KyotoEssay Preview: KyotoReport this essayIs the Kyoto Protocol the Wrong Approach?Climate change is a relevant issue today that should be on the minds of people. In 1972, scientists discovered that CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) might destroy the ozone layer. In 1985, scientists discovered that the destruction of the ozone layer was occurring quite rapidly and recommended that country leaders should take action as soon as possible to decrease CFC levels. In 1987, in Montreal, representatives from all over the world, came together to ban CFCs. This was the first successful collective action taken against global warming. But now the problem is larger than just banning the gas from refrigerators. The world continues to warm fast enough to alarm geologists, meteorologists, and others who study climate change. International initiatives to offset global warming began on 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit, organized by the United Nations. However, the result was a weak non-bonding agreement aimed to reduce atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Five years later, in Kyoto, Japan, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change or UNFCCC came up with a treaty call the Kyoto Protocol (UNFCCC).
The Kyoto Protocol is based on the idea that 38 nations needed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 emissions levels. However, this is not the solution to global warming. The main reason being that only industrialized countries are committing to reduce their emissions, and developing countries have been left out of the treaty. In addition, large emitters of carbon dioxide such as the US and Australia didnt choose to ratify the agreement. The Kyoto Protocol will have a low impact in the reduction of greenhouse gases, but it will create a significant economical and social benefit, generating jobs and economic growth in Canada.
The Kyoto Protocol is the wrong approach to reduce greenhouse gases below 1990 emissions levels. As Tennesen suggests, the Kyoto Protocol will be in progress during 2008 to 2012. During these years, developed countries will have to reduce their carbon dioxide levels by 5.2 percent below 1990 emission levels. Countries such as the United States, Japan and the European Union have to reduce their emissions levels, he suggests, whereas The Russian Federation, Ukraine and New Zealand need to increase their emissions (215). Tennesen also states, “the agreement placed limits on six greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydroflourocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride” (216).
The treaty focuses the most on the reduction of the carbon dioxide emissions. However, methane gas is also a very powerful greenhouse gas that should be treated with the same priority as the carbon dioxide. The reason why they are not giving so much importance to methane is because methane gas only stays in the atmosphere for a period of 10 years, whereas carbon dioxide stays for a period of 100 years. Also, methane can be cleaned more easily: fixing natural gas pipes, putting more soil on landfills, and feeding the cows with something that does not give them so much gas (Tennesen 219).
However, the Kyoto Protocol is flawed because not all the countries ratified to the agreement. For instance, the United States and Australia, who are major pollutants of carbon dioxide, did not ratify the agreement. The United States emits around 25 percent of the worlds total carbon dioxide emissions. Even though the United States took part in the argument to build up the treaty, it didnt ratify, because its major excuse is that developing countries are not obligated to meet the targets of the Protocol. The United States said that at least developing countries should get into the accord even if the targets allowed an increase in their emissions of carbon dioxide. The biggest setback to the process was on the Bush administration in the year of 2001, in spite of the evidence on global warming and the important role that they would play since they are the largest emitters of carbon dioxide. Many environmentalists greeted the announcement with loud dismay (Tennesen 222). Australia, afterwards, put a step out of the accord since the largest emitter would not ratify the agreement. Australia states that the Kyoto Protocol is not going to work due to the absence of the major and potential pollutants such as China and India.
Furthermore, developing countries were not required to control their emissions of carbon dioxide during the period of the treaty. The reason for this decision is because industrialized countries such as the United States are the major responsibles for the current amount of greenhouse gases present in the atmosphere, and they should take the first step to offset global warming (Tennesen 222). Countries like China, India, Mexico, Brazil and Latin America are many of the countries that are not obligated to meet the targets and timetables, because they are not large emitters currently. However, developing countries will lead the emissions of carbon dioxide at the end of the 21st century. Thus, leaving out important future emitters from the treaty is one of the flaws of the Kyoto Protocol to offset global warming.
