Why Kyoto Protocol seems to fail?

Answer 1

The 100% market design of the carbon policy is a goofy american invention. It allows any emitting company to whine and get free allowances for which they pay nothing and then past the cost of something they received for free to customers leading to windfall profits.

This goofy american design has been chosen to accomodate them but they finally decided to step out the Kyoto Protocol at the last minute, prefearing to blame the chinese who are just beginning their industrialization instead of fairly acknowledging their own impact. Before taking the next step with the neocons governement who denied it before acknowledging it is real again (in order not to have like the Vatican to apologize 500 years later for Gallileo).

Instead of the Kyoto Protocol, the US has developped the AP6 who even according to McCain is "only an act on public relations". The AP6 doesn´t put
any targets and in the participating nations, only China set an intensity target for itself, taking the lead over the US.

"The contribution under the AP6 is purely voluntary and so should it be with my own tax contribution to the state !!!!"

Beside that, the US has also developped and wasted money in token solutions like hydrogen which is not a source of energy but an expensive carrier. Since it can still be produced from oil, this has been the focus of the Bush administration.

A carbon tax, which collects money that is reused in the economy is better since it taxes CO2 on a fair even rate, avoiding distortion in competition. It is furthermore easier to collect since counting oil imports and coal extraction is easy. The collected money can then be used to buy carbon credits on a fair basis on a properly managed market

Answer 2

1. China is exempt. Mostpopulous country in the world. China will surpass the US in CO2 emissions by the end of 2008.

2. India is exempt. Second most populous country in the world. India is also quickly industrializing, though not at the pace of China.

3. The Kyoto Treaty was signed by President Clinton. Its ratification was defeated 97-0 in the Senate in 1998, long before President Bush was even a candidate for President. Don't blame Bush for this one. Kyoto wasn't ratified by the Senate then, it wouldn't be ratified by the Senate now.

4. Public fear over the use of nuclear essentially prohibits the building of new nuclear plants. Nuclear is the only source of power that can meet the demand that would occur if coal and oil use is curtailed. Wind and solar just won't cut it.

5. Europe won't meet its goals, that has nothing to do with the US. Nor will the Russians.

The US didn't make Kyoto fail. Kyoto was flawed and unrealistic from the beginning. No amount of US bashing will change that simple fact.

Answer 3

Well.. I dont know what you mean by fail..

I will say that the US didn't sign it because Bush didn't publiclly belive in global warming at the time and he felt that the developing countries (as opposed to developed countries like the US as defined in the Protocol itself) were not held to tight enough restrictions.. Also his buddies in big business (Oil Companies etc) theoretically could have lost a ton money by being forced to temper their emissions.. I believe that the overall US economy would have improved however after we became world leaders in supplying the green energy transition.. But.. Well.. Bush doesn't think like that..

Answer 4

Never would applied equally. Some of the country's had no intention to live buy it. If we applied it here there would not be enough fuel to deliver the short supply of food we have. These people that is pushing for this needs to start walking a lot and stop eating so much.

Answer 5

Two reasons. Not everyone agrees that its restrictions on industry are necessary or fair.

It is impossible to enforce.

Answer 6

Because the US wants it to fail.