Solving Climate Change in Small Specific Steps Instead of Large Broad Steps

An international effort to reduce greenhouse gases through the Kyoto Protocol was deemed a failure by many of its critics. The causes of climate change are very complex and involve analysis of a multitude of interrelated factors. In its final form, the Kyoto Protocol was perhaps too ambitious in its attempt to mitigate all of the various contributors to climate change. Problems that involve many elaborate and interconnected issues, such as climate change, may be tackled more effectively by focusing on smaller parts with goals that are more achievable rather than attempting to resolve everything through a single, all-encompassing agreement.

Elements of the Montreal Protocol have been compared to the Kyoto Protocol to understand why the former was considered a major success when compared to the latter’s failure to implement even modest efforts to reduce the release of greenhouse gases. Factors such as the Montreal Protocol’s more specific language and available replacement technology to replace CFC’s are often thought of as reasons for Montreal’s success. Although a very different problem, the United States’ efforts to restore sea turtle populations have similar factors as the Montreal Protocol, and perhaps should also be considered as a model in analyzing factors that could be incorporated into a more effective climate change strategy. Both climate change efforts and sea turtle restoration efforts demonstrate that there are many similarities between the elements of each of these problems. Perhaps the United States should use methods that were developed in restoring sea turtle populations with its leadership role in efforts to roll back the sources of global warming.

Like climate change, endangered sea turtle populations are an international problem that can be traced to a wide variety of factors such as light pollution, oil spills, poaching, and ocean dumping of refuse. Instead of approaching this as an international problem, the United States decided to make its own efforts to restore sea turtle populations. Primary to this effort was a United States requirement that shrimp imported into the country be caught using a Turtle Exclusion Device that did not harm sea turtle populations. Although faced with initial opposition from the World Trade Organization, the United States eventually was able to legally restrict shrimp imports that did not use TEDs.

The importance of this method is that it focused on one achievable goal within the multiple issues that remain unresolved. Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, efforts to restore sea turtles took a concrete step, made possible through modern shrimp harvesting techniques, to address a specific aspect of the larger problem. Whereas Kyoto’s approach was to include a multitude of sources of heat trapping gases that contribute to global warming, sea turtle efforts avoided vagueness in the means of achieving goals by focusing on a narrow issue within the larger constellation of problems that is causing dwindling sea turtle populations. The United States focused on one part of the problem that it was able to remedy due to the available replacement technology. In a similar manner, climate change may be addressed more effectively by focusing on smaller areas of the problem, perhaps looking to replacement technology as a solution.

Addressing greenhouse gases on an individual basis could lead to a step-by-step approach toward a more effective solution to climate change and allow technology to develop replacement energy and materials on a logical path. Additionally focusing on one area of emissions leads to a smoother transition that will be more acceptable to more countries.

It is important to recognize that Kyoto was an international attempt as opposed to the United States’ domestic efforts towards restoring sea turtle populations. International policies have their own set of challenges not the least of which are numerous competing claims for solutions based on self-interest. This was clearly a major difficulty in reaching an enforceable Kyoto Protocol. The sea turtle approach allowed the United States to lead through its unilateral action and without the struggle to find consensus. In doing so, the United States set a standard for reasonable conduct that other concerned nations could adopt at their own pace.

The weak language of Kyoto has often been cited as a reason for its failure. But stricter language may have carried with it another set of issues as many countries would have found it difficult to reduce their emissions due to the wide scope of Kyoto reductions in greenhouse gases. With a specific approach, each polluting gas could be analyzed to determine how best to control it, either through limitation or replacement, and countries could then work toward a transition and reduction in emissions.

When tackling such a large and complex problems, small, achievable steps will be more effective than vague attempts at solving all of its factors at once as shown to be true in both the Montreal Protocol and sea turtle restoration.  Limited and more specific goals can serve as building blocks for the more ambitious solutions that may involve greater economic will and political consensus.