What is the Kyoto Protocol?
The landmark Kyoto Protocol is so famous that it is often misunderstood as a stand-alone agreement. Instead, it is what the name says: a protocol, in this case of the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on climate change. The treaty’s purpose is to regulate man-made greenhouse gas emissions with the goal of stabilizing global climate change.
Negotiations on the treaty were concluded in December 1997, with most of the signatories joining the treaty regime by March 1999. However, the treaty did not come into force until February 2005 with the ascension of Russia to the Kyoto regime. The United States also signed the treaty, doing so in 1998, but neither President Clinton nor President Bush submitted the treaty to the senate for ratification. Without that ratification, the American signature on the Kyoto Protocol is effectively worthless. This was compounded when the Bush administration abruptly and provocatively withdrew from Kyoto negotiations in April 2001. Currently, the United States remains the sole unratified signatory. Non-signatories include Afghanistan, Andorra, Brunei, Chad, Iraq, the Palestinian National Authority, San Marino, Taiwan and Zimbabwe.
The Kyoto Protocol binds a set of countries listed in Annex I to specific reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Annex I states are essentially the same as Western industrialized countries. The other signatories of the Kyoto Protocol have agreed to a more general principal of greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore China, who stands as the single largest polluter on Earth, is not bound to meet any specific reduction target by Kyoto.
The other key provision of the Kyoto Protocol is the cap and trade system. Annex I countries have a carbon emissions “cap,” or maximum limit imposed upon them. This requires them to reduce their emissions by an average of 5.2% of their 1990 emissions level by a target date between 2008 and 2012. However, there is a “trading” escape valve, where states or companies can buy “emissions credits” to make up the difference between actual performance and their established “cap.” The European Union actually created its own Emissions Trading Scheme in 2003 to serve as a market for emissions allowances.
Despite the lack of national participation, several U.S. states have formed an organization that operates under Kyoto-like terms, including a cap and trade emissions system. This is called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative and consists of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Massachusetts, and Maryland. While not joining the group, California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a law that calls for California to cut it’s emission to Kyoto-like levels. In addition, dozens of US cities have independent greenhouse gas emissions reductions programs.
Critics of the Kyoto Protocol focus on a cost-benefit analysis of the actions called for by the treaty, and note that the cuts called for by the Protocol will have only a small impact on global warming. They also note that by effectively leaving countries such as India and especially China out of the system it does not address major sources of emissions that are still growing. After all, while the United States is the world’s largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide, its growth rate is effectively frozen or in marginal decline. China’s emissions are the largest in absolute terms and growing explosively.
However, the Kyoto Protocol was never intended to be the end-all, be-all treaty regarding carbon emissions and climate change. It was only ever intended to be the necessary first step to start the process. Any successor agreements would call for another round of emissions reductions, and it is doubtful that such a treaty would be ratified even by the parliaments of Kyoto-enthusiasts in Europe and Japan if it did not include at least an emissions freeze on countries like Brazil, China and India. However, the big missing link still remains the United States and without American participation, the Kyoto Protocol remains only partially workable.
Author: John O’Hara
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Digital Camera News
Tyvek Envelopes and the Environment
I use those “can’t be torn” Tyvek envelopes a lot for shipping and was wondering one day, “are these actually recyclable?” I did some homework and thought I’d share the results.
Tyvek products are actually made by DuPont and are high density polyethylene which is 100% recyclable. To you and me, that’s the same plastic as those plastic containers with a number 2 on it. So, it’s recyclable when my local municipality picks up my curbside recycling right? Not quite. These envelopes are a special case.
These Tyvek envelopes are only recyclable at the manufacturer, i.e. they can only be recycled if you send them back to Dupont. Don’t despair though, Dupont has instructions on their website telling you that you can turn one envelope inside out and stuff it with your scrap tyvek. Then address the envelope and send it back to them. If you have a lot more of these, contact Dupont and they will discuss programs with you.
Too much work for the average person? Possibly. We all have different levels of what we are willing to do for the environment. Rest assured though, if your Tyvek envelope ends up in landfill, it is chemically inert and contains no binders. It will not leach into groundwater. Dupont also reports that it is safe to incinerate their product. This may be a possibility for municipal services, however, I don’t recommend this course of action for you and your neighbours. Feel free to google the Dupont site for more information (no I don’t work for Dupont). I just want to ensure that as many people as possible are recycling what they can. Whether you believe in global warming or not, we can certainly use a little less garbage in the landfill.
Author: Tracey J Smith
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Humorous photo captions
Understanding Our Carbon Footprint
Climate change is a global issue which demands the immediate attention of all organizations, governments and individuals alike. Today there are forward-thinking organizations which have begun voluntarily declaring their GHG emissions for reasons such as risk management, cost reduction, brand protection, and attracting socially responsible investment.
Carbon Dioxide is one the largest components of the Greenhouse Gases which is warming our planet. By being fully aware of the impact our Carbon Footprint we can begin to reduce it and thereby reduce the impact on the environment. Carbon offset schemes tend to focus on fast-growing trees, such as eucalyptus and pine, which are non-native and have a much lower environmental and biodiversity benefit than native species.
