Kyoto protocol?

Question

what are some of its weaknesses?

what would make it better?

Answer 1

Weaknesses:

- It's pointless and ineffective without 80% of the world's population being covered (developing nations).

- It does nothing to address the #1 causes of global warming: global population increase and migration towards developed nations.

- It does nothing to address our best opportunity at reducing the second largest forcing agent: black carbon soot.  Not that they could have known that when Kyoto was drafted, but we know it now, so why no action?  As our best chance at proven rapid reduction in warming influences, why is it never even mentioned by the media or by politicians?

To make it better:

- Given that global carbon levels are rising rapidly, Kyoto has clearly failed.  Immediately admit defeat and abolish the Kyoto protocol until developing nations join in a global solution.  We can't accomplish anything useful without them.

Answer 2

The biggest thing I can remember is it did not include some of the developing countries that are growing emissions most (China, India, Mexico for example).  This was a major sticking point for the Clinton administration and the reason that even though it was signed, it was not sent to the congress for ratification (never would have gotten through - a condition for the US congress to pass it was the inclusion of some action by those countries).  

I don't remember much else it has been so long since I have seen it.

Answer 3

Weaknesses:

1. Based an a lie (this is sort of a big one)

2. If you spent the time to research it, you would find that it was geared against the USA. In the 90's the US was having an economic surge, while much  of Europe was in a slow period. This allows them an easier target. Also, they were in the process of converting their power to nukes. But even with these advantages, they are still unable to stop their CO2 emissions, much less reduce them.

3. Kyoto would cost billions (maybe trillions) to achieve a minor result if any. Even the IPCC (Kyoto cheerleaders) acknowledged it's cost and ridiculously minute results. LIke most government plans, no cost benefit analysis.

Make it Better

1. Burn the paper it was written on. The CO2 released would be worth it.

2. Take the $5 billion we spend annually trying to prove AGW (and failed for 10 years running) and spend that money on helping the poor with no access to electricity or water. And I mean actual reliable electricity (nuke plants, coal plants, etc), not the feel good renewable energy which works some of the time but not reliably. Could you imagine being operated on in  a hospital when all power is lost. This is what the thrid worlds deal with on a daily basis. And the high and mighty AGW proponents come swooping in and telling these people that having unreliable power with little CO2 emissions is better than reliable coal/nuke consistent power. Who are they trying to kid? It's like Al Gore flying in his private plan and meeting with people and telling them to stop driving and flying. INSANE!

Answer 4

The weaknesses are

1) its based on the hoax of Global Warming

2) it does not include major polluters (i.e. China)

3) it will bankrupt the economies of the nations that ratify it.

What would make it better?

Lighter fluid and a match!!!

Answer 5

the biggest problem was that i left out all of the developing countries... china korea, vietnam.. and made it to expensive to do production or manufacturing in the developed countries....

the BELIEVE was that as new factories were built in china and korea etc... they would be built with modern technology... shifting all production to clean facilities in the developing countries... not great for those countries in existance.. but all good for the great mother earth...

problem was that is NOT the end result... instead factories in the countries that are being developed are being built with NO ecological impact studies or preservation effects at all.. resulting in the most contaminated cities and waterways in the world now being found in china...