Introduction
Global warming is a crucial issue for humanity today. For this reason, a unique international initiative called the Kyoto Protocol was established at the end of the 20th century. The Kyoto Protocol, which in theory was supposed to make a significant contribution to sustaining nature and had the support of the United States, ended up failing when said country left the newly-formed alliance. The reasons for this decision and an analysis of its pros and cons are the key aims of this paper.
Events Overview
In light of the current energy crisis and the incomplete scientific understanding of the causes and solutions to global climate change, the adopted decision was mandatory for the country to survive. According to President Bush, the absence of commonly produced technology solutions for removing and storing carbon dioxide would damage the country’s economy and its industrial workers (Kemp, 2017). In addition, he protested the notion that the Protocol, which has been approved only by one of the required number of nations, nevertheless exempts most of the globe from compliance (Kemp, 2017). Bush has pledged to cooperate with America’s friends and via international institutions to create technology, business motivations, and other new ways that more effectively address the problems involved.
The President’s moral pronouncement sparked criticism from domestic and international environmental campaigners, such as the European Union (EU). Supporters of the Protocol said that if the United States does not cut its greenhouse gas emissions following the pact, its temperature will increase with disastrous consequences, including severe floods, coastline degradation, and resource depletion. Their comments give the impression that the President’s decision represents a radical shift in US policy, though it is not valid according to the conducted analysis (Kemp, 2017). Since the Clinton Administration accepted the Protocol, Congress has voiced its dissatisfaction, and little progress was made in drafting local selection and implementation.
Cons of The Withdrawal
The objective of the participating nations was to cut their emission below previous carbon levels in the close period. While a minor decrease was the overall target, each country had its proportion to achieve (Kolmas, 2017). The Kyoto Protocol additionally established a variety of market mechanisms to assist wealthy nations in offsetting their emissions, including investments in low-carbon projects in underdeveloped regions of the globe (Kolmas, 2017). In its conclusion, former US President Bill Clinton welcomed the pact as environmentally robust and economically innovative (Kolmas, 2017). He additionally proposed that the decision represents his generation’s determination to act in the best interests of future citizens (Kolmas, 2017). However, Washington legislators disagreed with the Senate’s vote against the initiative. George W. Bush, Clinton’s successor, withdrew US backing for the Protocol, considering it fatally deficient (Kolmas, 2017). Thus, the declared goals of the Kyoto Protocol were highly beneficial to the Earth and had the support of the US government.
People inherited the Earth; thus, they should all take measures to maintain it. Although studies have shown that people are accountable for the planet’s current condition, this does not allow science to infer that what humans have been doing in excess is incorrect. In an attempt to rectify these injustices, the Protocol was formed. It took several years for the agreement to be implemented. Moreover, there is a cause for the lengthy implementation procedure. The Protocol stipulated that at least 55 Parties must ratify the accord and that their combined greenhouse gas emissions must account for at least half of the world’s carbon output. Consequently, the ideology behind the examined worldwide agreement would eventually create positive tendencies for the environment.
Pros of The Withdrawal
China and India, as well as other emerging countries, declined to sign the Kyoto Protocol. While the Protocol was being debated, it made sense for them not to participate in the discussion. Today, however, emerging nations are among the most significant contributors to carbon emissions (Pickering et al., 2019). Thus, while excluding them, the Protocol’s purpose made no sense. Notably, the United States consented to the Protocol but was never approved.
In essence, one of the world’s significant polluters of greenhouse gases is not even a signatory to a Protocol designed to reduce such emissions. It required more than five years for Russia to join the Kyoto Protocol, adding to the trivia (Pickering et al., 2019). Additionally, a regrettable attitude was demonstrated by Canada when it decided to exit the Protocol due to its inability to fulfill its objectives. After that event, a United Nations climate pact summit was held in Lima, Peru (Pickering et al., 2019). The objective was to establish a legislative framework post-Kyoto that would force all global polluters to compensate for dioxide emissions (Pickering et al., 2019). As a result, representatives from most nations reached an agreement requiring them to limit their greenhouse gas emissions.
Alternatively, the Lima agreement may seem faulty since the substance of each country’s plan is entirely optional. In other words, member nations may select how much to reduce their emissions. Companies may or may not additionally give a schedule according to the announced rules (van der Gaast, 2018). The submitted proposals will serve as the agenda for a significant new climate accord finalized in Paris seven years ago and put into force two years ago (van der Gaast, 2018). Moreover, the Paris Accord does not seem legally enforceable, which implies that nations will face no repercussions if they do not fulfill their commitments (van der Gaast, 2018). Subsequently, such a rule drastically reduces the possibility of the new union disbanding.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the pros and cons of the decision taken by the United States concerning the Kyoto Protocol were indicated. By providing a chronological overview, it was possible to analyze subsequent developments and trends indicating the pros and cons of the examined withdrawal. Moreover, the previous section mentioned that the Paris Initiative was also a sensible alternative that would allow the preservation of the planet’s natural state and no irreparable damage to the global economy.
References
Kemp, L. (2017). Better out than in.Nature Climate Change, 7(7), 458–460. Web.
Kolmas, M. (2017). Japan and the Kyoto Protocol: Reconstructing ‘proactive’ identity through environmental multilateralism.The Pacific Review, 30(4), 462–477. Web.
Pickering, J., McGee, J. S., Stephens, T., & Karlsson-Vinkhuyzen, S. I. (2019). The impact of the US retreat from the Paris agreement: Kyoto revisited?Climate Policy, 18(7), 818–827. Web.
van der Gaast, W. (2018). The negotiation process leading to the Kyoto protocol.International Climate Negotiation Factors, 57–90. Web.