why did the kyoto protocol collapse?

Question

ANY ideas.....please name your source too...im researchin on it thanks

Answer 1

The Kyoto treaty actually did very little to help "stop" global warming, and it was difficult to sell an agreement that only delayed the eventual outcome slightly. The return to 1990 levels even if achieved only slows the eventual outcome. It is expensive medicine that only delays the patient's death but is not a cure.

The main reason the treaty was not signed by the USA was the treaty itself gave different targets to different nations on how much they had to reduce their CO2 emissions. The limits in the treaty assigned to the USA specifically were not what our country could tolerate with respect to the limits of imposed on other countries. Although Bush and Clinton did not sign the treaty, it did not get support of a single senator in the USA when it came up for a vote.

While the treaty was a gesture of working for an ideal of reducing the CO2 release by many nations, the limits were inherently flawed. The idea of reducing emissions back to those released at a set timeframe imposes different demands on different countries. For most European countries, their population growth is currently minimal or even slightly negative. Only a slight effort would be needed to maintain the same CO2 emissions as in 1990. On the other hand the US has a population that is still rapidly growing, mainly due to immigration. The net result is the US population will grow about 20% between the 1990 benchmark emmisions of CO2 and the 2008-2012 target date. This means that for the USA to comply with the Kyoto goal of reducing CO2 to 5% less than 1990 levels, the CO2 production per person average in the USA would have to fall by about 25% (20% due to population growth 5% for the "reduction"). On the other hand the EU for example only has a much slower growth rate and the overal population for member states will grow by 5% or less over the timeframe of the treaty. That means that a European will only have to on average reduce their CO2 by 10% below the 1990 levels. The "sacrifice" of the average US resident to comply with Kyoto would be over twice the "sacrifice" imposed on a member of the EU.

The US commitment to reduce the CO2 intensity by 18% (relative to GNP) is actually going to result in similar reductions in CO2 release for the US per person as compared to the Kyoto limits imposed on the first world nations that signed it.

The fact that the treaty did not take into account the population changes of the countries involved, meant that citizens of different countries would have to make widely different levels of sacrifice to comply with Kyoto. While it had a good ideal of reducing the CO2 production of the world, the language of Kyoto imposed sacrifices on the US far greater than elsewhere that the polticians of BOTH political parties realized they could not get the US public to comply to. This is despite the fact that many in the USA are willing to make some sacrifice.

The other major country that has not signed Kyoto is also the only other industrialized nation with a rapidly growing population (Australia). Again the population growth is largely due to immigration. The sacrifice on the Australian people per capita would be far greater than Europeans or Japanese and the politicians there realized they could not impose such limits on their public.

The negotiations of the treaty are what failed. The US public would have willingly sacrificed as much to fight global warming as citizens of many other countries, but they could not be forced to reduce two or three times as much per capita as the citizens of other rich nations. With the addition of the two words "per capita" as the goal for CO2 reduction the US would almost certainly have signed the treaty. The absence of those two words shows that the politicians negotiating the treaty had more interest in makeing the USA the scapegoat as opposed to bringing the USA and the world into a unified effort to reduce CO2 emissions. That may have been the interest of some US members of the negotiation team as well, to shame the USA.

Finally the limits are non-binding. Many of the signators of the treaty are not actually staying within the limits that they agreed to. This fact has not prevented some of them such as France from threatening the USA with actions for not signing the treaty.

Answer 2

It collapsed because practically EVERYONE agrees that it would do next to nothing. Only rich countries are bound by it - in order to continue to produce the CO2 levels, they would have to "buy" "carbon credits" from 3rd world countries.

CO2 output would not change. Kyoto is designed to crush the developing world's economy and give all the money to poor countries.

By the way, the Democrats did NOT push for Kyoto. When placed before the Senate in 1998, it was voted down 95-0. NINETY FIVE TO ZERO. EVERY single Democrat and Republican voted against it, even Al Gore (who was at the time VP and thus president of the Senate) did nothing.

Democrats are behind it now because they can use it for political advantage.

Answer 3

One of the criticisms for Kyoto was that the exemptions to developing nations like India and China would hurt the economies of industrialized nations as business chased after the cheapest place to operate. President Bush gets a lot of the blame for collapse of Kyoto, but he is not alone in thinking that Kyoto is a bad treaty. As India and China continue to grow unhindered, the anti-Kyoto crowd seems to be gaining support.

Answer 4

The Kyoto hasn't collapsed as far as I know. However, almost every country in the world is going to miss their emission targets. Europe is definitely going to exceed their targets and so will have to pay a heavy economic price. The US did not agree to be bound by the targets and so is not subject to that crushing economic burden, so France is proposing taxing US goods in Europe to make the US pay indirectly. But it is all just a money grab. Neither France no any other country that has signed (and ratified) the treaty is going to meet their targets, so countries that have signed (and ratified) and also have no targets they are obligated to meet (like China) will just collect a lot of money from Europe and go on increasing their pollution. China is the second biggest, and fastest growing emitter of carbon dioxide in the world!

Answer 5

USA did not want to sign, neither did India or China
USA did not want to enter because that would have restricted their production while other countries India and specifically China would have gone ahead and produce as in the past. This would have been an unfair advantage in a competitive market since their production cost is lower. After all the USA is not the largest polluter, they have more autos on the roads and more air conditioning etc., generating some 'green house gases'
APC(air pollution control) is very strict in USA, all factories and transportation is monitored and controlled. In the cities and towns one may not even burn trash or leafs.
Additionally the USA wanted more specific monitoring of certain industries and the other members did not want to agree on that.

Answer 6

Because the 2 biggest polluters would be exempt from it. India and China would not have to abide by it.

China is building 1,200 new Coal power plants each year.

Clinton would not sign on to Kyoto either when he was President.

Answer 7

It did not collapse. Just some of the countries did not agree. The United States was one of them, and because many other countries follow our leadership and expertise on such matters, also did not comply.

You can blame Bush for this, as Al Gore & democrats have been one of the biggest proponents of environmental clean-up of smog and other problems that exist.

Answer 8

Because their was too much politics involved in the science (if you can call predicting the future a science). Check out this article about the debate on the 'Hockey Stick' graph that basically won nations over to the concept of Kyoto:
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB110834031507653590-DUadAZBzxH0SiuYH3tOdgUmKXPo_20060207.html?mod=blogs

Answer 9

The Earth is a closed system.
One cannot make a piece of string longer by cutting a length off one end and tying it to the other end.

Answer 10

One reason is because our idiot presidents, Clinton and Bush wouldn't sign it.