The Kyoto Protocol: Conflicting Views
             The Kyoto Protocol was born from the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio on environment and sustainable development. Over the years, the Kyoto Protocol has been contentious at the least with the major activists being the European Union and environmental organizations. The Protocol also boats an array of prominent critics such as George W. Bush, The National Bank of New Zealand, and the Fraser Institute.
             To sort through the complexity of the conflicting views of the Kyoto Protocol is insurmountably impossible within the confines of this paper. The purpose of this paper is to examine five arguments in favour of the Kyoto Protocol, five critiques against the Kyoto Protocol and finally Canada's progress towards implementing the Kyoto Protocol.
             With the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio widely considered a failure, the first benefit proponents of the Kyoto Protocol declare is the implementation of the Kyoto protocol will create the foundations for a rigorous international system to regulate ecologically harmful human activities.
             The goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to curb anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions (specifically carbon dioxide) to curtail global warming. Recent studies have shown that increased greenhouse gases can lead to climate change and the warming of the planet. By ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized nations would have to decrease their carbon dioxide emissions by a percentage of their 1990 levels. This decrease in carbon dioxide emissions is believed to decelerate global warming and in turn produce co-benefits.
             To limit carbon dioxide emissions, countries that ratify would have to turn to a non-carbon based soft energy. By doing this countries would open their economies to new jobs and new innovations that would boost economies. "In the worst case scenario, under Kyoto, the Canadian economy will continue to generate over a million new jobs after ratification.&q
             ...