The Kyoto Protocol In Canada

Currently, the Canadian government is taking several initiatives to control climate change. In 2017, Canada signed the Paris Accord and agreed to cut 30% of carbon emissions by 2030.

The UNFCCC is working with the various governments around the world to stabilize the amount of greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere to keep the planet from warming more than 2ºC above pre-industrial temperatures (Watts, 2015). The most noted of the work is the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) meetings that began with COP1 in Berlin back in 1995. The COP3 adopted the Kyoto Protocol, even though it wasn’t fully accepted by all member nations. The COP21 was an effort to legally bind members to their submitted plans of Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), defining what level of greenhouse gas production each nation would commit to not exceeding from 2025-2030. Prior to the INDCs, a bleak outlook was forecast in 2009-2010 of global temperature rising between 4-5ºC. That figure was restated by the UNFCCC prior to the COP21 in Paris, to below 3ºC, due to the commitments of the INDCs (Watts, 2015).

The government responsible to take charge for this issue are global, federal and provincial. As a planet, we must coalesce with each other to find solutions to preserving the planet. World leaders are meeting with each other, discussing ways to fix the damages humans created. The government of Canada is dedicated on working with leaders all over the world to make changes that will help resolve the effects of climate change. Also, Canada is committed to supporting and helping out third world countries who need help in accommodating to the effects of climate change. Investments are being made to reduce emissions as well. The government of Canada and its provinces and territories are uniting together to encounter the effects of climate change. They aim on federal funding, the flexibility to design their own carbon pricing policies on putting a price on carbon and reducing carbon pollution.

Stewart Elgie, a University of Ottawa law and economics professor and chair of the green economy think-tank Sustainable Prosperity suggests that British Columbia’s per-capita fuel usage had fallen more than 4 per cent compared with the rest of Canada and its economy (Ebner, McCarthy, 2011) Evidently it is reducing the amount of green house gasses emitted by fossil fuel use. However this is not the concern many had with the introduction of the tax, but the concerns were focused upon the externalities caused by this and the effects it would have on the economy. Three years since the carbon tax introduction and the Provincial level of GDP has remained approximately the same, (Greenery in Canada: We have a winner) With the provincial level of GDP remaining around the same, this suggests that at the very worst the carbon tax has had no negative effects to the provincial economy. Furthermore the tax also promised to remain carbon neutral and promised to cut corporate and private income tax. British Columbia has become the province with the lowest income tax regime and the lowest corporate tax regime (Greenery in Canada: We have a winner). Although the carbon tax is being praised by many, it still faces concerns as many still argue the ineffectiveness of the tax and what that means for the province.

For the last two decades, the increased use of fossil energy caused the environmental problems. The evidence of global warming, like drying rivers, extinction of species, melting of glaciers, became more often around the planet. The climate change became a threat to healthy environment and prosperity of humanity and wildlife, and the world community started searching for solution to combat climate change. In 2008 British Columbia introduced carbon tax on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to reduce global warming. Starting from $10 per tonne of CO2, the price was increasing annually till it reached $30 per tonne in 2012. During that period British Columbia was reducing harmful emissions and improving economy comparing to the rest of Canada. However, since the price rise on carbon stopped in 2012, no improving changes in cutting emissions, economy, and overall quality of life have been noticed. In this essay I will persuade that British Columbia should continue gradually increase price on carbon tax to the level where it will significantly cut the use of dirty energy, provide enough investments into the green projects, and support low-income families.

Canadians may be doing what they can to put an end to global warming, but whether or not it is enough to make a vast change is debatable.

Canadians do not need to rethink how they are currently treating our environment, as they have previously done that. Citizens have already made significant changes in how they live their lives, and Canada has seen an overall improvement in our environment situation. After the government began to certify certain merchandise as environmentally-friendly, Canadians have become more aware of the fact that Canada needs to be a more green country. They started buying these products, contributing to bettering Canada’s environment. Yet it may seem unrealistic that by buying more eco-friendly items, one is positively contributing to the environment, it is very true. The only people who are in charge of the environmental standards are the consumers. And

