Skip to main content

Kyoto Protocol

 Kyoto Protocol


The Kyoto Protocol is an international agreement aimed at lowering carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions

and fossil fuel consumption. This took place in Kyoto. Japan on 11 December 1997, which is why it is

named the Kyoto Protocol, and it became international law in February 2005. This agreement was

designed to be compatible with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. In

2021, China and India will be the two countries with the highest carbon emissions. which is a major

concern for environmental pollution and global warming, and in the last Kyoto protocol, the USA and

the USSR also asked India and China to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels and slow their

development, and in the Kyoto protocol, it is stipulated that if a country emits more than the

assigned amount, it will be penalised with a lower emission limit in the following period.

Industrialized nations made a commitment under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce their annual

hydrocarbon emissions by an average of 5.2 percent on a continuous basis beginning in 2012. This

figure would cover approximately 29% of the world's total ozone depleting chemical emissions.

However, targets were based on a single country. This suggested that each country had a secondary

target to accomplish by that year. Individuals from the European Union (EU) pledged to reduce

outflows by 8%, while the United States pledged to do even more. Canada committed to reducing its

emissions by 7% and 6%, respectively, by 2012.

The Kyoto Protocol classifies countries as developed or developing. He acknowledged that

industrialised countries are primarily responsible for the current high levels of greenhouse gas

emissions in the atmosphere, which are the product of the country's over 150 years of economic

activity and progress. As a result, developed nations have a greater share of the burden than less

developed nations, who evolved slowly and sustainably, rather than hurriedly, as developed

countries did. Although emerging countries are currently generating more pollution, if they do not

industrialise, they will fall behind and face several social and economic difficulties.

The Kyoto Protocol required 37 developed countries, in addition to the EU, to reduce their GHG

emissions. Emerging countries were intentionally sought for approval, and more than 100

agricultural nations, including China and India, were completely exempt from the Kyoto Protocol.

Throughout December 2012. Doha accord. Qatar has agreed to prolong the Kyoto Protocol until

2020. When the Paris Climate Agreement took effect in 2016, the US was a key driver of the

agreement, and President Obama lauded it as "a recognition of American leadership." Donald

Trump, then a presidential candidate, criticised the accord as a bad deal for the American public and

vowed to withdraw the US whenever he pleased. President Trump said in 2017 that the US would

withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement, claiming that it would undermine the US economy.

Regardless, the former president did not initiate the necessary withdrawal measures until Nov. 4,

2019.

The United States officially withdrew from the Paris Climate Agreement on Nov. 4, 2020, the day

after Donald Trump's re-appointment attempt was defeated by Joseph Biden. His first day in office

will be January 20, 2021. President Biden initiated the process for rejoining the Paris Climate

Agreement, which will conclude on Feb. 19, 2021. In 2021, the debate is still going strong but has

devolved into a complex quagmire including governmental issues. cash, a lack of initiative, an

inability to agree. as well as organisation. Today, despite concerted efforts and a few initiatives,

solutions to the problems of GHG emissions and dangerous atmospheric deterioration remain

unimplemented.


Almost all environmental researchers now acknowledge that an unnatural weather shift is primarily

the result of human activity. Consistently then, at that time, whatever individuals have caused via

their behaviour should have the option of being remedied through people changing their behaviour.

Numerous people are disappointed that serious action to address the global environmental

emergency created by humans is currently unable to materialise.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree