Ra'ayoyi game da Yarjejeniyar Kyoto

Ra'ayoyi game da Yarjejeniyar Kyoto

Yarjejeniyar Kyoto yarjejeniya ce ta kasa da kasa wacce ta tsawaita Yarjejeniyar Tsarin Majalisar Dinkin Duniya ta 1992 kan Canjin Yanayi .

Wani binciken da Gupta et al. suka yi a shekara ta 2007 sun tantance wallafe-wallafen kan manufofin canjin yanayi, wanda ya nuna babu wani kimantawa na iko na UNFCCC ko Yarjejeniyar da ke tabbatar da cewa waɗannan yarjejeniyoyin suna da, ko za su yi nasara wajen magance matsalar yanayi. An ɗauka cewa ba za a canza UNFCCC ko Yarjejeniyarta ba. Yarjejeniyar Tsarin da Yarjejeniyar ta sun haɗa da tanadi don matakan manufofi na gaba da za a ɗauka.

Wasu masu kula da muhalli sun goyi bayan Yarjejeniyar Kyoto saboda ita ce "wasa kawai a cikin gari," kuma mai yiwuwa saboda suna tsammanin cewa alkawuran rage fitarwa na gaba na iya buƙatar rage fitarwa mai tsanani (Aldy et al., 2003, shafi na 9). Wasu masu ilimin muhalli da masana kimiyya sun soki alkawuran da ke akwai saboda sun yi rauni sosai (Grubb, 2000, shafi na 5). A gefe guda, masana tattalin arziki da yawa suna tunanin cewa alkawuran sun fi karfi fiye da yadda ya dace. Musamman a Amurka, wasu masana tattalin arziki sun kasance masu sukar gazawar hada da ƙididdigar alkawura ga ƙasashe masu tasowa (Grubb, 2000, shafi na 31).   

Bayani game da tattaunawar

Level and timing of proposed targets

Party	Target level and date (reductions from 1990)	Gas(es) covered	Date proposed
AOSIS	20% by 2005	CO2	20 September 1994
Brazil	30% by 2020 (differentiated)	CO2, CH4, N2O	28 May 1997
Canada	3% by 2010, additional 5% by 2015	All GHGs	2 December 1997
Czech Republic	5% by 2005, 15% by 2010	CO2, CH4, N2O	27 March 1997
Democratic Republic of the Congo (Zaire)	10% by 2005, 15% by 2010, 20% by 2020	All GHGs	23 October 1996
EU	at least 7.5% by 2005, 15% by 2010	CO2, CH4, N2O	19 June 1997, 4 March 1997
France	7-10% in average per capita emissions by 2010 (differentiated)	All GHGs	6 December 1996
Germany	10% by 2005, 15-20% by 2010	CO2	26 March 1996
G-77 and China	at least 7.5% by 2005, 15% by 2010, an additional 20% by 2020	CO2, CH4, N2O (gas-by-gas)	22 October 1997
Hungary et al.	Stabilization by 2005 plus pledging of differentiated targets	CO2, CH4, N2O	27 March 1997
Japan	5% by 2008-2012 (differentiated)	CO2, CH4, N2O	6 October 1997
New Zealand	5% in a 5-year period, starting no earlier than 2005	CO2, CH4, N2O	2 December 1997
Peru	15% (CO2) by 2005, 15-20% (all GHGs) by 2010	see previous column	7 March 1997
Philippines	20% by 2005, 20% by 2010	All GHGs	25 March 1997
Russian Federation	Stabilization by 2010 plus additional differentiated targets for "Annex B" Parties	All GHGs	26 February 1997
Switzerland	10% by 2010 (differentiated)	All GHGs	29 November 1996
UK	5-10% by 2010	All GHGs	16 April 1996

The choice of 1990 as the main base year remains in Kyoto, as it does in the original Framework Convention (UNFCCC). The importance of the choice of base year was discussed by Liverman (2008). According to Liverman (2008), the idea of using historical emissions as a basis for the Kyoto targets was rejected on the basis that good data was not available prior to 1990. Liverman (2008), however, commented that a 1990 base year favours several powerful interests including the UK, Germany and Russia. This is because these countries had high CO2 emissions in 1990.

A cikin Burtaniya bayan 1990, hayaki ya ragu saboda sauyawa daga kwal zuwa gas ("Dash don Gas"), wanda ke da ƙananan hayaki fiye da kwal. Wannan ya faru ne saboda mallakar mallakar ma'adinai na kwal da kuma sauyawa zuwa iskar gas da ke tallafawa ta Arewa Sea reserves. Jamus ta amfana daga shekarar 1990 saboda sake haɗuwa tsakanin Jamus ta Yamma da Gabas. Rashin fitarwa na Gabashin Jamus ya fadi sosai bayan rushewar masana'antar Gabashin Jamus bayan faduwar Ginin Berlin. Saboda haka Jamus za ta iya karɓar yabo don raguwar hayaki.