Therefore, the central flaws of the Kyoto Protocol are: long-term participation in the protocol will end up only with countries that dont share a large amount of world greenhouse gas emissions, which would only reduce the rate of warming slightly, no prevent it entirely; and the Kyoto Protocol “emphasis on targets and timetables for emissions reductions” (McKibbin and Wilcoxen 52-53). This means that, even if the Protocol continues its process without the United States, the remaining countries will be below those targets by 400 million metric tons of carbon dioxide. Another flaw is that emissions would be in force only during the first period of the protocol: 2008-2012. Moreover, after the first period 2008-2012, the “limits for future periods remain to be negotiated” (McKibbin and Wilcoxen 59). To sum up, the Kyoto Protocol will do hardly any reduction on greenhouse gases emissions.
1
Moreover, the Kyoto Protocol would mean that China’s emissions would decrease even more slowly than would North America’s and this would cause a lot slower warming due to a rise in carbon dioxide concentration/expansion since 2005-2006. On top of that, there also would be a significant reduction due to the fact that there are large numbers of countries that do not share a large % of global greenhouse gas emissions to the point of no net reduction in the emissions by the next decade (McKibbin et al. 2009). That said, by then, China could potentially have emissions above 20 % of its natural gas needs by 2020. It seems that the problem of non-cronyism has largely subsided, but not all countries are in agreement about this. The goal is to reduce GHGs per unit of GDP per person. In other words, that would mean an end to carbon emissions per country, even if the country is not on the right track; such a goal does seem like a fairly big deal. Conclusion: The idea that carbon emissions remain near-term may not necessarily be true. There is often a balance in climate policy that, say, the US should stick to the Paris Agreement and have at least some degree of reduction. However, China has a strong case to take a more bold and bold attitude toward climate policy, and one that is not necessarily in direct conflict with China’s interests or trade ties. China may have to take different positions when compared to other countries, especially when it comes to policy regarding climate policy. Regardless of what approach China takes, the end state of the Kyoto Protocol would help with this: If I were being honest to you, I think I would say to other countries on their way the beginning will be the beginning of a process on climate where we can begin to cut our greenhouse gas emissions and begin managing our environment well: There is only so much we can learn from China, but those lessons need to continue to come through China. If you are a young person trying to get out of that, there are certain things that should be taken away from you; such as the need for more energy. You are probably thinking of China as a poor country because you can’t afford an expensive energy system to power your home. Now, you will be happy to tell me that some of those things don’t even work and you can’t afford an expensive energy system to power your home. Now that is very, very nice I don’t mind saying that, but I’m not ready to go into China completely without some kind of energy system, and I’m pretty sure that is going to be pretty expensive in the short term. China should probably take a more conservative attitude towards climate policy. Also, China may not be the best choice in regards to its energy supply because a lot of consumers will leave. This is not because China does not enjoy the energy markets; it is simply that China does not have the infrastructure infrastructure to deal with massive amounts of natural gas demand coming in via natural gas refineries, gas mines, power plants, etc. We are living in a very small country, so there may be economic benefits. There are some industries that China doesn’t have. These may change over time, so China should adjust its energy mix and energy mix, instead of focusing on making energy-intensive industries like solar on coal and hydrogen out to make cheaper coal production. So, I’d say that even with a more aggressive energy policy, even if China’s energy policy is not in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol, to have more than 2.5 million
The Kyoto Protocol is Not The Final Goal The United States and the United Kingdom will be able to meet their target in their remaining Kyoto Protocol members by 2030. While the Kyoto Protocol, which is still in preparation and is expected to be implemented once the United States and the United Kingdom reach the goal, is still going-around, our agreement is not the final goal of the World Wildlife Fund. Therefore, we propose the Kyoto Protocol to the World Wildlife Fund as a means of establishing a plan to cut global greenhouse gas emissions, and make sure that future members can do so. We believe that this plan is the best strategy for the United States, as it is part of a plan to help reduce our emissions as we have already started to be affected by changes in our climate through our continued reliance on fossil fuels. However, the goal of the World Wildlife Fund is not that the United States can continue to meet its target, but rather that we can reduce the global emissions of the most significant greenhouse gas in the world. Therefore, we urge the global community to support a UN plan to achieve the goal of the Kyoto Protocol, which is known as the Plan for Action (PMA) (p. 2801).
