HWK

Exam practice:Explain why the impact of future climate change is likely to be more severe in developing countries

than in the UK.

The Kyoto Protocol

novi

nite

.com

The Kyoto Protocol• Created in Kyoto in 1997 It aimed to

reduce the emission of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to below 1990 levels by the year 2012.

• The Protocol came in to effect and became a Treaty in February 2005 when countries accounting for 55% of greenhouse gas emissions in the world signed up to the Protocol.

Countries Ratifying the Kyoto Protocol

Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, as of June 2009,

Green = Countries that have signed and ratified the treatyGrey = Countries that have not yet decidedRed = No intention to ratify at this stage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol is based on a carbon trading scheme

As each country produces CO2, it must be able to

contain/absorb that CO2 by planting trees or other

processes that can absorb itOR…

It can reduce the CO2 it produces in the first place

Carbon Credits

If a country produces more CO2 than it can absorb, it has to buy “carbon credits” from another country that has earned carbon by cutting its own levels.The money made by selling carbon is used to give grants to carbon saving schemes, e.g. promoting wind power, “fuel switching”

“Carbon Credits” scheme

The Kyoto Protocol-An update

The first phase of Kyoto expired in 2012. It had some success but also some issues. Some countries' emissions increased since they signed the Kyoto Protocol.

Many other countries (such as most European countries, the UK and Scotland) have however succeeded in reducing their emissions.

Most agree that too little has been done to stop climate change and that Kyoto targets weren’t harsh enough. It is believed that emissions will need to be cut by at least 80% to prevent the climate from becoming dangerously unstable.

Copenhagen Summit / Copenhagen Accord

The Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) took place in Copenhagen in December 2009. This was the largest climate change gathering ever to take place with the aim to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

No new Kyoto Protocol was agreed at Copenhagen.

A new Kyoto Protocol?

Name three advantages of using trees to tackle global warming.

Name two types of renewable energy.

Name one reason against the use of nuclear power to tackle global warming.

Why aren’t we tackling climate change?

More Economically Developed Country.

(M.E.D.C.)

Less Economically Developed Country.

(L.E.D.C.)

Governments are only elected for five years,

therefore they can only think short-term. It would

be political suicide to make harsh decisions now that

would upset the electorate.

MEDC’s sold us the technology for our power stations and industry and

now they want us to spend more money updating, this

is not fair.

We want the same quality of life such as MEDC’s why

should we sacrifice our economic development and keep our people in

poverty. 

The MEDC’s have caused this problem. It is their

industry that has produced all the pollution.

Hypocrites! They tell us to conserve our forests, but what did they do to

theirs? We need to develop this natural

resource to improve our quality of life.

There is no solid evidence for global warming. The

earth has naturally cooled and warmed throughout its

history.

LEDC’s are the ones producing too much pollution with all their

outdated technology, they should update!

How can we justify spending money on the environment, when huge sections of our population

live in poverty?

We are deep in debt to MEDC countries; they should provide us with

more money to tackle the problems of global

warming.

Adapting industry, vehicles, homes will be

expensive for all parties. This will not be

popular.

Trans-national energy companies such as Esso have huge political power, they backed Bush to the Whitehouse and then he decided to pull out of the

Kyoto protocol!

We are newly industrialising countries, why should we limit our industrial development.

MEDC’s have become rich from exploiting their

environment.

Global warming knows no national boundaries. There

is no point in the EU working towards reducing

its carbon dioxide emissions agreed through the Kyoto protocol if the USA the biggest polluter

continues to pollute. 

MEDC have a moral responsibility to help us

combat and prepare for the impact of global warming, they have sustained their

quality of life through exploiting our natural

resources and people.

Rising fuel prices will be highly unpopular, and

could result in civil unrest. Industry will be hit, as will the less able and affluent members of our society such as

the elderly or the disabled.

With so many countries in the world, any type of agreement is difficult.

We are a rich country we will be able to protect

ourselves from the impact of global warming.

We would have the money to tackle global warming

and raise our quality of life if only MEDC’s would trade

fairly with us.

We rely on Multinationals such as Esso and BP to

extract our natural resources and provide jobs and income for a country.

Renewable energies are not cost effective or advanced yet to provide

for all our energy needs.

There are much more important areas to spend

money on now. The war on Terrorism is the biggest threat to global security.

What right do MEDC countries have to tell us

how to run our industry and look after our environment? This just smells of good old

colonialism.

Putting taxes on industries that produce Carbon

dioxide would be unpopular. Companies could leave the country resulting in job loss. The price of goods may also increase for consumers.

Even when countries do come to agreement, they cheat! All countries have

carbon dioxide quotas, but MEDC’s purchase carbon dioxide quotas off LEDC’s and continue to produce

more!

Even if countries agree to tackle Global

Warming, it does not mean that they are

actually going to meet their targets.

Countries according to Greenhouse emissions.

1. Why might LEDCs like India not want to sign up to agreements to reduce their CO2 emissions?

2. Why might MEDCs not want to sign agreements to limit their CO2 emissions?

3. Which country do you agree with more? Why?