Amazon.com Widgets

Is the Kyoto Protocol a good treaty to combat global warming as well as a model for future treaties?

  • Tragedy of the Commons

    There is an old, proven theory call the tragedy of the commons. If a farmer in Indianapolis pollutes the water with fertilizer, all of the people downstream in the Mississippi Watershed suffer. Thus in a similar way, if America does not take care of the air, then the whole world will suffer.

  • help the earth

    it is safer and it can save us and our planet. this is the best solution just to make earth a better place to live. If we don't agree with each other the animals would be extinct.The earth is the most we care about.If Kyoto protocol didn't exist

  • The Kyoto Treaty provides an excellent model for combating global warming and for future international treaties.

    The Kyoto Treaty has been signed by a majority of nations because it has taken into account the varied attitudes towards climate change across the Earth. Although the Treaty has not been universally signed, including the resistance of the United States to joining other nations, it does provide an excellent model for achieving unity across international lines.

    Posted by: P3nrIin
  • The Kyoto Protocol is an important and necessary first step towards combating global warming, because it recognizes that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

    This Kyoto Protocol recognizes that developed countries are principally responsible for the current high levels of greenhouse gas emissions. Unlike its predecessors, it commits industrialized countries to participate, versus encouraging them to do so. The Kyoto Protocol offers each participating party three market-based mechanisms to help stimulate green investment. This helps each party meet their emission targets in a cost-effective way.

    Posted by: N_Farley
  • The Kyoto Protocol is a great model, as it holds everyone accountable at the appropriate level.

    This treaty allows for additional rates of pollution for those countries that are still developing, or just beginning to develop, and holds the countries that are fully developed far more responsible for lowering their emotions. It is very disappointing that the U.S. is the only developed country to not sign this treaty, and acknowledge its responsibility to care for the environment.

    Posted by: daveyxh
  • The Kyoto Treaty is a good treaty in that it does combat global warming, although it does NOT solve the global warming problem.

    The Kyoto Treaty must be seen for what it is: a political and economic compromise among many nations, each of whom has its own agenda.

    There will inevitably be adjustments and changes to the Treaty.

    As it is written it is patently unfair to developing nations. The Kyoto Treaty places economic restrictions on their development that the current "developed" nations never had to overcome.

    America and other industrialized nations have gone merrily on their way, over-indulging themselves in non-essentials and thus creating this problem.

    This problem of inequity is supposedly solved by the "carbon market" which allows third world nations to sell emissions allowances to industrialized nations. An unfortunate side effect of this could be that, since they have no emissions allowance left with which to develop themselves, these third world nations will REMAIN under-developed.

    To meet its Kyoto targets, a country can use the Clean Development Mechanism to implement emission-reduction projects in developing countries. The Joint Implementation goal is similar to that of the CDM.

    The Kyoto Treaty is the best we can do right now. It must be improved if we are to effectively counter global warming. This can only be done through sacrifices made by industrialized nations.

    Posted by: CI3Iike
  • No, because the Kyoto Protocol fails in one large area: it allows the ability to bypass emissions levels through the purchasing of credits.

    The Protocol allows companies to use "flexible mechanisms" that let them bypass their CO2 emissions levels. They can use emissions trading, the clean development mechanism, and joint implementation to allow countries to meet their emission limitations by purchasing emission reductions credits from elsewhere. They can also use financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in non-committed and committed countries, or from committed countries with excess allowances. These are the loopholes that allow companies to continue producing high levels of CO2 while still, technically, adhering to the Protocol's regulations.

    Posted by: BrianDj
  • The Kyoto protocol is a good treaty for combating global warming because it realistically looks at ways to lower greenhouse gases in the major industrial powers.

    While Kyoto is not popular with everyone, it sets very realistic goals for combating global warming. It also holds all the major industrial nations accountable for doing their part. It is also effective because it is an international goal, enforced nationally. By targeting the reduction of greenhouse gases and carbon emissions along with monitoring emissions, the world is looking globally at being a cleaner place. Kyoto is a good model for other treaties. The idea of nations working together for a global objective is a great thing.

    Posted by: JayceC
  • I agree because Kyoto Protocol plays an important role in fighting against global warming

    Since Kyoto Protocol initiates international help for fighting against global warming, I believe it is a good treaty. With the help obtained internationally, we are able to put some restrictions for industrial pollution, which is the major cause of global warming.

    Posted by: KI3JoIIy
  • The Kyoto Protocol is a good treaty to combat global warming.

    Yes, I agree that the Kyoto Protocol is a good treaty to combat global warming as well as a model for future treaties. The Kyoto protocol was held in Kyoto in order to combat global warming, greenhouse effects and climatic changes. It was entered into the force by February 2005. It helps with cutting and reducing climatic changes and also all the nations in the world are putting their hands together to fight climatic changes.

