American Protocol Vs Kyoto Protocol

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

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

-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

This paper will address the institutionalized road blocks in the United States that have prevented successful climate change action for the last twenty-five years. First, the United States government has become increasingly influenced by and connected to private industries. The private industries and the government work together as partners. While this likely has been beneficial in some ways it has kept out innovation, competition and prevented the implementation of successful health and public welfare regulations. Second, the Banking, Energy and Media Industry are linked together to promote consensually agreed to messages. These industries work together to keep fossil fuels as our major energy source. Third, each industry works together in non-profit

Stephane Dion (2007) published a summary of the liberal party’s proposal intended to decrease the carbon emissions in Canada. The liberal party suggested making the carbon emissions reduction not only a governmental concern but also the businesses need to get involved. This proposal recommended having a targeted goal so that all the businesses can be on the same page. The industries that would respect these new regulations and reduce their carbon emissions would be recognized and those that do not would be penalized. The party believed that the long-term positive effects outweigh socially and economically the negative impacts. The liberal party was certain that this new plan took into account the human lives threaten by climate change. Reading this article, the question that arose is: would this plan affect the economy of the country if applied?

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

At the 2015 Paris Climate Change Conference, countries around the world joined to discuss the substantial problem of climate change. Together, they came up with a universal climate agreement that consists of policies that each country must follow so that our planet’s current condition is improved. In order to meet its goal, Canada must change its transportation regulations, invest in renewable energy and improve its food regulations.

One of the measures instituted to reduce destructive emissions was the 1987 Montreal Protocol. This international document provided guidelines for the reduction of ozone-damaging chemicals on a timeline that would be helpful for ozone repair. It seems as though the reductions that have already taken place have had beneficial effects. The importance of continuing to follow the

Ultraviolet radiation and its effect on the Earth are dependent on many variables, namely clouds, air pollution, haze, and elevation. As the UV light hits the atmosphere of the Earth, it is dispersed, and less of the harmful rays reach the inhabitants of the planet. However, in recent years, the dispersion has decreased, mainly because of the decline of stratospheric ozone present in Earth’s atmosphere. This ozone acts as a sort of “natural sunscreen,” by dispersing the previously stated harmful UV rays. The importance of the maintenance of ozone is absolutely critical, so in 1987 a treaty called the Montreal Protocol was signed that aimed to dramatically reduce the amount of ozone depleting emissions. This action helped curb the depletion, but NASA scientist Jay Herman says, “Overall, we’re still not where we’d like to be with ozone.” The following graphics depicts the variation in ozone from the year 1979 until

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

Climate change refers to the great change that occurs in climate considered statistically significant or climatic fluctuation that continues a while longer at some level on a global scale. Climate change has already caused a series of environmental problems like global warming, which place a serious influence on sustainable development of human society (Demeritt, 2001). The industrial gas emission in developed countries is one of the main reasons that cause climate change. As a result, the international community makes a lot of efforts on slowing down the course of climate change. However, during the negotiation on environment problem internationally, position of any country is not determined by 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)

The concurrent development of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol 1997, as well as the World Trade Organization, and the North American Free Trade Agreement 1994 has proven to be incompatible. The green business energy projects are diminished under the international trade rules. According to Klein, “after the US disapproved other countries’ local renewable energy development, some other countries now considered Ontario’s local content requirement as the violation of World Trade Organization” (66). Climate actions and the development of green energy are frequently challenged under the free trade policy. With the rise of such system which gives us the power of overproduction and overconsumption, with no doubt, government interventions on climate action have to be

Once the Nation’s sign, the commitment to reducing the emissions is the second step towards change. Yet some of the lower ranked emitters pledged to cut back more than the top producers. In fact, some developing nations (process of “transitioning to a market economy) committed to reducing more than the top producers) (United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change 1998) (Damassa, Friedrich, & Ge 2014) (“Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol” 2014). Five of the top producers of greenhouse gas emissions are considered the most influential or powerful Nations. These powerful nations are (ranked from highest to lowest) United States, Russia, China, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Japan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates (Clark 2017). All of the Countries listed were ranked according to its economy, politics or political influence, cultural influence (including art), education, natural resources, environmental change, exports of arms, imports of arms, military spending, and military size. Overall, these Nations share in influence on other smaller nations. This is key in determining the lack of effectiveness of the UNFCCC. The convention failed to get the top producer of emissions and the third most powerful nation to sign the Protocol in December of 1998. These Countries not only set the stage for economic relations but also for the environment. Environmental change is

This paper will be divided in three parts, beginning with a brief background on the global warming agenda and tackle the issues surrounding the Kyoto Protocol. The second part will look at climate change and the protocol from the respective lenses of realism and liberalism. I will argue that while none of the theories precisely covers the entirety of the issue, each provides helpful analysis falls short of clarifying the entire climate change picture. Can states cooperate effectively through the structure of the Kyoto protocol to solve an international problem of global warming?”