Introduction
The Kyoto Protocol is a meaningful course of action intended to reduce the global greenhouse effect, and because of continuous discussions by world nations, it has evolved to a realistic and adaptable piece of documentation. The Kyoto protocol simply requires the 35 developed nations that accept to ratify the agreement, to cut greenhouse emissions by a given percentage using emission levels during 1990 a baseline. Different countries have different limits, for example; the US was required of 7% while Japan 6% from 2008 to 2012 (Baron, 2012). It mainly sided towards developed countries are more industrialized therefore, behold the capacity to produce the biggest quantities of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto protocol also concentrated on the emission of six major greenhouse gases namely carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride gases. Despite the good intentions of the Kyoto protocol, disagreements and politicking over ratification by nations was intensely experienced.
Controversies
The Koto protocol was a highly criticized document, especially by the countries who refuse to agree to its terms. These included the US and Canada mainly; some of the problems they had with the treaty are as discussed below.
It was clear that countries wanted clear terms regarding emissions trading and joint implementation projects. Emission trading and joint implementation refer to the trading of credit to include its total greenhouse emission cuts, by assisting or funding another country in its environment friendly projects for reduction of it greenhouse emissions. Countries wanted to know the methodology used in determining how much of the overseas carbon emissions reduction projects would be assigned to the assisting country. It was also unclear what ratio of overseas efforts would be allowed to be part of the country’s total emissions reductions to the ratio of its domestic efforts towards emissions reductions. Regions such as the European Union in 2005 devised their emissions trading rules in order to continue what the Koto protocol had started, as the protocol’s terms were being deliberated.
Secondly some developed countries were dissatisfied by the minimal level of commitment given to developing countries. Initially developing countries that signed and ratified the protocol were not given emission reduction limits, since their levels of industrialization could not cause any substantial increase to emission levels. Developing countries were therefore, let to catch up with the environmentally friendly actions by the developed countries. This sidelining left dissatisfaction to developed countries because, countries such as Brazil and China are not pressured into the difficult terms they were given (Baron, 2012).
Third, the issue of carbon sinks was also hard to grasp. Carbon sinks are areas such as forests, agricultural and vegetated land, water bodies and soil processes that assist in the absorption of carbon dioxide from the environment. Countries wanted development if their carbon sinks to be part of emission reduction activities. They wanted it to establish how development of their carbon sinks would measure to their total efforts towards reduction of their greenhouse emissions.
Finally, there was the issue of compliance to the terms of the protocol and; what form disciplinary action could be acceptable. Some countries preferred financial penalties while others preferred adding the shortfall of the required emissions reduction limit to the subsequent period’s limit.
Conclusion
Over the years, the Kyoto protocol has undergone major changes as nation tried to detail the document and; getting their issues resolved concerning specific terms. After the 2001 meeting in Bonn Germany, most controversial issues had been streamlined to produce a better document. I think the Kyoto protocol is a step in the right direction towards cutting emissions, and improve on the effect on climate change. As countries like the US stall by demanding for discussions, the globe is getting warmer and we are slowly reaching the point of no return. Countries should make the tough decision of ratifying the protocol and, as action is being taken they can present their issues to amend controversial terms.
Work Cited
Baron, David. Business and Its Environment, 7th ed. Pearson, 2012.
