Carbon Blueprints - The Kyoto Protocol

Carbon Blueprints

Teach a Man to Fish

INDIVIDUALS | BUSINESS | ORGANIZATIONS

GLOBAL WARMING - KYOTO PROTOCOL
DON'T FORGET TO ADD A COMMENT AT THE END OR
GO THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN TO SEE WHAT OTHERS HAVE WRITTEN

WE ARE CARETAKERS OF THIS EARTH

DISCLAIMER: As you know, Carbon Blueprints is dedicated to accuracy and truth. This site is allowing this discussion, of which each "fact" must be backed up by research and accurate data, in order make sure we know what is true, what is myth, and what is a lie.

WHAT IS THE KTOTO PROTOCOL AND WHAT IS IT SUPPOSE TO ACCOMPLISH?:
In December 1997, in Kyoto Japan, more than 160 nations met in negotiate to bind and limit greenhouse gases for the developed nations, according to the objectives of the UNFCCC (Framework Convention on Climate Change). At this meeting the Kyoto Protocol was produced, which stated that the "Developed Nations" agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, relative to the levels emitted in 1990. The United States would not accept this agreement because it made them agree to reduce emissions below what they were in 1990 by 7 percent during the period 2008 to 2012.

The U.S. knew that the manifestation of this would hurt the economy and privately owned companies. Many other developing countries broke their allegance for the same reason. The U.N. would have slown down the economies of many countries.

Some would also say that the Kyoto Protocol was inadequate and the rules should have been stricter. Some scientists were demanding 50% reduction in Greenhouse Gases, which would destroy many more economies and more countries would have left the agreement like the U.S., Australia, and so many more. When this agreement comes to an end in a year, some countries would like to mae the rules harder and because of those threats many more countries have threatened to leave the agreement, including Russia.

Though all of this opposition, the Kyoto Protocol was set up to help the environment by lowering the greenhouse emissions and maing other rules that were recommended in the Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992 and other reports written by different UN departments. They are trying to promote a cleaner environment but with such strict laws all at once, they lose the interest and desire of many "Rich Countries" and lose their potential for hitting their goal. They need all countries to agree on the Protocol or they will lose their support. And logically, who is better to manage a country a third party or the country itself.

"THEORY" = Prediction for the Future
"MUST CONFIRM WITH DATA" = Data is not in and has not been provided as of yet.

"FACT" = data is in and there is no question.
"CONFLICT" is when both sides have accurate" data but they conflict.

SOURCE:

FOR

AGAINST

SOURCE:

UNFCCC - FULL TEXT OF KYOTO PROTOCOL -

KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE

UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Full Text

DOE - KYOTO PROTOCOL PREFACE -

From December 1 through 11, 1997, more than 160 nations met in Kyoto, Japan, to negotiate binding limitations on greenhouse gases for the developed nations, pursuant to the objectives of the Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992. The outcome of the meeting was the Kyoto Protocol, in which the developed nations agreed to limit their greenhouse gas emissions, relative to the levels emitted in 1990. The United States agreed to reduce emissions from 1990 levels by 7 percent during the period 2008 to 2012.

The Kyoto Protocol, negotiated by more than 160 nations in December 1997, aims to reduce net emissions of certain greenhouse gases (primarily carbon dioxide (CO2)). Each of the participating developed countries must decide how to meet its respective reduction goal during a five-year period (2008-2012); but specific ground rules remain to be worked out at future negotiating sessions. The next meeting is in Buenos Aires (November 1998).

In a study entitled Impacts of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Energy Markets and Economic Activity, the Energy Information Administration (EIA), an independent statistical and analytical agency in the U.S. Department of Energy, has projected that meeting the U.S. targets under the Protocol will call for significant market adjustments:

Reductions in CO2 emissions will result in between 18 and 77 percent less coal use than projected in the EIA Reference Case in 2010, particularly affecting electricity generation, and between 2 and 13 percent less petroleum use, mainly affecting transportation.
Energy consumers will need to use between 2 and 12 percent more natural gas in 2010 and between 2 and 16 percent more renewable energy, and extend the operating life of existing nuclear units.
To achieve these ends via market-based means, average delivered energy costs (in inflation-adjusted 1996 dollars) must be between 17 and 83 percent higher than projected in 2010.
The amount prices must rise is uncertain. Accounting procedures and international trading rules for greenhouse gases are not finalized. Forecasting technological change and public response to it under various pricing scenarios is an inexact science. The more stringent the need for domestic emission reductions, however, the more costly the adjustment process will be.

EIA & DOE - US REPORT ON KYOTO PROTOCOL - For full text click on this link.

(OPINION OF THE EIA)

In face of the enormous potential threats from global warming, European and American environmentalists have been incensed by George Bush's refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol and his turnabout from the position of Bill Clinton and Al Gore. This is particularly galling as the United States is the largest emitter, especially per capita, and accounts for about 25% of the annual human-caused release of greenhouse gases. "It has become an extremely moral issue," Marco Verweij conceded. Undaunted, he replied that "I would argue that the Kyoto Protocol is nonsense, that it could lead to a lot of corruption and have no appreciable effect." He offered four criticisms:

UCLA INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE - Kyoto Protocol Said to Harm Effort to Stop Global Warming--But There Is Something Better

(OPINION TO FACT AND THEORY - Until it is tested, it can not be for sure, but all research is optimistic.)

1. It is entirely insufficient. "Most scientists say we need a 50% reduction of current levels by 2050 to stabilize world climate. But human emissions of greenhouse gases are expected instead to quadruple in the next hundred years. A 5.2% reduction in the next sixteen years would compound to an 8% reduction by the end of this century, i.e., it allows a 92% increase. At this pace we would need another 29 protocols to get where we should be." Apart from the fact that it has not been ratified by enough governments to implement it, its very modest goal has been bargained down still further. "Since 1997 the accepted goal has been cut to an effective 2% reduction. Russia, Australia, and Canada have been making the following argument: we have these extensive forests, if we cut them this would release carbon dioxide, a major greenhouse gas. If we don't cut these trees we should get credit for that against our 5.2%. At every conference Russia finds a new forest in Siberia. What they argue is that modernization leads to cutting trees, and by forbearing they should be credited as much as if they actually did something."

2. The Kyoto Protocol is extremely difficult to implement. "It is costly and involves moral hazards." There are three implementation mechanisms: (A) Trade in permits to emit greenhouse gases. (B) Joint implementation mechanism. (C) Clean development mechanism.

The trading system has allocated permits to some 42 governments among those endorsing the Protocol. "The total value of the permits allocated comes to more than US$2 trillion. If you are not meeting your target, you can go on the market and buy units from governments that have met their targets. The allocation was decided on in the early 1990s, based on the expected industrialization rates of the particular countries. This was very difficult to predict, the future economic growth of particular countries."

Given the tremendous monetary stakes, it is not possible to negotiate last-minute adjustments in this system to take account of divergences from inaccurate predictions. This system "creates problems at both ends, in the inability to predict the future accurately, and in the inability to get accurate measures of performance at the end of the period for which the permits are issued. There are about 8 greenhouse gases. Only the most prevalent one, carbon dioxide, can be measured with any accuracy. And this ill-defined system is compounded when, as in the European Union and Japan, they are also creating internal markets for these permits. That entails that each individual firm needs to know how much greenhouse gas they are emitting, and how much they are reducing that amount."