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


Search entire site for specific information!


Research

What You Can Do

Help the Planet

Informative

 

Save Our Forests
The Registry of Nature Habitats™
PO Box 351
Delhi, NY 13753

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.

.


 
Carbon Certificates

    Email
    First Name
    Last Name
    Subscribe Unsubscribe
        Stay informed, Sign-up for our newsletter today!

    Stop spam! The Registry of Nature Habitats will not sell or trade any email addresses. We will  just send you interesting information and the occasional solicitation to help us continue our work. Please read our Privacy Policy for more information.

    Tell A Friend About This Web Site:

    Your Name
    Your Email
    Friend's Name
    Friend's Email
    A Quick Note

    Privacy Info: We DO NOT store your name, your email, your friends name, or your friends email in any form. It is ONLY used to generate an email message.


     
    Home Page   |   Our Sites
    Help   |   Site Map   |   Auction   |   Classifieds   |   Advertising Rates   
     
    Benefits & Services
      Weather  |    Join The Webring    |   Calendar of Events
     
    Special Features

    Voting Booth   |   Site Survey   |   Link Resources   |   The Registry Blog
     

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

    Green Credits


    The Registry of Nature Habitats™
    PO Box 351
    Delhi, NY 13753
    Copyright © 1999 - All Rights Reserved
    Last Updated: