The Pros And Cons Of The Montreal Protocol

The purpose of this section is to set standards for federal agencies to follow in regards to global issues. Climate change and clean energy efforts are of great importance in regards to environmental assessment law. International treaties to lower greenhouse gases (GHG) are of special importance. Therefore, it has become evident that federal agencies will be forced to play a global role in the decades to come. ‘Public involvement in regards to environmental decision-making increases environmental awareness,

In the late 1970’s scientists concluded that products releasing carbonflourochloride (CFC) was causing the ozone to deplete. The ozone layer is a protective layer from the sun’s rays and depleting the ozone layer allowed the stronger, harmful to health on earth, rays to get through. International action was taken in 1987 and the Montreal Protocol came into being. It was an international treaty to phase out CFC producing products. It went into effect in 1988 and has achieved international success. Once the Montreal Protocol had been agreed to the World Health Organization released information on the harmful effects CFC’s were having on the ozone

Dr James Hansen’s argumentative essay, “A Solution to the Climate Problem,” discusses his premise that it is imperative for humankind to deal with carbon dioxide emissions, which he believes needs to be phased out by the mid-21st century. He begins with the current paradigm in government efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions and claims that so far it has been a lot of talk and action in the other direction. Dr Hansen argues that while governments pay lip service to agreements such as the Kyoto Accord, they are going full steam ahead with projects that will result in increased carbon dioxide emissions, such as going forth with coal-fired power plants, coal-to-liquids, hydraulic fracturing, and tar sands oil extraction. Dr Hansen believes

Greenhouse gases coupled with chemicals in human-made products increases the rate at which global warming affects us. Burning more fossil fuels increases greenhouse gases’ potential to cause natural disasters that devastate regular lives. The illustration shows a Honduran child searching for his family amidst the aftermath of Hurricane Mitch. (Doc 4) Any natural disaster can be especially harmful to LDCs, since they especially lack the provision of basic necessities and funds to rebuild infrastructure. The fact that a Honduran child suffers as a result of industrialization from distant core regions shows the growing scale at which the negative environmental effects of industrialization encompass. Refrigerants and aerosols release these CFCs that destroy the ozone, and modifications have been made to hinder their damage. Greenfreeze, conceptualized and launched in 1992, is a substance that replaces the classic refrigerant for propane and isobutene, both safer alternatives. Argentina, Turkey, and Russia produce Greenfreeze, while LDCs express interest in investment of the product. (Doc 7) Likewise with refrigerants, propellant sprays now comprise of pentane and butane as substitutes. In Sweden and the Netherlands, over 60% of asthma sufferers have converted to dry-powder inhalers. (Doc 7) The diffusion of alternatives of traditional CFC-releasing products helps the industries spread their innovations, and lead towards eliminating use of harmful chemicals in the

Its adoption in 1997 and ratification in 2002 furthered the fight against anthropogenic interference with earth’s climate system. Canada’s commitment began with a goal to reduce GHGs by 6% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012, or 461 megatons (Canada and the Kyoto Protocol 2016). In order to achieve these goals, legal requirements expected policies and measures prepared by the participating countries to reduce GHGs, by utilizing all available mechanisms, including joint implementation to earn emissions reduction units (ERU) to be counted towards the target, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading (Kyoto Protocol 1997). Every year, on the date set forth, every participating country was expected to keep track of emissions limits and performance standards, develop spending or fiscal measures, as well their expectation for the next year and results from the previous (E. Canada 2013). When the first reduction timeline was up in 2008, instead of a decrease in emissions, Canada recorded an increase 24.1 percent higher than 1990 levels. The lack of commitment was superseded by the new government’s ‘Made in Canada” effort to push country-unified laws, though no significant changes were

-The Montreal Protocol was designed to phase out the production and use of ozone-depleting substances by reducing the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere which will help protect and strengthen the earth's ozone

In my paper, I plan to explain why the United States and other nations cannot get along when it comes to environmental issues. I plan to break up the paper into three sections that contains what global warming is and how it affects the world, the United States problems and conflicts with other counties about this subject, and my own conclusion based on the information I have found.

