24
Kyoto Protocol This article is about the international treaty. For the rock band, see Kyoto Protocol (band). The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, which Kyoto Parties with first period (2008–12) greenhouse gas emis- sions limitations targets, and the percentage change in their car- bon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2009. For more detailed country/region information, see Kyoto Protocol and government action. extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Conven- tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State Parties to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, based on the premise that (a) global warming exists and (b) man- made CO 2 emissions have caused it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There are cur- rently 192 Parties (Canada withdrew effective Decem- ber 2012) [4] to the Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol im- plemented the objective of the UNFCCC to fight global warming by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to 'a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system' (Art. 2). The Protocol is based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it puts the obligation to re- duce current emissions on developed countries on the ba- sis that they are historically responsible for the current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Protocol’s first commitment period started in 2008 and ended in 2012. A second commitment period was agreed on in 2012, known as the Doha Amend- ment to the protocol, in which 37 countries have bind- ing targets: Australia, the European Union (and its 28 Overview map of states committed to greenhouse gas (GHG) lim- itations in the first Kyoto Protocol period (2008–12): [6] Black = Annex I Parties who have agreed to reduce their GHG emissions below their individual base year levels (see definition in this article) Grey = Annex I Parties who have agreed to cap their GHG emis- sions at their base year levels Pale grey = Non-Annex I Parties who are not obligated by caps or Annex I Parties with an emissions cap that allows their emissions to expand above their base year levels or countries that have not ratified the Kyoto Protocol For specific emission reduction commitments of Annex I Parties, see the section of the article on 2012 emission targets and “flexi- ble mechanisms”. The European Union as a whole has in accordance with the Ky- oto Protocol committed itself to an 8% reduction. However, many member states (such as Greece, Spain, Ireland and Sweden) have not committed themselves to any reduction while France has com- mitted itself not to expand its emissions (0% reduction). [7] member states), Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechten- stein, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kaza- khstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not put into legal force the Amend- ment with second round targets. [8] Japan, New Zealand and Russia have participated in Kyoto’s first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Pro- tocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not rat- ified the Protocol). As of July 2015, 36 states have ac- cepted the Doha Amendment, while entry into force re- quires the acceptances of 144 states. Negotiations were held in Lima in 2014 to agree on a post-Kyoto legal framework that would obligate all major polluters to pay for CO 2 emissions. China, India, and the United States have all signaled that they will not ratify any treaty that will commit them legally to reduce CO 2 emissions. 1

Kyoto Protocol

Tags:

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Kyoto protocol

Citation preview

  • Kyoto Protocol

    This article is about the international treaty. For the rockband, see Kyoto Protocol (band).The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, which

    Kyoto Parties with rst period (200812) greenhouse gas emis-sions limitations targets, and the percentage change in their car-bon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990 and2009. For more detailed country/region information, see KyotoProtocol and government action.

    extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Conven-tion on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits StateParties to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, based onthe premise that (a) global warming exists and (b) man-made CO2 emissions have caused it. The Kyoto Protocolwas adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 andentered into force on 16 February 2005. There are cur-rently 192 Parties (Canada withdrew eective Decem-ber 2012)[4] to the Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol im-plemented the objective of the UNFCCC to ght globalwarming by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations inthe atmosphere to 'a level that would prevent dangerousanthropogenic interference with the climate system' (Art.2). The Protocol is based on the principle of common butdierentiated responsibilities: it puts the obligation to re-duce current emissions on developed countries on the ba-sis that they are historically responsible for the currentlevels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.The Protocols rst commitment period started in 2008and ended in 2012. A second commitment periodwas agreed on in 2012, known as the Doha Amend-ment to the protocol, in which 37 countries have bind-ing targets: Australia, the European Union (and its 28

    Overview map of states committed to greenhouse gas (GHG) lim-itations in the rst Kyoto Protocol period (200812):[6]Black = Annex I Parties who have agreed to reduce their GHGemissions below their individual base year levels (see denitionin this article)Grey = Annex I Parties who have agreed to cap their GHG emis-sions at their base year levelsPale grey =Non-Annex I Parties who are not obligated by caps orAnnex I Parties with an emissions cap that allows their emissionsto expand above their base year levels or countries that have notratied the Kyoto ProtocolFor specic emission reduction commitments of Annex I Parties,see the section of the article on 2012 emission targets and exi-ble mechanisms.The European Union as a whole has in accordance with the Ky-oto Protocol committed itself to an 8% reduction. However, manymember states (such as Greece, Spain, Ireland and Sweden) havenot committed themselves to any reduction while France has com-mitted itself not to expand its emissions (0% reduction).[7]

    member states), Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechten-stein, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kaza-khstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdrawfrom the Protocol or not put into legal force the Amend-ment with second round targets.[8] Japan, New Zealandand Russia have participated in Kyotos rst-round buthave not taken on new targets in the second commitmentperiod. Other developed countries without second-roundtargets are Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Pro-tocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not rat-ied the Protocol). As of July 2015, 36 states have ac-cepted the Doha Amendment, while entry into force re-quires the acceptances of 144 states.Negotiations were held in Lima in 2014 to agree on apost-Kyoto legal framework that would obligate all majorpolluters to pay for CO2 emissions. China, India, and theUnited States have all signaled that they will not ratifyany treaty that will commit them legally to reduce CO2emissions.

    1

  • 2 2 OBJECTIVES

    1 BackgroundMain article: Global warmingSee also: global climate model Projections of futureclimate change and Scientic opinion on climate change

    The view that human activities are likely responsible formost of the observed increase in global mean temper-ature (global warming) since the mid-20th century isan accurate reection of current scientic thinking.[9][10]Human-induced warming of the climate is expected tocontinue throughout the 21st century and beyond.[10]

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC,2007) have produced a range of projections of what thefuture increase in global mean temperature might be.[11]The IPCCs projections are baseline projections, mean-ing that they assume no future eorts are made to reducegreenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC projections coverthe time period from the beginning of the 21st centuryto the end of the 21st century.[11][12] The likely range(as assessed to have a greater than 66% probability of be-ing correct, based on the IPCCs expert judgement) is aprojected increased in global mean temperature over the21st century of between 1.1 and 6.4 C.[11]

    The range in temperature projections partly re-ects dierent projections of future greenhouse gasemissions.[13]:2224 Dierent projections contain dif-ferent assumptions of future social and economicdevelopment (e.g., economic growth, population level,energy policies), which in turn aects projections offuture greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[13]:2224 Therange also reects uncertainty in the response of theclimate system to past and future GHG emissions(measured by the climate sensitivity).[13]:2224

    1.1 ChronologySee also: History of climate change science

    1992 The UN Conference on the Environment and De-velopment is held in Rio de Janeiro. It results in theFramework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC orUNFCCC) among other agreements.1995Parties to the UNFCCC meet in Berlin (the 1st Con-ference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC) to outline spe-cic targets on emissions.1997 In December the parties conclude the Kyoto Pro-tocol in Kyoto, Japan, in which they agree to the broadoutlines of emissions targets.2002 Russia and Canada ratify the Kyoto Protocol to theUNFCCC bringing the treaty into eect on 16 February2005.2011 Canada became the rst signatory to announce itswithdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.[14]

    2012On 31 December 2012, the rst commitment periodunder the Protocol expired.

    1.2 Article 2 of the UNFCCC

    Main article: United Nations Framework Convention onClimate Change Interpreting Article 2

    Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Frame-work Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).[15]Article 2 of the Convention states its ultimate objec-tive, which is to stabilize the concentration of greenhousegases in the atmosphere at a level that would preventdangerous anthropogenic (i.e., human) interference withthe climate system.[16] The natural, technical, and socialsciences can provide information on decisions relating tothis objective, e.g., the possible magnitude and rate of fu-ture climate changes.[16] However, the IPCC has also con-cluded that the decision of what constitutes dangerousinterference requires value judgements, which will varybetween dierent regions of the world.[16] Factors thatmight aect this decision include the local consequencesof climate change impacts, the ability of a particular re-gion to adapt to climate change (adaptive capacity), andthe ability of a region to reduce its GHG emissions (mit-igative capacity).[16]

    2 Objectives

    Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhousegases.

  • 3In order to stabilize the atmospheric concentration ofCO2, emissions worldwide would need to be dramaticallyreduced from their present level.[17]

    The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to contain emis-sions of the main anthropogenic (i.e., human-emitted)greenhouse gases (GHGs) in ways that reect underlyingnational dierences in GHG emissions, wealth, and ca-pacity to make the reductions.[18] The treaty follows themain principles agreed in the original 1992 UN Frame-work Convention.[18] According to the treaty, in 2012,Annex I Parties who have ratied the treaty must have ful-lled their obligations of greenhouse gas emissions limi-tations established for the Kyoto Protocols rst commit-ment period (20082012). These emissions limitationcommitments are listed in Annex B of the Protocol.The Kyoto Protocols rst round commitments are therst detailed step taken within the UN Framework Con-vention on Climate Change (Gupta et al., 2007).[19] TheProtocol establishes a structure of rolling emission re-duction commitment periods. It set a timetable start-ing in 2006 for negotiations to establish emission reduc-tion commitments for a second commitment period (seeKyoto Protocol#Successor for details).[20] The rst periodemission reduction commitments expired on 31 Decem-ber 2012.The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is the stabiliza-tion of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphereat a level that would stop dangerous anthropogenic inter-ference with the climate system.[21] Even if Annex I Par-ties succeed in meeting their rst-round commitments,much greater emission reductions will be required in fu-ture to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations.[20][22]

    For each of the dierent anthropogenic GHGs, dier-ent levels of emissions reductions would be required tomeet the objective of stabilizing atmospheric concentra-tions (see United Nations Framework Convention on Cli-mate Change#Stabilization of greenhouse gas concentra-tions).[23] Carbon dioxide (CO

    2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG.[24] Stabi-lizing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would ultimately require the eec-tive elimination of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.[23]

    Some of the principal concepts of the Kyoto Protocol are:

    Binding commitments for the Annex I Parties. Themain feature of the Protocol[25] is that it establishedlegally binding commitments to reduce emissions ofgreenhouse gases for Annex I Parties. The commit-ments were based on the Berlin Mandate, which wasa part of UNFCCC negotiations leading up to theProtocol.[26][27]:290

    Implementation. In order to meet the objectives ofthe Protocol, Annex I Parties are required to preparepolicies and measures for the reduction of green-house gases in their respective countries. In addi-tion, they are required to increase the absorptionof these gases and utilize all mechanisms available,such as joint implementation, the clean developmentmechanism and emissions trading, in order to be re-warded with credits that would allow more green-house gas emissions at home.