During the Canadian Climate Change conference, there were many compelling arguments for both sides. On the side that wanted Canada to take immediate action, they brought up the fact that our future generations would have to suffer from the consequences of our selfish, greedy and reckless lifestyle of burning fossil fuels. Furthermore, they exaggerated the outcomes of manmade climate change and bringing up feelings of pity for the future generations because they will have to live in a polluted world that humans created. They said that if we do not take action now, there will be many jobs lost due to climate change. Although there are many jobs in the fossil fuels business, they will not continue forever because they are finite and will run

Canada is one of the developed nations in the world and with that comes a certain type of lifestyle that its citizens are accustomed to and often expect. This lifestyle is definitely not conscious of the environment at most times, however is trying to improve or at least find some kind of alternative to environmental problems that we can’t actually fix because they’ve become an important part of our everyday life. For that, our lifestyle has been measured by way of an ecological footprint and the results obviously haven’t been something to be proud of. Although there are many reasons why the ecological footprint of Canada is so high, one of the reasons is because of our excessive fossil fuel emissions from our cars, trucks, busses and planes.

Despite its well-known Economic Action Plan and its continued emphasis on the need for more jobs and growth, it is still quite disturbing that the Canadian government gave a cold shoulder to environmental concerns in its 2014 budget. However, what has become clear in the last few years is that Canada is not committed to fighting climate change. In truth, it is not Canada that is uncommitted to the climate change cause. It is its Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who is blocking all efforts to put Canada at the forefront of climate change efforts . And Canada should be leading climate change initiatives because it is one of the largest emitters in the world, and it is also a rich

The following paper will provide an overview of Canada’s current climate change policy, under the Trudeau administration. Then, an overview of the climate change policy for the Trump administration will be introduced. Finally, Canada’s options in the face of these circumstances will be introduced, along with the decision that should be made for Canada’s future policy on climate change.

It's about advancing a political scheme of global government and punishing the US for its economic success. If we sign the Protocol the Kyoto inspectors, will be crawling all over America inspecting our emission levels in our factories and homes in violation of our Constitution. So the US should stay out of entangling alliances and should not endorse such Protocols that deteriorate our justifiable right of sovereignty. Global Warming is Hot Air Jon PerdueNo. 111, 15-21 March 1999 =

The Kyoto Protocol does not benefit Canada because it is unfair and too costly. The countries involved are not treated fairly, especially Canada. Some of the world’s largest polluters, such as China and India, are exempt from the first half of the Protocol and large polluters such as the US didn't choose to ratify the agreement. Secondly, Kyoto allows some industrialized countries, such as Russia and New Zealand, to make no cuts, and even permits some places, like Iceland, to emit more greenhouse gasses (Torrie and Parfett et al.). Finally, Canada will need to provide developing countries with funding to help them reach their reduction goals ("Canada's Kyoto Protocol Targets and Obligations"). Canada has more to lose with the Protocol than other countries and many other countries are not giving any funding at all. Every country that is signed on to the Kyoto agreement should be treated equally, and there should be no exceptions. For these reasons, the Kyoto Protocol will have little effect on the earth’s

An article from Chris Nelson (2015, December 10) frames the agreement as a waste of time, beginning with the words: “So imagine what 36,276 men and women accomplished in Paris these last weeks to deal with another global threat - climate change, if you answered ‘not much,’ then grab the first-prize ribbon.” These openly biased attacks on pro-environment initiatives are examples of how oil is framed in a way that legitimizes itself and rejects climate leadership to the degree where helping the environment is framed as a tactic to appear virtuous for other jurisdictions. Coverage from August of the same year reinforces the partiality of a paper that believes the government’s climate change adaptation strategies have little to do with humanitarian motives. To illustrate, Priaro (2015, August 22) writes, “there is little need for government to intervene to reduce the rate of increase in GHG emissions from Alberta with a misguided, unnecessary and debilitating climate-change plan that will only lead us to an economic dead end.” Journalist David Marsden (2015, January 6) follows, “we don’t need to create more means of harming our economic competitiveness” when speaking about climate change adaptation in Alberta. He continues to claim that the Premier “and her ragtag band of brothers and sisters in cabinet [are] intent on social engineering us to economic death” (ibid). The Calgary Herald was not entirely pessimistic; there is

In recent years, Canada’s lack of climate action at the federal level has damaged our international reputation. With the UN climate talks in Paris, Canada has an opportunity to step up and take meaningful climate action and be viewed as a climate leader on the