PrintImportant concepts to take away from this lesson
We have seen that there have been a number of international efforts, each with starts and stops. Efforts get started, then stall, then restart in some cases. We have also learned that international tools have inherent limitations and drawbacks that present challenges. Issues such as enforcement, funding, consistency in metrics, and other issues introduce complexity. As we move forward, we might see in the future that there are other tools and approaches that are more effective.
It is interesting to note that being a treaty signatory does not guarantee that the country will meet its goals, and not being a signatory does not mean that the country is not making progress. The United States and part of Europe are an interesting study in in this anomaly. US emissions slightly increased between 1998 and 2009, then have been on a steady decline since then; during the stops and starts of Kyoto and Paris-and everything in between. An interesting paper by Michael Cary of Virginia Tech demonstrates that the US emissions trend during the Kyoto period was essentially the same as that for treaty signatories.
Whereas the US did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol, it essentially met what would have been its commitment. Conversely, several European signatories to Kyoto did not meet their goals. We see the same issue with the Paris Agreement- signatories are not on track to meet the goals.
Regardless of what is the vehicle in place in the future at the international level, it will need to contend with:
- Choosing the right measures and metrics
- Addressing the funding issue, without putting undue financial burden on countries.
- Dealing with developed vs undeveloped countries and where they are in the development of their economies
- Enforcement mechanisms
Reminder - Complete all tasks!
You have reached the end of the Lesson! Double-check the Lesson Requirements in Canvas to make sure you have completed all of the tasks listed there.