Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Limitations of the Kyoto protocol
Implication of kyoto protocols
Kyoto protocol issues
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Limitations of the Kyoto protocol
The Kyoto Protocol
Introduction
The Kyoto Protocol is one of the most ambitious international environmental agreements to date. Adopted on 11 December 1997 by negotiations of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the treaty’s aim was to commit countries to a 5% reduction in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from their 1990 levels (Prins and Rayner, 2008). These commitments in GHG reduction, CO2 emissions in particular, were to begin in 2005 with goals expected to be reached by 2012. A total of 191 parties ratified the protocol, with 38 industrialized nations and the European Community with binding commitments to reducing their emissions, while developing countries, including India and China remained exempt. United States did not ratify the protocol, while Canada renounced its commitments in 2011. In order to monitor the CO2 flux of each country, actual emissions
…show more content…
The mission was to commit countries to reducing emissions by 5% of their 1990 levels between 2005 and 2012. The outcome of this agreement was a failure, as CO2 emissions have been steadily rising throughout this period. Unforeseen events such as the US excluding themselves from the agreement, along with Canada dropping its commitments helped pay its toll in the collapse. Loose binding terms resulted in many countries not reaching their committed targets, while the exclusion of large-emitter developing nations such as China and India made for an overall increase in emissions. Despite the outcome of the protocol, Kyoto helped to establish global recognition of climate change and outcomes our world will face if we do not do something to mitigate these effects. The Kyoto Protocol can be seen as the “first step” to reducing global emissions and an open door to future international
The Kyoto Protocol is a binding international agreement, which began in Kyoto, Japan in 1997. As of June 2013, there were a total of 192 parties participating in the Kyoto Protocol, Canada was no longer one of them. Canada was one of the first to sign the agreement, in 1998; more than 4 years later, Canada formally approved the Kyoto Accord, in 2002 ("CBC.ca - Timeline: Canada and Kyoto"). This meant Canada would have to decrease its emissions, by 6% in comparison to 1990 levels (461 Mt), by the year 2012. Despite some efforts, Canada failed to meet these requirements and in fact increased total emissions by roughly 24% by the year 2008. Canada formally withdrew from the Kyoto Accord in 2011, avoiding penalties and future detriments ("CBC News in Depth: Kyoto"). The withdrawal of Canada from the Kyoto Protocol was a good decision, the decrease in emissions was an unattainable goal, considering the cost, time, unfairness, dependency and technological advancement.
From the beginning the United States was viewed as the villain. Undersecretary of State, Stuart Eizenstat, and head of the U.S. delegation, let it be known that no amount of pressure could force the administration to flinch. “We want an agreement, but we are not going to Kyoto at any cost” (qtd. in Christianson 255). Vice President Al Gore added: “We are perfectly prepared to walk away from an agreement that we don’t think will work” (qtd. in Christianson 255). It was quite obvious that the United States did not want to be there – and for good reason.
The Kyoto Protocol set by the United Nations allocates countries to offset their greenhouse gas emissions by growing what they lost, that is reforestation, and/or establishing a forest in a barren land, that is afforestation. Each country is allowed a certain quota that limits their greenhouse emissions. For companies that uses deforestation for commercial purposes must reforest the land they cut off to compensate for the loss. More often than not the land is left alo...
The threat of climate change in recent years is recognized as a real and potentially catastrophic threat to the health and welfare of our planet, as industrialized nations continue to run their economies by burning carbon into the atmosphere. Recently, it has taken on a larger role in our national media, the public, and the government, as the effects of anthropogenic climate change become more evident. In the United States, for example, the year 2007 brought the first major piece of legislation in the country to address the problem under the Climate Security Act, and the United States Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency had authority to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Today, many politicians, economists, scientists, and environmentalists propose a solution that would create a regulated market based on emissions into the atmosphere, effectively internalizing all negative externalities. It’s called cap and trade, and it has a lot of potential to help incentivize the implementation of alternative forms of energy, has several different variations and alternatives, and has already been successful in many programs around the world.
The Kyoto Protocol was developed in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 and came into full force on the 16th of February 2005 in an effort to compact climate change (“Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual,” 2008). By targeting green house gas emissions, the Kyoto Protocol created an effort to “promote sustainable development (“Kyoto Protocol To The United Nations,” 1998).” The protocol’s goal was to reduce green house gas emissions from 1990 by 4.2% by 2008-2012, which 37 developed countries signed and pledged to (Schiermeier, 2012). With such a specific target, the goal was clear and quantifiable, making it easy to measure, when the time came, whether or not the Kyoto Protocol’s goal had been reached. Also, the involvement of these 37 countries was crucial in obtaining the goal. Without international cooperation the goal of reducing carbon emissions would never be effective as green house gasses effect the entire globe’s atmosphere not one local
Novak, Mary H. (1998, July 24). Kyoto Treaty A Giant Leap into the Economic Abyss. Houston Business Journal, 29 (10), p. 27A. [Online]. Available: http://insite.palni.edu/WebZ/Authorize:sessionid=0.