    Minimizing Impacts on Developing Countries by es-tablishing an adaptation fund for climate change.

    Accounting, Reporting and Review in order to en-sure the integrity of the Protocol.

    Compliance. Establishing a Compliance Committeeto enforce compliance with the commitments underthe Protocol.

    3 First commitment period: 200812

    Under the Kyoto Protocol, 37 industrialized countriesand the European Community (the European Union15,made up of 15 states at the time of the Kyoto negoti-ations) commit themselves to binding targets for GHGemissions.[25] The targets apply to the four greenhousegases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexauoride (SF6), and two groups of gases, hydrouorocarbons (HFCs)and peruorocarbons (PFCs).[28] The six GHG are trans-lated into CO2 equivalents in determining reductions inemissions.[29] These reduction targets are in addition tothe industrial gases, chlorouorocarbons, or CFCs, whichare dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Sub-stances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.Under the Protocol, only the Annex I Parties have com-mitted themselves to national or joint reduction targets

  • 4 4 FLEXIBILITY MECHANISMS

    (formally called quantied emission limitation and re-duction objectives (QELRO) Article 4.1).[30] Partiesto the Kyoto Protocol not listed in Annex I of the Con-vention (the non-Annex I Parties) are mostly low-incomedeveloping countries,[31]:4 and may participate in the Ky-oto Protocol through the Clean Development Mechanism(explained below).[20]

    The emissions limitations of Annex I Parties varies be-tween dierent Parties.[32] Some Parties have emissionslimitations reduce below the base year level, some havelimitations at the base year level (i.e., no permitted in-crease above the base year level), while others have limi-tations above the base year level.Emission limits do not include emissions by internationalaviation and shipping.[33] Although Belarus and Turkeyare listed in the Conventions Annex I, they do not haveemissions targets as they were not Annex I Parties whenthe Protocol was adopted.[32] Kazakhstan does not have atarget, but has declared that it wishes to become an AnnexI Party to the Convention.[32]

    Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their2008-2012 commitments (% of base year) and 1990emission levels (% of all Annex I countries)[34][35]

    For most Parties, 1990 is the base year for the na-tional GHG inventory and the calculation of the assignedamount.[36] However, ve Parties have an alternative baseyear:[36]

    Bulgaria: 1988;

    Hungary: the average of the years 198587;

    Poland: 1988;

    Romania: 1989;

    Slovenia: 1986.

    Annex I Parties can use a range of sophisticated exibil-ity mechanisms (see below) to meet their targets. AnnexI Parties can achieve their targets by allocating reducedannual allowances to major operators within their bor-ders, or by allowing these operators to exceed their allo-cations by osetting any excess through a mechanism thatis agreed by all the parties to the UNFCCC, such as bybuying emission allowances from other operators whichhave excess emissions credits.

    4 Flexibility mechanismsSee also: Economics of climate change mitigation Kyoto Protocol

    The Protocol denes three "exibility mechanisms" thatcan be used by Annex I Parties in meeting their emis-sion limitation commitments.[37]:402 The exibility mech-anisms are International Emissions Trading (IET), theClean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Im-plementation (JI). IET allows Annex I Parties to tradetheir emissions (Assigned Amount Units, AAUs, or al-lowances for short).[38]

    The economic basis for providing this exibility is that themarginal cost of reducing (or abating) emissions diersamong countries.[39]:660[40] Marginal cost is the cost ofabating the last tonne of CO2-eq for an Annex I/non-Annex I Party. At the time ofthe original Kyoto targets, studies suggested that the ex-ibility mechanisms could reduce the overall (aggregate)cost of meeting the targets.[41] Studies also showed thatnational losses in Annex I gross domestic product (GDP)could be reduced by use of the exibility mechanisms.[41]

    The CDM and JI are called project-based mechanisms,in that they generate emission reductions from projects.The dierence between IET and the project-based mech-anisms is that IET is based on the setting of a quantitativerestriction of emissions, while the CDM and JI are basedon the idea of production of emission reductions.[39]The CDM is designed to encourage production of emis-sion reductions in non-Annex I Parties, while JI encour-ages production of emission reductions in Annex I Par-ties.The production of emission reductions generated by theCDM and JI can be used by Annex I Parties in meet-ing their emission limitation commitments.[42] The emis-sion reductions produced by the CDM and JI are bothmeasured against a hypothetical baseline of emissionsthat would have occurred in the absence of a partic-ular emission reduction project. The emission reduc-tions produced by the CDM are called Certied Emis-sion Reductions (CERs); reductions produced by JI arecalled Emission Reduction Units (ERUs). The reductionsare called "credits" because they are emission reductionscredited against a hypothetical baseline of emissions.Each Annex I country is required to submit an annual re-port of inventories of all anthropogenic greenhouse gasemissions from sources and removals from sinks underUNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. These countries nom-inate a person (called a designated national authority)to create and manage its greenhouse gas inventory. Vir-tually all of the non-Annex I countries have also estab-lished a designated national authority to manage their Ky-oto obligations, specically the CDM process. This de-termines which GHG projects they wish to propose foraccreditation by the CDM Executive Board.

    4.1 International Emissions TradingMain articles: Emissions trading and Carbon emissiontrading

  • 4.1 International Emissions Trading 5

    A number of emissions trading schemes (ETS) have been,or are planned to be, implemented.[43]:1926

    4.1.1 Asia

    Japan: emissions trading in Tokyo started in 2010.This scheme is run by the Tokyo Metropolitan Gov-ernment.[43]:24

    4.1.2 Europe

    European Union: the European Union EmissionTrading Scheme (EU ETS), which started in 2005.This is run by the European Commission.[43]:20

    Norway: domestic emissions trading in Norwaystarted in 2005.[43]:21 This was run by the Norwe-gian Government, which is now a participant in theEU ETS.

    Switzerland: the Swiss ETS, which runs from 2008to 2012, to coincide with the Kyoto Protocols rstcommitment period.[43]:22

    United Kingdom: the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, which ran

    from 200206. This was a scheme run by theUK Government, which is now a participant inthe EU ETS.[43]:19

    the UK CRC Energy Eciency Scheme,which started in 2010, and is run by the UKGovernment.[43]:25

    4.1.3 North America

    Canada: emissions trading in Alberta, Canada,which started in 2007. This is run by theGovernment of Alberta.[43]:22

    United States: the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

    (RGGI), which started in 2009. This schemecaps emissions from power generation inten north-eastern U.S. states (Connecticut,Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,Rhode Island and Vermont).[43]:24

    emissions trading in California, which startedin 2013.[43]:26

    the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which isplanned to start in 2012. This is a collectiveETS agreed between 11 U.S. states and Canadianprovinces.[43]:25

    4.1.4 Oceania

    Australia: the New South Wales Greenhouse GasReduction Scheme (NSW), which started in 2003.This scheme is run by the Australian State of NewSouth Wales, and has now joined the Alfa ClimateStabilization (ACS).[43]:19

    New Zealand: the New Zealand Emissions TradingScheme, which started in 2008.[43]:23

    4.1.5 Intergovernmental Emissions Trading

    The design of the European Union Emissions TradingScheme (EU ETS) implicitly allows for trade of nationalKyoto obligations to occur between participating coun-tries (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 24).[44] Carbon Trust (2009,pp. 2425) found that other than the trading that occursas part of the EU ETS, no intergovernmental emissionstrading had taken place.[44]

    One of the environmental problems with IET is thelarge surplus of allowances that are available. Russia,Ukraine, and the new EU-12 member states (the Ky-oto Parties Annex I Economies-in-Transition, abbrevi-ated EIT": Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Repub-lic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Roma-nia, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine)[45]:59 havea surplus of allowances, while many OECD countrieshave a decit.[44]:24 Some of the EITs with a surplus re-gard it as potential compensation for the trauma of theireconomic restructuring.[44]:25 When the Kyoto treaty wasnegotiated, it was recognized that emissions targets forthe EITs might lead to them having an excess numberof allowances.[46] This excess of allowances were viewedby the EITs as headroom to grow their economies.[47]The surplus has, however, also been referred to by someas hot air, a term which Russia (a country with an es-timated surplus of 3.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxideequivalent allowances) views as quite oensive.[48]

    OECD countries with a decit could meet their Kyotocommitments by buying allowances from transition coun-tries with a surplus. Unless other commitments weremade to reduce the total surplus in allowances, such tradewould not actually result in emissions being reduced[44]:25(see also the section below on the Green InvestmentScheme).

    4.1.6 Green Investment Scheme

    A Green Investment Scheme (GIS) refers to a plan forachieving environmental benets from trading surplusallowances (AAUs) under the Kyoto Protocol.[49] TheGreen Investment Scheme (GIS), a mechanism in theframework of International Emissions Trading (IET), isdesigned to achieve greater exibility in reaching the tar-gets of the Kyoto Protocol while preserving environmen-tal integrity of IET. However, using the GIS is not re-

  • 6 5 STABILIZATION OF GHG CONCENTRATIONS

    quired under the Kyoto Protocol, and there is no ocialdenition of the term.[49]

    Under the GIS a Party to the Protocol expecting thatthe development of its economy will not exhaust its Ky-oto quota, can sell the excess of its Kyoto quota units(AAUs) to another Party. The proceeds from the AAUsales should be greened, i.e. channeled to the develop-ment and implementation of the projects either acquiringthe greenhouse gases emission reductions (hard greening)or building up the necessary framework for this process(soft greening).[44]:25

    4.1.7 Trade in AAUs

    Latvia was one of the front-runners of GISs. World Bank(2011)[50]:53 reported that Latvia has stopped oeringAAU sales because of low AAU prices. In 2010, Estoniawas the preferred source for AAU buyers, followed by theCzech Republic and Poland.[50]:53

    Japans national policy to meet their Kyoto target includesthe purchase of AAUs sold under GISs.[51] In 2010, Japanand Japanese rms were the main buyers of AAUs.[50]:53In terms of the international carbon market, trade inAAUs are a small proportion of overall market value.[50]:9In 2010, 97% of trade in the international carbon mar-ket was driven by the European Union Emission TradingScheme (EU ETS).[50]:9 However, rms regulated underthe EU ETS are unable to use AAUs in meeting theiremissions caps.[52]

    4.1.8 Clean Development Mechanism

    Between 2001, which was the rst year Clean Develop-ment Mechanism (CDM) projects could be registered,and 2012, the end of the rst Kyoto commitment pe-riod, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 bil-lion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in emis-sion reductions.[53] Most of these reductions are throughrenewable energy commercialisation, energy eciency,and fuel switching (World Bank, 2010, p. 262). By 2012,the largest potential for production of CERs are estimatedin China (52% of total CERs) and India (16%). CERsproduced in Latin America and the Caribbean make up15% of the potential total, with Brazil as the largest pro-ducer in the region (7%).

