From Wikipedia.org
The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), an international environmental treaty produced at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), informally known as the Earth Summit, held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, from 3–14 June 1992.
The treaty is intended to achieve "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." The Kyoto Protocol establishes legally binding commitments for the reduction of four greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride), and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by "Annex I" (industrialized) nations, as well as general commitments for all member countries.
As of 2008, 183 parties have ratified the protocol, which was initially adopted for use on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and which entered into force on 16 February 2005. Under Kyoto, industrialized countries agreed to reduce their collective GHG emissions by 5.2% compared to the year 1990. National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the United States, 6% for Japan, and 0% for Russia. The treaty permitted GHG emission increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland.
Kyoto includes defined "flexible mechanisms" such as Emissions Trading, the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation to allow Annex I economies to meet their greenhouse gas (GHG) emission limitations by purchasing GHG emission reductions credits from elsewhere, through financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies, from other Annex I countries, or from Annex I countries with excess allowances.
In practice this means that Non-Annex I economies have no GHG emission restrictions, but have financial incentives to develop GHG emission reduction projects to receive "carbon credits" that can then be sold to Annex I buyers, encouraging sustainable development. In addition, the flexible mechanisms allow Annex I nations with efficient, low GHG-emitting industries, and high prevailing environmental standards to purchase carbon credits on the world market instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions domestically. Annex I entities typically will want to acquire carbon credits as cheaply as possible, while Non-Annex I entities want to maximize the value of carbon credits generated from their domestic Greenhouse Gas Projects.
The five principal concepts of the Kyoto Protocol are:
(1) Commitments. The heart of the Protocol lies in establishing commitments for the reduction of greenhouse gases that are legally binding for Annex I countries, as well as general commitments for all member countries.
(2) Implementation. In order to meet the objectives of the Protocol, Annex I countries are required to prepare policies and measures for the reduction of greenhouse gases in their respective countries. In addition, they are required to increase the absorption of these gases and utilize all mechanisms available, such as joint implementation, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading, in order to be rewarded with credits that would allow more greenhouse gas emissions at home.
(3) Minimizing Impacts on Developing Countries by establishing an adaptation fund for climate change.
(4) Accounting, Reporting and Review in order to ensure the integrity of the Protocol.
(5) Compliance. Establishing a Compliance Committee to enforcecompliance with the commitments under the Protocol.
United States
The United States, although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. The United States was, as of at least 2005, the largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. The America's Climate Security Act of 2007, also more commonly referred to in the U.S. as the "Cap and Trade Bill", was proposed for greater U.S. alignment with the Kyoto standards and goals. The current bill is almost 500 pages long, and provides for establishment of a federal bureau of Carbon Trading, Regulation, and Enforcement with mandates which some authorities suggest will amount to the largest tax increase in the history of the United States.
On 25 July 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),[68][69] which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On 12 November 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded hat with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department of Energy[citation needed], Energy Information Administration (EIA), demonstrated a potentially large loss to GDP from implementing the Protocol of up to 4.2%.
The 2000-2008 President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (now the world's largest gross emitter of carbon dioxide, although emission is very low per capita). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he believes are present in the climate change issue.[citation needed] Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others.
Bush said of the treaty: "This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto ... America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change ... Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
In June 2002, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol. At the G8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for "practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies". According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United States has signed the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible, but critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures.
The Administration's position is not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For example, Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions.The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official, former oil industry advocate and current Exxon Mobil officer, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies. Critics point to the Bush administration's close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your assignment is to respond to this prompt in an 11 sentence paragraph format. Publish your response as a comment to this post. When stating your opinion, consider US foreign policy, Republican and Democrat partisan politics, the current economic crisis and the recent elections.
“Should newly elected President Obama support the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Questions? Ask in class or email me at doug@dougabshire.com. This assignment is due by Monday 12.8. Thanks, Mr.A
10 comments:
I believe that Obama should ratify the Kyoto Protocol because in his campaign he wanted to address the issue concerning the ever growing problem of global warming. I think Obama has an obligation to fulfill be making the promise that America will become less oil dependent and we will work to increase in energy efficiency . I believe that the protocol will be a great opportunity for Obama to carry out his plans.
Matthew H.
With all of the circumstances that need to be accounted for, I dont believe that Barrack Obama should sign the Kyoto Protocol.
First of all, our economy is in a downward spiral at this point, and without any major factories that produce most of the greenhouse gases in the world, we would have a minute amount of hope left with our economy slump. I think that our country is more important at this point, but atfter we our out of the slump, I would deffinetly reccomend signing of the treaty
I personally think that the newly elected President Obama should most definitely take a look at any minimal possibility of supporting the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. First of all, since the United States is a fairly large country and contributes in extremely large amounts to the production of GHG gases, the goverment should find any possible way of decreasing those amounts. The government and all of the major industries should try to find alternative ways to keep on producing without harming the environment. Even though some industries will probably be against the research of an alternative source, because of the possible high costs, the government should still try to convince them for the better of our planet. Second, the Kyoto Protocol would better unify the world's nations. This would be because all of the countries would follow the same exact protocol. Also, I believe it would help the United States with its Foreign Policy; this would be because all of the countries would be united and in agreement. Last, during his campaign Barrack Obama talked a lot about "change," so maybe the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol could be a good change to be made. It will help out immensely, especially with the issue of global warming. I believe that it would be for the best for our society to see this ratification approved. All in all, It would be a great idea if the newly elected President Obama were to ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
I believe that our new president-elect Obama should ratify the Kyoto Protocol, because during his campaign he addressed the fact that he wanted to look for alternative sources of energy which would result in helping lower the effect of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I agree with Ricky, it's a promise he made and whether people considered that when they voted or not it's still something he has to pay attention because the millions of voters obviously think this is an issue that matters not only for our generation but also for future ones. We do consume a lot of energy, and I think that if other countries see that we are looking for better ways to find energy while still taking care of our planet they will also consider putting some of their part. So it's up to us to set the example, we already voted for someone who promised making the change, and once the change is made its up to us to adapt to the changes. Because it may seem costly now, but the damages that it may provoke long term won't be any money can solve.
