How does rafifying the Kyoto Protocol affect the United States?

Question

Even a few sentences are good. I need help brainstorming!

Well, here's a few questions... thanks in advance!

How does ratifying the Kyoto Protocol affect the environment?

How does it affect humans?

How does it affect plant and animal life?

What are the economic implicatins of the Kyoto Accord?

Answer 1

Kyoto protocol is a set of rules & regulations signed by the nations all over the world so as to comitt their nation to help & committ to save the environment  reduce the emissions of harmfull gases........

This calls upon the signatory members to cut emissions & put tough regulations on automobile,industry & power generating industries emmisions.In this the member nations have to fix a target of reduction of green house gases & commit for a sustainable development process.But the developing countris who are the signatory of this protocol & whose emmisions are well below the global average are free to follow their own path & are not bound to follow this emmision cut target.It also allows the major polluting nations to either cut their emmissions by technical innovation or strict regulation or pay for a equivlent amout of money for cut in emmisions else where.

There wre 178 signatory members of this famous kyoto protocol but 2 major polluting countries that had refused to sign it are Australia & US.

They belive that accepting & implementing this protocol will take a tool on thier industrial & manufacturing growth & will tend to slow down their economy.They are also of the opinion is that the major polluting nation like China & India are spared by this protocol as their per capita carbon emmision is less due to the larger base.But infact they are fast becoming the major polluters of the environment.In fact china by end of 2006 was the largest carbon emmiting nation.Also they litigate that only ratifying & signing this aggrement don't just justify that they are concerend about global warming & ecology & US itself boasts of the data that the largest amount of money flowing into technical innovation to tame global warming is from their country.

So thus ratifying  accepting this agreement was well against the industry of US which are in a decline due to tough competition of China in this field & to maintain a competetive edge it didn't accept the protocol.

Kyoto procol was the 1st protocol in itself which pledges & forces the signatory members to pledge towards global warming & do take necessary steps to reduce carbon emmsions & also reverse the damage caused by the same.

It makes environmental prority in govt agenda in many developed nations & fix a allocated amount of budget towards it.

This Kyoto protocol if not be able to meet its emmsion targets by 2011 but this will surely make a wake up call for the developed nations & also enforcing these norms are alredy showing results as many nationa had put ambtious targets for them selves for the future e.g UK had commited to maintain this emmission level till 2011 & reduce it by 20% by 2020 & reduce to 50% of 1990 level by 2050.Some have alredy started giving green signal to Carbon trading & allowed carbon credits to companies(by which a fixed amount of carbon emmisions are allowed to a particular comapny according to its industry & end products & if they want to emmit more carbo then they have to buy carbon credits from those nations whose carbon emmision level is low @ a premium price).Many have also started to tax the notorious coal fired power plants in operation & use it to fund research in clean & green technology.

This kyoto protocol which calls for a initial pledge by the member nations to cut emmsions by 2011 till a new environmental draft is adopted to encompass all major developed & developing nations had started to show its effect & many had seen emmision level touch to 2001 level.This reduced emmsion in developed nations will inturn  help us make earth a clean & green place to live before the green house gases cause global wraming & cause severe damage to animal & mankind by flooding the seas & engagering many animal life forms.

There are vast economic implications from this kyoto protocol & its seen & observed by many countries that adopted this protoco are experiencing low level of emmision & some have started to produce less emmision than earlier & the technical innovation done in case of automobile & industies are paying thier divident by reduced fuel consumption & greater fuel economy.This had also helped us to reverse the damaged rainfall pattern & wide spread drought & flood sitution.Farmers in many countries are getting riches by selling biodiesel. So following a environmental friendly & green development method had also broughtb about a operatinal benifit to the companies & had helped to reduce their fuel consumption & bringing synergies in economies of scale.

Answer 2

Well, for one, it won't do much good for the environment because the biggest polluters won't sign it. (Being China and India). The main reason being is that they are going through their "industrialization" phaze.

It effects humans adversely because despite all this feel good evniromentalism, its always being pushed by socialists. Meaning that they want it to pass so they can use it as a tool to take money from people in the way of taxes or limiting freedom or changing ways of life for the betterment of the enviroment. But lets get real, I've seen the "pollution" problem get much better from the 70's on. America is one of the greenest nations out there and it keeps inventing new things each day and sharing that technology. So why with all the progress that we've been steadily making do we need these johnny come lately enviro-whacko's to dictate an even more rigorous strategy that puts everyone out for the sake of improvements that will come sooner or later anyways ? Since we are already heading in that direction.

Animals won't care, neither will plants. I'm sure if plants could talk, they'd ramshambo Al Gore in the jimmy because they thrive on Co2.

Economically, all this unchecked whacko "feel-good" enviromentalism has been hurting the economy, causing the cost of living to rise..whether its the use of corn for ethanol, or restricting oil companies from drilling for new sources of oil.

Its a bad proposal, its one reason we can't allow socialists to dictate how we live. Because they don't care for the people of this nation as much as they pretend.

Answer 3

The Kyoto Protocol established the "carbon credit" scheme.

People pay money to people who organized the Kyoto Protocol so they can pollute as much as they want.

As one student said, "Isn't that like paying air?"

So the Kyoto Protocol will do nothing but make money for it's creators and do harm to any country that agrees to it.

It can do no good and lots of harm.

Please, don't be someone who hurts other people just to make themselves feel better.

Answer 4

The Kyoto Protocol would be a terrible thing for the US to agree to.  It would make the US agree to cut emissions when the fastest growing economies in the world (China, India) do not have to make any cuts and in fact are polluting more an more each year.  The US is already falling behind China and India and the Kyoto Protocol would make it worse.

Besides, the US has better ways to help the environment than the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, we have already reduced our emission more than if we would have just followed the Kyoto Protocol, but we have done it in ways that were not harmful to the US economy.

The following is from:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Proto...

On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "Clean Development Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office[citation needed] and the Department of Energy[citation needed], Energy Information Administration (EIA), demonstrated a potentially large loss to GDP from implementing the Protocol of up to 4.2% (EIA).

The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide).

Answer 5

if everyone signs up we all agree to reduce pollution.

pollution gets into the food chain so any reduction affects humans,

yes it costs money, probnably why the US won't sign up...

also if the US signs it is bound by federal law and if it did not meet targets all the other countries could theoretically sue .