The Kyoto Protocols Potency - Term Paper Example

According to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the comprehensive rules for the application of the protocol were approved in Marrakesh city, Morocco, in 2001 (UNFCCC, 1997). The protocol had its methods in that; countries must meet up their target first and foremost through the national measures. It also presented them with an additional means to meet their aim by the way of three marked based means. This includes international release trading, clean progress mechanism and joint achievements.

This mechanism helps to motivate green investment and help parties meet their release target in a cost-effective way. The protocol also monitors the emission aim. This is normally done by: Registry systems pathway and record transaction, parties under the mechanism, and a secretariat who keeps an international operation log to verify that connections are consistent with the rule of the protocols (York, 2007).

The parties should also deliver a report which is done by parties submitting annual emission inventories and account under the protocol at a regular level, and finally, a compliance system that ensures that the members are meeting their commitments. This helps them to meet their commitments if they have problems (UNFCCC, 1997).
Among the Kyoto protocol’s potency is its addition of a provision for a market-based approach intended to lower the cost of the worldwide climate system: discharge trading amongst the countries that take target under the protocol; joining the completion which allows for project-live trade among the nations; and clean progress mechanism, which offers for the use of project-level release offsets created in non-developing nations to help gather for the compliance duty of firm in developing countries (UNFCCC, 1997).
Palombi, L. (2011) argues that the Kyoto protocol also provides flexibility for countries to gather for their national emissions goal in any way they want. By recognizing domestic power, it provides flexibility at the countrywide level. It also has the look of fairness in that it focuses on the rich countries and those accountable for the greater part of the current stock of anthropogenic Green House Gases in the environment.

Apart from the potency, it has also some weaknesses. First, some of the world’s principal emitters are not constrained; for example, the United States of America has the major share of global releases. This has not been ratified, and it is improbable to ratify the accord. Also, some of the largest, most fast-rising economies globally do not take on target. These countries include Brazil, South Africa, South Korea, Mexico, among others. It is difficult for the state to attain the often discussed climate target of stabilizing the atmosphere (York, 2007). A second weakness is the comparatively small number of nations that have decided to take action. This attack will drive up the cost of producing carbon-intensive goods and services within the union of countries taking action. Through the forces of global trade, this approach results in greater comparative benefit in the manufacture of carbon-intensive goods and services for states that lack binding emission targets, thus irregular production and release from participating nations to non-participating nations. ( Palombi, 2011)

Canada was dynamic in the negotiation that resulted in the Kyoto protocol dated back in 1997, and the open-minded government that certified the accord in 1997 also ratified it in the assembly in 2002. Since Canada’s Kyoto aim was 6% and was incapable of control, it increased to 21%. The government of Canada then decided to sign the protocol signifying their withdrawal. This was because they were unable to control the rate of emission. I agree with the decision of Canada in that the protocol has avoided including the most world’s largest emitter of gases like the USA and China. (Palombi, 2011) The development of the new post- 2012 agreement will have the following changes: The government, in general, will have a big task to manage the emission of the gases. These will result in easy exposure to air-borne diseases and also undermining the national economy. The government will also invest more money in the new agreement, hence resulting in the wastage of funds (York, 2007).

In summary, the Kyoto protocol is viewed as a significant step towards a truly worldwide emission-reduction government that will establish greenhouse gas release and can provide the style for a future global agreement on weather change.