Shareef Kamal

09/26/2014
DT 1325

1.

International environmental summits have addressed themes raging from ozone

protection, pollutant reduction, and carbon dioxide emissions. What criticisms have been
leveled at the results of these conferences? To what extent is it possible to achieve global
accord on environmental matters? What can be done to ensure future successes of such
conferences?
Organized by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) from 11 13 Sep 2013,
the International Green Building Conference (IGBC 2013) will play host to international green
building experts, policy-makers, academics and built environment practitioners, for a
congregation of ideas, collaboration and learning, to achieve a shared vision of a greener planet.
Themed Build Green. Live Green, IGBC 2013 aims to inspire a holistic focus on resource
efficiency and environmental sustainability as core to driving business strategies and innovation
throughout an organization.
IGBC 2013 will be the anchor event of the Singapore Green Building Week which
features other key international events such as Sustainable Building Conference 2013 (SB13),
World Engineer Summit 2013, BEX Asia Exhibition, CEOs Breakfast Talk and other concurrent
events.
As the regions premier green building event, IGBC 2013 is expected to attract more than
1,000 participants from over 30 countries - from thought leaders, real estate developers to urban
planners, architects, engineers, builders and other industry professionals - committed to
understanding and putting into action real-world, tangible green building solutions. Also present
at the conference will be policy-makers and key government officials from several growth

markets, who will give their unique public sector perspective on green building solutions,
policies and plans. Academia will also share their latest research findings in green building
fields.
2. Famously, Kyotos Protocol recommended carbon dioxide emissions reductions, which
41 countries have been ratified by 2005. What were the reasons given by the countries
that did not sign the treaties?
Gupta et al. (2007) assessed the literature on climate change policy. They found that no
authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these agreements had, or
will, succeed in solving the climate problem. In these assessments, it was assumed that the
UNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. The Framework Convention and its Protocol
include provisions for future policy actions to be taken.
Gupta et al. (2007) described the Kyoto first-round commitments as "modest," stating
that they acted as a constraint on the treaty's effectiveness. It was suggested that subsequent
Kyoto commitments could be made more effective with measures aimed at achieving deeper cuts
in emissions, as well as having policies applied to a larger share of global emissions. In 2008,
countries with a Kyoto cap made up less than one-third of annual global carbon dioxide
emissions from fuel combustion.
World Bank (2010) commented on how the Kyoto Protocol had only had a slight effect
on curbing global emissions growth. The treaty was negotiated in 1997, but in 2006, energyrelated carbon dioxide emissions had grown by 24%. World Bank (2010) also stated that the
treaty had provided only limited financial support to developing countries to assist them in
reducing their emissions and adapting to climate change.

Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based on the idea of climate justice
(Liverman, 2008, p. 14). This has particularly centered on the balance between the low emissions
and high vulnerability of the developing world to climate change, compared to high emissions in
the developed world.
Some environmentalists have supported the Kyoto Protocol because it is "the only game
in town," and possibly because they expect that future emission reduction commitments may
demand more stringent emission reductions (Aldy et al.., 2003, p. 9). In 2001, seventeen national
science academies stated that ratification of the Protocol represented a "small but essential first
step towards stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. Some
environmentalists and scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too weak
(Grubb, 2000, p. 5).
The United States (under former President George W. Bush) and Australia (initially,
under former Prime Minister John Howard) did not ratify the Kyoto treaty. According to Stern
(2006), their decision was based on the lack of quantitative emission commitments for emerging
economies (see also the 2000 onwards section). Australia, under former Prime Minister Kevin
Rudd, has since ratified the treaty, which took effect in March 2008.