| Revision as of 00:46, 24 November 2018 editDanlaycock (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors31,573 edits +1← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 23:03, 26 December 2024 edit undoJJMC89 bot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Administrators3,737,897 editsm Moving Category:Treaties of East Timor to Category:Treaties of Timor-Leste per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy | ||
| (498 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{Short description|1997 international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions}} | |||
| {{About|the international treaty|the rock band|Kyoto Protocol (band)}} | {{About|the international treaty|the rock band|Kyoto Protocol (band)}} | ||
| {{Infobox Treaty | <noinclude>{{Infobox Treaty | ||
| | name = Kyoto Protocol | | name = Kyoto Protocol | ||
| | long_name = Kyoto Protocol to the |
| long_name = Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC | ||
| | image = Kyoto Protocol parties.svg | | image = Kyoto Protocol parties.svg | ||
| | image_width = |
| image_width = 355 | ||
| | caption = |
| caption ={{legend|#008000|Annex B parties with binding targets in the second period}} {{legend|purple|Annex B parties with binding targets in the first period but not the second}} {{legend|#0000FF|Non-Annex B parties without binding targets}} {{legend|#EEEE00|Annex B parties with binding targets in the first period but which withdrew from the Protocol}} {{legend|orange|Signatories to the Protocol that have not ratified}} {{legend|#FF1111|Other UN member states and observers that are not party to the Protocol}} | ||
| | date_drafted = | | date_drafted = | ||
| | date_signed = {{dts|11 December 1997}}<ref name=parties/> | | date_signed = {{dts|11 December 1997}}<ref name=parties/> | ||
| Line 12: | Line 13: | ||
| | date_effective = 16 February 2005<ref name=parties/> | | date_effective = 16 February 2005<ref name=parties/> | ||
| | condition_effective = Ratification by at least 55 states to the Convention | | condition_effective = Ratification by at least 55 states to the Convention | ||
| | date_expiration = 31 December 2012 (first commitment period)<ref>{{cite web|url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf|title=Kyoto Protocol on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change|publisher=United Nations|access-date=17 November 2004|archive-date=5 October 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111005085911/http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref><br />31 December 2020 (second commitment period)<ref>{{cite web|url=https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol|title=What is the Kyoto Protocol?|publisher=UNFCCC|access-date=31 May 2021|archive-date=13 December 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231213141052/https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
| | date_expiration = In force (first commitment period expired 31 December 2012)<ref>http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf</ref> | |||
| | signatories = 84<ref name=parties/> | | signatories = 84<ref name=parties/> (1998–1999 signing period) | ||
| | parties = ]<ref>{{cite web|url= |
| parties = ]<ref>{{cite web |url=https://unfccc.int/process/the-kyoto-protocol/status-of-ratification |title=Status of Ratification |publisher=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change |website=unfccc.int |access-date=28 February 2020 |archive-date=5 September 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200905124014/http://unfccc.int/process/the-kyoto-protocol/status-of-ratification |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=UNlist/> (the European Union, Cook Islands, Niue, and all ] except Andorra, Canada, South Sudan, and the United States as of 2022) | ||
| | depositor = ] | | depositor = ] | ||
| | language = | | language = | ||
| | languages = Arabic, Mandarin, English, French, Russian and Spanish | | languages = Arabic, Mandarin, English, French, Russian, and Spanish | ||
| | website = | | website = | ||
| | wikisource = Kyoto Protocol | | wikisource = Kyoto Protocol | ||
| }}</noinclude> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Infobox Treaty | <noinclude>{{Infobox Treaty | ||
| | name = Kyoto Protocol Extension (2012–2020) | | name = Kyoto Protocol Extension (2012–2020) | ||
| | long_name = Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol | | long_name = Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol | ||
| | type = |
| type = Amendment to international agreement | ||
| | image = Doha Amendment of Kyoto.svg | | image = Doha Amendment of Kyoto.svg | ||
| | image_width = 350 | | image_width = 350 | ||
| | caption = Acceptance of the Doha Amendment | | caption = Acceptance of the Doha Amendment | ||
| {{legend|#32CD32|States that ratified}} | |||
| {{legend|#b9b9b9|Kyoto protocol parties that did not ratify}} | |||
| {{legend|#e9e9e9|Non-parties to the Kyoto Protocol}} | |||
| | date_drafted = 8 December 2012 | | date_drafted = 8 December 2012 | ||
| | date_signed =11 December 1997 | |||
| | location_signed = ], ] | | location_signed = ], ] | ||
