Obama administration President Obama was elected under the widely held belief that shortly after taking office, he would take swift and decisive action to join the world in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and thus help fight global climate change. According to The American, “it was generally expected that Obama would quickly adopt a Kyoto-style national cap-and-trade program that would allow America to gain the moral upper hand in Copenhagen, inciting (or forcing) China and India to agree to emissions targets.”  Signing the Kyoto Protocol seemed like the first logical step, so it was surprising that he rejected the Kyoto Protocol for reasons similar to those of former President Bush. According to The American, “the fundamental shortcomings of the treaty were well understood: it set very ambitious – and costly – targets for the United States, while emissions from developing countries could continue to rise uncontrollably. (And indeed, today, despite Kyoto`s ratification, China has become the world`s largest emitter of greenhouse gases.) The Americans do not hesitate to contribute to a solution, but Kyoto has demanded a lot of sacrifices for little reward.  President Obama was also scheduled to represent the United States in Copenhagen and negotiate the terms of the extension of the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012. But instead of the U.S. helping to craft and sign a Kyoto-like treaty, the U.S. is proposing extreme changes to Kyoto`s emissions management system, sparking intense debate and confrontation over which treaty Kyoto will follow. Many countries fear that these new treaty changes will cripple negotiations and prevent many countries currently under the Kyoto Protocol from re-signing, as well as new countries such as China and India from signing them. “The Obama administration`s proposals could undermine a new global treaty and weaken the world`s ability to avoid the worst effects of climate change.”  Some argue that the Protocol does not go far enough to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Niue, cook Islands and Nauru added guidance when the Protocol was signed).  Some environmental economists have criticized the Kyoto Protocol.    Many [who?] consider the costs of the Kyoto Protocol to be predominant, some believe that the standards set by Kyoto are too optimistic, others a very unfair and ineffective agreement that would do little to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  [full citation required] Permalink: www.epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2016/4/failures-of-kyoto-will-repeat-with-the-paris-climate-agreement Are participating countries on track to achieve the objectives of the Protocol? President William J.
Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol but did not ratify it, while President G.W. Bush completely abolished the signature. Clinton believed that a country-by-country approach to reducing greenhouse gases was the best way to address the problems of climate change caused by human activities. However, he was not entirely convinced of the treaty and the Senate refused to sign it without further negotiation. According to the World Climate Coalition, “the Clinton administration recognizes that the protocol is a `work in progress,` does not meet the requirements that the Senate unanimously set last year to sign the protocol, and does not want to be submitted to the Senate for approval.” The protocol also creates a kind of “policy toolbox” to reduce emissions. For example, it encourages countries to set up markets for the purchase and sale of carbon credits. The idea is that a low-emission company could sell its clean air credits to a company with higher emission levels. A similar mechanism allows companies to obtain carbon credits by financing projects such as solar farms or tree plantations that suck up carbon in developing countries. When the White House announced last week that it would withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, it was hard not to hear the echo of the Bush administration`s decision to submit the Kyoto Protocol – the world`s first international climate agreement to reduce emissions, forged in 1997 – to the Senate for ratification or implementation of the protocol. In both cases, a new administration burst into the White House and rejected a hard-won and hard-fought international climate agreement after the country initially signed it. Of course, the U.S. Senate had signaled that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol anyway, but the Bush administration`s announcement still served as a nail in the coffin of U.S.
participation in the treaty. We have seen this before. Remember Kyoto. Clinton did not have the support of the Senate. Yet Clinton fired her ambassador to the UN to sign it. What precision? Well, accurate enough that most climatologists agree on a number – 2 degrees Celsius. This is the amount they believe global average temperatures (relative to pre-industrial levels) can rise before the effects of the climate crisis become much more dangerous and unpredictable. This level of increase in global temperature is roughly equivalent to the carbon dioxide (CO2) content in the atmosphere of 450 parts per million (PPM). Just last month, a researcher at the London School of Economics and Political Science discovered that it is possible that Chinese emissions have already peaked.
No wonder the country commissions a new coal-fired power plant every 10 days. In 2001, the United States officially rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and if you look at the Kyoto record, that is a very good thing. The United Nations has published reports in support of the Kyoto Protocol.  Supporters of Kyoto said it was a first step towards achieving the UNFCCC`s ultimate goal of preventing dangerous climate change.   It states that the Protocol will be revised to achieve this objective, as required by Article 4(2)(d) of the UNFCCC.  A study by Gupta et al. from 2007 onwards evaluated the climate policy literature, which showed no authoritative assessment of the UNFCCC or its protocol that claims that these agreements have completely or will successfully solve the climate problem.  It was assumed that the UNFCCC or its protocol would not be amended. The Framework Convention and its Protocol contain provisions for future policy measures. As a reminder, in 1997, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change adopted the Kyoto Protocol, which sets binding targets and timetables for reducing greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries such as the United States and the European Union. Meanwhile, developing countries such as China, India and Brazil have received a free pass.
In fact, the Kyoto Protocol exempted 80% of the world from reducing greenhouse gas emissions. According to Liverman (2008), some of the former Soviet satellites wanted a base year to reflect their highest emissions before their industrial collapse. A high emission baseline was an advantage for countries whose emissions had subsequently declined due to economic collapse. On the other hand, some of the former Soviet countries see their excess emissions as compensation for the trauma of economic restructuring.  President Emmanuel Macron: The world “will succeed because we are fully committed to the Paris Agreement”. Donald Trump`s withdrawal from the Paris climate agreement this afternoon was not the first time a US president has thrown a global climate agreement overboard. Many U.S. local governments have decided that some sort of international greenhouse gas limit is inevitable. They therefore want to ensure that their local economy remains competitive in a world with “carbon constraints”. More than 150 U.S. mayors are running programs to reduce emissions.
And more than 400 U.S. cities supported and joined Kyoto in 2005. At the state level, more than a dozen states have proposed various types of caps on emissions from power plants and automobiles, promising to promote cleaner energy sources. For example, eight northeastern states are developing an initiative that sets emission caps at the state level and establishes a trade agenda. California is also a major player in the state. He proposed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, a 25% reduction from planned levels. . Baylis et al. (2011)  argued that a successful international climate policy would require further emission reductions from developing countries such as China and India. Australia is the only other industrialized country to side with the United States.
Why did he reject the treaty? The United States has now concluded a pact with several Asian countries, the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate. Participants want to implement an alternative strategy to combat climate change. It is a technological operation to make fossil fuels cleaner by introducing clean coal and nuclear power. It also promotes the application and introduction of carbon sinks to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. .