Why Was The Paris Agreement A Better Argument Than The Kyoto Protocol

Secondly, the exclusion of least developed countries from emission reductions, in particular Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC), makes the Kyoto Protocol unfair (6). The reason for this argument is that China, in particular, ranked second in the world in global CO2 emissions in the 1990s with 16% after the United States (22%) (12). China is currently the world`s largest emitter of CO2 with 28.21%, while the United States was at 15.99% in 2016 (see Fig. 1). In addition, the US has argued that 80% of the world`s population lives in DDCs and that they contribute significantly to global emissions, so their exclusion is a distributive injustice (3). Currently, 197 countries – every nation on earth, the last signatory being war-torn Syria – have adopted the Paris Agreement. Of these, 179 have solidified their climate proposals with formal approval – including the US for now. The only major emitting countries that have not yet officially joined the deal are Russia, Turkey and Iran. The Paris Climate Agreement consists of 12 pages and is accompanied by 19 pages of decisions listing all the options to be implemented or developed under this new agreement. It will have consequences in various international agreements, from trade to agriculture, the Sustainable Development Goals, humanitarian aid, etc.

Within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the implementation and continuation of negotiations to develop solutions continue every year. The failure of the Paris Agreement to reach a legally binding pact underlines Rosen`s argument that the Kyoto Protocol was a disadvantage for the climate solution that should have been adopted in 1997 (7). However, this contradicts Robert`s argument that US hegemony in climate policy is in decline (53). The total refusal of the United States to accept the Paris Agreement, with the exception of the BASIC Group, to accept emission reductions, gives it credibility. Nevertheless, the planned withdrawal of the United States from the Paris Agreement underlies my criticism of the position (7,28,38,39) that the Kyoto Protocol is a complete failure, because if the Paris Agreement were legally binding, the United States would not have the flexibility to leave without penalties. .