The protocol also creates a kind of “policy toolbox” to reduce emissions. For example, it encourages countries to set up markets for the purchase and sale of carbon credits. The idea is that a low-emission company could sell its clean air credits to a company with higher emission levels. A similar mechanism allows companies to obtain carbon credits by financing projects such as solar farms or tree plantations that absorb carbon in developing countries. The Bush administration`s rejection of Kyoto could have led to its failure (Grubb, 2002, p. 140). [22] According to Grubb (2002), the EU`s subsequent decision to support the protocol was crucial. The environmental organization Environmental Defense Fund supported the protocol (EDF, 2005). [23] Jonathan Pershing, director of the Climate and Energy Program at the World Resources Institute, said the protocol “makes it clear that the world is taking the problem of global warming seriously” (Pershing, 2005). [24] But the agreement never entered into force in the United States. After Kyoto, where al-Gore, then vice president, talked about setting “binding emission limits,” the Clinton administration returned home to a Congress that refused to participate in the treaty. Prior to the conference, the GOP-controlled Senate passed the Byrd Hagel resolution by a 95-0 vote; it decided that the United States should not sign a protocol requiring the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions unless it also required reductions from developing countries during the same period. This meant that Clinton had never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and George W.
Bush had never tried. The abandonment of the treaty by the United States did not kill it, but it severely limited its effectiveness. President William J. Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol but did not ratify it, while President G.W. Bush completely abolished the signature. Clinton believed that a national approach to reducing greenhouse gases was the best way to address the problems of climate change caused by human activities. However, he was not entirely convinced of the treaty and the Senate refused to sign it without further negotiation. According to the World Climate Coalition, “the Clinton administration recognizes that the protocol is a work in progress, does not meet the requirements that the Senate unanimously set last year to sign the protocol, and is not willing to be submitted to the Senate for approval.” Permalink: www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/4/failures-of-kyoto-will-repeat-with-the-paris-climate-agreement Overall, no. U.S. and Australian rejections were a blow to achieving the reductions.
Meanwhile, many experts in Europe predict that governments won`t be able to cut emissions as much as they had hoped. The European Union was on track to meet its Kyoto targets, but it is not clear whether this is due to Kyoto. For example, Britain could benefit from a shift from coal-fired to gas-fired power plants that took place in the early 1990s, and Eastern European countries could see a drop in emissions due to industries that collapsed with the fall of the Soviet Union. One question that arises is whether the European Union will continue to see a reduction in emissions or, as some measures currently show, an increase. President Obama was elected under the widespread belief that shortly after taking office, he would act quickly and decisively to join the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thus help fight global climate change. According to The American, “it was widely expected that Obama would quickly adopt a kyoto-style national cap-and-trade program that would allow America to assume moral superiority in Copenhagen, inducing (or forcing) China and India to agree to emissions targets.” [61] Signing the Kyoto Protocol seemed like the first logical step, so it came as a surprise when he rejected the Kyoto Protocol for reasons similar to those of former President Bush. According to The American, “the fundamental flaws of the treaty were well understood: it set very ambitious – and costly – targets for the United States, while emissions from developing countries continued to rise unhindered. (And indeed, despite Kyoto`s ratification, China has now become the world`s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.) The Americans have nothing against contributing to a solution, but Kyoto required a lot of sacrifice for little reward. [61] President Obama was also scheduled to represent the United States in Copenhagen and negotiate the terms of the extension of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012. But instead of the U.S. helping to craft and sign a Kyoto-like treaty, the U.S.
is proposing extreme changes to Kyoto`s emissions management system, sparking intense debate and conflict over the post-Kyoto treaty. Many countries fear that these new additions to the treaty will cripple negotiations and prevent many countries currently covered by the Kyoto Protocol from re-signing them and prevent new countries such as China and India from signing them. “The Obama administration`s proposals could undermine a new global treaty and weaken the world`s ability to avoid the worst effects of climate change.” [62] Some argue that the Protocol does not go far enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions[34] (Niue, cook Islands and Nauru added guidance on this when the Protocol was signed). [35] Some environmental economists have criticized the Kyoto Protocol. [36] [37] [38] Many [who?] see the costs of the Kyoto Protocol as the predominant benefits, some believe that the standards set by Kyoto are too optimistic, others see a very unfair and ineffective agreement that would do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [39] [full citation required] Are participating countries on track to achieve the objectives of the Protocol? Australia is the only other industrialized country to side with the United States. Why did it reject the treaty? In addition, the New York Times revealed after its promise that China significantly underestimated the amount of coal it burned each year — and burned 17 percent more than China had previously reported during climate talks. Aldy et al.
(2003) [16] commented on the Kyoto targets and their relationship to economic growth. Considering the growth of some economies and the collapse of others since 1990, the range of implicit targets is much wider than that proposed in the Kyoto targets. [16] According to Aldy et al. (2003)[16], with a reduction of about 30%, the United States was among the status quo emissions (i.e., projected emissions without emission control measures), which is stricter than the 7% reduction in emissions from 1990 levels implied by the Kyoto target). [17] This contrasts with Russia and other Kyoto economies in transition (EIT), which, according to Aldy et al. (2003), faced Kyoto targets that allowed for a significant increase in their emissions beyond the bau. [16]. Bush`s decision to withdraw the United States from the Kyoto Protocol was rejected by environmental groups and sharply criticized by then German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder. .
