Kyoto Agreement Failure
Posted on December 11, 2020
We call on the U.S. government to reject the agreement on written imitatability in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997… The proposed limit values for greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the progress of science and technology, and harm the health and well-being of humanity… There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases will cause or cause catastrophic warming of the Earth`s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth`s climate in the foreseeable future. In addition, there is substantial scientific evidence that the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide has many positive effects on the planet`s natural flora and fauna.  And the Kyoto Protocol should not be evaluated solely on the basis of emissions figures, says Shishlov: it also helped lay the groundwork for the Paris climate agreement at the end of last year. A climate target agreed by the United Nations was to limit the temperature increase to two degrees Celsius. Nevertheless, global emissions have been rapid over the past decade. This increase, combined with the absence of a comprehensive comprehensive agreement, has made the target unattainable. This is where the architecture of a new climate agreement was born, which was hated at conferences in Lima and then in Paris. First, each country would make a fully voluntary commitment to how it intends to address climate change. The content would be left to each government rooted in its analysis of what it deems politically feasible and technologically feasible. There is a lot of criticism of carbon trading as a control mechanism.
Among the criticisms are the NON-governmental ORGANIZATIONs of environmental justice economists, labour organizations and those concerned about energy supply and excessive taxes. Some see the Emissions Trading Scheme as an acquisition by the free market state.  They argue that trade in pollution certificates should be avoided because they lead to accounting errors, dubious science and the destructive effects of projects on local populations and environments.  Instead, they advocate a reduction in pollution and energy policy based on justice and Community policy.  Many argue that cap-and-trade-based emissions trading schemes will necessarily reduce employment and income.  Most of the criticism has focused on the carbon market, which was created through investment in the Kyoto mechanisms. Criticism of the emissions trading system for cap-and-trade trade has generally been more limited to a lack of credibility in the first phase of the EU ETS.  As Secretary of State John Kerry prepares to sign the United States on April 22 , Earth Day – to the Paris Climate Agreement, there are lessons learned from previous international climate agreements, namely the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which we would not ignore.
It also increases the possibility of a virtuous circle. Countries feel more confident if they are not punished for their failure. This, in turn, encourages other countries to act because they know they are not alone. And as soon as countries take action, it will become self-sufficient, as entrepreneurs and engineers will find solutions that will allow them to take further action. Countries are starting to follow the wind or the sun or nuclear energy and find new ways to reduce costs, allowing for other measures. Permalink: www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/4/failures-of-kyoto-will-repeat-with-the-paris-climate-agreement But it`s not a completely crazy idea. And to see why this might be useful, we need to take a trip through the history of global climate talks.