Tree plantations also require more water than grasses and shrubs. Carbon reduction includes, cutting the consumption of electricity, energy, gasoline while carbon offsetting may include usage of alternative sources of energy for example planting more trees.
Carbon dioxide emissions are associated with power plants and industrial activities but really all businesses and organizations such as offices, shops, banks, hospitals, schools and local authorities emit carbon dioxide. All of these examples whether directly or indirectly emit CO2.
All of these examples need electricity for lighting and to run computers and other equipment. Carbon offsetting alone won’t stop climate change. The best offset is the one that doesn’t need to be created. Carbon Dioxide is a colourless, tasteless, odourless and non-toxic gas.
CO2 is recognized as a greenhouse gas, of which increasing levels in the atmosphere are linked to global warming and climate change.
Carbon Offsets is definitely the way forward for supporting renewable energy, energy conservation or reforestation projects that either displaces prevent carbon. They enable individuals and businesses to take accountability for their carbon footprint. Carbon emissions need to be tackled by planning to prevent them from being emitted, rather than emitting and then attempting to offset.
Author: Richard Coppin
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Android tablet, netbook
Your Personal Kyoto Protocol – Our Individual Responsibility To Reduce Greenhouse Gases
It is now time for each and every one of us to make a positive effort to help reduce the impact of Global Warming on our good earth. The official cause for global warming has been unequivocally determined at the 2007 IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) meeting in Paris France. Established in 1988 by the the United Nations, the IPCC has just completed its 4th Assessment Report, which has established that global warming has been human-caused and for the most part greenhouse gases have been the largest contributor to the acceleration of global warming. Effects of global warming will definitely be experienced in this century.
Reducing greenhouse gases. What can we individually do in-parallel-to and in-advance-of government decrees, programs and laws?
We can do lots! But here are FOUR areas to consider right now!
1. The always can-do-more Recycle-Reuse now includes in our house the extended use of jars or plastic containers to store leftovers. And they are used in my workshop for paint, paint thinners and wood filler before recycling them. Keep containers and jars in use longer and resist the use of those “burping” containers.
2. Encourage your employer to implement a partial or full Work From Home Program (Telecommuting as it was referred to in earlier times). This is particularly appropriate for office jobs that involve sales, marketing and telephone support. Fact is, most of these roles are characterized by computer / web use, telephone / conference calls and on-site customer visits. Think of the reduced automobile traffic that could result from such a responsible program. Even if your office were to implement a 1 or 2 day per week Work from Home program, you reduce gas emissions and while creating cubicle sharing program, which will also reduce business overhead costs. Progressive companies like Dell, Microsoft and Sun Microsystems have such Work From Home Programs.
3. Plan, reduce and eliminate those automobile trips to the mall, grocery store, sports or fitness event. Car Pool with neighbors and consolidate trips for supplies. Wow! Just like they did in pioneer times. Time to plan one or two days per week when you do all the “going into town for supplies”. Walk, take the bus or subway instead of your carbon generating greenhouse gas emitting vehicle.
4. On-line shopping as an alternative way to shop. You not only save gas but also reduce the wear-and-tear on on your vehicle. No travel time and no parking expenses further respects your valuable time and saves money. Products purchased on-line are conveniently delivered directly to your door. On-line internet shopping [http://www.coolcomfortwear.com] makes even more sense to those in rural communities, where they are typically farther away from shopping centers.
Time to get to know your neighbor, expand your circle of friends and acquaintances, reduce the use of your automobile(s). Claim it as your own Personal Kyoto Protocol.
Author: Carl Chesal
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Android Smartphone
Warning to Marketing Companies and Businesses on Environmental Labeling and Claims
We all know that the Federal Trade Commission guards us against deceptive advertising, especially in things like Weight Loss Programs, Health Products and Business Opportunities. Many times the FTC goes over board, attacking honest companies, and other times they catch a scam artist red-handed.
What about environmental claims, you know the marketers that go after Green Consumers who want to help the environment and buy good products? Well, the Federal Trade Commission is looking into this too. From now on, if you cannot prove it, most likely you cannot say it on the Internet, in an advertisement or on the radio or TV. Why all the fuss, well apparently it is being abused.
Meanwhile the FTC is creating new “advertising rules” for those who claim “environmental friendly” on their labels, and that is going to cause alarm and concern to many companies who are not walking the walk. What the heck, perhaps buying green products is in your future.
This will very much will affect the Venture Capital crowd, AL Gore & Associates and the little guy, The Green Entrepreneur, who is trying, but got caught by the “rule maker – rule breaker” business as usual games. Accountability is the name of their game and deceptive advertising is something they are going after, this time in the name of the environment.
Will this make businesses walk their talk or will it cause companies to stop trying and go for price and do little if anything to help the environment? Will consumers pay more for green products and services or will we simply find fewer companies willing to go out of their way? Think on this, it is rather serious if you consider the ramifications of what this means to the future of Green.
Author: Lance Winslow
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Eco Friendly