To solve any issue of global importance, control of the narrative is important to steer the direction of the discourse. The Kyoto Protocol, in addition to shifting the rhetoric of governments worldwide towards climate, fostered a mindset of cooperation in climate and keeping our planet safe collectively. This shift in narrative towards cooperation and urgency about the greenhouse effect helped prioritize climate action on the global agenda. It acted as a forum for countries to engage in dialogue and collaborate on solutions, thereby promoting a sense of shared responsibility in addressing this global challenge. Thus, by taking control of the narrative, we raise awareness and inspire immediate action. Rather than passively waiting for outcomes, this prompts people to implement proactive solutions for any issue at hand. 

Where the Kyoto Protocol seemed to be ineffective was hardly obligating developing countries to cut down their emissions. When countering a worldwide phenomenon, perhaps categorising emission cut off rates based on “developed” or “developing” countries does not work well, as most countries’ economies do change over the years. The emissions by China and India were not touched through any duties as the Kyoto Protocol set no targets for these two. Thus, the infamous carbon leakage materialised with the production transferred to countries to which the Kyoto targets did not apply. A country could achieve its target set by the Kyoto Protocol by transferring its production somewhere else, but this did not help the actual climate targets, which should be global. According to a member of the Environment Committee of the European Parliament, instead of setting country-specific targets, a worldwide, industry-specific system should be drawn up. This approach would encourage real emissions reduction by rewarding those who emit the least. 

Closely following from the narrative discussion, it is imperative not to set economic growth and environment rescue against each other, because for any nation, the priority would always be the economy. Therefore, it is useful to create policies in which there are no such set-ups; on the contrary, economic growth should be set to serve the environment. Focusing on the criteria of production instead of consumption led to the fact that it was the manufacturing industries that were to be blamed for climate change, which we know is a crucial industry for economic development. Looking solely at manufacturing industries as the culprits of climate change overlooks other significant contributors, such as transport, agriculture, and most importantly, energy. To address climate change effectively, it’s imperative to broaden the scope of emissions reduction efforts beyond industrial sectors. This will in turn, take the burden of the shock on the economy as well. 

Another reason as to why the Kyoto Protocol proved ineffective, and something which future policies should avoid, is a focus on carbon dioxide in a way, which almost entirely ignored other human-induced problems (agriculture, urbanisation and the soot generated by fossil fuels). The reduction of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere gained a primary position amidst political targets. The narrative was derailed from other environmental problems which are caused by overpopulation, poorly planned land-use and over-exploitation of natural resources. The situation has, however, now set off the trend of rather practicing carbon dioxide-based politics than overall climate politics. To remedy this, the forthcoming agreements should take into consideration major human activities instead of falling back on just one. 

The Kyoto Protocol, as a beginner, did a good job. Even if it is no longer in force, the protocol will always be considered as an important step towards effective climate change mitigation. 

The aftermath of the Kyoto Protocol has ushered in a changing landscape in the realm of climate agreements, giving rise to further international accords and agreements which explore how adjustments in an individuals’ daily habits can contribute to slowing down climate change. These proposals operate under the assumption that while securing multidimensional contributors of greenhouse effect and climate issue is important, harnessing individual behaviour to have a substantial impact in addressing climate change is vital as well. 

The Kyoto Protocol led us to believe in the possibility of climate control. The climate must be rescued, and we can do it. The protocol portrayed climate change as a symbol – with the ambitious target to evoke different reactions in the audience and convey the concept that although the problem is singular, it needs the help of every nation on the planet to be solved in due course of time.