Tuesday, Aug. 2, 2005
If there are no time constraints, countries are not going to respect it very much. Even with the Kyoto Protocol, industrialized countries have difficulty following it. I'm not sure that the greenhouse effect is as big as it's made out. I don't think humanity is done for, but it wouldn't hurt to reduce greenhouse gases.
If they're going to make it voluntary, then why make it at all? It's not likely that the U.S. would follow it if it was voluntary. It sounds like a cop out to me.
It still hasn't been proven that the greeenhouse effect is the main contributor to the hole in the ozone layer, but the Kyoto Protocol is a good thing. Obviously America is a big offender, but because this is one is their ideas they'd be happier to comply.
They can try a new agreement, but if greenhouse gases are proven to have made the ozone hole, then they should definitely stop. It's a good thing to reduce greenhouse gases just in case, but countries should still have limits to follow.
The Kyoto protocol does not have the backing of the U.S. or several other countries, so it wasn't able to have the effect that was intended. Politicians will make it their primary focus only when it's convenient to do so.
Yoo Mi Kim
Office worker, 30
I don't think it's such a good idea, but it's better than nothing. Maybe some companies want more control over their own domestic affairs. It's much easier for developed countries to spend money on the environment.