America has been seen a, if not the only, leader of the world for a long time now. We have set the standards for many changes in the world. We have directed the treaties that have had an impact on the globalization of earth. Most notably are the UN and NATO. Why then, should we be lagging behind in the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG)? There are many ways to look at the reasons of not ratifying the Kyoto Protocol. Whether or not President elect Barrack Obama should set this treaty towards ratification is something that many people are debating. This is ultimately not up to him though, it is up to the bipartisan Senate. The motives behind Democrats and Republicans will be different, but hopefully it will come down to what is best not what special interests desire.
George Washington delivered one of the only fairwell addresses that we care about. He said that America should stand clear of permanent foriegn alliances. A global treaty that could possibly cause negative effects for the American economy is one of these undesirable alliances. This is, however, in direct opposition to the United Nations which America basicly created. We have already entered in permanent alliances that we believed would benefit us along with the world.
America has always prided itself on the fact that we are the inovators of the world. We have an image that we are supposed to be the protectors of the less fortunate. This is the main reason that so many people believe we should be in Darfur. Genocide in one country is seen as an immediate problem that should have the attention of America. Global warming is one of these immediate issues as well. The economy may lag behind for a time but in the long run, there will be greater benefits. Signing the Kyoto Protocol doesn't have to be the way that America steps up and leads the country in acting against global warming but there is definitely a global need for action. The newly elected president should find a program that he believes will put America on top when it comes to preventing the rise of GHG. He should look past partisan politics and do what the world really needs. If that need is a global treaty to better the earth so be it.
Maryann :)
I think that Obama shouldn't sign the Kyoto Protocol just yet but should take it into consideration for the future. I think that he should wait to sign becouse of the U.S economic status. If he signs now it could send us into a bigger economic mess. However i do feel that it would be good to keep it into consideration as a future issue to be dealt with. The Kyoto Protocol is a great way to reduce carbon emmision and one of Obamas biggest goals was to reduce our oil dependancy and become more energy efficient. By keeping the Kyoto Protocol into consideration President elect Obama is allowing a posibility of change in the enviornment open. Although other major countries are not signing the Kyoto Protocol the U.S should not shut down the idea of a protocol because it is one of the major contributors of pollution. In the end it is up to the people wether or not they want to change and if they do are they willing to make sacrifices to change its not only up to our president or our country but to the world and everything will remain the same until the world is ready to change.
I don't believe that President elect Barack Obama should back the movement to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Firstly because China and India both ratified the Kyoto Protocol, yet they were both exempted entirely from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol and this compromises the protocol in two ways. It shows other countries that although the protocol is binding once ratified, it can also be circuvented and nullified. Also because the effectiveness of the protocol is compromised, A simple way to get around it is to ship jobs and factories to China and then pollute as much as you like, it's a loophole that is far too problematic. Another reason that President Elect Barack Obama shouldn't support the protocol is that it is another bit of useless legislation. If America wants to reduce pollution here it should be through our government. If it is done through another organization like the U.N. it's less likely to be followed. An example of this is North Korea, the U.N told them repeatedly to stop making weapons of mass destruction and yet they continued. This shows that although they were repeatedly in conflict with the U.N., the U.N. had no power to stop them. I believe if this were the case with the Kyoto Protocol as well it would be essentially useless. Therefore i believe that if President elect Barack Obama were to support the Kyoto Protocol, it would do very little to change America when he could be focusing on much more pressing issues like our current economic situation.
I don't beleive that Obama should support the Kyoto Protocol because it will make very little change by him signing a peice of paper. America isn't going to find less harmful ways to do things because all we care about is having what other countries don't. The way to reduce Americas impact on the enviornment is to get everybody involoved and not just one person signing a peice of paper that will do very little to help stop polution. America needs something much more drastic such as a nation wide effort for helping our enviorment become a more eco friendly and less harmful place. By doing this we can save the penguins. YAY!
I don't personally feel that I can appropriate address this issue. I do not believe I fully understand the Kyoto Protocol. Sure, my knowledge encompasses the basic, over-all principles, but I don't truly understand the implications of said protocol, nor am I in a position to fully do so. I realize some of its benefits to the effect of reducing global warming, such as reducing the emissions of the United States. I do not, however, understand the complications and ramifications of foreign policy and the Kyoto Protocol's effect on that. With that said, I believe my advice to newly elected President Obama would be irrelevant. The President is in a position to better understand and make a much more educated decision on the ratifying of this protocol then I currently am.
I think that Newly elected President Barack Obama should ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions is a very important issue that need to be addressed as soon as possible. These gases are leading to the depletion of our ozone layer and the rise of our sea levels and temperature. If some initiative is not taken soon, our planet will continue to slowly die. Obama constantly talked about change, and this could be one of the major changes that could help improve our nation and the world. After all, since 2005, we have been the biggest emitters of carbon dioxide from fossil burning. It is up to us to correct our ways and go green. Americans have always felt that the United States is a leader in the world but we are still behind in the global crusade to save the world. I think that it is funny and shows how well we really “lead” the rest of the world. And then for us to point out another country that has exempted from signing the Kyoto Protocol (People’s Republic of China), is just completely hypocritical of us. So in conclusion, I do think that Barack Obama should ratify the Kyoto Protocol.
Post a Comment