| | date_sealed = | | date_sealed = | ||
| | date_effective = |
| date_effective = 31 December 2020<ref name=DOHARAT/> | ||
| | condition_effective = Ratification by 144 state parties required |
| condition_effective = Ratification by 144 state parties required | ||
| | date_expiration = 31 December 2020<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/10/02/nigeria-jamaica-bring-closure-kyoto-protocol-era-last-minute-dash/|title=Nigeria, Jamaica bring closure to the Kyoto Protocol era, in last-minute dash|publisher=Climate Change News|date=2 October 2020|access-date=31 May 2021|archive-date=6 April 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230406105609/https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/10/02/nigeria-jamaica-bring-closure-kyoto-protocol-era-last-minute-dash/|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
| | date_expiration = | |||
| | signatories = <!--there is only ratification/acception...--> | | signatories = <!--there is only ratification/acception...--> | ||
| | ratifiers = |
| ratifiers = 147<ref name=DOHARAT>{{cite web|url=https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-c&chapter=27&clang=_en|title=7 .c Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol|work=UN Treaty Database|access-date=19 April 2015|archive-date=4 February 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210204160337/https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-c&chapter=27&clang=_en|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
| | depositor = | | depositor = | ||
| | language = | | language = | ||
| | languages = | | languages = | ||
| | website = | | website = | ||
| | wikisource =Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol | | wikisource = Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol | ||
| }}</noinclude> | |||
| }} | |||
| {{Use dmy dates|date= |
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2020}} | ||
| ]]] | |||
| The '''Kyoto Protocol''' is an international ] which extends the 1992 ] (UNFCCC) that commits state parties to reduce ] emissions, based on the ] that (part one) ] is occurring and (part two) it is extremely likely that human-made ] have predominantly caused it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in ], ] on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There are currently 192 parties (] withdrew from the protocol, effective December 2012)<ref name=UNlist/> to the Protocol. | |||
| The {{nihongo|'''Kyoto Protocol'''|京都議定書|Kyōto Giteisho|lead=yes}} was an ] which extended the 1992 ] (UNFCCC) that commits state parties to reduce ], based on the ] that ] is occurring and that human-made ] are driving it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in ], Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There were 192 parties (] withdrew from the protocol, effective December 2012)<ref name=UNlist>{{cite web |url=https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-a&chapter=27&lang=en |title=7 .a Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change |work=UN Treaty Database |access-date=27 November 2014 |archive-date=8 October 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181008095709/https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-a&chapter=27&lang=en |url-status=dead }}</ref> to the Protocol in 2020. | |||
| The Kyoto Protocol implemented the objective of the UNFCCC to reduce the onset of global warming by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to "a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (Article 2). The Kyoto Protocol |
The Kyoto Protocol implemented the objective of the UNFCCC to reduce the onset of global warming by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to "a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (Article 2). The Kyoto Protocol applied to the seven greenhouse gases listed in Annex A: ], ], ], ]s (HFCs), ] (PFCs), ], ].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview.php|title=Overview of greenhouse gases - Defra, UK|website=Naei.beis.gov.uk|access-date=2 March 2022|archive-date=23 January 2023|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230123114338/https://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview.php|url-status=live}}</ref> Nitrogen trifluoride was added for the second compliance period during the Doha Round.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kp_doha_amendment_english.pdf|title=Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol|website=Unfcc.int|access-date=2 March 2022|archive-date=24 December 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221224054705/http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kp_doha_amendment_english.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> | ||
| The Protocol |
