The US Involvement In The Kyoto Protocol

The North American Drought of 1988 marked the very first time global warming crossed over from scientists to mass media coverage. Following an American professor’s address to the Senate correlating abnormal weather to global warming, European nations addressed the issue, and many countries began to reduce greenhouse gas. The European Union ratified the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 to make it legally binding. In Europe, global warming was acknowledged as a problem, with the only debate centered around how serious of a problem it was- 87% said it was a very serious problem, where around 10%

The advent of industrialized civilization has brought to us many remarkable feats that enhance our everyday lives. Such things as automobiles, airplanes, tractors, mainframe computers, and even relatively simple machines like lawnmowers have intertwined themselves into the everyday culture of modern day industrialized countries.. These products have provided us enormous benefits compared to the types of lives our ancestors used to live. In the eyes of some, the consequences of industrial activities that have evolved around the world will not pose any problems in the future, however as most have realized, this is not true. Contemporary production processes use fossil fuels such as

It's about advancing a political scheme of global government and punishing the US for its economic success. If we sign the Protocol the Kyoto inspectors, will be crawling all over America inspecting our emission levels in our factories and homes in violation of our Constitution. So the US should stay out of entangling alliances and should not endorse such Protocols that deteriorate our justifiable right of sovereignty. Global Warming is Hot Air Jon PerdueNo. 111, 15-21 March 1999 =

The Kyoto Protocol does not benefit Canada because it is unfair and too costly. The countries involved are not treated fairly, especially Canada. Some of the world’s largest polluters, such as China and India, are exempt from the first half of the Protocol and large polluters such as the US didn't choose to ratify the agreement. Secondly, Kyoto allows some industrialized countries, such as Russia and New Zealand, to make no cuts, and even permits some places, like Iceland, to emit more greenhouse gasses (Torrie and Parfett et al.). Finally, Canada will need to provide developing countries with funding to help them reach their reduction goals ("Canada's Kyoto Protocol Targets and Obligations"). Canada has more to lose with the Protocol than other countries and many other countries are not giving any funding at all. Every country that is signed on to the Kyoto agreement should be treated equally, and there should be no exceptions. For these reasons, the Kyoto Protocol will have little effect on the earth’s

Canada’s commitment to the Kyoto Protocol was a relatively short-lived deal met with plenty of controversy that saw opposition and support. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits countries to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions based on the assumption that global warming exists and man-made CO2 emissions are the contributing factor (Kyoto Protocol 1997). When the Liberal party lost the 2006 elections to the Conservative party, Canada had already gone back on its promise of a country-wide movement, undoing any progress towards its Kyoto goals (Canada and

In 1997, The Kyoto Protocol was adopted to address climate change and reduce greenhouse gas emissions (EPA, n.d.). In spite of the international treaty, half of participating nations, including Canada failed to reducing its Co2 emissions (Clark, D., 2012, November 26).

The Envorimental protection agency was created in 1970 and since then has been doing it's best to protect the Enviroment. The Envorimental Protection Agency collects emissions data to find opportunities to reduce emissions. (EPA 2016). Obama also implimented a clean power plan that would reduce carbon emission by 30% .(enviormental America 2012). However, Even with these new programs it's still will not be enough. The United States will also have to become comfortable with the fact that the entire nation will need to make the switch to solar and wind energy, as well as create some sort of treaty with other countries that may encompus the entire world to reduce carbon emissions. If the United States does not act quickly or refuses to act then the entire earth will suffer and society as we know it will change forever. In less than a hundred years we may lose all of our coral reefs and the oceans will become acidic "If climate change continues unabated, nearly all coral reef habitats could be devastated. Under our best-case scenario, half of all tropical coral reefs are still threatened" (Kieffer 2012) . For the sake of the future generations we must change now. It's like there is a meteor that's going to hit the earth in 50 years and no one wants to talk about the meteor even though there are viable ways to stop it. We can not wait any longer. If we don't do something then the entire world will suffer. It is time to take action. No more arguing about climate change being a myth. It is a scientific fact that humans are causing the rise in tempature. The world is literally ending and we're the only ones who can stop

On December 15, 2011, the Government of Canada authoritatively told the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that Canada would practice its legitimate right to formally pull back from the Kyoto Protocol. The Environment Minister, Peter Kent, was the one who announced this. The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement connected to the UNFCCC that sets internationally binding greenhouse gas reduction targets for each country that is in the agreement. There are a lot of benefits as to why Canada should stay in the agreement, but at the same time there are a few complications and setbacks that we will have to face as well. Canada will reduce the amount of greenhouse gases, save money and create jobs, and reduce drastic

The European Union expressed its disagreements with The US (during Bush administration) on cutting emissions of greenhouse gases. Climate change required “clear vision, political courage and an extraordinary effort of international cooperation”, so it’s necessary for Europe and US to hold urgent talks on the issue in the Hague last year. However, the US president’s national security adviser said the process to cut greenhouse gases established in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997 was dead which provoked the EU leaders to take action. Bush’s administration strongly oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80% of the world (major population centers such as China and India were not exempted) and it would harm to the US economy. He did the opposite of what

The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, which enforces the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The treaty does not account for ozone depleting substances since they are covered under the Montreal Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and took effect on 16 February 2005.

The climate change impacts of greenhouse gases threaten the economic development and environmental quality. These threats indicate that all nations regardless their economic growth should work collaboratively to reduce the emission to a certain level. Hare et al. (2011) argued that “climate change is a collective action problem” thus requires a global coordination from all countries. This indicates that actions from several countries would never be sufficient to address the climate change problem. If a global target to limit warming to 2°C or below is about to achieve (UNFCCC 2010, p.4) a broad range of participation is required (Hare et al., 2011). However, the increasing complexity of negotiation processes is inevitable. Each country will pursue its own interests during the

“The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the premise that (a)

According to an article focused on environmental awareness, “the world’s average surface temperature rose by approximately 1 degree Fahrenheit, the fastest rate in any period over the last 1000 years” (Source A). Damage has already been done to the environment but it is not the time to throw our hands up, it is the time for leaders in all sectors to tackle this issue head on. We know that carbon dioxide is the culprit, so now it is imperative to implement the solution and take a hard look at who is producing the most greenhouse gases. Big changes need to take place but they can only be done in steps and not all at once to be effective. In an excerpt from a book about global warming, Mark Maslin brings up the point that many feel the Kyoto Protocol does not go far enough; scientists believe that a 60% cut of greenhouse gas emissions is necessary in order to “prevent major climate change” (Source E). A sixty percent cut of emissions should be what countries work up to achieving but first and foremost, every country needs to agree to the Kyoto Protocol guidelines. The Kyoto Protocol itself should not be viewed as the end in the discussion of greenhouse gas restrictions, but rather the first stepping stone to a much broader and effective

In my first hour Environmental Science class, we did a simulation of what it would be

“For the time being, however, it is still the flexibility mechanisms that have attracted the most attention… (11).” The “flexibility mechanisms” are the offshore policies of joint implementation, clean development, and emissions trading. As the primary focus of the protocol and creating the biggest impact on international trade, these provisions in the agreement concern international trading of emissions credits.