Russia slams Kyoto Protocol

Russia supports Canada's decision to pull out of the Kyoto Protocol, says its foreign ministry, reaffirming Friday that Moscow will not take on new commitments.

Ministry spokesman Alexander Lukashevich told Friday's briefing that the treaty does not cover all major polluters, and thus cannot help solve the .

Canada on Monday pulled out of the agreement - initially adopted in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, to cut contributing to global warming. Its move dealt a blow to the treaty, which has not been formally renounced by any other country.

"This is yet another example that the 1997 has lost its effectiveness in the context of the social and economic situation of the 21st century," Lukashevich said, adding that the document does not ensure the participation of all key emitters.

The protocol requires some industrialized countries to slash emissions, but doesn't cover the world's largest polluters, China and the United States.

Canada, Japan and Russia said last year they will not accept new Kyoto commitments.

Explore further

Canada withdrawal from Kyoto is 'bad news': France

©2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Citation: Russia slams Kyoto Protocol (2011, December 16) retrieved 19 May 2019 from
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.

Feedback to editors

User comments

Dec 16, 2011
If any country was truly concerned and had the will they would go ahead and cut emissions unilaterally. I'm afraid while big oil still have one barrel left to sell the planet stands no chance.

Dec 16, 2011
The ones never joined the agreement, the others pull out of it. They all are thinking to be intelligent, but, in fact, they are just ignorant, arrogant and selfish idiots without any vision and idea, harmin the others and finally themselves

Dec 16, 2011
The protocol requires some industrialized countries to slash emissions, but doesn't cover the world's largest polluters, China and the United States.
Nevertheless China still protested about withdrawal of Kyoto protocol by Canada...;-)

Dec 16, 2011
Its not for us people to judge. There are probably intrinsic consequences you and i do not know about. Maybe something among the lines of economical suppression while some parties may benefit from.

Dec 16, 2011
With less than half the population of the US, Russia is still the #3 polluting country in the world. It's a shame they withdrew. Although, arguably, the US produces 3 times more pollutants than Russia with ~3 times less landmass and twice the population. And if we count per-capita, China is actually a "green" country...

Dec 16, 2011
And if we count per-capita, China is actually a "green" country...

Green means living with dirt floors, a hole in the ground for a toilet and burning dung?

Dec 16, 2011
Green = EFFICIENT USE of available resources and various fuel sources.

Green DOES NOT = living primitively.

In the USA the ability to use things without regard to the incredible amount of waste produced while using something is a large part of the pollution we create.

I've never understood the reason why so many businesses keep their sign lights burning during the night long after they are closed.

The energy is not free.

The notion it is a sort of advertising is ludicrous, because the #s who see it are far to few to justify the expense.

Yet keep them on seems to be a divine directive that many businesses hear and obey, and in doing so waste tremendous amounts of energy for basically nothing.

Dec 17, 2011
The cities are NOT green. . . .just like the very fine particulates in the air in New Delhi, India is not "green".
Another thread tells how the heavily populated New Delhi has such bad air that thousands of Indians in that city are experiencing many lung diseases. . .even the children have bad lungs and are dying. I think that a group of meteorologists and doctors (not climate "scientists") should make the rounds of every major city in each country, testing the air and reporting it immediately. They have to be incorruptible and not accept bribes.

Amen! You may have seen in other posts that I think Kyoto is very flawed, and anyway most global warming threats have been inflated. But air pollution of many types has been killing people since the industrial revolution, and is doing so today. Reducing CO2 to save the elderly from driving around with oxygen tanks would be nice, but climate control that results in people breathing worse air is fundamentally flawed.

Dec 17, 2011
The US has done very well over the last few decades at reducing air pollution, especially in cities like Pittsburgh, and Southern California. Reducing CO2 emissions is nice, but a real commitment to doing so is going to require lots of latest generation nuclear plants. (I don't want to go into details here, but condemning the entire nuclear energy due to Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi shows a lack of understanding. There are very different reactors with different types of risks. For example, IF the Fukushima Daiichi problems had occurred in the US, an emergency generator would have been air dropped in, and hooked up, before there was any serious radiation release. Different mindset, and the siting plan should have taken that into account.) Are the new reactors, especially Thorium molten salt reactors safe? Yes, and much less of a spent fuel problem.

The rest of the greenhouse gasses covered by the Kyoto treaty are a distraction and sham. (Methane should be rated like CO2.)

Dec 17, 2011
I agree that the Thorium reactors should be studied/implemented as soon as possible, but I recall (somewhere) that it will take another 20 years to get the technology ready for commercial use. That was the promise of fusion over 50 years ago, and it is still 50 years away. I hope I'm wrong about this. The FLIBE website is quite interesting/persuasive though.

Dec 18, 2011
In today's broken and fearful world,

1. World leaders spread fear and claim control over Nature

2. Precise rest mass measurements on every atom show:

a.) Neutrons attract protons to make stable atoms

b.) Neutrons repel other neutrons;
__Neutron-rich atoms are unstable

c.) Protons repel protons even more strongly;
__Proton-rich atoms are less stable

d.) A benevolent Reality that surrounds and sustains us is in a "Cradle of the Nuclides"


3. The AGW scare will vanish if the public knows that a pulsar produced our elements, gave birth to the Solar System, and still controls our fate today.


Best wishes for the Holidays!

Today all is well,
Oliver K. Manuel

Dec 18, 2011
PS - The greatest danger today is that world leaders are as frightened as everyone else and may act foolishly in frantic desperation to try to preserve their false illusion of control.

Dec 20, 2011
I see that the conversation has drifted off course, but I would like to comment anyway.

From an American point of view, we have joined UN agreements and been burned in the past. We have repeatedly given money to various UN programs and later found out that the money had been mis-used and then we get told that we are not welcome to investigate, and the guilty parties go free.

I am not opposed to environmental protection. However, I do not feel that the United Nations is the best choice for the US to do what we need to do. We have already made nearly as much progress as the EU in the past 10 years, through our own EPA and the Clean Air and Water Acts. I don't see how sending money to third world countries will help us to lower our emissions, improve efficiency or reduce consumption. We are smart enough to do these things without the help of the UN.

The way the Kyoto treaty was set up is obviously flawed. Do something, but do something that actually works.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more