We humans cannot help but feel a twinge of regret when we contemplate how we brought forth the plague of global warming by our own hands in the passing years. Aside from rising sea levels as deluging coastal cities and depleting ozone layers as increasing cancer rates, we inevitably come face to face with one simple realization: it’s getting too hot in here. Moreover, we have been devastated by various extremes of nature, with spring frost storms and summer hurricanes arriving with increasing frequency. However, numerous though the causes of global warming may be, the general consensus is that carbon dioxide, which results from the burning of fuels such as coal, is the main culprit; this gas has now formed a high concentration blockade in the atmosphere, preventing heat from escaping and thus increasing the temperatures of our planet. Therefore, after assessing all facts of the problem, I humbly propose that we collect the CO2¬, compress it, and then place it into soda cans. Then, we shall store the soda cans underground, whence the CO2 originally came.
Potential impacts of technology on a global scale are relatively long-term, the NCCTI is guided over this by the climate change goals of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992 (Kyoto Protocol), ratified by the United States and more than 170 other countries (5) (3). The UNFCCC calls for the "... stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth's atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."(5) In order to achieve this long-term goal, net emissions of greenhouse gases on a global scale must ultimately approach levels that are lower than they are today. (1)
Nearly 200 countries have signed the Kyoto Protocol and they must reduce four greenhouse gases, in order to struggle with global warming. There are several perspectives on the effects of global warming on the environment. In this essay, we will consider the impacts and consequences of global warming. In the process, it will be clarified that there are positive and negative impacts of global warming. Ecosystem
To sum up, the EU drawn attention on climate changes and has essential goals to help other regions and countries to change the world. According to the Kyoto Protocol, the EU and other countries have big dreams about changing climate in positive way. That how the EU manages to accomplish the defined aims on the Kyoto Protocol depends on the EU leaders and Europeans also on the major emitting countries and other powerful world’s countries which have essential impact on climate changes.
Once again, President Donald Trump stunned not only the nation, but the whole world on June 1st by declaring his decision to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate agreement, a global agreement enacted to decrease the amount of greenhouse gas emissions and minimize any further harm towards the planet in an effort to slow down global climate changes. "We're getting out", Donald Trump said as he declared the United States' depart from the Paris climate agreement. The Paris climate agreement started in 2015 and was adopted by 195 nations; that’s nearly every country in the world. The decision made by President Trump and his administration to leave the Paris climate agreement will not benefit our country nor the world in any way. This
Mobility has allowed human civilizations throughout history to reap the benefits of unrestricted, intercontinental trade, but there are environmental costs as a result which are not immediately apparent. There is no doubt that trade between nations has depleted natural resources, but the question as to whether current trade policies augment or temper environmental degradation is currently under contention. One view is that environmental regulations will create "pollution havens" in countries where there are less stringent regulations, simply relocating environmental damage to a country where the environment is worth less. The opposing view comes in the form of the "Porter hypothesis" named for Michael Porter and his suggestion that stringent regulations will encourage technological innovation among polluting firms thereby decreasing the rate at which the environment is damaged. The opposing views deal with current trade policies, but it is also important also to look at the effects that trade has had on the environment when trade policies were just taking shape.
In order to address climate change, the Kyoto protocol had one main goal: for Annex 1 countries (countries considered to have a developed economy) to decrease their anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions by 5% compared to their 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012 (“The Kyoto Protocol”, 1). This
Nowadays, we can see a lot of campaigns to reduce this humans’ contribution of greenhouse gases to atmosphere. These campaign’s missions are usually about reducing the energy that we use, convincing us to use recyclable energy, stopping the deforestation... These missions are all about mitigating to climate change. Climate change mitigation is the actions to limit the significant rate of long term climate change. In other words, climate change mitigation is all of the actions about lowering the humans’ greenhouse gas contribution to atmosphere. It is now too late for humans’ to prevent the effects of climate change, but these effects can be reduced in the future with mitigation. The most popular treaty, disenchant of humanity, is Kyoto Protocol. The main goal of Kyoto Protocol is reducing the human emitted greenhouse gases, in other word, mitigation. Also in ways that underlying national differences in GHG emissions, wealth, and capacity to make th...
Our planet has managed to survive and thrive for about 4.54 billion years. In the last 2 million years we have caused enough damage and destruction to make our world “broken” beyond repair. We will not be able to get back the world we once had. The reason behind this is global warming, specifically, the increase of the global temperature due to the burning of fossil fuels and the release of greenhouse gas emissions into our atmosphere. If we do not make the issue of global warming a priority in today`s society, our entire way of life will be at risk. There are many reasons why so many people believe global warming should be a concern. Thoroughly examined points include: scientific predictions, rising temperatures, human causes, drastic climate changes and animal adaptations. Though there are several points arguing how global warming should not be a concern, the reality of the matter is that it needs to be taken into consideration on a global scale before it is too late, as to do nothing would have devastating implications on humankind.