2007-01-13 11:12:30 · 8 answers · asked by iamsocool878 1 in Environment
It is good but also useless at the same time.
The reason it is good as it has laid the framework for future protocols that will be dealing with the environment. Its a start in the right direction.
The reason its useless is there are no enforcement measures. Canada will not meet its targets and that really doesn't matter because there are no enforcement measurements for not achieving the goals
So in conclusion its helpful in the fact that it is laying out the path for future protocols, but usesless as nothing will be done to countries who ratified it but don't follow it.
Hope that helps
2007-01-13 14:02:19 · answer #1 · answered by Dan 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes because many of the countries that signed up to it are taking active steps to reduce their amounts of carbon emissions.
Kyoto has resulted in billions of tons of carbon emissions not being released into the atmosphere, especially by the European countries.
No one knows just what positive impact this will have as the jury is still out on how much man's activities contribute to global warming. Anything that reduces the possible risks of global warming and improves the quality of breathable air has to be a good thing. It's just a shame the US didn't sign up to it.
2007-01-13 11:19:31 · answer #2 · answered by Trevor 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Under an environmental point of view it is just first step.
It doesnt fix the problem, it is a test, it will answer one question: " what will be the impact on the environment if we do this? " in 2008 all countries that signed it will meet again to adjust targets
Its aim is very simple, each country must tend to be "pollution neutral" . All countries can pollute, but they must place resources to eliminate as much pollution as they create.
For example, if one country pollute in 1000 units and they have 100 units of forest , that country can reduce its GHG emissions to 100 units or increase its forests to 1000 units.
2007-01-13 11:31:04 · answer #3 · answered by carmenl_87 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only an uninformed idiot would claim that global warming doesn't pose a threat to this planet or our way of life.
2007-01-13 11:30:11 · answer #4 · answered by albatros39a 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's helpful, but the questions are in the areas of risk/benefit ratios and cost-effectiveness. It's also possible to limit hydrocarbon use and avoid global warming by the use of massive thermonuclear war, with "nuclear winter" and depopulation, but that seems a tad extreme.
2007-01-13 11:29:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It would be if USA and Australia signed.
2007-01-13 11:18:48 · answer #6 · answered by kevin_4508 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It can't do much good if it's all a lie.
2007-01-13 11:17:09 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
it might be if the US actually signed it
2007-01-13 16:04:17 · answer #8 · answered by nerdy girl 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