    4.1.9 Joint Implementation

    The formal crediting period for Joint Implementation (JI)was aligned with the rst commitment period of the Ky-oto Protocol, and did not start until January 2008 (Car-bon Trust, 2009, p. 20).[44] In November 2008, only 22JI projects had been ocially approved and registered.The total projected emission savings from JI by 2012 areabout one tenth that of the CDM. Russia accounts for

    about two-thirds of these savings, with the remainder di-vided up roughly equally between the Ukraine and theEUs New Member States. Emission savings include cutsin methane, HFC, and N2O emissions.

    5 Stabilization of GHG concentra-tions

    As noted earlier on, the rst-round Kyoto emissions lim-itation commitments are not sucient to stabilize the at-mospheric concentration of GHGs. Stabilization of at-mospheric GHG concentrations will require further emis-sions reductions after the end of the rst-round Kyotocommitment period in 2012.[20][22]

    5.1 Background

    Indicative probabilities of exceeding various increases inglobal mean temperature for dierent stabilization levelsof atmospheric GHG concentrations.[54]

    Dierent targets for stabilization require dierent levelsof cuts in emissions over time.[55] Lower stabilizationtargets require global emissions to be reduced moresharply in the near-term.[55]

    Analysts have developed scenarios of future changes inGHG emissions that lead to a stabilization in the atmo-spheric concentrations of GHGs.[56] Climate models sug-gest that lower stabilization levels are associated withlower magnitudes of future global warming, while higherstabilization levels are associated with higher magnitudesof future global warming (see gure opposite).[54]

    To achieve stabilization, global GHG emissions mustpeak, then decline.[57] The lower the desired stabilizationlevel, the sooner this peak and decline must occur (seegure opposite).[57] For a given stabilization level, largeremissions reductions in the near term allow for less strin-gent emissions reductions later on.[58] On the other hand,less stringent near term emissions reductions would, for a

  • 6.1 Negotiations 7

    given stabilization level, require more stringent emissionsreductions later on.[58]

    The rst period Kyoto emissions limitations can beviewed as a rst-step towards achieving atmospheric sta-bilization of GHGs.[19] In this sense, the rst period Ky-oto commitments may aect what future atmospheric sta-bilization level can be achieved.[59]

    5.2 Relation to temperature targets

    At the 16th Conference of the Parties held in 2010, Par-ties to the UNFCCC agreed that future global warmingshould be limited below 2C relative to the pre-industrialtemperature level.[60] One of the stabilization levels dis-cussed in relation to this temperature target is to hold at-mospheric concentrations of GHGs at 450 parts per mil-lion (ppm) CO2- eq.[61] Stabilization at 450 ppm could be associatedwith a 26 to 78% risk of exceeding the 2 C target.[62]

    Scenarios assessed by Gupta et al. (2007)[63] suggest thatAnnex I emissions would need to be 25% to 40% below1990 levels by 2020, and 80% to 95% below 1990 levelsby 2050. The only Annex I Parties to have made volun-tary pledges in line with this are Japan (25% below 1990levels by 2020) and Norway (30-40% below 1990 levelsby 2020).[64]

    Gupta et al. (2007)[63] also looked at what 450 ppm sce-narios projected for non-Annex I Parties. Projections in-dicated that by 2020, non-Annex I emissions in severalregions (Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia, andcentrally planned Asia) would need to be substantially re-duced below business-as-usual.[63] Business-as-usualare projected non-Annex I emissions in the absence ofany new policies to control emissions. Projections indi-cated that by 2050, emissions in all non-Annex I regionswould need to be substantially reduced below business-as-usual.[63]

    6 Details of the agreementThe agreement is a protocol to the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992,which did not set any legally binding limitations on emis-sions or enforcement mechanisms. Only Parties to theUNFCCC can become Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. TheKyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of theConference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 3) in 1997in Kyoto, Japan.National emission targets specied in the Kyoto Proto-col exclude international aviation and shipping. KyotoParties can use land use, land use change, and forestry(LULUCF) in meeting their targets.[65] LULUCF activi-ties are also called sink activities. Changes in sinks and

    land use can have an eect on the climate,[66] and indeedthe Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes SpecialReport on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry esti-mates that since 1750 a third of global warming has beencaused by land use change.[67] Particular criteria apply tothe denition of forestry under the Kyoto Protocol.Forest management, cropland management, grazing landmanagement, and revegetation are all eligible LULUCFactivities under the Protocol.[68] Annex I Parties use offorest management in meeting their targets is capped.[68]

    6.1 NegotiationsSee also: Views on the Kyoto Protocol Commentarieson negotiations

    Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC commits industrializedcountries to "[take] the lead in reducing emissions.[69]The initial aim was for industrialized countries to stabilizetheir emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.[69] Thefailure of key industrialized countries to move in this di-rection was a principal reason why Kyoto moved to bind-ing commitments.[69]

    At the rst UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Berlin,the G77 was able to push for a mandate (the Berlin man-date) where it was recognized that:[70]

    developed nations had contributed most to thethen-current concentrations of GHGs in the atmo-sphere (see Greenhouse gas#Cumulative and histor-ical emissions).

    developing country emissions per-capita (i.e., aver-age emissions per head of population)[71] were stillrelatively low.

    and that the share of global emissions from develop-ing countries would grow to meet their developmentneeds.

    During negotiations, the G-77 represented 133 develop-ing countries. China was not a member of the group butan associate.[72] It has since become a member.[73]

    The Berlin mandate was recognized in the Kyoto Protocolin that developing countries were not subject to emissionreduction commitments in the rst Kyoto commitmentperiod.[70] However, the large potential for growth in de-veloping country emissions made negotiations on this is-sue tense.[74] In the nal agreement, the Clean Devel-opment Mechanism was designed to limit emissions indeveloping countries, but in such a way that developingcountries do not bear the costs for limiting emissions.[74]The general assumption was that developing countrieswould face quantitative commitments in later commit-ment periods, and at the same time, developed countrieswould meet their rst round commitments.[74]

  • 8 6 DETAILS OF THE AGREEMENT

    6.1.1 Emissions cuts

    Views on the Kyoto Protocol#Commentaries on negotia-tions contains a list of the emissions cuts that were pro-posed by UNFCCC Parties during negotiations. The G77and China were in favour of strong uniform emissioncuts across the developed world.[75] The U.S. originallyproposed for the second round of negotiations on Kyotocommitments to follow the negotiations of the rst.[76]In the end, negotiations on the second period were set toopen no later than 2005.[76] Countries over-achieving intheir rst period commitments can bank their unusedallowances for use in the subsequent period.[76]

    The EU initially argued for only three GHGs to be in-cluded {{CO2}}, CH4, and N2O with other gases such as HFCs regulatedseparately.[75] The EU also wanted to have a bubblecommitment, whereby it could make a collective com-mitment that allowed some EU members to increase theiremissions, while others cut theirs.[75]

    The most vulnerable nations the Alliance of Small Is-land States (AOSIS) pushed for deep uniform cuts bydeveloped nations, with the goal of having emissions re-duced to the greatest possible extent.[75] Countries thathad supported dierentiation of targets had dierentideas as to how it should be calculated, and many dier-ent indicators were proposed.[77] Two examples includedierentiation of targets based on gross domestic prod-uct (GDP), and dierentiation based on energy intensity(energy use per unit of economic output).[77]

    The nal targets negotiated in the Protocol are the re-sult of last minute political compromises.[75] The tar-gets closely match those decided by Argentinian RaulEstrada, the diplomat who chaired the negotiations.[78]The numbers given to each Party by Chairman Estradawere based on targets already pledged by Parties, infor-mation received on latest negotiating positions, and thegoal of achieving the strongest possible environmentaloutcome.[79] The nal targets are weaker than those pro-posed by some Parties, e.g., the Alliance of Small Is-land States and the G-77 and China, but stronger than thetargets proposed by others, e.g., Canada and the UnitedStates.[80]

    6.2 Financial commitments

    The Protocol also rearms the principle that devel-oped countries have to pay billions of dollars, and sup-ply technology to other countries for climate-relatedstudies and projects. The principle was originallyagreed in UNFCCC. One such project is The Adapta-tion Fund"[81]", that has been established by the Parties tothe Kyoto Protocol of the UN Framework Convention onClimate Change to nance concrete adaptation projectsand programmes in developing countries that are Parties

    to the Kyoto Protocol.

    6.3 Implementational provisions

    The protocol left several issues open to be decided later bythe sixth Conference of Parties COP6 of the UNFCCC,which attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting inthe Hague in late 2000, but it was unable to reach anagreement due to disputes between the European Union(who favoured a tougher implementation) and the UnitedStates, Canada, Japan and Australia (who wanted theagreement to be less demanding and more exible).In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting(COP6bis) was held in Bonn where the required decisionswere adopted. After some concessions, the supporters ofthe protocol (led by the European Union) managed to getthe agreement of Japan and Russia by allowing more useof carbon dioxide sinks.COP7 was held from 29 October 2001 through 9 Novem-ber 2001 in Marrakech to establish the nal details of theprotocol.The rst Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol(MOP1) was held in Montreal from 28 November to 9December 2005, along with the 11th conference of theParties to the UNFCCC (COP11). See United NationsClimate Change Conference.During COP13 in Bali 36 developed C.G. countries (plusthe EU as a party in the European Union) agreed to a10% emissions increase for Iceland; but, since the EUsmember states each have individual obligations,[82] muchlarger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some ofthe less developed EU countries (see below Kyoto Proto-col#Increase in greenhouse gas emission since 1990).[83]Reduction limitations expire in 2013.

