The Adoption of the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Tomaž Gerden
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
The United Nations

The measures at the level of the United Nations have been implemented in light of the scientific research on the increasing emissions of gases, predominantly created during fossil fuels combustion, which cause the warming of the atmosphere and result in harmful climate change effects. The adoption of this measures has also been demanded by non-governmental environmental organisations. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted by the leaders of the intergovernmental organisation members at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in June 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. After the ratification process, it came into force in March 1994. It also provided for the drawing-up of an appendix: a Protocol on the obligatory reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The Parties to the Framework Convention started the negotiations at their first annual conference COP1 in Berlin in March and April 1995. Due to their modest greenhouse gas emissions per capita and their right to development, the developing states demanded that the obligatory reductions of these emissions only be implemented by the industrially-developed countries. In the latter camp, the European Union favoured a tougher implementation; the United States of America argued for a less demanding agreement due to the pressure of the oil and coal lobbies; while the OPEC member countries were against all measures. After lengthy negotiations, the Protocol was adopted at the end of the COP3 Conference in Kyoto on 11 December 1997. It only involved a group of industrially developed countries, which undertook to reduce their emissions by 5.2 %, on average, until the year 2012 in comparison with the base-year of 1990. In the EU as well as in Slovenia, an 8 % reduction was implemented. As the United States of America withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2001, its ratification was delayed. It came into force on 16 February 2005, after it had been ratified by more than 55 UN member states, together responsible for more than 55 % of the total global greenhouse gas emissions.

scholarly journals The Paris Climate Agreement and the Three Largest Emitters: China, the United States, and the European Union

2016 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 219-223 ◽  
Author(s):  
Miranda A. Schreurs
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
European Union ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Emission Reduction ◽  
Global Climate ◽  
The United States ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Gas Emissions

The Paris Agreement would not have come into being had China, the United States (US), and the European Union (EU), which together contribute more than half of all global greenhouse gas emissions, not signaled their intent to take major steps to reduce their domestic emissions. The EU has been at the forefront of global climate change measures for years having issued binding domestic emission reduction targets for 2020 and 2030. For many years, China refused to announce a target date for when it might begin reducing its greenhouse gas emissions, and the US Congress blocked action on climate change.  In the lead up to the Paris climate negotiations, however, there were major shifts in China’s and the US’s climate positions. This commentary examines the climate policies of the three largest emitters and the factors motivating the positions they took in the Paris negotiations. Given that the commitments made in Paris are most likely insufficient to keep global temperature from rising 2 °C above pre-industrial levels, the commentary also considers what the likelihood is that these three major economies will strengthen their emission reduction targets in the near future.

What We Can Do

2021 ◽  
pp. 182-188
Author(s):  
Michael P. Hoffmann ◽  
Carrie Koplinka-Loehr ◽  
Danielle L. Eiseman
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Knowing That

Farmers, food businesses, and scientists are doing their part. Now let’s turn to what each of us can do. Knowing that climate change poses increasing risks to the foods and beverages we need and love, we must adapt and cut greenhouse gas emissions in every way possible. Those of us living in rich nations such as the United States are the biggest contributors to climate change and are best positioned to tackle it....

FISHING FROM THE SAME POOL: THE INFLUENCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL GOVERNANCE ON LOCAL CLIMATE CHANGE ACTIONS IN SCOTLAND AND THE US PACIFIC NORTHWEST

2012 ◽  
Vol 14 (02) ◽  
pp. 1250011 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTHONY JACKSON ◽  
BARBARA ILLSLEY ◽  
WILLIAM LYNCH
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Pacific Northwest ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Local Climate ◽  
Local Climate Change

The impact of environmental governance on the delivery of local climate change plans is examined by comparing two transatlantic sub-national jurisdictions which have adopted stringent targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions: Scotland and the Pacific Northwest region of the United States of America. The former relies on dirigiste top-down environmental governance, through which central government sets targets and imposes statutory duties that apply equally to all local councils. In the latter, a bottom-up multi-level form of environmental governance has emerged to compensate for the absence of a federal mandate. Specific action plans from a climate change pioneer in each location are assessed to test the strengths and limitations of these alternative modes of environmental governance: Portland in Oregon and Fife in Scotland. The Scottish dirigiste approach offers its local councils a consistent policy framework, allowing them to focus on specific measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, while avoiding concerns about free-rider effects from non-participating councils. The asymmetrical uptake of climate change measures by United States municipalities exposes their domestic market to the risks of carbon leakage that America sought to avoid in global markets during negotiations over the Kyoto Protocol.

scholarly journals Climate Change Will Make Us Sicker and Lose Work Hours

Eos ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenessa Duncombe
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Work Hours ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Lower Productivity ◽  
To Come

Experts have given the United States a warning: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or suffer the consequences of lower productivity and a sicker population for generations to come.

Cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas emissions from dams in the United States of America

2018 ◽  
Vol 90 ◽  
pp. 945-956 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cuihong Song ◽  
Kevin H. Gardner ◽  
Sharon J.W. Klein ◽  
Simone Pereira Souza ◽  
Weiwei Mo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Emissions

scholarly journals US Federal Climate Change Law in Obama’s Second Term†

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-125 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael B. Gerrard ◽  
Shelley Welton
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Power Plants ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Statutory Authority ◽  
International Climate ◽  
Judicial Remedies

AbstractThis commentary details the United States’ progress in advancing climate change law since President Barrack Obama’s re-election in 2012, in spite of congressional dysfunction and opposition. It describes how the Obama administration is building upon earlier regulatory efforts by using existing statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from both new and existing power plants. It also explains the important role the judiciary has played in facilitating more robust executive actions, while at the same time courts have rejected citizen efforts to force judicial remedies for the problem of climate change. Finally, it suggests some reasons why climate change has gained more prominence in the Obama administration’s second term agenda and considers how domestic actions help the United States to reposition itself in international climate diplomacy.

The All-Consuming Nation Imperiled

2021 ◽  
pp. 420-442
Author(s):  
Mark H. Lytle
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Economic Growth ◽  
Global Warming ◽  
Middle East ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Private And Public

This chapter focuses on what the author calls the Obama dilemma (muddied and muddled by the advent of Donald Trump): how, or do we, sustain economic growth in the era of global warming? It argues that George W. Bush failed substantially to identify the vital issues facing the United States during his presidency. Rather than mire the United States in unwinnable wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he needed to recognize the perils of climate change, US dependence on Middle East oil, and growing debt in the private and public sectors. Obama, by contrast, confronted all those issues, only to have the oppositional politics of Mitch McConnell and other Republicans. They sought to destroy his presidency even if they damaged the nation in the process. It concludes with a look at fracking as it shifted the geopolitics of energy while threatening to complicate the issue of greenhouse gas emissions.

scholarly journals Synthesis of Climate Change Policy in Judicial, Executive, and Legislative Branches of U.S. Government

2011 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Brinkmann ◽  
Sandra Jo Garren
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
Environmental Protection Agency ◽  
Climate Change Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court System ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
The U.S

In recent years, the United States has struggled to develop a comprehensive policy for climate change and concomitant greenhouse gas emissions that addresses the current scientific thinking on the topic. The absence of any clear legislative or executive approach dominated national discussions and the court system was used to litigate a variety of issues associated with global warming. This paper synthesizes actions taken in the three branches of government prior to and immediately following the Obama election. In the Judicial branch, several branches of law have been used to force government and private parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the historic greenhouse gas lawsuit, Massachusetts et al. v. the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and under the direction of the Obama administration, the U.S. EPA has taken significant action to regulate greenhouse gases. In the legislative branch, a comprehensive energy and climate bill passed the House of Representatives and comparable and alternate energy and climate bills were debated in the Senate indicating hope for legislation in the 111th Congress. However, these bills proved to be unsuccessful, therefore leaving the U.S. EPA and the courts the only options for national climate policy in the near future.

scholarly journals Allocation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Using the Fairness Principle: A Multi-Country Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (14) ◽  
pp. 5839
Author(s):  
Laura Rodríguez-Fernández ◽  
Ana Belén Fernández Carvajal ◽  
María Bujidos-Casado
Keyword(s):  
Climate Change ◽  
United States ◽  
Greenhouse Gas Emissions ◽  
Greenhouse Gas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Gas Emissions ◽  
Large Sample ◽  
Academic Literature ◽  
Country Analysis ◽  
Fairness Principle

This study presents an analysis of the allocation of greenhouse gas emissions based on a comparison of criteria for 66 countries and fairness-based indicators. The academic literature contains very few broad multi-country studies. The large sample of countries included in our analysis has allowed us to make a more comprehensive, holistic comparison than other studies with similar characteristics. The United States and China must make the greatest effort to fight climate change worldwide, but all countries have a responsibility, including some that are not usually analyzed in this type of research.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document