What is the the Kyoto Protocol? Is it successful?

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, signed in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and put into effect in 2005, whereby the UNFCCC (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change) has recognised the threat posed by global warming, and is advocating a reduction in the emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect, noting the anthropogenic influence on climate change. On February 16th 2005, the treaty was made effective among 192 members (Figure 1) and 83 signatories (comprising of the UN members, excluding Andorra, Canada, South Sudan and The US (unratified), but including the EU, Cooke Islands and Niue).

Figure 1 shows the countries in varied stages of involvement within the Kyoto Protocol. It shows there is a general North-South Divide regarding the legally binding nature of nations targets, e.g. countries in Africa, which as underdeveloped states do not contribute largely to the world's carbon footprint, along with South America which already paves the way for an emission free model of development while Asian Tigers and India and China's industry is supported by a lack of binding targets as Non-Annex B nations. However, the most developed nations in the EU and Australia as well as the 'Stans' are bound by legal measures to adhere to the Protocol. However, leniency and bias is shown in regards to the most polluting nations in terms of Russia, who opted out for the second period of the binding targets, the non legally binding nature of agreements with the BRICS in general, the unratified nature of the US and the departure of Canada highlight the Protocol's initial criticism.

The aim of the Kyoto Protocol was to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride and other chemicals to a level which reflects a 5.2% drop from the 1990 standards between the years 2008 to 2012, putting a particular pressure on more developed, Annex 1 nations (the EU, US, Canada and the Russian Federation). In most countries, these adopted policies would include restrictions on their largest polluters, manage transportation in an effort to reduce vehicle emissions and restructure their energy mix to include more renewable energy sources, for instance, the UK has shifted towards offshore wind turbines and bio fuels.

Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol have been multifaceted:

• Firstly, those who prefer the use of carbon taxing to reduce greenhouse emissions are critical of the Kyoto Protocol. One of these critics, James Hansen has claimed that not only is the Kyoto "cap and trade" system ineffective as "the developed nations want to continue with business as usual so they are expected to purchase indulgences to give a small amount of money to developing countries" but the use of carbon offsetting is also debated and may not in the long term be effective in combating climate change. 
• Another issue with the Kyoto Protocol is that it has yet to be ratified in the US, which until 2006, was the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world before the acceleration in growth of China.  Issues were highlighted in a conference in Doha in 2012 that the two nations hold the key to our approach to climate change. Despite China being a member of the Protocol, they have no intention of slowing down their emissions. 
• Furthermore, the conditions of the Kyoto Protocol and it's targets for improvement were demanded to be immediate and put into action by 2008, this was not deemed to be realistic, as it can take a matter of decades to show a shift in energy economy, highlighting in the words of McElroy, "a power plant lifespan may be up to 30 years" or the "average vehicle in the US is on the road for 12 years", this may be detrimental to economies and the population would not adopt these new policies.
• The Protocol also struggles with policy regarding those with large populations or rapidly growing economies such as the BRICS, which is particularly applicable to both China and India. 
• Ultimately, it's also been predicted by Robert N. Stavins that by 2050, emissions under the Kyoto Protocol will have only been reduced by around 2 to 3 percent, which is not enough to withdraw the Earth from it's tipping point in terms of global warming, rather than a strategy of adaptation, there is a consensus on the need to mitigate the threat caused by emissions.
• While it's claimed there has been a 5% drop in emissions of the 40 most developed nations from the 1990 level, this is most likely not due to the UNFCCC climate policy but the collapse of the highly inefficient energy production of the Soviet Union.

However, the framework of the Kyoto Protocol has been widely accredited for its contributions to the future of the UNFCCC's Copenhagen Accord in terms of technology transfer and monitoring, carbon markets and funding projects. The success of the Kyoto ratification is that it's also legally binding for Annex 1 states, in comparison to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which bases it's success on the willingness and good nature of the developed world to comply. The protocol has also shown huge success in nations with a large Research and Development budget such as Norway, Sweden and Denmark (Scandinavian region) particularly Sweden, who by the year 2006 was beating it's emissions target, with a reduction of 12.7% since the Kyoto Protocol's conception, aiming to be the first completely "oil-free" nations by 2020 in 2013, with European success discussed in Figure 2. 