The Protocol was based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it acknowledged that individual countries have different capabilities in combating climate change, owing to ], and therefore placed the obligation to reduce current emissions on developed countries on the basis 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. All 36 countries that fully participated in the first commitment period complied with the Protocol. However, nine countries had to resort to the flexibility mechanisms by funding emission reductions in other countries because their national emissions were slightly greater than their targets. The ] reduced emissions. The greatest emission reductions were seen in the former ] countries because the ] reduced their emissions in the early 1990s.<ref name="Shislov">{{cite journal |last1=Shishlov |first1=Igor |last2=Morel |first2=Romain |last3=Bellassen |first3=Valentin |date=2016 |title=Compliance of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period |journal=Climate Policy |volume=16 |issue=6 |pages=768–782 |doi=10.1080/14693062.2016.1164658 |bibcode=2016CliPo..16..768S |s2cid=156120010 |url=https://hal-enpc.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01425106/file/2016%20-%20Shishlov%20et%20al%20-%20Climate%20Policy%20-%20Compliance%20of%20the%20Parties%20to%20the%20Kyoto%20Protocol%20in%20the%20first%20commitment%20period_preprint.pdf |access-date=5 September 2021 |archive-date=23 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230123111240/https://hal-enpc.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-01425106/file/2016%20-%20Shishlov%20et%20al%20-%20Climate%20Policy%20-%20Compliance%20of%20the%20Parties%20to%20the%20Kyoto%20Protocol%20in%20the%20first%20commitment%20period_preprint.pdf |url-status=live | issn=1469-3062 }}</ref> Even though the 36 developed countries reduced their emissions, the global emissions increased by 32% from 1990 to 2010.<ref name="GapReport">{{cite web |url=http://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8526/-The%20emissions%20gap%20report%202012_%20a%20UNEP%20synthesis%20reportemissionGapReport2012.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y |title=The Emissions Gap Report 2012 |date=2012 |publisher=United Nations Environment Programme |page=2 |access-date=2019-12-07 |archive-date=23 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230123114216/https://wedocs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/8526/-The%20emissions%20gap%20report%202012_%20a%20UNEP%20synthesis%20reportemissionGapReport2012.pdf?sequence=3&isAllowed=y |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
| 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 Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, in which 37 countries have binding targets: ], the ] (and its 28 ]), ], ], ], ], ], ] and ]. Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment with second round targets.<ref name="figueres doha summary">{{citation | last=Figueres | first= C. | title=Environmental issues: Time to abandon blame-games and become proactive - Economic Times | work=The Economic Times / Indiatimes.com| publisher=Times Internet | url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-15/news/35836633_1_emission-reduction-targets-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change | date=15 December 2012 | accessdate=2012-12-18}}</ref> Japan, ] and ] 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 Protocol in 2012) and the ] (which has not ratified). As of July 2016, 66<ref>{{cite web|title=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change|url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php|website=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change|accessdate=23 July 2016|ref=66}}</ref> states have accepted the Doha Amendment, while entry into force requires the acceptances of 144 states. Of the 37 countries with binding commitments, 7 have ratified. | |||
| A second commitment period was agreed to in 2012 to extend the agreement to 2020, known as the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, in which 37 countries had binding targets: ], the ] (and its then 28 ], now 27), ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine stated that they may withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment with second round targets.<ref name="figueres doha summary">{{citation | last=Figueres | first=C. | title=Environmental issues: Time to abandon blame-games and become proactive - Economic Times | work=The Economic Times / Indiatimes.com | publisher=Times Internet | url=http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-15/news/35836633_1_emission-reduction-targets-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change | date=15 December 2012 | access-date=2012-12-18 | archive-date=23 January 2023 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230123111242/http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-12-15/news/35836633_1_emission-reduction-targets-global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-climate-change | url-status=dead }}</ref> Japan, ], and ] had participated in Kyoto's first-round but did not take on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets were Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the ] (which did not ratify). If they were to remain as a part of the protocol, Canada would be hit with a $14 billion fine, which would be devastating to their economy, hence the reluctant decision to exit.