In this context, should Annex I countries apply for ratification, even if the United States is not ratified? It could be argued that since the Kyoto Protocol is an environmental agreement, its environmental objective must take precedence, and since this objective will not be achievable without the United States, the whole issue should not be pursued. However, such an argument is based on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of this protocol. The Protocol should be understood as a first step towards achieving the environmental objective of its „parent agreement“, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (which, by the way, is in force). Given this objective of stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at an acceptable level, the Kyoto target is above all symbolic. The main objective of the Kyoto Protocol is therefore not its environmental objective, but its political objective, which, as I have argued, could easily be achieved, provided that the protocol enters into force. In short, Annex I decision-makers should not be enchanted by Congress` misunderstanding of its ability to bring the Kyoto Protocol to its knees. If they want the protocol to achieve its main objective, they should proceed quietly with ratification and ignore the position of Congress. Are participating countries on track to achieve the objectives of the Protocol? Clinton Administration Vice President Al Gore was instrumental in drafting the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. President Bill Clinton signed the agreement in November 1998, but the U.S. Senate refused to ratify it, pointing to the potential damage to the U.S.

economy required by compliance. The Senate also opposed the agreement because it prohibited certain developing countries, including India and China, from complying with the new emission standards. [60] For those who think the most ethno-myopic that non-acceptance by or in the United States is in itself synonymous with failure, the answer must of course logically be yes. However, all the others will only be able to give an answer after a slightly more critical analysis of the goals and objectives. After all, „failure“ here can only mean failure to achieve a goal. And it doesn`t take much thought to realize that the performance of the Kyoto Protocol can be assessed against a variety of these goals and targets. The division of States into Annex B States and States not listed in Annex B played a fundamental role in the design of the Protocol. Only the 38 States listed in Annex B received quantifiable reduction targets, while non-Annex B States were required to cooperate with Annex B States only for technological, educational and research purposes.

As a result of this categorization, a decision ratifying the Protocol was significantly different for an Annex B State and a non-Annex B State; The former had to submit voluntarily to reduce emissions, the latter only to nominally commit to the cause. As a result of the classification, the scope of the protocol was extremely limited, despite its impressive and almost universal adherence. Some environmentalists have supported the Kyoto Protocol because it is „the only game in the city“ and perhaps because they expect future emission reduction commitments to require stricter emission reductions (Aldy et al., 2003, p. 9). [2] Some ecologists and scientists have criticized existing obligations as too weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5). [3] On the other hand, many economists believe that the commitments are stronger than justified. Particularly in the United States, many economists have also criticized the failure to take into account quantified commitments for developing countries (Grubb, 2000, p. 31).

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] Rising temperatures. Wild hurricanes. Severe droughts. Disappearance of the coasts. Shrinking ice caps.

Climate change is an urgent test for every person living on the planet – and right now we are failing. Unlike two decades ago, when a true/false answer could withstand electoral pressures, today`s political leaders are expected to have answers to a much more intimidating question: What should we do to reduce the rate of climate change? In 1997, world leaders proposed a solution to this problem. Government representatives from 170 countries came together and negotiated their way to a single action plan: the Kyoto Protocol. The protocol called on thirty-eight states to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by 5% from 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. But not all 38 committed to the plan, as the U.S. never ratified the agreement and Canada withdrew from the protocol days before the end of the first commitment period. Why did the Kyoto Protocol fail? Two camps of criticism can be identified: supporters of the framework and informants of the framework. For proponents of the framework, the protocol was a good plan that did not include enough participants in Appendix B. These critics see binding reduction targets as crucial to the goal of limiting global emissions. They stress the need to place the three largest emitters under strict reduction targets.

For them, the fact that thirty-six Annex B countries have exceeded initial expectations proves the effectiveness of the Protocol`s compliance mechanism. Some argue that the protocol does not go far enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions[34] (Niue, the Cook Islands and Nauru added guidelines when the protocol was signed). [35] Some environmental economists have criticized the Kyoto Protocol. [36] [37] [38] Many [who?] consider the costs of the Kyoto Protocol to be predominant, some believe that the standards set by Kyoto are too optimistic, others a very unfair and ineffective agreement that would do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. [39] [full citation required] In short, the United States refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol because it was not satisfied with the fact that only Annex B States were required to reduce their emissions. The President and the Senate jointly have the power to ratify an international agreement under Article 3, Section 2 of the Constitution, and the Senate preemptively passed Resolution 95-0 Byrd Hagel in 1997 declaring its intention never to ratify a treaty that would harm the U.S. economy. Former President George W. Bush also rejected „the scientific evidence on the cause of the..

Global climate change. Despite the State Department`s brazen rhetoric that the U.S. „plays a leading role in the fight against climate change,“ the country increased its emissions by 4 percent in 2012 from its 1990 baseline. . .