Despite its well-known Economic Action Plan and its continued emphasis on the need for more jobs and growth, it is still quite disturbing that the Canadian government gave a cold shoulder to environmental concerns in its 2014 budget. However, what has become clear in the last few years is that Canada is not committed to fighting climate change. In truth, it is not Canada that is uncommitted to the climate change cause. It is its Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who is blocking all efforts to put Canada at the forefront of climate change efforts . And Canada should be leading climate change initiatives because it is one of the largest emitters in the world, and it is also a rich

An article from Chris Nelson (2015, December 10) frames the agreement as a waste of time, beginning with the words: “So imagine what 36,276 men and women accomplished in Paris these last weeks to deal with another global threat - climate change, if you answered ‘not much,’ then grab the first-prize ribbon.” These openly biased attacks on pro-environment initiatives are examples of how oil is framed in a way that legitimizes itself and rejects climate leadership to the degree where helping the environment is framed as a tactic to appear virtuous for other jurisdictions. Coverage from August of the same year reinforces the partiality of a paper that believes the government’s climate change adaptation strategies have little to do with humanitarian motives. To illustrate, Priaro (2015, August 22) writes, “there is little need for government to intervene to reduce the rate of increase in GHG emissions from Alberta with a misguided, unnecessary and debilitating climate-change plan that will only lead us to an economic dead end.” Journalist David Marsden (2015, January 6) follows, “we don’t need to create more means of harming our economic competitiveness” when speaking about climate change adaptation in Alberta. He continues to claim that the Premier “and her ragtag band of brothers and sisters in cabinet [are] intent on social engineering us to economic death” (ibid). The Calgary Herald was not entirely pessimistic; there is

In 1985, Canada signed the “United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE) Helsinki Protocol” which demanded it reduce its sulphur compound emissions and thus the amount of acid precipitation by 1993. In addition, Canada also signed the Oslo Protocol which aimed to cap acidic emissions to 1.75 million tonnes in areas ravaged by acid precipitation. Canada evidently responds effectively to pollution in terms of acid precipitation in that it found the root cause, sulfur and nitrogen oxides, and uses various technologies and agreements to lower the levels at which they are emitted. Canada effectively sets goals such as the Oslo protocol that are realistic or achievable, specific, measurable, and reflect Canada’s fore thoughtfulness in that it recognizes the importance of non acidic water bodies for future generations. Canada responded effectively to pollution in terms of harmful substances being released in water bodies. These pollutants are classified as pathogens, nutrients, and toxic materials and many measures were taken to eliminate or lower the levels of these factors. For

Global Warming has been highly accepted as an inconvenient truth that if not resolved, will have serious consequences for the future of the human race. Recently, however, America’s newest president, Donald Trump, has openly coined Global Warming as a “hoax”. Therefore, Trump has pulled the United States out of an agreement made between numerous countries to make actions to lower carbon emissions. This agreement is called the Paris Accord. President Trump’s decision to pull the United States of America out of the Paris Accord Agreement has sparked many discussions on how just his actions were and how valid the agreement really is. A surplus of news organizations have provided their opinions on the matter as well as all the facts associated with it.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) aspires to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate system.” The Paris Agreement, created under the UNFCCC, helps make that goal a reality. Signed by Canada on Earth Day 2016, the agreement “requires all Parties to put forward their best efforts through ‘nationally determined contributions’ (NDCs) and to strengthen these efforts in the years ahead. This includes requirements that all Parties report regularly on their emissions and on their implementation efforts. There will also be a global stocktake every 5 years to assess the collective progress towards achieving the purpose of the agreement and to inform further individual actions by Parties.” As of 5 November 2016, ninety-seven parties out of one hundred ninety-seven have signed the agreement that went into effect on 4 November 2016. Canada’s involvement in the UNFCCC and the Paris agreement is just the tip of the iceberg, and it is quite a contribution to global efforts to reduce climate change.

Climate change, specifically in reference to C02 Emissions released by human use of fossil fuels and their consequential effects on the environment, is perhaps one of the most pressing issues we, not just as Americans, but as human beings face in our lifetimes. Though it may sound like a sensationalist statement the facts are hard to deny. In May of 2013, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

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).

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