Global health. The current scenario and future perspectives

86 incentivized to reduce GHG emissions through voluntary goals and technology transfer, among other methods. However, the commitment period of the Protocol was extended until December 2020. Both the Kyoto Protocol and its amendments have had countries that have signed but not ratified it, countries that have only signed certain parts of the protocol and others that have withdrawn from it, mainly citing scientific and economic aspects. More importantly, despite being one of the 84 drafters of the protocol in 1997, the United States has been an open critic of the agreement, though being responsible for about one-third of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions with only around 5% of the world’s population. However, most of the international community has maintained its commitment to moving forward with this protocol and future environmental agreements in the hope that the United States will feel more pressure from its population and others to join. The United States and other countries, like Australia, expressed several concerns about the Kyoto Protocol, focusing on its scientific basis, economic cost, feasibility and equity, and arguing the following criticisms: i) They questioned the seriousness of global warming because the levels of GHG concentration considered as dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system or an acceptable concentration of GHGs were not determined. They highlighted that at that time, there was no scientific certainty about what should be understood as non-dangerous levels. Critics of the protocol argue that with this type of uncertainty, the benefits of reducing emissions cannot be properly compared to their disadvantages. Supporters of the protocol, on the other hand, argue that the prospect of better scientific knowledge in the future should not prevent action in the present. ii) Reducing GHG emissions would have an economic cost and, as a result, the economy as a whole would face slower growth and job losses and make the cultural division between environmental risk and economic development explicit. iii) They considered the prescribed deadlines for emissions reductions unreasonable and unrealistic. For example, CO 2 emissions in the United States increased by 13% in the 1990s, so meeting the goals of the Kyoto Protocol for reducing levels would require a reduction of around 30% by 2010, which they considered highly unfeasible. They proposed that reduction efforts should focus on “GHG intensity” (emissions per unit of Gross Domestic Product) by arguing that this measure considers emissions reduction within the context of economic growth.