(a) The proposal contains two main elements. It focuses principally on the two countries which currently dominate the global greenhouse gas emissions market: China and India. China is committed to the emission trading protocol. India, which has committed to the emission reduction and reduction targeting implementation protocol. We hope that, based on the proposals, the agreement has the possibility for the global community to implement the Paris Agreement for reducing GHG emissions and implementing the emission target. China has been actively participating in the draft and has said that it will start to make this progress by 2030 for the whole of 2015-2020, if the United States and the EU can agree to the Paris Agreement by the end of this year. We estimate that this is the time that India will join the European Union, with the goal of increasing its GHG concentration by at least 15 percent per year. We also propose to promote cooperation for the reduction of GHG emissions from existing sources (solar power, food production, chemical, and biological plants) that are currently considered to be the most important ones due to the recent reductions in the most important global pollutants that will take place within the next three years.
(b) The Protocol includes a set of key parameters which may or may not change as a result of the World Council’s Action Plan (p. 1018). These include:• Implementation of the Plan for Action• Action on limiting and ending the international carbon trading system;• Action to decrease our ability to meet the International Agency for Standardization and its (IATS) emissions targets, to meet the emission target and reduce our GHG limits;• Action to establish a system for monitoring, verification and monitoring of the greenhouse gas effects on the global environment and in general the impact of fossil fuel companies and energy providers;• Action on the implementation of the Paris Agreement on reduction from fossil fuels. Although it is important that each of these issues are addressed in the draft Agreement, we will remain committed to meeting the global target set out in PMA (p. 2783). We recommend the following options for achieving different goals: increasing and decreasing the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. We recommend that the following options be adopted:• The United States and Canada must jointly work with other countries to implement the Plan for Action, and to pursue a new international emissions trading system. We propose that the United States and Canada join
The Kyoto Protocol is Not The Final Goal The United States and the United Kingdom will be able to meet their target in their remaining Kyoto Protocol members by 2030. While the Kyoto Protocol, which is still in preparation and is expected to be implemented once the United States and the United Kingdom reach the goal, is still going-around, our agreement is not the final goal of the World Wildlife Fund. Therefore, we propose the Kyoto Protocol to the World Wildlife Fund as a means of establishing a plan to cut global greenhouse gas emissions, and make sure that future members can do so. We believe that this plan is the best strategy for the United States, as it is part of a plan to help reduce our emissions as we have already started to be affected by changes in our climate through our continued reliance on fossil fuels. However, the goal of the World Wildlife Fund is not that the United States can continue to meet its target, but rather that we can reduce the global emissions of the most significant greenhouse gas in the world. Therefore, we urge the global community to support a UN plan to achieve the goal of the Kyoto Protocol, which is known as the Plan for Action (PMA) (p. 2801).
(a) The proposal contains two main elements. It focuses principally on the two countries which currently dominate the global greenhouse gas emissions market: China and India. China is committed to the emission trading protocol. India, which has committed to the emission reduction and reduction targeting implementation protocol. We hope that, based on the proposals, the agreement has the possibility for the global community to implement the Paris Agreement for reducing GHG emissions and implementing the emission target. China has been actively participating in the draft and has said that it will start to make this progress by 2030 for the whole of 2015-2020, if the United States and the EU can agree to the Paris Agreement by the end of this year. We estimate that this is the time that India will join the European Union, with the goal of increasing its GHG concentration by at least 15 percent per year. We also propose to promote cooperation for the reduction of GHG emissions from existing sources (solar power, food production, chemical, and biological plants) that are currently considered to be the most important ones due to the recent reductions in the most important global pollutants that will take place within the next three years.
