Three Streams Theory And Implementation Of The Kyoto Protocol

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

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 The lack of commitment was superseded by the new government’s ‘Made in Canada” effort to push country-unified laws, though no significant changes were

Addressing this issue, there has been a few things done in result of eliminating this problem. One solution being The Kyoto Protocol, "...was the first agreement between nations to mandate country-by-country reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions ( 'Extract ', 2011)." During this process, countries agreed to cut their yearly emissions of greenhouse gases. "Some countries and regions, including the European Union, were on track by 2011 to meet or

The UNFCCC should implement better ways for all nations to eventually fall under the 1990 emissions levels. Working slowly towards the goal is a better way to approach the problem rather than giving the nations targets that are very hard to achieve in the first place. Canada had the responsibility to fall 6% below the 1990 emissions levels, but instead went -23.4. Which basically means, for example, if a nation had a target of -10%, but actually increased emissions by 10%, the score would be -20, if it was 5% and the nation went 15% under, then the score is 10. Canada went -23.4 which was the worst score out of all the other nations within the agreement at the time. In any case, it was verifiably a vital initial phase in worldwide climate diplomacy. The question is whether a more aspiring second step will follow so as to stay away from unsatisfactory dangers of destroying environmental

The UNFCCC was established in 1994 to address climate change at an international level. Since then, the parties to the convention (including the EU) meet annually in Conferences of the Parties. The Kyoto Protocol (1997) set an obligation for developed countries to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, through setting national targets, using 1990 as a base level. The UK has been one of only a few countries to comply with the international obligation and has reduced GHG emissions since 1990.

“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

Although the Kyoto Protocol had the right intentions with the desire to lower greenhouse gases, however, lowering gas emissions would hinder the economy for many of the nations without a proper substitution or solution. This is a proposal that would not sit well with many of nations; especially since the nations did not all agree climate change. The Kyoto Protocol would produce concentrated costs because lowering gas emissions would affect nations differently, and in addition to that, there would exist a distribution of benefits because not all nations would benefit equally because their polluted atmospheres vary. With a proposal that could hinder the progress of they industry, “both economics and politics deal with problems of scarcity and conflicting preferences” in which nations would rather support the economy than take a risk at an opportunity to help the atmosphere (Wilson 363). The Kyoto Protocol falls under the categorization as entrepreneurial politics where the overall conclusion contains distributed benefits and concentrated

ratification on the Kyoto Protocol with certain amendments would be necessary to it secure America’s role as world leader. The Kyoto Protocol and the evolving United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) are excellent ways to restore U.S. reputation and showcase America’s eagerness to flight a major global crisis – climate change. As outlined by Charli Coon in his article, “Why President Bush Is Right to Abandon the Kyoto Protocol,” the U.S. did not spearhead the global warming agenda for many reasons. While, President Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol, requiring emission levels to fall below their 1990 benchmark by 2012, the State Department rejected the protocol in 2001 because it would hurt the U.S. economy and it excused developing countries from the reduction requirements. During the Bush administration, the U.S. was withheld from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol because of the lack of participation from the developing world. Although the U.S. has the highest carbon emission rate, developing countries are increasingly burning up fossil fuels for energy and are expected to surpass U.S. emission level. The Bush administration argued signing the Kyoto Protocol would threaten the U.S. economy and at that time. Also, the U.S. did not possess any technologies for removing or storing carbon dioxide. They also refuted that there was any scientific evidence for global warming. The conversation on climate change has since progressed among members of the international community. With the topic becoming more urgent, U.S. participation in a successor agreement is possible under certain conditions. Firstly, the successor agreement should allow states to individually strategize initiatives to mitigate climate change that best meets their needs and are within their capabilities. Secondly, there should be “anti-dumping” clauses within any new agreement to protect American green industries, thus incentivizing U.S.

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

Annex I countries are industrialized nations with large carbon emissions, such as the US, Australia, EU, and Russia. The agreement has four implementation mechanisms designed to achieve the desired reductions in emissions, but only asks that countries comply with the reductions rather than suggesting a methodology. The primary method for countries to reduce emissions is through domestic policies, traditionally taking the form of governmental controls, which each nation would be responsible for creating and enforcing. Domestic policy is “…likely to become a ‘hook’ to ensure that the industrialized countries implement the policies necessary to spur real changes towards less carbon-intensive production and consumption patterns (Depledge 11).” The domestic policy article in the Kyoto Protocol is intended to provide governments, not an international body, with direct control over domestic emissions.

      In the world today there are talks about why and how the people of this planet are polluting the rivers, lakes, soil, and even air. With these talks countries are coming up with great ways to reduce this problem. They see the effects and they are happy and life goes on but there is another problem, the one the everyday people just can’t solve with their own hands, that problem is the theory of global warming. During December of 1997, a meeting in Kyoto, Japan, started a huge trend to try to improve the world’s greenhouse gas releasing which could cause an unnatural shift in climate throughout the world. This meeting was called the Kyoto Protocol and about thirty- eight industrialized

Five years after the UNFCCC was entered into force the Kyoto Protocol was signed. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty named after the Japanese city in where it was adopted in December 1997. The aim of the Kyoto Protocol was to minimize the emission of six greenhouse gases in 41 countries and put the European Union to 5.2 percent below 1990

Greenhouse gases alike water vapor, carbon dioxide, ozone and methane produced by power plants, transportation and factories are considered as the main driver for climate change with devastating impact on nature. Most recent efforts of global players ‘going green’ by offering carbon neutral products are quite unlikely able to stop global warming (John Gapper, 2006 and Heide Bachram, 2004). Hence, its again the governments responsibility to foster emission reductions by means of tagging a price to emission. U.N.’s famous Kyoto Protocol is an agreement on environment and sustainable development which was defined to support and monitor governments’ effort to reduce

Each nation has their own individual targets. The average target was a cut of roughly 5%, in comparison to the levels in the atmosphere in 1990 and 2012 (The Guardian, 2012). Some countries have a different approach to the protocol than others. An example of this is the United States, which is yet to ratify the protocol and also happens to be the second largest total emitter (second to China) and largest emitter per capita of greenhouse gases in the world (M.