A cewar Liverman (2008), wasu daga cikin tsoffin tauraron dan adam na Soviet suna son shekara ta tushe don nuna mafi girman hayaki kafin rushewar masana'antar su. Babban tushen fitar da hayaki ya kasance fa'ida ga ƙasashen da hayaki suka ragu saboda rushewar tattalin arziki. A gefe guda, wasu daga cikin tsoffin ƙasashen Soviet suna ɗaukar yawan hayaki a matsayin diyya ga raunin sake fasalin tattalin arziki.

Japan ta inganta ra'ayin sassauci, kuma ta fi son shekara ta 1995 don HFCs. HFC ɗin su ya karu a farkon shekarun 1990 a matsayin maye gurbin CFCs da aka haramta a cikin Yarjejeniyar Montreal.

Liverman (2008) ya yi jayayya cewa kasashe, kamar Amurka, sun ba da shawarwari yayin tattaunawar don rage alhakinsu na rage hayaki. Wadannan shawarwari sun hada da hada da sinks na carbon (carbon da gandun daji da sauran wuraren da ke rufewa a kowace shekara) da kuma samun hayaki na yanzu a matsayin tushen alhakin, maimakon hayaki na tarihi.

Grubb (2003) ya ba da wani hangen nesa game da tattaunawar. Kwanaki na ƙarshe na tattaunawar Yarjejeniyar sun ga rikici tsakanin EU da Amurka da Japan. Tarayyar Turai ta yi niyyar rage yawan kudi a cikin kewayon 10-15% a ƙasa da matakan 1990, yayin da Amurka da Japan suka goyi bayan raguwar 0-5%. Kasashen da suka goyi bayan bambancin manufofi tsakanin ƙasashe suna da ra'ayoyi daban-daban game da yadda ya kamata a lissafa shi, kuma an gabatar da alamomi daban-daban, misali, manufofi waɗanda ke da alaƙa da GDP, ƙarfin makamashi (amfani da makamashi a kowace raka'a na fitar da tattalin arziki), da sauransu. A cewar Grubb (2003), kawai jigon gama gari na waɗannan alamomi shine cewa kowane tayin ya dace da bukatun ƙasar da ke ba da shawarar.

Aldy et al. (2003) sun yi sharhi game da manufofin Kyoto da kuma yadda suka shafi ci gaban tattalin arziki. Idan aka yi la'akari da ci gaban wasu tattalin arziki da rushewar wasu tun daga 1990, kewayon manufofi masu mahimmanci sun fi girma fiye da wanda manufofin Kyoto suka ba da shawarar. A cewar Aldy et al. (2003), Amurka ta fuskanci raguwar kusan kashi 30% a ƙasa da "kasuwanci-kamar yadda aka saba" (BAU) hayaki (watau, hayaki da aka tsara ba tare da matakan da za a iyakance hayaki ba), wanda ya fi tsananin abin da ke nunawa ta hanyar Kyoto (ragewar kashi 7% a hayaki idan aka kwatanta da matakan 1990). Wannan ya bambanta da Rasha 'da sauransu.' Kyoto "tattalin arzikin da ke cikin canji" (EITs), waɗanda, a cewar Aldy et al. (2003), suka fuskanci manufofi na Kyoto wanda ya ba da damar karuwa sosai a cikin hayakin su sama da BAU.

Grubb (2003), duk da haka, ya yi sharhi cewa Amurka, tana da hayaki sau biyu fiye da na sauran ƙasashen OECD, tana da rauni ga shawarar cewa tana da babbar damar yin raguwa. Daga wannan ra'ayi, an tilasta wa Amurka ta rage hayaki fiye da sauran ƙasashe. Grubb (2003) ya kuma yi sharhi cewa shekaru biyu ko uku bayan yarjejeniyar Kyoto, hangen nesa na tattalin arziki na yau da kullun shine cewa hayaki daga EITs zai karu sosai yayin da tattalin arzikin su ya farfado. A zahiri, duk da haka, hayaki na EITs ya kasa girma kamar yadda samfuran da yawa suka annabta.

A watan Agustan 2012, a cikin jawabin da aka bayar a alma mater dinsa, Todd Stern - wakilin canjin yanayi na Amurka - ya bayyana kalubalen tsarin UNFCCC kamar haka, "Canjin yanayi ba batun muhalli ba ne na al'ada ... Yana nuna kusan kowane bangare na tattalin arzikin jihar, don haka yana sa kasashe su firgita game da ci gaba da ci gaba. Wannan batun tattalin arziki ne saboda shi ne na muhalli. "Ya ci gaba da bayyana cewa Yarjejeniyar Tsarin Majalisar Dinkin Duniya kan Canjin Yanayi ne mai kula da canjin yanayi kuma yana da sauyin yanayi kuma yana iya zama tsarin ingantaccen tsarin kasa da kasa da kasa don aiwatar da kasa. Saboda tsarin tsarin ya hada da kasashe sama da 190 kuma saboda tattaunawar ana gudanar da ita ta hanyar yarjejeniya, ƙananan kungiyoyin kasashe na iya toshe ci gaba sau da yawa.