    6.4 Mechanism of compliance

    The protocol denes a mechanism of compliance asa monitoring compliance with the commitments andpenalties for non-compliance.[84] According to Grubb(2003),[85] the explicit consequences of non-complianceof the treaty are weak compared to domestic law.[85] Yet,the compliance section of the treaty was highly contestedin the Marrakesh Accords.[85]

    6.5 Enforcement

    If the enforcement branch determines that an Annex Icountry is not in compliance with its emissions limitation,then that country is required to make up the dierenceduring the second commitment period plus an additional30%. In addition, that country will be suspended frommaking transfers under an emissions trading program.[86]

  • 7.2 Withdrawal of Canada 9

    7 Ratication processThe Protocol was adopted by COP 3 of UNFCCC on 11December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. It was opened on 16March 1998 for signature during one year by parties toUNFCCC, when it was signed Antigua and Barbuda, Ar-gentina, the Maldives, Samoa, St. Lucia and Switzerland.At the end of the signature period, 82 countries and theEuropean Community had signed. Ratication (which isrequired to become a party to the Protocol) started on 17September with ratication of Fiji. Countries that did notsign acceded to the convention, which has the same legaleect.[1]

    Article 25 of the Protocol species that the Protocol en-ters into force on the ninetieth day after the date onwhich not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incor-porating Parties included in Annex I which accounted intotal for at least 55% of the total carbon dioxide emis-sions for 1990 of the Annex I countries, have depositedtheir instruments of ratication, acceptance, approval oraccession.[87]

    The EU and its Member States ratied the Protocol inMay 2002.[88] Of the two conditions, the 55 partiesclause was reached on 23 May 2002 when Iceland ratiedthe Protocol.[1] The ratication by Russia on 18 Novem-ber 2004 satised the 55%" clause and brought the treatyinto force, eective 16 February 2005, after the requiredlapse of 90 days.[89]

    As of May 2013, 191 countries and one regional eco-nomic organization (the EC) have ratied the agreement,representing over 61.6% of the 1990 emissions fromAnnex I countries.[90] One of the 191 ratifying statesCanadahas denounced the protocol.Convention Parties

    7.1 US position

    The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998,[91]during the Clinton presidency. To become binding in theUS, however, the treaty had to be ratied by the Senate,which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any interna-tional agreement that did not require developing countriesto make emission reductions and would seriously harmthe economy of the United States. The resolution passed95-0.[92] Therefore, even though the Clinton administra-tion signed the treaty,[93] it was never submitted to theSenate for ratication.When George W. Bush was elected US president in 2000,he was asked by US Senator Hagel what his adminis-trations position was on climate change. Bush repliedthat he took climate change very seriously,[94] but thathe opposed the Kyoto treaty, because it exempts 80%of the world, including major population centers such as

    China and India, from compliance, and would cause seri-ous harm to the US economy.[95] The Tyndall Centre forClimate Change Research reported in 2001 that, Thispolicy reversal received a massive wave of criticism thatwas quickly picked up by the international media. En-vironmental groups blasted the White House, while Eu-ropeans and Japanese alike expressed deep concern andregret. [...] Almost all world leaders (e.g. China, Japan,South Africa, Pacic Islands, etc.) expressed their dis-appointment at Bushs decision. Bushs response that, Iwas responding to reality, and reality is the nation has gota real problem when it comes to energy was, it said, anoverstatement used to cover up the big benefactors of thispolicy reversal, i.e., the US oil and coal industry, whichhas a powerful lobby with the administration and conser-vative Republican congressmen.[96]

    The US accounted for 36% of emissions in1990, and without U.S. ratication, only anEU+Russia+Japan+small party coalition could place thetreaty into legal eect. A deal was reached in the Bonnclimate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.[97]

    7.2 Withdrawal of CanadaMain article: Kyoto Protocol and government action Withdrawal of CanadaSee also: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol

    In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia stated that theywould not take on further Kyoto targets.[98] The Cana-dian government announced its withdrawalpossible atany time three years after raticationfrom the KyotoProtocol on 12 December 2011, eective 15 Decem-ber 2012.[99] Canada was committed to cutting its green-house emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, butin 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. En-vironment minister Peter Kent cited Canadas liabilityto enormous nancial penalties under the treaty un-less it withdrew.[98][100] He also suggested that the re-cently signed Durban agreement may provide an alterna-tive way forward.[101] Canadas decision received a gener-ally negative response from representatives of other rati-fying countries.

  • 10 8 GOVERNMENT ACTION AND EMISSIONS

    not extend its ratication to Anguilla, British Virgin Is-lands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascen-sion and Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands orthe Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, whileDenmark excluded application to the Faroe Islands[103]

    8 Government action and emis-sions

    Main article: Kyoto Protocol and government actionSee also: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissionsper capita, List of countries by carbon dioxide emissionsand List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxideemissions

    8.1 Annex I countries

    Anthropogenic emissions of CO2-equivalents per year by the 10largest emitters (the European Union is lumped as a single area,because of their integrated carbon trading scheme). Data sortedbased on 2010 contributions.China (party, no binding targets)United States (non-party)European Union (party, binding targets)India (party, no binding targets)Russia (party, binding targets 2008-2012)Indonesia (party, no binding targets)Brazil (party, no binding targets)Japan (party, no binding targets)Congo (DR) (party, no binding targets)Canada (former party, binding targets 2008-2012)Other countries

    Total aggregate GHG emissions excluding emis-sions/removals from land use, land use change andforestry (LULUCF, i.e., carbon storage in forests andsoils) for all Annex I Parties (see list below) including

    the United States taken together decreased from 19.0 to17.8 thousand teragrams (Tg, which is equal to 109 kg)CO2 equivalent, a decline of 6.0% during the 1990-2008period.[104]:3 Several factors have contributed to thisdecline.[104]:14 The rst is due to the economic restruc-turing in the Annex I Economies in Transition[104]:14 (theEITs see Intergovernmental Emissions Trading for thelist of EITs). Over the period 1990-1999, emissions fellby 40% in the EITs following the collapse of centralplanning in the former Soviet Union and east Europeancountries.[105]:25 This led to a massive contraction oftheir heavy industry-based economies, with associ-ated reductions in their fossil fuel consumption andemissions.[44]:24

    Emissions growth in Annex I Parties have also been lim-ited due to policies and measures (PaMs).[104]:14 In par-ticular, PaMs were strengthened after 2000, helping toenhance energy eciency and develop renewable energysources.[104]:14 Energy use also decreased during the eco-nomic crisis in 2007-2008.[104]:14

    8.1.1 Projections

    UNFCCC (2011)[104]:14 made projections of changes inemissions of the Annex I Parties and the eectiveness oftheir PaMs. It was noted that their projections shouldbe interpreted with caution.[104]:7 For the 39 Annex IParties, UNFCCC (2011) projected that existing PaMswould lead to annual emissions in 2010 of 17.5 thousandTg CO2 eq, excluding LULUCF, which is a decrease of 6.7%from the 1990 level.[104]:14 Annual emissions in 2020 ex-cluding LULUCF were projected to reach 18.9 thousandTg CO2 eq, which is an increase of 0.6% on the 1990level.[104]:14

    UNFCCC (2011)[104]:14 made an estimate of the total ef-fect of implemented and adopted PaMs. Projected sav-ings were estimated relative to a reference (baseline) sce-nario where PaMs are not implemented. PaMs were pro-jected to deliver emissions savings relative to baseline ofabout 1.5 thousand Tg CO2 eq by 2010, and 2.8 thousand Tg CO2 eq by 2020.[104]:14 In percentage terms, and using an-nual emissions in the year 1990 as a reference point,PaMs were projected to deliver at least a 5.0% reduc-tion relative to baseline by 2010, and a 10.0% reductionrelative to baseline in 2020.[104]:14 Scenarios reviewed byUNFCCC (2011)[104]:14 still suggested that total AnnexI annual emissions would increase out to 2020 (see thepreceding paragraph).

  • 8.2 Non-Annex I 11

    8.1.2 Annex I Parties with targets

    Data given in the table above may not be fully reectiveof a countrys progress towards meeting its rst-round Ky-oto target. The summary below contains more up-to-dateinformation on how close countries are to meeting theirrst-round targets.

    CO2 emissions from fuel combustion of Annex I Kyoto Protocol(KP) Parties, 1990-2009. Total Annex I KP emissions are shown,along with emissions of Annex II KP and Annex I EITs.

    Collectively the group of industrialized countries com-mitted to a Kyoto target, i.e., the Annex I countries ex-cluding the USA, have a target of reducing their GHGemissions by 4.2% on average for the period 2008-2012 relative to the base year, which in most cases is1990.[105]:24 According to Olivier et al. (2011),[105]:24the Kyoto Parties will comfortably exceed their collec-tive target, with a projected average reduction of 16% for2008-2012. This projection excludes both LULUCF andcredits generated by the Clean Development Mechanism(CDM).[105]:24

    As noted in the preceding section, between 19901999,there was a large reduction in the emissions of theEITs.[105]:25 The reduction in the EITs is largely respon-sible for the total (aggregate) reduction (excluding LU-LUCF) in emissions of the Annex I countries, exclud-ing the USA.[105]:25 Emissions of the Annex II coun-tries (Annex I minus the EIT countries) have experi-enced a limited increase in emissions from 19902006,followed by stabilization and a more marked decreasefrom 2007 onwards.[105]:25 The emissions reductions inthe early nineties by the 12 EIT countries who have sincejoined the EU, assist the present EU-27 in meeting itscollective Kyoto target.[105]:25

    Almost all European countries are on track to achievetheir rst-round Kyoto targets.[116] Spain plans to meetits target by purchasing a large quantity of Kyoto unitsthrough the exibility mechanisms.[116] Australia,[105]:25Canada[105]:25 (Canada withdrew from the Kyoto treatyin 2012),[117] and Italy[116] are not on course to meet theirrst-round Kyoto targets. In order to meet their targets,these countries would need to purchase emissions creditsfrom other Kyoto countries.[105]:25 As noted in the sec-tion on Intergovernmental Emissions Trading, purchasingsurplus credits from the EIT countries would not actually

    result in total emissions being reduced. An alternativewould be the purchase of CDM credits or the use of thevoluntary Green Investment Scheme.In December 2011, Canadas environment minister,Peter Kent, formally announced that Canada would with-draw from the Kyoto accord a day after the end of the2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference (seethe section on the withdrawal of Canada).[117]

    8.1.3 Annex I Parties without Kyoto targets

    Belarus, Malta, and Turkey are Annex I Parties but do nothave rst-round Kyoto targets.[118] The US has a Kyototarget of a 6% reduction relative to the 1990 level, buthas not ratied the treaty.[105]:25 Emissions in the US haveincreased 11% since 1990, and according to Olivier et al.(2011),[105]:25 it will be unable to meet its original Kyototarget.If the US had ratied the Kyoto Protocol, the averagepercentage reduction in total GHG emissions for the An-nex I group would have been a 5.2% reduction relativeto the base year.[105]:26 Including the US in their calcula-tion, Olivier et al. (2011)[105]:26 projected that the AnnexI countries would collectively achieve a 7% reduction rel-ative to the base year, which is lower than the originaltarget of a 5.2% reduction. This projection excludes ex-pected purchases of emissions credits.[105]:26

    8.2 Non-Annex I

    Annual per capita carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., averageemissions per person) from fuel combustion between1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex IParties.