The graph in Figure 2 suggests, despite other regions shortcomings, that the legally binding targets of the Kyoto Protocol were successful within the EU and other European countries which show a stabilization after the 1990's as a possible result of the pressures of the UNFCCC This has only been furthered since the ratification of the Protocol as Europe has shown a 5% decrease in emissions, mostly due to resorting to the alternative of renewable energy. These patterns are not shared in other areas of the world, emphasizing a success in the developed world which is not reflected in the underdeveloped world.

Ultimately, it has been claimed that the major accomplishment of the Kyoto Protocol is it's raising of awareness towards climate change, which up until around a decade ago was largely disregarded in the face of economic growth and industrialisation caused by supply and demand. However, the Protocol has achieved something important, forcing governments to openly recognise the ramifications of anthropogenic damage to our planet's climate and the enhanced greenhouse effect, showing an enlightenment in previously un co-operative nations such as the US and China. It's conception has also been seen as an opportunity for the possible success of the Copenhagen Accord in relation to it's contribution to technology, carbon markets and funding. However, the UN supported agenda is also a platform for the key players in developed countries governments to dominate the global system in regard to the "cap and trade" method and advantage of Research and Development and investment in renewable evident in the UK, France and Scandinavia. Also, the Kyoto Protocol's heavy number of criticism and controversies far outweigh the positives, for example the varied involvement of key players such as the US, Canada and the BRICS costs the treaty a large portion of it's legitimacy as well as it's struggle to reach targets, it has emerged that most of the reductions in greenhouse gases have occurred independently from the agenda, e.g. the fall of the Soviet Union, or the growth of energy awareness and attitudinal change within nations, e.g. the Green Party in the UK have offered change in terms of emissions which undermine the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.

What is China's role in a multipolar world, especially in reference to Russia?

The United States, after World War II, became a hegemon and the primary superpower in a uni-polar world. However, in recent decades there has been a challenge to the uni-polar global order in the form of China. Multipolarity means that there are multiple influential powers in the world, rather than uni polarity or bi polarity.

China is growing to be an economic superpower as the rise of the BRICS has meant that economic power is 'transitioning' from West to East according to theorist Joseph Nye.  With China's economy set to overtake the USA's in 2016 as researched by the International Monetary Fund (IMF), growth is seemingly exponential in most of the BRICS. The establishment of a 'new development bank' is a way for the countries promoting multipolarity to build upon infrastructure, fund projects and distribute resources as the efforts of China and Russia strive for a multilateral global order. Multilateral being the "international governance of the many." as defined by Miles Kahler.

Graph showing China's economic growth in comparison to the United
States between 1980 and 2030

In reference to Russia, the China - Russia Constructive Partnership Agreement of 1994 (China - Russia Strategic Agreement of 1996) promoted the belief of both countries not only in terms of a partnership between nations, but the importance of the presence of multipolarity in a world to achieve a fair and just society which was at that time uni-polar - and is still considered to be led by the United States in the current decade.

Overall, China is in a position to overtake the United States and other global actors in terms of hard power such as economy, however, it fails to establish itself in other ways which make it difficult for the nation to become a global superpower rather than a regional one. For instance, it lacks the influence of human rights, prominent allies, acts of diplomacy and the use of 'soft' power or 'smart' power.

Is the US in decline as a global hegemon?

A hegemon is a leader of imperial dominance, exerting it's power geopolitically. The United States, for decades, particularly since World War II, has been regarded as the ultimate global hegemon, relying on it's vast economic and military power to exert it's influence over other nation states and global groupings. However, the USA now has unprecedented competitors that have not followed the transitional model of development. For instance, the United States is being caught up by emerging economies, e.g. the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). The US has also been vulnerable to rises in 'smart' and 'soft' power of other states attempting to exert their own influence.