    Posted by: I0rFashion
  • The USA should decide on its own environmental policy, not sign up for whatever the rest of the world thinks is best.

    While I haven't read up on the Kyoto Protocol for myself, I've heard enough about it from various sources to come to the opinion that the United States should stay away from it. We are the foremost nation in the world, and perfectly capable of making policy decisions, without worrying about what other nations think. From the bits I've read, the policy is at odds with the reality of our nation's energy consumption practices, and would require significant changes that would do more than merely inconvenience our citizens. While I am concerned about our effect on Earth's environment, I don't think this is the way to go about solving things. I hope our president is wise enough not to bow down to the solutions proposed by those outside our national borders.

    Posted by: SublimeAil
  • It's not about carbon, it's about capitalism.

    North America is a carbon sink. Because we preserve forests, we actually absorb more carbon than we put in the air. China is a VAST carbon polluter. Kyoto gives them a pass. This is simply an attack on American Capitalism. That's why it's supported by a Chinese-bought administration and the liberal left.

  • The Kyoto Protocol is not a good treaty to combat global warming or to use as a model for future treatises.

    The Kyoto Protocol is not a treaty that should be followed. Having studied international environmental law, I can say with assurance that Kyoto has simply not seen the results that the participating countries wanted to in enacting it. There has not been meaningful carbon emission reduction, and it does not provide the structure needed to phase out the use of fossil fuels. Instead, future treatises should commit to promoting the development of alternative energy through science and research.

    Posted by: VincenzoB
  • The Kyoto protocol does not limit the global production of greenhouse gases.

    Although the Kyoto protocol would limit the production of greenhouse gases in industrialized nations it would allow less industrialized countries to produce more. Globally, the net effect would be zero. The evidence to support my belief is in the content of the proposal. Areas such as the United States would be limited by the treaty to reduce the production of green house gases from current levels while smaller, less-industrialized countries would be allowed to increase their production. The goal of the treaty is designed to foster developing nation economies and limit the growth of larger established industrialized nations. Subtracting one country's pollution contribution and giving it to another does nothing on a global scale. Future treaty proposals should address the issues by a total reduction on a global scale instead of redistribution. The Kyoto treaty is about economics not global warming.

    Posted by: EvorCutie
  • I do not support the flawed Kyoto Protocol.

    The Kyoto Protocol would spell disaster for America. With soaring energy prices in a down economy the last thing this country needs is to burden Americans already struggling with policies that won't work. Complying with the Kyoto Protocol's emission standards would cause gasoline prices to climb at least another 30 percent, and electricity to rise by 50 percent. It would also cause another 2 million to lose their jobs, others would see their wage and standard of living shrink. It also exempts developing nations, whose carbon emissions will surpass industrialized countries before 2020. The Kyoto Protocol will not work it will drag the US economy down which will drag down the world economy. Let's find out more about climate change before we lock our country into flawed policies like this one.

    Posted by: 4ndGravity
  • I disagree with the concept of global warming. The temperatures have not risen extremely as suggested, we just finished with record winters.

    I don't believe we have an issue with global warming since record winters hitting the Southeast United States, Polar Bears thriving in the Arctic, glaciers from the Antarctic not moving any faster than they were in the 1800s when first tracked.

    Posted by: MarianaB
  • The Kyoto Protocol is not a good treaty to combat global warming because we are not positive that there is global warming.

    There is some evidence that there isn't global warming. And the Kyoto Protocol would punish our nation for being productive. The United States does a good job with controlling pollution and we can still do that without the treaty. Some countries that have a lot of pollution are not willing to sign the treaty. It is just a way of moving money out of our country into other countries. Right now, we need all the jobs that we can get.

    Posted by: takeitoneday
  • The Kyoto Protocol gives countries like the USA a get out card.

    Whilst it's a brilliant concept that is all that it is a concept. Without the backing of the USA it can't and won't be as effective as it should. If emissions are reduced in the EU, then the US won't have to worry if their emissions are increasing as long as its less than what would be achieved if this protocol wasn't in place.

  • No, it isn't.

    As long as you give any country, even 3rd world or the politically correct term "developing" countries a pass, it is not. The best way anything develops is to start with whatever is good right from the start. Then they will never have to suddenly "conform" to set standards. And if air pollution is such a bad thing, why encourage it from ANY nation?

  • No, the Kyoto Protocol is not an effective way of combating global warming.

    The biggest contributing nation in the world to greenhouse gases is the United States. The United States is also not a member of the Kyoto Protocol. That fact alone severely hinders the ability of the Kyoto Protocol to accomplish anything. In theory, it's a good idea. In practice, it just isn't the case. The problem with it and other cap and trade ideas is that it allows major polluters to continue to pollute in excess levels; they just have to pay more for it.

    Posted by: CourageousRandolph70

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
Anonymous says2013-07-26T18:40:05.473
It was great to read these commenats