    Annual carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustionbetween 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.

  • 12 10 VIEWS ON THE PROTOCOL

    UNFCCC (2005) compiled and synthesized informationreported to it by non-Annex I Parties.[31] Most non-Annex I Parties belonged in the low-income group, withvery few classied as middle-income.[31]:4 Most Partiesincluded information on policies relating to sustainabledevelopment. Sustainable development priorities men-tioned by non-Annex I Parties included poverty allevia-tion and access to basic education and health care.[31]:6Many non-Annex I Parties are making eorts to amendand update their environmental legislation to includeglobal concerns such as climate change.[31]:7

    A few Parties, e.g., South Africa and Iran, stated theirconcern over how eorts to reduce emissions by AnnexI Parties could adversely aect their economies.[31]:7 Theeconomies of these countries are highly dependent on in-come generated from the production, processing, and ex-port of fossil fuels.EmissionsGHG emissions, excluding land use change and forestry(LUCF), reported by 122 non-Annex I Parties for the year1994 or the closest year reported, totalled 11.7 billiontonnes (billion = 1,000,000,000) of CO2-eq. CO2 wasthe largest proportion of emissions (63%), followed bymethane (26%) and nitrous oxide (N2O) (11%).The energy sector was the largest source of emissions for70 Parties, whereas for 45 Parties the agriculture sectorwas the largest. Per capita emissions (in tonnes of CO2-eq, excluding LUCF) averaged 2.8 tonnes for the 122non-Annex I Parties.

    The Africa regions aggregate emissions were 1.6billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 2.4tonnes.

    The Asia and Pacic regions aggregate emissionswere 7.9 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of2.6 tonnes.

    The Latin America and Caribbean regions aggre-gate emissions were 2 billion tonnes, with per capitaemissions of 4.6 tonnes.

    The other region includes Albania, Arme-nia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Malta, Moldova, andMacedonia. Their aggregate emissions were 0.1billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 5.1tonnes.

    Parties reported a high level of uncertainty in LUCF emis-sions, but in aggregate, there appeared to only be a smalldierence of 1.7% with and without LUCF. With LUCF,emissions were 11.9 billion tonnes, without LUCF, totalaggregate emissions were 11.7 billion tonnes.TrendsIn several large developing countries and fast growingeconomies (China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt,and Iran) GHG emissions have increased rapidly (PBL,

    2009).[119] For example, emissions in China have risenstrongly over the 19902005 period, often by more than10% year. Emissions per-capita in non-Annex I countriesare still, for the most part, much lower than in indus-trialized countries. Non-Annex I countries do not havequantitative emission reduction commitments, but theyare committed to mitigation actions. China, for example,has had a national policy programme to reduce emissionsgrowth, which included the closure of old, less ecientcoal-red power plants.

    9 Cost estimatesBarker et al. (2007, p. 79) assessed the literature on costestimates for the Kyoto Protocol.[120] Due to non-US par-ticipation in the Kyoto treaty, costs estimates were foundto be much lower than those estimated in the previousIPCC Third Assessment Report. Without US participa-tion, and with full use of the Kyoto exible mechanisms,costs were estimated at less than 0.05% of Annex B GDP.This compared to earlier estimates of 0.11.1%. Withoutuse of the exible mechanisms, costs without US partici-pation were estimated at less than 0.1%. This comparedto earlier estimates of 0.22%. These cost estimates wereviewed as being based on much evidence and high agree-ment in the literature.

    10 Views on the ProtocolMain article: Views on the Kyoto Protocol

    Gupta et al. (2007) assessed the literature on climatechange policy. They found that no authoritative assess-ments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that theseagreements had, or will, succeed in solving the climateproblem.[19] In these assessments, it was assumed that theUNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. TheFramework Convention and its Protocol include provi-sions for future policy actions to be taken.Gupta et al. (2007)[121] described the Kyoto rst-roundcommitments as modest, stating that they acted as aconstraint on the treatys eectiveness. It was suggestedthat subsequent Kyoto commitments could be made moreeective with measures aimed at achieving deeper cutsin emissions, as well as having policies applied to a largershare of global emissions.[121] In 2008, countries with aKyoto cap made up less than one-third of annual globalcarbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion.[122]

    World Bank (2010)[123] commented on how the KyotoProtocol had only had a slight eect on curbing globalemissions growth. The treaty was negotiated in 1997,but in 2006, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions hadgrown by 24%.[124] World Bank (2010) also stated thatthe treaty had provided only limited nancial support

  • 13

    to developing countries to assist them in reducing theiremissions and adapting to climate change.[123]

    Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based onthe idea of climate justice (Liverman, 2008, p. 14).[27]This has particularly centred on the balance between thelow emissions and high vulnerability of the developingworld to climate change, compared to high emissions inthe developed world.Some environmentalists have supported the Kyoto Pro-tocol because it is the only game in town, and possi-bly because they expect that future emission reductioncommitments may demand more stringent emission re-ductions (Aldy et al.., 2003, p. 9).[125] In 2001, seven-teen national science academies stated that ratication ofthe Protocol represented a small but essential rst steptowards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of green-house gases.[126] Some environmentalists and scientistshave criticized the existing commitments for being tooweak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).[127]

    The United States (under former President George W.Bush) and Australia (initially, under former Prime Min-ister John Howard) did not ratify the Kyoto treaty.[128]According to Stern (2006),[128] their decision was basedon the lack of quantitative emission commitments foremerging economies (see also the 2000 onwards sec-tion). Australia, under former Prime Minister KevinRudd, has since ratied the treaty,[129][130] which took ef-fect in March 2008.[131]

    10.1 Views on the exibility mechanisms

    Further information: Flexible Mechanisms Views onthe exibility mechanisms

    Another area which has been commented on is therole of the Kyoto exibility mechanisms emissionstrading, Joint Implementation, and the Clean De-velopment Mechanism (CDM).[132][133] The exibilitymechanisms have attracted both positive and negativecomments.[134][135][136]

    As mentioned earlier, a number of Annex I Parties haveimplemented emissions trading schemes (ETSs) as partof eorts to meet their Kyoto commitments. Gen-eral commentaries on emissions trading are containedin emissions trading and carbon emission trading. In-dividual articles on the ETSs contain commentaries onthese schemes (see Kyoto Protocol#International Emis-sions Trading for a list of ETSs).One of the arguments made in favour of the exibilitymechanisms is that they can reduce the costs incurred byAnnex I Parties in meeting their Kyoto commitments.[132]Criticisms of exibility have, for example, included theineectiveness of emissions trading in promoting invest-ment in non-fossil energy sources,[137] and adverse im-pacts of CDM projects on local communities in develop-

    ing countries.[138]

    11 Conference of the PartiesFurther information: United Nations Climate Changeconference

    The ocial meeting of all states party to the Kyoto Pro-tocol is the Conference of the Parties. It is held everyyear as part of the United Nations Climate Change con-ference, which also serves as the formal meeting of UN-FCCC. The rst Meetings of Parties of the Kyoto Pro-tocol (MOP) was held in 2005 in conjunction with theeleventh Conferences of parties to UNFCCC. Also par-ties to the Convention that are not parties to the Protocolcan participate in Protocol-related meetings as observers.The rst conference was held in 1995 in Berlin, while the2013 conference was held in Warsaw. Future COPs willbe held in Lima, Peru in 2014 and in Paris, France in2015.

    12 Amendment and possible suc-cessors

    Main article: PostKyoto Protocol negotiations ongreenhouse gas emissions

    In the non-binding 'Washington Declaration' agreed on16 February 2007, heads of governments from Canada,France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United King-dom, the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico andSouth Africa agreed in principle on the outline of a suc-cessor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisaged a globalcap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrial-ized nations and developing countries, and initially hopedthat it would be in place by 2009.[139][140]

    The United Nations Climate Change Conference inCopenhagen in December 2009 was one of the annualseries of UN meetings that followed the 1992 Earth Sum-mit in Rio. In 1997 the talks led to the Kyoto Protocol,and the conference in Copenhagen was considered to bethe opportunity to agree a successor to Kyoto that wouldbring about meaningful carbon cuts.[141][142]

    The 2010 Cancn agreements include voluntary pledgesmade by 76 developed and developing countries to con-trol their emissions of greenhouse gases.[143] In 2010,these 76 countries were collectively responsible for 85%of annual global emissions.[143][144]

    By May 2012, the USA, Japan, Russia, and Canada hadindicated they would not sign up to a second Kyoto com-mitment period.[145] In November 2012, Australia con-rmed it would participate in a second commitment pe-

  • 14 14 NOTES

    riod under the Kyoto Protocol and New Zealand con-rmed that it would not.[146]

    New Zealands climate minister Tim Groser said the 15-year-old Kyoto Protocol was outdated, and that NewZealand was ahead of the curve in looking for a replace-ment that would include developing nations.[147] Non-prot environmental organisations such as the WorldWildlife Fund criticised New Zealands decision to pullout.[148]

    On 8 December 2012, at the end of the 2012 UnitedNations Climate Change Conference, an agreement wasreached to extend the Protocol to 2020 and to set adate of 2015 for the development of a successor docu-ment, to be implemented from 2020 (see lede for moreinformation).[149] The outcome of the Doha talks has re-ceived a mixed response, with small island states criti-cal of the overall package.The Kyoto second commitmentperiod applies to about 15% of annual global emissions ofgreenhouse gases. Other results of the conference includea timetable for a global agreement to be adopted by 2015which includes all countries.[150] At the Doha meeting ofthe parties to the UNFCCCC on 8 December 2012, theEuropean Union chief climate negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, pledged to extend the treaty, binding on the 27European Member States, up to the year 2020 pendingan internal ratication procedure.Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations,called on world leaders to come to an agreement on halt-ing global warming during the 69th Session of the UNGeneral Assembly[151] on 23 September 2014 in NewYork. UN member states have been negotiating a futureclimate deal over the last ve years. A preliminary cal-endar was adopted to conrm national contributions tothe reduction of CO2 emissions by 2015 before the UNclimate summit which will be held in Paris 2015 UnitedNations Climate Change Conference.

    13 See also Alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol and successor Asia Pacic Partnership on Clean Development and

    Climate Business action on climate change Carbon emission trading Carbon nance Clean Development Mechanism Climate legislation Environmental agreements Environmental impact of aviation Environmental tari

    List of climate change initiatives List of international environmental agreements Low-carbon economy Montreal Protocol Politics of global warming Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest

    Degradation or REDD United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

    Change or UNFCCC World Peoples Conference on Climate Change

    14 Notes[1] Status of ratication. UNFCC Homepage. Retrieved 5

    June 2012.

