Kyoto Protocol vs. Montreal Protocol

            During the last couple weeks, our International Relations class has learned about a wide variety of topics like international justice, the environment, and terrorism. The lecture that has stood out the most for me is the environment lecture. For years, the Kyoto Protocol has not been effective in reducing the amount of global carbon emissions, and I never understood why that was the case. However, after learning about how effective the Montreal Protocol was at fixing the ozone layer, I realized that there are key differences in the two plans that aren’t allowing the Kyoto Protocol to be as effective as it could be. If the differences were addressed, the negative effects of global climate change could be lessened and the environment would safer overall.

            One of the key differences between the Montreal Protocol and the Kyoto Protocol is that the Montreal Protocol was actually legitimized by the United States. In other words, the United States realized that ozone depletion was an important issue, and they realized that they had to do something to fix the problem. The United States hasn’t really legitimized the Kyoto Protocol which is problematic because the US is a developed nation with one of the highest levels of carbon emissions. Since the US doesn’t legitimize the severity of the amount of carbon emissions, they’re not taking the adequate measures to lower them. Another difference is that with the Montreal Protocol, the negative externalities of the depleting ozone were being felt globally. It was a problem that was causing increases in skin cancer around the world. However, one of the problems with the Kyoto Protocol is that global climate change is not an immediate threat to the human population in the short term. There aren’t any obvious health concerns that can be blamed solely on global climate change. For this reason, many countries don’t take the Kyoto Protocol as seriously as they should because the imminent threat of global climate change isn’t overtly present yet.

One solution to this problem is to create rules so that every country has to reduce their carbon emissions by the same number. While this may not be realistic, ideally this would take away any uncertainty between states, and give every state a common goal. Another solution is to make renewable energy resources more readily available. If new technologies were used in place of carbon fossil fuels, then lowering carbon emissions wouldn’t be such a daunting task. I truly believe that states can come together to make an agreement that will actually stop global climate change, especially as more species become extinct and more problems arise from pollution.