Firstly, China is considered to be the nation catching up with the USA, mostly on an economic basis. This is partially due to the 'transition' of power shifting from the West to the East, which India is also benefiting from. As theorist Joseph Nye has highlighted, China has recovered since it's setback after the Western led Industrial Revolution, their level of production is exponentially rising. It is estimated that by the year 2021, China's GDP will exceed the United States, could this cause the decline of the US as a global hegemon? It appears that alongside economy, the US' hegemonic powers may also diminish as the world's uni polar superpower. On the other hand, this prediction by Goldman Sachs  is very much relative, undertaking a linear approach which doesn't account for issues and bumps in China's growth or the nature of it's economy, meaning that despite it's industrial growth, China is not as likely to exceed the US as predicted.

Line Chart showing the growth of China's economy in relation to the
US based on GDP, overtaking in around the year 2020.

Secondly, the type of power used by the United States is important to it's hegemony of the world. The US is based primarily on the use of 'hard power' or the sticks and carrot approach based on punishment and reward, this focuses mostly on utilizing economic and military leadership, for instance, economically, the US has the power to impose sanctions, take out patents and copyrights and give funding and on a military basis, is able to not only protect itself and threaten other countries with military intervention but can act as a type of global police. However, in recent years, as the distribution of power and global priorities have changed with the importance of individualism, human rights, climate change and energy etc. it is clear that 'soft power' is increasingly vital. 'Soft power' is the use of attempting to co-operate and influence other countries ideas and policies without the use of the carrot and stick idea. This is a type of power prominently demonstrated in Brazil (an emerging economy) where the World Cup put Rio de Janeiro on a global level, also basing it's power on it's primary agricultural industry and it's conservation of the environment. Furthermore, it's evident that the UK has topped the global 'soft power' list in it's capitalizing from the Olympics, Paralympics and success of the arts. This shows how the US has abandoned other forms of power for 'hard power' which could lead to the nation's hegemonic demise. However, is 'soft power' really the way to impose imperial dominance over countries? or should hegemony be based more on the use of 'hard' and 'smart' power? Smart power being the dilution of hard power with elements of 'soft power' promoted by Hillary Clinton. Possibly, the US will suffer from decline if it doesn't begin to introduce more policies based on diplomacy and culture based 'soft power'. The use of the term 'soft power' could be coined with 'Americanization' if it were not for the underlying elements of Neo-Colonialism and the monopolizing of global economies using TNC's etc, although this is still a legitimate approach to holding on to it's power as a global hegemon.

Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State, is a supporter of 'smart power' and
campaigns against the use of only 'hard power' in the United States.

Also, the power of the United States has been criticized and questioned for decades based on it's resistance to global events etc. This has been further documented by Joseph Nye who claims that around every 15 years the decline of the United States has been predicted, but has never been proven as true. The nation has strongly withstood multiple economic crashes and debt crisis, terrorist attacks, long lasting wars but has remained the long running global hegemon despite these factors which have threatened in most it's strength regarding it's hard power. Despite being a country that is highly unsustainable in nature, there is no question over the United States durability and adaptation to change, which is essential in holding onto power in the 21st Century.

Finally, the emergence of the power lying behind the co-operation of global groupings must be assessed in the ways in which global distributions of power are changing through 'diffusion'. Economic Trade Blocs such as the EU or NAFTA and Intergovernmental Organizations (IGO's) e.g. NATO or the United Nations, which are an attempt at spreading and sharing power equally among states, economic interdependence and military alliances. The organizations aim to provide a better platform for global relationships and development. Over time, these global groupings have grown into the main International Decision Making powers, which often are made to promote the hegemonic power of certain parts of the world, an example being the European Union, effectively separating their power from global hegemonic states such as the United States. However, the US is still dominant in most global groupings as they use these relationships and alliances as a forum for flexing their muscles in a geopolitical sense and could be seen as another way that America can elevate it's hegemony.

Ultimately, The United States by it's critics is always going to be proposed as flawed in terms of it's geopolitical power and it's relationship with other nations and global powers. But, in my opinion, it is important to remember that the US has never diminished in it's strength of hard power despite predictions that the country will decline or be overtaken by China re-emerging every 15 years. However, it should also be noted that to stay one step ahead of other leading global hegemonic powers, the nation must embrace the common values of 'soft power' that may lead to a higher level of co-operations on a global level, meaning it must enhance it's dependence on culture, environment and diplomacy rather than resorting to it's military and economics.