    [2] http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf

    [3] http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php

    [4] 7 .a Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change. UN Treaty Database.Retrieved 27 November 2014.

    [5] 7 .c Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol. UNTreaty Database. Retrieved 19 April 2015.

    [6] Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Con-vention on Climate Change: Annex B. United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change. n.d. Re-trieved 8 October 2011.

    [7] KOM(2007) nal edition page 2

    [8] Figueres, C. (15 December 2012), Environmental issues:Time to abandon blame-games and become proactive -Economic Times, The Economic Times / Indiatimes.com(Times Internet), retrieved 2012-12-18

    [9] US National Research Council (2001). Summary.Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Ques-tions. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: National AcademyPress. p. 3.

    [10] US National Research Council (2008). Understandingand Responding to Climate Change (PDF). Board on At-mospheric Sciences and Climate, US National Academyof Sciences. p. 2.

    [11] IPCC (2007). 3. Projected climate change and its im-pacts. In Core Writing Team et al. (eds.). Summaryfor Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Re-port. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to theFourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press.

    [12] Temperatures are measured relative to the average globaltemperature averaged over the years 1980-1999, with theprojected change averaged over 20902099.

  • 15

    [13] Karl, T.R. et al., eds. (2009). Global climate change.Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 32Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473,USA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-14407-0.

    [14] http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&n=EE4F06AE-1&xml=EE4F06AE-13EF-453B-B633-FCB3BAECEB4F&offset=3&toc=show Canadian government ocialarchives

    [15] United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) (2011a), Status of Ratication ofthe Convention, UNFCCC Secretariat: Bonn, Germany:UNFCCC. Most countries in the world are Parties tothe United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC), which has adopted the 2 C target.There are currently (as of 25 November 2011) 195 Parties(194 states and 1 regional economic integration organiza-tion (the European Union)) to the UNFCCC.

    [16] IPCC (2001d). Question 1. In Watson, R.T. and theCore Writing Team. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Re-port. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to theThird Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press.

    [17] Granger Morgan *, M.; Dowlatabadi, H.; Henrion,M.; Keith, D.; Lempert, R.; McBride, S.; Small, M.;Wilbanks, T. (2009). BOX NT.1 Summary of ClimateChange Basics. Non-Technical Summary. Synthesis andAssessment Product 5.2: Best practice approaches forcharacterizing, communicating, and incorporating scien-tic uncertainty in decision making. A Report by the U.S.Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommitteeon Global Change Research. Washington D.C., USA.:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. p.11. (* is Lead Author)

    [18] Grubb, M. (2004). Kyoto and the Future of Interna-tional Climate Change Responses: From Here to Where?"(PDF). International Review for Environmental Strategies5 (1): 2 (PDF version).

    [19] Gupta, S. et al. (2007). 13.3.1 Evaluations of existingclimate change agreements. In (book chapter): Policies,instruments, and co-operative arrangements.. In B. Metzet al. Eds. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribu-tion of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Re-port of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCCwebsite. Retrieved 2 April 2010.

    [20] Grubb & Depledge 2001, p. 269

    [21] Article 2. The United Nations Framework Conventionon Climate Change. Retrieved 15 November 2005. Sucha level should be achieved within a time-frame sucient toallow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, toensure that food production is not threatened and to enableeconomic development to proceed in a sustainable manner

    [22] 7.32 Question 7, Stabilizing atmospheric concentrationswould depend upon emissions reductions beyond those

    agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol , p.122, in IPCC TAR SYR2001

    [23] Meehl, G. A. et al. (2007). FAQ 10.3 If Emis-sions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quicklydo Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?".In Solomon, S., et al., (eds.). Global Climate Projec-tions. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assess-ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. Cambridge University Press.

    [24] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)(2007). Human and Natural Drivers of ClimateChange. In Solomon, S., et al., (eds.). Summary for Pol-icymakers. Climate Change 2007: The Physical ScienceBasis. Contribution of Working Group I to the FourthAssessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge UniversityPress.

    [25] United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC

    [26] Depledge, J. (August 1999 August 2000), United Na-tions Framework Convention on Climate Change (UN-FCCC) Technical paper: Tracing the Origins of the Ky-oto Protocol: An Article-by-Article Textual History (PDF),UNFCCC, p. 6

    [27] Liverman, D. M. (2008). Conventions of climate change:constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmo-sphere (PDF). Journal of Historical Geography 35 (2):279296. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008. Retrieved 10May 2011.

    [28] Grubb 2003, p. 147[29] The benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by the

    Conference of the parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3)were the values of "global warming potential" calculatedfor the IPCC Second Assessment Report. These guresare used for converting the various greenhouse gas emis-sions into comparable carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2-eq) when computing overall sources and sinks. Source:Methodological issues related to the Kyoto protocol(PDF). Report of the Conference of the Parties on itsthird session, held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December1997, United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange. 25 March 1998. Retrieved 13 February 2010.

    [30] Industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissionsby 5.2%" (Press release). United Nations EnvironmentProgramme. 11 December 1997. Retrieved 6 August2007.

    [31] UNFCCC (25 October 2005), Sixth compilation andsynthesis of initial national communications from Par-ties not included in Annex I to the Convention. Noteby the secretariat. Executive summary. Document codeFCCC/SBI/2005/18, United Nations Oce at Geneva,Switzerland, retrieved 20 May 2010

    [32] United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC

    [33] Adam, David (2 December 2007), UK to seek pacton shipping and aviation pollution at climate talks, TheGuardian

  • 16 14 NOTES

    [34] United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol to the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UN-FCCC

    [35] European Environment Agency (EEA) (15 November2005), Kyoto burden-sharing targets for EU-15 countries- EEA, EEA

    [36] United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) (2008), Kyoto Protocol ReferenceManual On Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount(PDF), Bonn, Germany: Climate Change Secretariat(UNFCCC), p. 55, ISBN 92-9219-055-5

    [37] Bashmakov, I. et al., 6. Policies, Measures, and Instru-ments, Executive summary, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001

    [38] Cliord Chance LLP (2012). Clean Devel-opment Mechanism: CDM and the UNFCChttp://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/CDM%26UNFCCCcorrected.pdf . Advocates for Interna-tional Development. Retrieved: 19 September 2013.

    [39] Toth, F. L. et al., 10. Decision-making Frameworks,10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Re-lationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of In-ternational Mechanisms, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001

    [40] Bashmakov, I. et al., 6. Policies, Measures, and Instru-ments, 6.3 International Policies, Measures, and Instru-ments, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001

    [41] Hourcade, J.-C. et al., 8. Global, Regional, and NationalCosts and Ancillary Benets of Mitigation, 8.3.1 Inter-national Emissions Quota Trading Regimes, in IPCC TARWG3 2001

    [42] Bashmakov, I. et al., 6. Policies, Measures, and Instru-ments, 6.3.2 Project-based Mechanisms (Joint Implemen-tation and the Clean Development Mechanism), in IPCCTAR WG3 2001

    [43] Hood, C. (November 2010). 5. Current and proposedemissions trading systems (PDF). Review Existing andProposed Emissions Trading Systems: Information pa-per. Head of Publications Service, 9 rue de la Fdra-tion, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France: International EnergyAgency (IEA). Retrieved 7 July 2011.

    [44] Carbon Trust (March 2009). Global Carbon Mecha-nisms: Emerging lessons and implications (CTC748)".Carbon Trust website. Retrieved 31 March 2010.

    [45] World Bank (2008), Development and Climate Change: AStrategic Framework for theWorld Bank Group: TechnicalReport, Washington, DC, USA: The International Bankfor Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.

    [46] Hourcade, J.-C. et al. (2001). 8.3.1.1 Where Flexibil-ity"". In B. Metz et al. 8. Global, Regional, and Na-tional Costs and Ancillary Benets of Mitigation. ClimateChange 2001: Mitigation. A Contribution of WorkingGroup III to the Third Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge Uni-versity Press. p. 538.

    [47] Blyth, W.; Baron, R. (2003), Green Investment Schemes:Options and Issues (PDF), Paris, France: Organi-zation for Economic Cooperation and Development(OECD) Environment Directorate and InternationalEnergy Agency (IEA), p. 11 OECD reference:COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)9

    [48] Chiavari, J.; Pallemaerts, M. (30 June 2008), Energy andClimate Change in Russia (note requested by the EuropeanParliaments temporary committee on Climate Change, Pol-icy Department Economy and Science, DG Internal Poli-cies, European Parliament) (PDF), Brussels, Belgium: In-stitute for European Environmental Policy, p. 11

    [49] Carbon Finance at the World Bank (2011), Carbon Fi-nance - Glossary of Terms: Denition of Green Invest-ment Scheme (GIS), Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: WorldBank Carbon Finance Unit (CFU), retrieved 15 Decem-ber 2011

    [50] World Bank (2011), State and Trends of the Carbon Mar-ket Report 2011 (PDF), Washington, DC, USA: WorldBank Environment Department, Carbon Finance Unit

    [51] Government of Japan (28 March 2008), Kyoto ProtocolTarget Achievement Plan (Provisional Translation) (PDF),Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of the Environment, Governmentof Japan, pp. 8182

    [52] Ramming, I. et al. (September 2008). 34. AAU Trad-ing and the Impact on Kyoto and EU Emissions Trad-ing. Before the Flood or Storm in a Tea-cup?". In Car-nahan, K. Greenhouse Gas Market Report 2008. Geneva,Switzerland: International Emissions Trading Association(IETA). p. 141. This document can also be downloadedas a PDF le

    [53] World Bank (2010). World Development Report 2010:Development and Climate Change. The InternationalBank for Reconstruction and Development / The WorldBank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433. Re-trieved 6 April 2010.

