Kyoto Protocol, is it working?
By nanajanet
@nanajanet (4436)
United States
February 25, 2009 1:37pm CST
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol, 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."[1] The Kyoto Protocol establishes legally binding commitments for the reduction of four greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur 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[update], 183 parties have ratified the protocol,[2] 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.
The question is, is it working? Well, it has been noted here, http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/is-kyoto-working?utm_source=bronto&utm_medium=email&utm_term=Is+Kyoto+working%3F&utm_content=Nanajanet1954%40aol.com&utm_campaign=Newsletter+02%2F25%2F09. Read and tell me what you think.
3 people like this
3 responses
@rsa101 (38166)
• Philippines
27 Feb 09
I guess it is but in a very slow pace. I guess each country who signed in there has some kind of resistance since it could have an economic impact on their economies if they would follow the agreement strictly. I am just concerned that if they would not follow were just slowing down the degradation but not totally stopping the greenhouse effects.
1 person likes this
@nanajanet (4436)
• United States
27 Feb 09
Yes, and slowing it down is no longer good enough. It has to be stopped or we are in deep doo doo.
2 people like this
@rsa101 (38166)
• Philippines
27 Feb 09
True about that but in the case of the US where it is said the biggest contributor to the greenhouse. Do you think if they start following it their economy would survive? They are totally depended on that then I think their economy would really go slow if they would use green technologies.
1 person likes this
@TheGreatWhiteBuffalo (4822)
• United States
27 Feb 09
What are the best ways to reduce pollution?
There is only one good way to fix our problems, or is that two, reduce pollution emissions and increase the use of green technologies. How do we make durable goods in an economy that demands consumption?
We as a people really need to wake up and see how we can make our environment more protected.
This is going to be a really hot summer...
Winter was really cold, and summer is going to be really hot... So be prepared.
@nanajanet (4436)
• United States
27 Feb 09
So right you are!! It is like, if you are cold, put on a sweater instead of turning up the heat, use fans instead of air-conditioning (I won't own it), plan your trips with your car so you do not waste mileage, reuse things, and so on. Most is just selfishness and laziness and it is everyone, not industries, alone, but everyone. And if we refuse to deal with companies who are not green and buy only green products, the other companies will fall into line.
1 person likes this
