Kyoto: A Meaningless Symbol
Whether the Kyoto Protocol is a path to a cleaner future or a meaningless symbol has
been a much-debated issue. Apparently, the treaty offers various propositions that can ensure a
clean future. However, the treaty is fatally flawed in meaningful ways making it a meaningless
symbol in the fight for cleanliness of the environment. This is because there is an idea of climate
injustice in the protocol and its ineffectiveness in emission trading in promoting investment in
non-fossil energy.
The treaty was signed in 1992 to assist in the reductions of greenhouse gasses. However,
it failed to strike a balance between the high vulnerability and low emissions of the developing
world and high emissions in the developed countries (Prins & Rayner, 2007). From the treaty,
developing countries such as China and India were not given the mandate to reduce emissions
because they seemed to contribute a small percentage of greenhouse gasses. On the other hand,
US was a developed country had withdrawn from the protocol citing that the treaty was flawed.
In the end, China and the US were the biggest emitters which discouraged the efforts done by
other nations to reduce emissions.
Moreover, the treaty only puts the public investment in fossil rather than non-fossil
energy. The flexibility mechanism of the agreement does not promote investment in non-fossil
energy sources which ends up affecting the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects in
the developing nations (Gulbrandsen & Andresen, 2004). It should instead balance investment in
both fossil and non-fossils.
Although the Kyoto Protocol was meant for protection of the environmental, it has
numerous mistakes that render it a meaningless symbol. To begin with, it fails to take into
consideration the varying degree of emissions of various countries. Furthermore, it is ineffective