    [54] Chapter 8 The challenge of stabilisation, Box 8.1 Like-lihood of exceeding a temperature increase at equilibrium(PDF), p. 195, in Stern 2006

    [55] Fisher, B. et al., Chapter 3: Issues related to mitigationin the long-term context, 3.3.5.1 Emission reductions andtiming , in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007

    [56] Fisher, B. et al., Chapter 3: Issues related to mitigation inthe long-term context, 3.3.2 Denition of a stabilizationtarget , in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007

    [57] Synthesis report, 5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisa-tion , in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007

    [58] Chapter 8 The challenge of stabilisation, Sec 8.5 Path-ways to stabilisation (PDF), in Stern 2006, p. 199

    [59] Hhne, N., Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Stabilization ofCarbon Dioxide Concentration (PDF), Cologne, Germany:ECOFYS energy & environment

  • 17

    [60] United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) (2011), Conference of the Parties -Sixteenth Session: Decision 1/CP.16: The Cancun Agree-ments: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Groupon Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention(English): Paragraph 4 (PDF), Bonn, Germany: UN-FCCC Secretariat, p. 3

    [61] International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010), 13. Energyand the ultimate climate change target (PDF), World En-ergy Outlook 2010, Paris, France: IEA, p. 380, ISBN 978-92-64-08624-1

    [62] Levin, K.; Bradley, R. (February 2010), Working Pa-per: Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges(PDF), Washington DC, USA: World Resources Institute,p. 16

    [63] Gupta, S. et al., Chapter 13: Policies, instruments, andco-operative arrangements, Box 13.7 The range of thedierence between emissions in 1990 and emission al-lowances in 2020/2050 for various GHG concentrationlevels for Annex I and non-Annex I countries as a group, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007

    [64] King, D. et al. (July 2011), Copenhagen and Cancun,International climate change negotiations: Key lessonsand next steps, Oxford, UK: Smith School of Enter-prise and the Environment, University of Oxford, p.14, doi:10.4210/ssee.pbs.2011.0003 PDF version is alsoavailable

    [65] Dessai 2001, p. 3

    [66] Baede, A.P.M. (ed.), Annex II, Glossary: Land use andLand-use change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007

    [67] Robert T. Watson, Ian R. Noble, Bert Bolin, N. H. Ravin-dranath, David J. Verardo and David J. Dokken (editors),2000, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Spe-cial Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry,Cambridge University Press, UK

    [68] Dessai 2001, p. 9

    [69] Grubb 2003, p. 144

    [70] Liverman 2009, p. 290

    [71] Part II: Selected Development Indicators (PDF), TableA1: Energy-related emissions: Indicator: per capita (met-ric tons), in World Bank 2010, p. 370

    [72] Dessai 2001, p. 4

    [73] G-77 2011

    [74] Grubb 2003, pp. 145146

    [75] Liverman 2009, p. 291

    [76] Grubb 2003, p. 148

    [77] Grubb 2003, p. 151

    [78] Depledge 2000, p. 46

    [79] Depledge 2000, p. 44

    [80] Depledge 2000, p. 45

    [81] http://www.adaptation-fund.org/

    [82] The Kyoto protocol A brief summary. European Com-mission. Retrieved 19 April 2007.

    [83] Kyoto Protocol. UNFCCC. 14 May 2008. Retrieved21 May 2009.

    [84] Maljean-Dubois,, S. Compliance with the Kyoto Proto-col on Climate Change. Synthse, n 01, 2007. Institutefor Sustainable Development and International Relations.

    [85] Grubb 2003, p. 157

    [86] An Introduction to the Kyoto Protocol ComplianceMechanism. UNFCC. Retrieved 30 October 2006.

    [87] The Kyoto Protocol full text (PDF)" (PDF). UNFCCHomepage.

    [88] European Union raties the Kyoto Protocol (Press re-lease). European Union. 31 May 2002. Retrieved 13February 2010.

    [89] West, Larry. What is the Kyoto Protocol. About.com(Part of NYT). Retrieved 5 June 2012.

    [90] Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratication (PDF). UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 14January 2009. Retrieved 6 May 2009.

    [91] Congressional Research Service Reports #98-349:Global Climate Change: Selected Legal Questions Aboutthe Kyoto Protocol.

    [92] Byrd-Hagel Resolution (http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html)

    [93] Clinton Hails Global Warming Pact. All Politics(CNN). 11 December 1997. Retrieved 5 November 2006.

    [94] http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Energy_+_Oil.htm#56

    [95] Dessai 2001, p. 5

    [96] Dessai 2001, pp. 56

    [97] Dessai 2001, pp. 510

    [98] Canada pulls out of Kyoto protocol. The Guardian. 13December 2011. Retrieved 13 December 2011.

    [99] Canada withdrawing from Kyoto. The Toronto Star. 12December 2011. Retrieved 12 December 2011.

    [100] Ljunggren, David; Palmer, Randall (13 December 2011).Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol. Reuters. FinancialPost. Retrieved 9 January 2012.

    [101] Canada under re over Kyoto protocol exit. BBC News.13 December 2011.

    [102] Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Con-vention on Climate Change. Ministry of Foreign Aairs(Netherlands). Retrieved 30 December 2012.

  • 18 14 NOTES

    [103] Status of Ratication of the Kyoto Protocol. UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Re-trieved 15 August 2011.

    [104] United Nations Framework Convention on ClimateChange (UNFCCC) (2011), Compilation and synthesis offth national communications. Executive summary. Noteby the secretariat. (PDF), Geneva (Switzerland): UnitedNations Oce at Geneva

    [105] Olivier, J. G. J. et al. (21 September 2011), Long-termtrend in global CO2 emissions; 2011 report (PDF), The Hague, Nether-lands: PBL Netherlands Environmental AssessmentAgency; Institute for Environment and Sustainability(IES) of the European Commissions Joint ResearchCentre (JRC), ISBN 978-90-78645-68-9 PBL publica-tion number 500253004. JRC Technical Note numberJRC65918.

    [106] Emissions data given in this table may not fully reectprogress towards the rst-round Kyoto targets. This is be-cause of the implicit trading of targets under the EU ETS(see Kyoto Protocol#Intergovernmental Emissions Trad-ing), possible eects of trade in AAUs (see Kyoto Proto-col#Trade in AAUs), and the use of dierent emissionsbase years for some Parties (see Kyoto Protocol#2012emission targets and exible mechanisms).

    [107] UNFCCC 2011, p. 7

    [108] Aggregate emissions of the Kyoto basket of GHGs(see Kyoto Protocol#2012 emission targets and exiblemechanisms), measured in carbon dioxide equivalent,and including changes in emissions due to carbon sinks(land use, land use change, and forestry)

    [109] Aggregate emissions of the Kyoto basket of GHGs(see Kyoto Protocol#2012 emission targets and exiblemechanisms), measured in carbon dioxide equivalent,and excluding changes in emissions due to carbon sinks(land use, land use change, and forestry)

    [110] IEA 2011, p. 13

    [111] {{CO2}} emissions from fuel combustion only. Estimatesapplying the Kyoto targets to International Energy Agency(IEA) data suggest the overall Kyoto target is equivalent toabout 4.7% on an aggregate basis for {{CO2}} emissionsfrom fuel combustion

    [112] StarTribune - Canada formally pulls out of Kyoto Protocolon climate change Retrieved 4 May 2012.

    [113] In 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol

    [114] For the region encompassing the European Union, Croatiaand Iceland

    [115] Monacos CO2 emissions from fuel combustion are in-cluded with Frances.

    [116] EEA 2012, p. 7

    [117] Vaughan, A (13 December 2011). What does Canadaswithdrawal from Kyoto protocol mean?". The Guardian.Retrieved 17 December 2011.

    [118] International Energy Agency (IEA) (2011), CO2 Emis-sions from Fuel Combustion 2011 - Highlights (PDF),Paris, France: IEA, p. 13

    [119] PBL (16 October 2009). Industrialised countries willcollectively meet 2010 Kyoto target. Netherlands Envi-ronmental Assessment Agency (PBL) website. Retrieved3 April 2010.

    [120] Barker, T. et al. (2007). Mitigation costs across sectorsand macro-economic costs. In Metz, B.; Davidson, O.R.; Bosch, P. R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L. A. Technical sum-mary. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contributionof Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Reportof the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Printversion: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UnitedKingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCCwebsite. ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. Retrieved 16 April2011.

    [121] Gupta, S. et al., Chapter 13: Policies, instruments,and co-operative arrangements, Executive Summary , inIPCC AR4 WG3 2007

    [122] International Energy Agency (IEA). CO2 Emissions fromFuel Combustion - 2011 Highlights (PDF). Paris, France:IEA. p. 12.

    [123] 5. Integrating development into a global climate regime(PDF), in World Bank 2010, p. 233

    [124] 5. Integrating development into a global climate regime(PDF), in World Bank 2010, p. 248

    [125] Aldy, J. E. et al. (9 September 2003). ThirteenPlus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Pol-icy Architectures. Climate Policy 3 (3): 373397.doi:10.1016/j.clipol.2003.09.004. Retrieved 2 April2010.

    [126] The joint-statement was made by the Australian Academyof Science, the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgiumfor Science and the Arts, the Brazilian Academy ofSciences, the Royal Society of Canada, the CaribbeanAcademy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sci-ences, the French Academy of Sciences, the GermanAcademy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, the Indian Na-tional Science Academy, the Indonesian Academy of Sci-ences, the Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionaledei Lincei (Italy), the Academy of Sciences Malaysia,the Academy Council of the Royal Society of NewZealand, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, andthe Royal Society (UK). Joint statement by 17 nationalscience academies (17 May 2001), The Science of Cli-mate Change (PDF), London, UK: Royal Society, ISBN0854035583. Statement website at the UK Royal Soci-ety. Also published as: The Science of Climate Change(editorial)", Science 292 (5520), 18 May 2001: 1261,doi:10.1126/science.292.5520.1261

    [127] Grubb, M. (April 2000). The Kyoto Protocol: An Eco-nomic Appraisal. FEEM Working Paper No. 30 2000.SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.229280. SSRN 229280.

    [128] 22. Creating a global price for carbon (PDF), in Stern2006, p. 478

  • 19

    [129] Govt still not serious about climate change: Labor. ABCNews Online. 26 October 2006. Retrieved 30 October2006.

    [130] Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto. BBC News. 3 De-cember 2007. Retrieved 5 December 2007.

    [131] Australias Rudd sworn in as PM. BBC News (BBC). 3December 2007. Retrieved 3 December 2007.

    [132] Toth et al. summarize the arguments for and against exi-bility: Toth, F. L. et al., Ch 10: Decision-making Frame-works, Sec 10.4.4. Where Should the Response TakePlace? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation andthe Use of International Mechanisms, in IPCC TAR WG32001

    [133] Banuri, T. et al., Ch 1: Setting the Stage: Climate Changeand Sustainable Development, Sec 1.3.3 How Has GlobalClimate Policy Treated Equity?, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001

    [134] Part III: How good (or bad) are the Mechanisms?, inCarbon Trust 2009, pp. 5379

    [135] Schneider, L. (5 November 2007), Ch 5: Overall conclu-sions, Is the CDM fullling its environmental and sustain-able development objectives? An evaluation of the CDMand options for improvement. A report prepared for theWWF, Berlin, Germany: Institute for Applied Ecology,pp. 7273

    [136] Spash 2010

    [137] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Af-fairs, VI. Financing the development response to climatechange, World Economic and Social Survey 2009: Pro-moting Development, Saving the Planet (PDF), New York,USA: United Nations, p. 162, ISBN 978-92-1-109159-5

    [138] Spash 2010, p. 185

    [139] Politicians sign new climate pact. BBC. 16 February2007. Retrieved 28 May 2007.

