Why Was The Paris Agreement A Better Argument Than The Kyoto Protocol

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which set legally binding emission reduction targets (as well as penalties for non-compliance) only for industrialized countries, the Paris Agreement requires all countries – rich, poor, developed and developing – to take their share and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. To this end, the Paris Agreement provides for greater flexibility: commitments that countries should make are not included, countries can voluntarily set their emissions targets and countries will not be penalized if they do not meet their proposed targets. But what the Paris agreement requires is to monitor, report and reassess, over time, the objectives of individual and collective countries, in order to bring the world closer to the broader objectives of the agreement. And the agreement stipulates that countries must announce their next round of targets every five years, contrary to the Kyoto Protocol, which was aimed at this target but which contained no specific requirements to achieve this goal. Unfortunately, the agreement does not correspond to the most difficult issue of these negotiations: the differentiation of efforts between all countries. When the Convention on Climate Change was adopted in Rio in 1992, countries were divided into two categories: historical emitters and the rest of the world. This distinction was based on the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and capabilities.” Today, the Paris Agreement adds the concept “in the light of national realities” to meet emerging countries and vaguely distinguishes “developed” and “developing” countries. In other words, it means that historical issuers are still the ones who are needed to shoulder most of the burden and continue to send emerging countries until they feel they have done enough. This legislation on the development of CO2 emissions is understandable, as many basic infrastructures that will need to be built (for example. B roads, buildings) will be emissions. But the way of sharing the carbon budget equitably has remained. This agreement therefore does not guarantee a fair share of the burden and will leave the most powerful countries as arbitrators.

Yes, there is broad consensus within the scientific community, although some deny that climate change is a problem, including politicians in the United States. When negotiating teams meet for international climate talks, “there is less skepticism about science and more disagreement about how to set priorities,” said David Victor, professor of international relations at the University of California, San Diego. The basic science is that, in terms of employment, the clean energy sector already employs more than 3 million Americans – about 14 times more than coal, gas, oil and other fossil fuel workers – and has the potential to invest much more in energy efficiency, renewable energy and modernizing electricity grids to replace the aging coal infrastructure. Implementation of the Clean Power Plan alone could create more than half a million jobs by 2030. Meanwhile, coal jobs are not so “relocated from America” – another Trump assertion – because they are victims of market forces, renewable energy and natural gas prices are falling. First, it would seem that the Paris Agreement is capable of creating sufficient demand, so that a solid carbon price develops.