thesis: the Kyoto protocol needs to be reformed in order to better meet their goals
The Kyoto protocol has been in effect since 1990. It's ultimate goal was to reduce carbon emissions so that the threat of global warming (not sure if it's a real issue) would be avoided. The decade of 1990 seemed to produce relatively mild results with industralized nations showing a reduction in emissions. But the trend seems to have reversed in 2000; emissions have been growing ever since. The United States rejected the Kyoto protocol in 2001. Although 36 countries which promised to cut emissions by 5% can easily meet their target before 2012, overall emissions are still rising.
Currently the Kyoto Protocol will expire in 2012. Nearly 180 countries will meet in Bali, Indonesia to begin talks on the new draft. The Kyoto protocol currently only applies to industrialized countries, leaving large developing nations such as China and India free to increase their emissions at their discretion. However, most developing nations could not afford to reduce their emissions; in fact, some need to increase their emissions to stabilize. Not requiring developing nations to have specific goals allows powerhouses like China to continue to build. "The US in particular argues that with China's emissions set to overtake and eventually exceed its own, there is little point in making a deal that includes only developed nations" 1. Without resolving the issue of whether or not developed nations should be included, the Kyoto protocol will remain largely ineffective.
In addition, there is no way to keep nations from rejecting the Kyoto protocol when they feel it is no longer in their best interests. The United States, frustrated with the thing, left during a time where the United States was a key player in leading the effort. Nevertheless the treaty continued on without them, but if a new treaty is to be made, how are we to make nations stick to their word?
There are many problems with the Kyoto protocol, and probably still will be. One can only wait and see how this new resolution unfolds and if it is effective.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7131530.stm
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=220&sid=1296183
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I don't fully understand why the United States was unwilling to adopt the Kyoto Protocol, but I wish that there was some kind of legislation like this so that we could reduce the amount of carbon emmissions in the US. Whether or not global warming is real, it's always a good idea to think of new ways to reduce the carbon in the air, so as to create a cleaner environment for the future.
For the new draft of the protocol, they should seriously consider putting a restriction of carbon emmissions (or something of the sort) on developing countries because in some ways, I believe it might help our air and our economy.
I think the reason why America rejected the Kyoto Protocol is that it would cost money and it would restrict what America wanted to do. And since America has considerable political clout in the world, nobody could do anything if it decided to drop out.
In my opinion, dropping out of a treaty to improve the environment is not a good way to protest it, even if it does have serious problems. America is shirking its responsibility and should be working to improve the treaty--for example by forcing developing countries to control their emissions as well--rather than acting for financial interests under a guise of discontent with a bad treaty.
Post a Comment