    [140] Global leaders reach climate change agreement. TheGuardian. UK. 16 February 2007. Retrieved 28 May2007.

    [141] Adam, David (25 March 2009). Why the Copenhagenclimate change clihanger could drag on a little longer.The Guardian. Retrieved 14 April 2009.

    [142] Adam, David (14 April 2009). World will not meet2C warming target, climate change experts agree. TheGuardian. Retrieved 14 April 2009. The poll comes asUN negotiations to agree a new global treaty to regulatecarbon pollution gather pace in advance of a key meetingin Copenhagen in December. Ocials will try to agree asuccessor to the Kyoto protocol, the rst phase of whichexpires in 2012.

    [143] King, D. et al. (July 2011), Copenhagen and Cancun,International climate change negotiations: Key lessonsand next steps, Oxford, UK: Smith School of Enter-prise and the Environment, University of Oxford, p.12, doi:10.4210/ssee.pbs.2011.0003 PDF version is alsoavailable

    [144] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)(November 2012), The Emissions Gap Report 2012(PDF), Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP, pp. 1418 Executivesummary in other languages

    [145] Murray, James (16 May 2012). Bonn climate talks: EUplays down talk of Kyoto protocol rift. The Guardian.Retrieved 21 November 2012. A number of large emit-ters, including the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada, havesignalled they will not sign up to Kyoto or to a sec-ond commitment period of Kyoto, while large emergingeconomies will only sign up to an agreement that does notimpose binding emission reduction targets on them.

    [146] Harvey, Fiona (9 November 2012). Kyoto protocol:Australia signs up to second phase. The Guardian. Re-trieved 21 November 2012.

    [147] Groser defends quitting Kyoto Protocol. 3 News NZ. 3December 2012.

    [148] NZs climate reputation 'nosedive'". 3 News NZ. 10 De-cember 2012.

    [149] UN climate talks extend Kyoto Protocol, promise com-pensation. BBC News. 8 December 2012.

    [150] UN Climate Change Secretariat (8 December 2012),Doha climate conference opens gateway to greater ambi-tion and action on climate change (press release) (PDF),Bonn, Germany: UN Climate Change Secretariat, p.2.

    [151] http://sd.iisd.org/events/69th-session-of-the-un-general-assembly-unga-69

    15 References Carbon Trust (March 2009), Global Carbon Mecha-

    nisms: Emerging lessons and implications (CTC748),Carbon Trust

    Depledge, J. (25 November 2000), United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UN-FCCC) Technical paper: Tracing the Origins of theKyoto Protocol: AnArticle-by-Article Textual History(PDF), UNFCCC

    Dessai, S. (December 2001), Tyndall Centre Work-ing Paper 12: The climate regime from The Hague toMarrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?,Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre

    EEA (2012), Greenhouse gas emission trends andprojections in Europe 2012 - Tracking progresstowards Kyoto and 2020 targets. A report bythe European Environment Agency (EEA), Lux-embourg: Publications Oce of the EuropeanUnion, doi:10.2800/56770, ISBN 978-92-9213-331-3, ISSN 1725-9177. Report No 6/2012. Re-port website.

    G-77 (22 November 2011), The Group of 77 - Mem-ber States, The Group of 77, retrieved 22 October2012

  • 20 16 FURTHER READING

    Grubb, M. (JulySeptember 2003), The Eco-nomics of the Kyoto Protocol, World Economics 4(3), CiteSeerX: 10 .1 .1 .163 .1719

    Grubb, M.; Depledge, J. (2001), The Seven Mythsof Kyoto (PDF), Climate Policy 1 (2)

    IEA (2011), CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion:Highlights (2011 edition) (PDF), Paris, France: In-ternational Energy Agency (IEA)

    IEA (2012), CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion:Highlights (2012 edition) (PDF), Paris, France: In-ternational Energy Agency (IEA). Report website.Data as an Excel spreadsheet.

    IPCC TAR WG3 (2001), Metz, B.; Davidson, O.;Swart, R. et al., eds., Climate Change 2001: Mit-igation, Contribution of Working Group III to theThird Assessment Report of the Intergovernmen-tal Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge UniversityPress, ISBN 0-521-80769-7 Missing |last4= in Edi-tors list (help); (pb: 0-521-01502-2).

    IPCC TAR SYR (2001), Watson, R. T.; Core Writ-ing Team, eds., Climate Change 2001: SynthesisReport (SYR), Contribution of Working Groups I,II, and III to the Third Assessment Report (TAR)of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-521-80770-0 (pb: 0-521-01507-3).

    IPCC AR4 WG3 (2007), Metz, B.; Davidson, O. R.;Bosch, P. R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L. A., eds., ClimateChange 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contri-bution of Working Group III (WG3) to the FourthAssessment Report (AR4) of the IntergovernmentalPanel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge Uni-versity Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4 (pb: 978-0-521-70598-1).

    IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), Core Writing Team;Pachauri, R.K.; Reisinger, A., eds., Climate Change2007: Synthesis Report (SYR), Contribution ofWorking Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assess-ment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panelon Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland:IPCC, ISBN 92-9169-122-4.

    Liverman, D.M. (2009), Conventions of climatechange: constructions of danger and the disposses-sion of the atmosphere (PDF), Journal of HistoricalGeography 35 (2), doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008

    Spash, C.L. (2010), The Brave New World of Car-bon Trading (PDF), New Political Economy 15 (2):169195, doi:10.1080/13563460903556049

    Stern, N. (2006), Stern Review Report on the Eco-nomics of Climate Change (pre-publication edition),London, UK: HM Treasury

    United Nations (9 May 1992), United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change, NewYork

    United Nations (1998), Kyoto Protocol to the UnitedNations Framework Convention on Climate Change.Also available in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, Frenchand Russian.

    UNEP (November 2012), The Emissions Gap Re-port 2012 (PDF), Nairobi, Kenya: United NationsEnvironment Programme (UNEP) Executive sum-mary in other languages

    UNFCCC (6 June 1995), FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1:Report of the Conference of the Parties on its rst ses-sion, held at Berlin from 28 March to 7 April 1995.Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the Confer-ence of the Parties at its rst session (PDF), Geneva,Switzerland: United Nations Oce. Available as aPDF in the ocial UN languages.

    UNFCCC (25 October 2005), Six


Kyoto Protocol MP

Kyoto Protocol MP

Documents
The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol

Documents
2. Kyoto Protocol - Information and Library Network Centreshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/8256/11/11_chapter 2.pdf · 2. Kyoto Protocol The objective of the Kyoto Protocol

2. Kyoto Protocol - Information and Library Network Centreshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/8256/11/11_chapter 2.pdf · 2. Kyoto Protocol The objective of the Kyoto Protocol

Documents
Kyoto Protocol, Forest, and Forest Fires: Will REDD and ... · The Kyoto Protocol: About • The Kyoto Protocol (KP) was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997. Due to a complex

Kyoto Protocol, Forest, and Forest Fires: Will REDD and ... · The Kyoto Protocol: About • The Kyoto Protocol (KP) was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997. Due to a complex

Documents
Kyoto protocol

Kyoto protocol

Technology
Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual

Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual

Documents
Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan

Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan

Documents
The Kyoto Protocol - background

The Kyoto Protocol - background

Documents
Kyoto protocol (Pre/Post)

Kyoto protocol (Pre/Post)

Engineering
The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol

Education
Kyoto protocol in romania

Kyoto protocol in romania

Documents
Kyoto protocol and Copenhagen Summit

Kyoto protocol and Copenhagen Summit

Education
Carbon bank & Kyoto Protocol

Carbon bank & Kyoto Protocol

Environment
Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual 2008

Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual 2008

Documents
THE KYOTO PROTOCOL MECHANISMS - UNFCCCcdm.unfccc.int/about/cdm_kpm.pdf · UNFCCC THE KYOTO PROTOCOL MECHANISMS 5 IET Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol Countries with commitments under

THE KYOTO PROTOCOL MECHANISMS - UNFCCCcdm.unfccc.int/about/cdm_kpm.pdf · UNFCCC THE KYOTO PROTOCOL MECHANISMS 5 IET Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol Countries with commitments under

Documents
7 Kyoto Protocol

7 Kyoto Protocol

Documents
9211169194 Kyoto Protocol

9211169194 Kyoto Protocol

Documents
Kyoto protocol in the clouds

Kyoto protocol in the clouds

Travel
The Kyoto Protocol: Consequences and Opportunities for ... › sites › default › files › files › kyoto › Newcombe.… · The Kyoto Protocol: Consequences and Opportunities

The Kyoto Protocol: Consequences and Opportunities for ... › sites › default › files › files › kyoto › Newcombe.… · The Kyoto Protocol: Consequences and Opportunities

Documents
Kyoto Protocol rev.doc

Kyoto Protocol rev.doc

Documents
Kyoto Protocol - undp.org...Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms • Kyoto Protocol introduced 3 trading instruments or flexibility mechanisms : • Emissions Trading ---- Between developed countries

Kyoto Protocol - undp.org...Kyoto Protocol Mechanisms • Kyoto Protocol introduced 3 trading instruments or flexibility mechanisms : • Emissions Trading ---- Between developed countries

Documents
Kyoto Protocol in en FINAL

Kyoto Protocol in en FINAL

Documents
Nuclear Energy & the Kyoto Protocol

Nuclear Energy & the Kyoto Protocol

Documents
Kyoto protocol on climate chanege

Kyoto protocol on climate chanege

Education
India, Cdm And Kyoto Protocol

India, Cdm And Kyoto Protocol

Travel
Are You Meeting the Kyoto Protocol? - birdvilleschools.net You...Are You Meeting the Kyoto Protocol? – Environmental Science Environmental Science – Are You Meeting the Kyoto Protocol?

Are You Meeting the Kyoto Protocol? - birdvilleschools.net You...Are You Meeting the Kyoto Protocol? – Environmental Science Environmental Science – Are You Meeting the Kyoto Protocol?

Documents
Kyoto protocol and cdm presentation

Kyoto protocol and cdm presentation

Technology
Kyoto protocol & cop

Kyoto protocol & cop

Education
JOCELYN GRAUER Kyoto Protocol

JOCELYN GRAUER Kyoto Protocol

Documents
Chapter 5 THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

Chapter 5 THE KYOTO PROTOCOL

Documents