 |
| Image Source |
According to Lancet, and the Global Burden of Disease and Risk Factors Study in 2013, One of the Top Three Risk Factors for global disease burden was Air Pollution. Only ahead of this was Smoking Tobacco and High Blood Pressure. For those of you who may not know what the Lancet is, it's one of the worlds leading medical journals. The Lancet was founded in 1823. Its an independent and non-affiliated scientific organization that is globally renouned for its findings and contributions. Every major article the lancet publishes is rigorously peer reviewed, with an acceptance rate of around 5% of all articles.
Lancet found that of all things to be afraid of, you're more likely to be affected by the air you breathe and the water you drink than almost anything else. According to this study, that breath of air you take in or the drop of water that hits your skin is more dangerous to you than that bus that nearly hit you, or the threat of terrorists. According to another finding by lancet, in 2010, 3.2 million people died of air pollution and a total of 76 million disability-adjusted life-years in 2010 were lost.
On top of that, the same study revealed that Pollutants, when exposed to infants, can significantly increase infant mortality rates. Infant morality rate, while improving, is showing trends that reflect the severity of this problem. Globally, it has been proven that air pollution is linked to birth defects in children as well as children being born per-maturely and born under-weight. Even industrialized countries are seeing an increase of underweight births, the United states, from 2003 to 2004, saw a rise in that figure to 7.7% of non-smoker births being underweight, All this in a country that has had access to the latest technology, most current medicine, and most highly trained doctors.
3.2 million deaths linked to air pollution is striking when compared to the same assessment taken in 1990, where the number was only 800,000. From 1990 to 2010 the number of listed deaths from air pollution quadrupled. Which means that today, you are four times more likely to die from air pollution than in 1990. Why Haven't the countries of the world taken action?
The answer is they already did, but not in the way you would expect:
The Kyoto protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan on December 1997. It entered into force on the 16th of February 2005. The protocol seeks to limit the effect of industrializing countries pollution levels. In theory, the idea had a lot of merit.
The Protocol is still widely seen as an important first step, but unfortunately it has many loopholes and stops short in promoting real,
substantial change. According to its website, the Kyoto Protocol, "... is an international agreement linked to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, which commits its Parties by setting
internationally binding emission reduction targets." This public statement is both inaccurate and misleading as it hides the insincerity behind the initiatives actual function. That is to say, provide a legal means to purchase the ability to mass pollute under the guise of environmentalism.
To the press, and those who don't read into the details about the initiative, it seems to be a great leap forward in stemming the pollution crisis; Its not. There is one clause that has amazing repercussions in the Kyoto Protocol that was slipped in and hid from the general public. The Emissions trading clause. This clause, presents a substantial problem with the entire message behind what the Kyoto Protocol stands for.
 |
| 2009 Image Source |
It allows for countries that have emissions that are lower than the acceptable amount to sell their excess emission capabilities to countries that are over capacity. Thus allowing any country to over pollute and have no global repercussions or restrictions for their actions. It turns the ability to pollute into a commodity, that can be sold to any country with enough money. There's an entire organization, that was created under this treaty, to sell these new pollution bonds to developing countries.
The Protocol is widely seen as an important first step, but unfortunately it has many loopholes and stops short in promoting real, substantial change.
 |
| Image Source |
Unfortunately, this even-responsibility ideal of has bred counterproductive measures. One of these such measures is a clause in the Protocol that allows for countries that have emissions that are lower than the acceptable amount to sell their excess emission capabilities to countries that are over capacity. Thus allowing for high polluting countries to over pollute and have no repercussions for their actions. This process, called International Emissions Trading defeats the greater purpose of limiting emissions, allowing for substantial exceptions.
A key aspect of the treaty is the composition of its members and their contributions. As Highlighted in the United Nations website,
“During the first commitment period, 37 industrialized countries and the European Community committed to reduce GHG emissions to an average of five percent against 1990 levels. During the second commitment period, Parties committed to reduce GHG emissions by at least 18 percent below 1990 levels in the eight-year period from 2013 to 2020; however, the composition of Parties in the second commitment period is different from the first.”(Source)
So to clarify, Yes, there was a shift in the amount of CO2 produced by the member states within the target timeline. However the composition of the member states changed; meaning that any state that wasn't going to meet the emissions guidelines simply left the agreement, nullifying the entire reason for the Protocol. That's the international equivalent of flipping over the Monopoly board during family game night because you were losing.
The End Result:
 |
| Image Source |
A huge problem with the Protocol is that the United States, the second biggest polluter in the world, refuses to ratify the initiative. This is despite public opinion on the matter; which clearly shows United States Citizens understand the problem. The picture above is not from some industrializing country in Asia, its of the Detroit Marathon Refinery which over-pollutes, even in terms of American Standards due to the various loopholes in our policy.
All these reasons as well as the global focus on growth over environmental feasibility lead to the final analysis. As citizens we are only able to control so much, and with the recent impediments on our relative voice compared to the ultra-wealthy we were made even weaker. The United States public opinion is already against promoting practices that contribute to climate change. Realistically speaking, the only reason why we continue to promote these outdated and inefficient practices over their renewable counterparts is due to the power of special interest groups.
As a nation we need to speak up and act. Until we do, our collective goals will be sidestepped in lieu of the ultra-wealthy.