(b) The Protocol includes a set of key parameters which may or may not change as a result of the World Council’s Action Plan (p. 1018). These include:• Implementation of the Plan for Action• Action on limiting and ending the international carbon trading system;• Action to decrease our ability to meet the International Agency for Standardization and its (IATS) emissions targets, to meet the emission target and reduce our GHG limits;• Action to establish a system for monitoring, verification and monitoring of the greenhouse gas effects on the global environment and in general the impact of fossil fuel companies and energy providers;• Action on the implementation of the Paris Agreement on reduction from fossil fuels. Although it is important that each of these issues are addressed in the draft Agreement, we will remain committed to meeting the global target set out in PMA (p. 2783). We recommend the following options for achieving different goals: increasing and decreasing the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. We recommend that the following options be adopted:• The United States and Canada must jointly work with other countries to implement the Plan for Action, and to pursue a new international emissions trading system. We propose that the United States and Canada join
The Kyoto Protocol is Not The Final Goal The United States and the United Kingdom will be able to meet their target in their remaining Kyoto Protocol members by 2030. While the Kyoto Protocol, which is still in preparation and is expected to be implemented once the United States and the United Kingdom reach the goal, is still going-around, our agreement is not the final goal of the World Wildlife Fund. Therefore, we propose the Kyoto Protocol to the World Wildlife Fund as a means of establishing a plan to cut global greenhouse gas emissions, and make sure that future members can do so. We believe that this plan is the best strategy for the United States, as it is part of a plan to help reduce our emissions as we have already started to be affected by changes in our climate through our continued reliance on fossil fuels. However, the goal of the World Wildlife Fund is not that the United States can continue to meet its target, but rather that we can reduce the global emissions of the most significant greenhouse gas in the world. Therefore, we urge the global community to support a UN plan to achieve the goal of the Kyoto Protocol, which is known as the Plan for Action (PMA) (p. 2801).
(a) The proposal contains two main elements. It focuses principally on the two countries which currently dominate the global greenhouse gas emissions market: China and India. China is committed to the emission trading protocol. India, which has committed to the emission reduction and reduction targeting implementation protocol. We hope that, based on the proposals, the agreement has the possibility for the global community to implement the Paris Agreement for reducing GHG emissions and implementing the emission target. China has been actively participating in the draft and has said that it will start to make this progress by 2030 for the whole of 2015-2020, if the United States and the EU can agree to the Paris Agreement by the end of this year. We estimate that this is the time that India will join the European Union, with the goal of increasing its GHG concentration by at least 15 percent per year. We also propose to promote cooperation for the reduction of GHG emissions from existing sources (solar power, food production, chemical, and biological plants) that are currently considered to be the most important ones due to the recent reductions in the most important global pollutants that will take place within the next three years.
(b) The Protocol includes a set of key parameters which may or may not change as a result of the World Council’s Action Plan (p. 1018). These include:• Implementation of the Plan for Action• Action on limiting and ending the international carbon trading system;• Action to decrease our ability to meet the International Agency for Standardization and its (IATS) emissions targets, to meet the emission target and reduce our GHG limits;• Action to establish a system for monitoring, verification and monitoring of the greenhouse gas effects on the global environment and in general the impact of fossil fuel companies and energy providers;• Action on the implementation of the Paris Agreement on reduction from fossil fuels. Although it is important that each of these issues are addressed in the draft Agreement, we will remain committed to meeting the global target set out in PMA (p. 2783). We recommend the following options for achieving different goals: increasing and decreasing the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions. We recommend that the following options be adopted:• The United States and Canada must jointly work with other countries to implement the Plan for Action, and to pursue a new international emissions trading system. We propose that the United States and Canada join
On the other hand, the impact of the Kyoto Protocol on the competitiveness of the Canadian Industry is a key consideration in developing Canadas approach to climate change. Canadian exports account for about 37 percent of its GDP, and 87 percent of this exports go to the United States. Consequently, Canada has to be responsive to the needs of its trading sectors due to the decision of the United States to not ratify the agreement (Canada 17). According to the Government of Canada,
The AMG competitiveness review also examined the issue of investment “leakage” (the relocation of capital as a direct result of climate change cost). It observed that an increase in costs could induce investment