset for a problem that is bound to be costly in the first place. The costs of implementing Kyoto will be immediately imposed on international society, whereas the benefits are not only uncertain, but are also politically distant. Therefore, members of the contemporary world population will be paying heavily for benefits they might arguably never receive.