The Registry of Nature Habitats

Home Page

Purchase The Registry of Nature Habitats Conservation Certificates

Introduction to Nature Habitats

Nature Habitats E-Books

Ask Us A Question


What You Can Do

Help the Planet



Save Our Forests
The Registry of Nature Habitats
PO Box 321
Meridale, NY 13806

Copyright 1999 - All Rights Reserved

Conservation Certificates

Back To Previous Page

Kyoto Treaty

Objectives | Status of Agreement | Details of Agreement | Emission Trading | Revisions
Government Positions |
Differentiated Responsibility
| Support for Kyoto
Opposition to Kyoto | Cost-Benefit Analysis | Glossary 

Opposition to Kyoto

The two major countries currently opposed to the treaty are the United States and Australia. Some public policy experts who are skeptical of global warming see Kyoto as a scheme to either retard the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative. Others argue the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions (Niue, The Cook Islands, and Nauru added notes to this effect when signing the protocol UNFCCC ).

Many environmental economists have been critical of the Kyoto Protocol.  Many see the costs of the Kyoto Protocol as outweighing the benefits, some believing the standards which Kyoto sets to be too optimistic, others seeing a highly inequitable and inefficient agreement which would do little to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It should be noted, however, that this opposition is not unanimous, and that the inclusion of emissions trading has led some environmental economists to embrace the treaty.

Further, there is a controversy to use 1990 as a base year, or not to use a per capita emission as a basis. Countries had different achievements in energy efficiency in 1990. For example, the former Soviet Union and eastern European countries did little to tackle the problem and their energy efficiency was at their worst level in 1990 as the year was just before their structural change, on the other hand Japan as a big importer of natural resources had to improve their efficiency after the 1973 oil crisis and their emission level in 1990 was better than most developed countries. However, such efforts were set aside, and the inactivity of the former Soviet was overlooked and could even generate big income due to the emission trade. There is an argument that the use of per capita emission as a basis in the following Kyoto-type treaties can reduce the inequality feelings among the developed and developing countries alike as it can reveal inactivities and responsibilities among countries.


Home Page | Our Sites
Help | Site Map | Auction | Classifieds | Advertising Rates
Benefits & Services
Special Features

Contact Us: | Report Site Errors | Suggestions/Comments | Advertising Opportunities| Privacy Notice

Green Credits

The Registry of Nature Habitats
PO Box 321
Meridale, NY 13806
Copyright 1999 - All Rights Reserved

Last Updated: