The Rudd government`s policy contrasts with that of the former Australian government, which refused to ratify the agreement on the grounds that compliance with the protocol would be costly. [8] On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated and a penultimate draft had been finalized), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed resolution Byrd Hail (p. Res. 98) by a vote of 95 to 0.[90][91], which stated that the Senate was of the view that the United States should not sign a protocol, nor did they contain binding targets and timetables for developing countries. as industrialized countries or „would cause serious damage to the economy of the United States.“ On 12 November 1998, Vice-President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be implemented in the Senate until developing countries participated. [92] The Clinton administration never submitted the minutes to the Senate for ratification. Morrison said he was „very confident“ that Australia would not have to use its Kyoto Protocol transfer credits – „which Australians deserve“ – to meet its 2030 Paris Agreement targets. The possibility of dealing with cases of non-compliance, i.e. dealing with countries that exceed their emission targets, remains undecided.
Approval of procedures and mechanisms for detecting and dealing with infringements is to be negotiated at COP4 in Buenos Aires in November 1998. The adoption of binding measures in the event of non-compliance requires an amendment to the Protocol subject to the checks and balances associated with the adoption and ratification of an amendment. Canada`s decision received a majority negative response from representatives of other countries that ratified it. [43] A spokesman for the French Foreign Ministry called the decision „bad news for the fight against climate change.“ [43] Japanese Environment Minister Goshi Hosono urged Canada to stay within the protocol. [43] Some countries, including India, were concerned that Canada`s decision would jeopardize future conferences. [43] Between 1990 and 2007, Norway`s greenhouse gas emissions increased by 12%. [73] Norway`s idea of climate neutrality is not only to directly reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions, but also to finance reforestation in China, a legal provision of the Kyoto Protocol. The government says it has earned the right to use the credits, which represent the amount of carbon dioxide by which Australia „beats“ the targets of the previous international climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol. President Barack Obama has not taken any action vis-à-vis the Senate that would change the U.S. position on the protocol. When Obama was in Turkey in April 2009, he said that „it makes no sense for the United States to sign [the Kyoto Protocol] because [it] is coming to an end.“ [102] At that time, there were two years and eleven months left of the four-year commitment period.
President Putin, together with the Russian cabinet[85], had already spoken out in September 2004 against the advice of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Ministry of Industry and Energy and the economic adviser to the then President, Andrei Illarionov, and in exchange for the EU`s support for Russia`s admission to the WTO. [86] [87] As expected, ratification by the House of Commons (October 22, 2004) and the Upper House of Parliament subsequently encountered no obstacles. As of June 14, 2009, 944 U.S. cities in 50 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, representing more than 80 million Americans, have backed Kyoto after Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels made a national effort to get cities to accept the protocol. [104] On 29. In October 2007, it was reported that Seattle had met its reduction target in 2005 and had reduced its greenhouse gas emissions by 8% since 1990. [105] In June 2002, Prime Minister Howard told the Australian Parliament that, as things stand, it was not in Australia`s interest to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The Prime Minister announced: „Given that the agreements currently exclude developing countries and the United States and will likely continue to exclude them in the current circumstances, ratifying the Protocol would cost us jobs and harm our industry.“ [8] Nevertheless, the Australian government has indicated that it remains committed to developing and investing funds in programmes to meet the Kyoto target. The government has stated that the target is in line with the Kyoto targets of other industrialized countries in terms of required economic adjustment. When the treaty was ratified in 2002, numerous surveys showed that support for the Kyoto Protocol was around 70%. [22] [23] Despite strong public support, there was still some resistance, particularly from the Canadian Alliance, a precursor to the ruling Conservative Party, some business groups[24] and energy companies, using arguments similar to those used in the United States. In particular, there was concern that Canadian companies would be at a disadvantage because U.S.
companies would not be affected by the Kyoto Protocol. In 2005, a „war of words“ was underway, primarily between Alberta, Canada`s largest oil and gas producer, and the federal government. India signed and ratified the Protocol in August 2002. As India is exempt from the treaty framework, it should benefit from the protocol in terms of technology transfer and related foreign investment. At the G8 meeting in June 2005, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh pointed out that the per capita emission rates of developing countries are only a tiny fraction of those of developed countries. Following the principle of shared but differentiated responsibility, India asserts that the primary responsibility for reducing emissions lies with developed countries that have accumulated emissions over a long period of time. ==References=====External links===And other Western countries claim that India, as well as China, will be responsible for most emissions in the coming decades due to its rapid industrialization and economic growth. Our strong comparative advantage lies in energy-intensive production. We have strong trade relations with developing countries, particularly in Asia. Our economy would be particularly vulnerable to any outcome that imposes unfair and unrealistic reduction targets. A major shortcoming of a ratified Kyoto Protocol is that without the participation of the United States and developing countries, about 75% of global emissions exceed its management and assessment. In addition, the commitments of the Kyoto Protocol in their current form will not change much to the main objective of stabilising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
The ultimate goal of the United Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), from which the Kyoto Protocol evolved, is to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels that would prevent dangerous human intervention in the climate system. The level at which atmospheric concentrations need to be stabilized has not yet been determined. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said long ago that stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels would require an immediate reduction in global emissions of about 60%. Climate extremes such as severe storms, floods and droughts are reported to be more common in many parts of the 21st century. The floods could displace tens of thousands of people living in countries like India, China and Bangladesh. More than half of Australia`s emissions commitment in Paris will come from controversial credits from previous targets Parties have reported a high level of uncertainty about LUCF emissions, but overall there appears to be only a small difference of 1.7% with and without LUCF. . . .