<ref>{{cite news |first1= |date=December 12, 2011 |title=Canada pulls out of Kyoto Protocol |work=CBC News |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-pulls-out-of-kyoto-protocol-1.999072 |access-date=11 January 2023 |archive-date=11 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230111115157/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-pulls-out-of-kyoto-protocol-1.999072 |url-status=live }}</ref> As of October 2020, 147<ref name=DOHARAT/><ref>{{cite web|title=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change|url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php|website=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change|access-date=23 July 2016|ref=66|archive-date=8 December 2022|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221208170819/https://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/doha_amendment/items/7362.php|url-status=live}}</ref> states had accepted the Doha Amendment. It entered into force on 31 December 2020, following its acceptance by the mandated minimum of at least 144 states, although the second commitment period ended on the same day. Of the 37 parties with binding commitments, 34 had ratified. | |||
| Negotiations were held in the framework of the yearly UNFCCC Climate Change Conferences on measures to be taken after the second commitment period ends in 2020. This resulted in the 2015 adoption of the ], which is a separate instrument under the UNFCCC rather than an amendment of the Kyoto Protocol. | |||
| Negotiations were held in the framework of the yearly UNFCCC Climate Change Conferences on measures to be taken after the second commitment period ended in 2020. This resulted in the 2015 adoption of the ], which is a separate instrument under the UNFCCC rather than an amendment of the Kyoto Protocol. | |||
| ==Background== | |||
| {{Main article|Global warming}} | |||
| {{See also|Global climate model|Scientific opinion on climate change}} | |||
| ].]] | |||
| [[File:Overview map of states committed to greenhouse gas limitations in the first Kyoto Protocol period (years 2008-2012) (greyscale).png|thumb|upright=1.8|alt=Refer to caption|Overview map of states committed to greenhouse gas (GHG) limitations in the first Kyoto Protocol period (2008–12):<ref>{{cite web | |||
| | date=n.d. | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php | |||
| | title=Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Annex B | |||
| | publisher=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | |||
| | accessdate= 8 October 2011}} | |||
| </ref><br /> | |||
| {{legend|#000000|Annex I Parties who have agreed to reduce their GHG emissions below their individual base year levels (see definition in this article)}} | |||
| {{legend|#737373|Annex I Parties who have agreed to cap their GHG emissions at their base year levels}} {{legend|#f2f2f2|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}} | |||
| <br /> | |||
| For specific emission reduction commitments of Annex I Parties, see the section of the article on ].<br /> | |||
| <br /> | |||
| The European Union as a whole has in accordance with this treaty committed itself to a 6.7% reduction. However, many member states (such as Greece, Spain, Ireland and Sweden) have not committed themselves to any reduction while France has committed itself not to expand its emissions (0% reduction).<ref>KOM(2007) final edition page 2{{full citation needed|date=November 2012}}</ref>]] | |||
| The view that human activities are likely responsible for most of the observed increase in global mean temperature ("global warming") since the mid-20th century is an accurate reflection of current scientific thinking.<ref> | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| |year=2001 | |||
| |author=US National Research Council | |||
| |chapter=Summary | |||
| |title=Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions | |||
| |publisher=National Academy Press | |||
| |location=Washington, D.C., U.S.A. | |||
| |url=http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=3 | |||
| |page=3 | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref><ref name="2008 us nrc Understanding and Responding to Climate Change"> | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| |year=2008 | |||
| |title=Understanding and Responding to Climate Change | |||
| |publisher=Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, US National Academy of Sciences | |||
| |author=US National Research Council | |||
| |url=http://americasclimatechoices.org/climate_change_2008_final.pdf | |||
| |format=PDF | |||
| |page=2 | |||
| |deadurl=yes | |||
| |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20111213210836/http://americasclimatechoices.org/climate_change_2008_final.pdf | |||
| |archivedate= 13 December 2011 | |||
| |df= | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> Human-induced warming of the climate is expected to continue throughout the 21st century and beyond.<ref name="2008 us nrc Understanding and Responding to Climate Change"/> | |||
| == Chronology == | |||
