Global Warming and the Kyoto Protocol Essay

The globe is being rocked by extreme weather and the hottest temperatures on record. As the average global temperature soars, there are floods, droughts, unusually cold winters, forest fires, and huge storms. Are all of these horrors being caused by human-induced global warming?

A big question is climate change a hazard to future generations? Climate change is and always will be a hazard to future generations and not just for human beings, but for all kinds of species. The comprehension to accept it, is a hazard that species that cannot adapt to the change in climate are more likely become extinct. Luckily, human beings are masters of adaptability. Because our own evolution is a reason for climate change and our capability to adapt. After all, the hazards are always there should we ever fail to adapt fast enough. Our climate is always changing, both naturally and due to human effect on the environment. There were already beyond doubt, proof that animals, birds, and plants are being affected by climate change.

The scientific consensus on global warming is sobering: Its real, it’s happening now and carbon dioxide emissions caused by the burning of fossil fuels are almost certainly responsible. Predicting what the exact effects will be on humanity and the planet’s living resources is trickier, but a growing body of evidence suggests they will be profound…, and most wealthy industrial nations have adopted mandatory limits on carbon emissions under the 2005 Kyoto Protocol. (Woodard, 2007, p.27).

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

Climatologist Tim Ball argues this point in his article, The Science Isn’t Settles – The Limitations of Global Climate Models. Dr. Ball looks at the data of global temperatures and concludes that the earth’s atmosphere is actually cooling while in its cooling cycle, which is the complete opposite to the assumption that the atmosphere is heating up. In 1999 a petition was asked the U.S. Government to reject the environment treaty The Kyoto Protocol, which was signed by over 17,000 other scientists sharing the same views. These scientists view that there is no convincing scientific evidence around the idea of global warming and all of these conclusions are not justified. They believe that the human release of CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are not contributing to global warming and the climate change, instead the increase of CO2 is promoting plant and animal growth. Some other scientists argue that global warming is being blown way out of portion and its effects are so small we will not notice its effects. They believe this increasing in extensive publicity is an environmentalist scam for more recognition, power, and

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).

“After ten days of tough negotiations, ministers and other high-level officials from 160 countries reached an agreement this morning on a legally binding Protocol under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2%. The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six greenhouse gases by 2008-12, calculated as an average over these five years.” (UNFCCC, 2011)

Canada is also known for dropping out of the Kyoto Protocol, which included 139 parties. Canada then switched to the Copenhagen Agreement. This agreement wants Canada to cut 17% of its emissions {Meyer,2009}. 4% of emissions have been saved since signing back in 2009. This plan will not work because Canada only reduced 4% of its GHG’s in four years, there is no detailed plan to fix the average 1% decrease by 2020 or the future {Wingrove, J 2015}. Another strategy created by the government is the carbon pricing mechanism. Alberta teamed up with the Climate Control and Emissions Management Act (CCEMA) and placed a tax for carbon emissions on all Canadian Oil companies {CSA Group, 2015}. The tax is $15 per tonne and the CCEMA expects and wants a 12% decrease of oil sands GHG’s each year {CSA Group, 2015}. Canada is an oil producing company and a change like this would need time but we can switch over to less GHG emitting mechanisms {Mansbridge, P 2015}. The CCEMA plan will not be very effective because Canada has done so little to follow its rules and be effective in the past, and now we are even deeper I trouble. If the oil sands didn’t pay much attention to rules of GHG’s before, who says they are going to change now?

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.

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.

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

On June 1, 2017, from the White House Rose Garden, President Donald Trump announced that he will be withdrawing the US from the landmark Paris Climate Agreement. This could be a step back from the progress that was being made during the Obama administration. It was a very puzzling decision because the majority of Americans supported the agreement. Although some people think that the Paris Climate Agreement is not important, it was a poor decision to withdraw from the agreement because it has the potential to be a very important to Earth's future.

On December 12 of 2015, 195 countries made history by committing to the first truly global international climate change agreement (Paris Agreement, 2015). This agreement took place in Paris and was adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The outcome of the Paris Conference on Climate Change was described as “revolutionary” (Venezuela) “marvelous act” (China) and as “a tremendous collective achievement” (European Union) that introduced a “new era of global climate governance” (Egypt) while “restoring the global community’s faith of accomplishing things multilaterally” (USA) (Paris Agreement, 2015).

The concept of global warming has become one of the most widely debated and controversial topics of our time. Scientists learned long ago that the earth’s climate has powerfully shaped the history of humanity. However, it is only in the past few decades that research has revealed that humans have a significant influence on the climate as well. A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that since 1950, the world’s climate has been warming, primarily as a result of emissions from the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of tropical forests. More importantly, an article titled "Global Warming" published in the New York Times shows that methane, a gas that is emitted from landfills, livestock and oil gas facilities,