Select your language

The Kyoto Protocol tries to solve the problem by limiting the output of CO₂. The chosen instrument to reach this is to develop energy consuming processes that are more efficient: e.g. in the past our cars drove 10 km on 1 litre of petrol and in the future they may drive 20 km on 1 litre. After researching I discovered that efficiency doesn't solve the pollution problem, because every barrel of oil produces a certain quantity of CO₂. There is no difference in total CO₂ pollution if we use 6 billion tons fossil fuels annually over 50 years or 5 billion tons annually over 60 years. So efficiently improvement has no effect on the final total quantity of pollution if we still deplete all fossil fuels stocks.

Comparing Nature's and Mankind's CO₂ Emissions

Nature produces 94% of the worldwide CO₂ emissions and mankind produces only 6%. This 6% is the pollution part. The Kyoto Protocol contains an agreement that 37 of the 174 participating countries by 2012 reduce their output by 5,4% compared to levels in 1990. Let's assume all countries reduce their output by 5,4%, this is still only a reduction of (5,4% of 6%) = 0,324% of total annual emissions. Do you think that reducing the CO₂ output with 0,324% of the total output will help saving the climate? I don't.

The Global Impact of CO₂ Emissions

And then, what is the net effect when Europe decreases its CO₂ emissions by 20% if China increases its emissions by 50%? There isn't.

Between 1997 and 2011 CO₂ emissions went up from 23 billion tons to 30 billion tons annually. So the present Protocol has no effect at all. This, however, is no reason to stop trying to reach our goal. Instead of it being a reason to stop, it is a strong reason to create a new Protocol that helps us to reach our goal: less CO₂ output and 100% cleaning of the rest of the pollution.

A New Approach: The Treesolution

Would it not be more logical to find a solution that everybody supports? Should we not try to be more realistic rather than idealistic, and present a plan that is viable, cheap and practical? A plan that doesn't harm any country that is supporting it? A plan that makes the world more beautiful and healthy? A plan that gives room for economic growth as well as room for animals to live in? If we could make a plan like that, then perhaps Brazil, Canada, China, India, Japan and the US would support it. And all other countries who at present have signed the Protocol but in reality do not and cannot comply to the demands, would start to do so.

This plan exists. It's called 'The Treesolution'.