| The ] (IPCC, 2007) have produced a range of projections of what the future increase in global mean temperature might be.<ref name="2007 ipcc global warming projections"> | |||
| {{See also|History of climate change policy and politics|United Nations Climate Change Conference}} | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| |year=2007 | |||
| |contribution=3. Projected climate change and its impacts | |||
| |title=Summary for Policymakers | |||
| |series=Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) | |||
| |editor=Core Writing Team (eds.) | |||
| |publisher=Cambridge University Press | |||
| |author=IPCC | |||
| |url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html | |||
| |display-editors=etal}} | |||
| </ref> The IPCC's projections are ], meaning that they assume no future efforts are made to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC projections cover the time period from the beginning of the 21st century to the end of the 21st century.<ref name="2007 ipcc global warming projections"/><ref>Temperatures are measured relative to the average global temperature averaged over the years 1980-1999, with the projected change averaged over 2090–2099.</ref> The "likely" range (as assessed to have a greater than 66% probability of being correct, based on the IPCC's expert judgement) is a projected increase in global mean temperature over the 21st century of between 1.1 and 6.4 °C.<ref name="2007 ipcc global warming projections"/> | |||
| '''1992''' – The UN Conference on the Environment and Development is held in Rio de Janeiro. It results in the ] (UNFCCC) among other agreements. | |||
| The range in temperature projections partly reflects different projections of future greenhouse gas emissions.<ref name="2009 karl ipcc global warming projections"> | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| |year = 2009 | |||
| |contribution = Global climate change | |||
| |title = Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States | |||
| |editor1-last = Karl | |||
| |editor1-first = T.R. | |||
| |publisher = Cambridge University Press | |||
| |location = 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA | |||
| |isbn = 978-0-521-14407-0 | |||
| |url = http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/global-climate-change | |||
| |display-editors = etal | |||
| |deadurl = yes | |||
| |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120915115254/http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impacts/full-report/global-climate-change | |||
| |archivedate = 15 September 2012 | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref>{{Rp|22–24|date=November 2012}} Different projections contain different assumptions of future social and economic development (], ], ]), which in turn affects projections of future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.<ref name="2009 karl ipcc global warming projections"/>{{Rp|22–24|date=November 2012}} The range also reflects uncertainty in the response of the climate system to past and future GHG emissions (measured by the ]).<ref name="2009 karl ipcc global warming projections"/>{{Rp|22–24|date=November 2012}} | |||
| '''1995''' – Parties to the UNFCCC meet in Berlin (the 1st Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC) to outline specific targets on emissions. | |||
| === Chronology === | |||
| {{See also|History of climate change science}} | |||
| '''1997''' – In December the parties conclude the Kyoto Protocol in Kyoto, Japan, in which they agree to the broad outlines of emissions targets. | |||
| '''1992''' The UN Conference on the Environment and Development is held in Rio de Janeiro. It results in the Framework Convention on Climate Change among other agreements. | |||
| ''' |
'''2004''' – Russia and Canada ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC bringing the treaty into effect on 16 February 2005. | ||
| '''2011''' – Canada became the first signatory to announce its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&n=EE4F06AE-1&xml=EE4F06AE-13EF-453B-B633-FCB3BAECEB4F&offset=3&toc=show|title=A Climate Change Plan for the Purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act 2012: Canada's Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol|date=11 February 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150211142508/http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.asp?lang=En&n=EE4F06AE-1&xml=EE4F06AE-13EF-453B-B633-FCB3BAECEB4F&offset=3&toc=show|archive-date=11 February 2015|access-date=2 March 2022}}</ref> | |||
| '''1997''' In December the parties conclude the Kyoto Protocol in Kyoto, Japan, in which they agree to the broad outlines of emissions targets. | |||
| '''2012''' – On 31 December 2012, the first commitment period under the Protocol expired. | |||
| '''2004''' Russia and Canada ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC bringing the treaty into effect on 16 February 2005. | |||
| The official meeting of all states party to the Kyoto Protocol is the annual ] to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The first conference was held in 1995 in Berlin (]). The first Meeting of Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) was held in 2005 in conjunction with ]. | |||
