How good is kyoto protocol

S

swatiraohnlu

Swati Rao
The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the international Framework Convention on Climate Change with the objective of reducing Greenhouse gases that cause climate change. It was agreed on 11 December 1997 at the 3rd Conference of the Parties to the treaty when they met in Kyoto, and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As stated in the treaty itself, The objective of the Kyoto Protocol is to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."

Is the Kyoto Protocol a good treaty to combat global warming? Is it a model for future treaties?
 
* Fighting climate change means cutting emissions with Kyoto Protocol Fighting global warming requires that countries move from a path of higher and higher greenhouse gas emissions each year to decreasing their greenhouse gas emissions. The Kyoto Protocol sets in motion this process, so is an essential step in the fight against global warming. As of January 2008, and running through 2012, countries will have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a collective average of 5% below their 1990 levels. This is a significant reversal.

Jeremy Symons, manager of the global warming program at the National Wildlife Federation, said in 2005 to the Washington Post, "You can't solve global warming by increasing emissions. That is what we are doing now. That is what President Bush is doing. You can't stop an environmental problem by increasing pollution."

* The Kyoto Protocol's target cuts in emissions are achievable Stephen Leahy. "CLIMATE CHANGE: Kyoto on Track, Despite Some Slackers". Inter Press Service. November 21, 2007 - BROOKLIN, Canada, Nov 21 (IPS) - Total greenhouse gas emissions of 40 industrialised countries rose to a near all-time high in 2005, but the Kyoto Protocol will still exceed its reduction targets, a United Nations agency said two weeks before political leaders meet in Bali, Indonesia to begin negotiations on a new and more aggressive treaty to battle climate change."
 
* The Kyoto protocol cannot significantly cut emissions without the US. The Kyoto Protocol has the potential to achieve its objectives for cutting emissions. But, this cannot be achieved without US participation, as the US is the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide. Therefore, the US should join, and enable the Kyoto Protocol to succeed.

* US has a responsibility to lead on climate change and in Kyoto Joe Biden, US Senator (D-DE), stated in a Mar. 30, 2001 press release - "The President's decision to turn his back on this treaty is a huge setback for the environment and could delay action on global warming for years... The United States has an inescapable responsibility to lead on global environmental challenges. It's wrong to simply walk away from this international agreement."
 
Countries must work together under Kyoto to combat global warming Dennis Kucinich, US Representative (D-OH), stated in a June 20, 2007 article titled "Campaign for America's Future: Take Back America 2007" on the Federal News Service: "...[A]s we reduce our carbon footprint, simultaneously we work with the world community. The Kyoto Climate Change Treaty is just the first step. We need to go beyond Kyoto. We need to reach out to the world and reduce our carbon emissions, and we need to have environmental protection to secure our food supplies."
 
* Kyoto does not require we choose between environment and economy Joseph Biden wrote in a 2001 letter to President Bush - "It's a false choice to say we need to favor the economy over the environment. Especially given the progress we've made in developing the technological knowhow to profit from a shift to cleaner energy production. The previous Administration was successful in working with business and environmental groups toward an agreement that protects both American interests and the world environment. The Bush Administration would have been wise to build upon this success."

* Costs of Kyoto are less than environmental-economic costs of inaction Joseph Heath. "Fuzzy math dominates Kyoto debate." Montreal Gazette. November 14th, 2002 - "When we burn it in fuel, and then breathe it in, we are literally poisoning ourselves. It causes heart and kidney problems in adults, and mental retardation in children. People pay thousands of dollars to have lead-based paint removed from their homes. So when we evaluate the ban on leaded fuel, it is meaningless to look at the costs without also looking at the benefits. In Canada, the ban on leaded fuel led to a 99% reduction in airborne lead emissions."

* Opponents of Kyoto are pandering to the energy industry Laurie David, Natural Resources Defense Council - "As the world celebrates the global warming pact's debut, Bush continues to pander to the energy industry."

* Government can cut-back on military spending to pay for Kyoto Gwyn Prins1 & Steve Rayner. "Time to ditch Kyoto". Nature. 25 Oct. 2007 - "It seems reasonable to expect the world's leading economies and emitters to devote as much money to this challenge as they currently spend on military research -- in the case of the United States about $80 billion a year."
 
The Kyoto Treaty has been signed by the vast majority of nations around the world due to the fact it has taken into consideration the different attitudes in direction of environment change throughout the Earth. Even though the Treaty hasn't been globally finalized, such as the opposition of the United States to signing up for other countries, it does deliver an outstanding unit for accomplishing unity throughout global lines.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top