The Kyoto protocol.

An international treaty aiming to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions. It looks wonderful. But we want to ask you dear judge. Is Kyoto
protocol the best option? We as the opposition side dont think so and here is
why?
First I as the firs speaker will be presenting 1 argument and our resolution
then our second speaker… will give you our last argument and rebuttals.
Lastly our third speaker … will give you our rebuttals.
I want to clarify that long-term thinking is crucial in the fight against climate
change because it allows us to anticipate and reduce risks, take advantage of
opportunities for positive change, and create a more sustainable and resilient
future for everyone. I want you to keep this in mind while I am giving you my
speech.
So let me start with the fact that we need flexibility while dealing with the
climate change crisis. The main problem we have with Kyoto protocol is that İt
followed the format of other international treaties which is not the most
effective approach for dealing with such a complex and rapidly evolving issue.
Climate change is a global issue and it requires coordinated action from all
nations to mitigate its impacts. However, the Kyoto protocols top-down
approach(The top-down approach typically refers to international agreements
or policies that set binding emission reduction targets at global or national
level.) , legally binding emissions targets has limited its effectiveness in
encouraging meaningful action from all countries. The Kyoto Protocol's focus
on emissions reductions alone has overlooked the potential for innovation and
creative solutions to address climate change. Instead of encouraging a more
flexible and adaptive approach, the Protocol stuck to rigid emissions targets
that may not have been sufficient to drive the transformative changes needed
to transition to a low-carbon economy.
In addition, the Kyoto Protocol's emphasis on quantifiable emission reductions
has sidelined other important aspects of climate action, such as adaptation
and technology development. By focusing narrowly on emissions reductions,
the Protocol has missed opportunities to invest in renewable energy,
sustainable agriculture and other innovative solutions that could help us
transition to a more sustainable future.
Overall, while the Kyoto Protocol was a significant step forward in recognising
the need for global action on climate change, its shortcomings highlight the
importance of rethinking our approach to tackling this pressing issue. We need
a more holistic and innovative approach that goes beyond traditional treaty
formats and embraces the full range of solutions available to us. Only then
can we hope to effectively tackle the challenges of climate change and
pollution in the long term.
We as the opposition side think that The Paris agreement is more reasonable
for dealing with climate change issue. Let me tell you why.
First Kyoto protocol only required emissions reductions from developed
countries, leaving out major emitors like China and Indıa. In contrast the Paris
agreement involves all countries including both developed and developing
nations. in the commitment reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Second the flexibility situation I talked about. Unlike the Kyoto Protocols top-
down approach with legally binding targets the Paris agreement usses a
bottom- up approach ( the bottom-up approach typically refers to efforts that
involve individual countries, regions, cities, businesses, and communities
setting their own emissions reduction targets and implementing actions to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. )where each country sets its own
emissions reduction targets, known as nationally determined contributions
(NDCs). This flexibility allows countries to tailor their commitments based on
their individual circumstances, priorities, and capabilities, making it more
politically feasible and increasing participation.
Third, goals. While the Kyoto protocol had relatively short-term targets the
Paris Agreement emphasizes long term goals. One of its key objectives is to
limit global warming to well below 2 degrees celsius above pre industrial
levels, aiming for 1,5 degrees celsius. Additionally the agreement requires
countries to regularly update and endurance their NDCs over time, fostering a
continuous cycle of ambition and action.

In summary, we highlighted the inflexibility of the protocol's top-down

approach, which does not encourage meaningful action from all countries and
limits innovation and creative solutions.
Instead, we contended that the Paris Agreement is a more reasonable
approach to dealing with climate change. We noted that the agreement
involves all countries, including both developed and developing nations, in the
commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Furthermore, we
highlighted the flexibility of the Paris Agreement's bottom-up approach, which
allows countries to tailor their commitments based on their individual
circumstances and priorities. Lastly, we emphasized the agreement's long-
term goals and the requirement for countries to regularly update and enhance
their emissions reduction targets, fostering a continuous cycle of ambition and
action. Overall,we as the opposition side think that the Paris Agreement offers
a more holistic and innovative approach to tackling the challenges of climate
change in the long term.
we are so proud to oppose
thank you.