| '''2011''' Canada became the first signatory to announce its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.<ref>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 official archives</ref> | |||
| '''2012''' On 31 December 2012, the first commitment period under the Protocol expired. | |||
| ===Article 2 of the UNFCCC=== | |||
| {{Main article|United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change#Interpreting Article 2}} | |||
| Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).<ref> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2011a | |||
| | author=] (UNFCCC) | |||
| | title=Status of Ratification of the Convention | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/status_of_ratification/items/2631.php | |||
| | publisher=UNFCCC | |||
| | location=UNFCCC Secretariat: ], ] | |||
| }}. Most countries in the world are Parties to the ] (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 organization (the European Union)) to the UNFCCC. | |||
| </ref> Article 2 of the Convention states its ultimate objective, which is to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human) interference with the climate system."<ref name="2001d ipcc article 2 of UNFCCC"> | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| |year=2001d | |||
| |contribution=Question 1 | |||
| |title=Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) | |||
| |editor=Watson, R.T. |editor2=the Core Writing Team | |||
| |publisher=Cambridge University Press | |||
| |author=IPCC | |||
| |url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/017.htm | |||
| }}</ref> | |||
| The ], ] and ] can provide information on decisions relating to this objective including the possible magnitude and rate of future climate changes.<ref name="2001d ipcc article 2 of UNFCCC"/> However, the IPCC has also concluded that the decision of what constitutes "dangerous" interference requires value judgements, which will vary between different regions of the world.<ref name="2001d ipcc article 2 of UNFCCC"/> Factors that might affect this decision include the local consequences of climate change impacts, the ability of a particular region to ] (adaptive capacity), and the ability of a region to ] (mitigative capacity).<ref name="2001d ipcc article 2 of UNFCCC"/> | |||
| ==Objectives== | ==Objectives== | ||
| {{Multiple image | {{Multiple image | ||
| |direction=vertical | |direction=vertical | ||
| Line 183: | Line 85: | ||
| | image2= Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at a constant level would require emissions to be effectively eliminated (vertical).png | | image2= Stabilizing the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide at a constant level would require emissions to be effectively eliminated (vertical).png | ||
| | alt2=Refer to caption | | alt2=Refer to caption | ||
| | caption1=Kyoto is intended to cut ] emissions of ]. | | caption1=Kyoto is intended to cut ] emissions of ]es. | ||
| | caption2=In order to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of {{ |
| caption2=In order to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of {{CO2}}, emissions worldwide would need to be dramatically reduced from their present level.<ref>{{cite book | year = 2009 | contribution = BOX NT.1 Summary of Climate Change Basics | title = Non-Technical Summary | series = Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2: Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decision making. A Report by the U.S. ] and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research | publisher = National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration | location = Washington D.C., USA. | page = 11 | last1 = Granger Morgan * | first1 = M. | quote = (* is Lead Author) | first2 = H. | last2 = Dowlatabadi | first3 = M. | last3 = Henrion | first4 = D. | last4 = Keith | first5 = R. | last5 = Lempert | first6 = S. | last6 = McBride | first7 = M. | last7 = Small | first8 = T. | last8 = Wilbanks | url = http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/saps/311 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100527134225/http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/saps/311 | archive-date = 27 May 2010 | df = dmy-all }} | ||
| </ref> | </ref> | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol |
The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol was to control emissions of the main anthropogenic (human-emitted) greenhouse gases (GHGs) in ways that reflect underlying national differences in GHG emissions, wealth, and capacity to make the reductions.<ref name="2004 grubb kyoto"> | ||
| {{cite journal | {{cite journal | ||
| |last = Grubb | |last = Grubb | ||
| Line 199: | Line 101: | ||
| |page = 2 (PDF version) | |page = 2 (PDF version) | ||
| |url = http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/J37.pdf | |url = http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/J37.pdf | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120111215457/http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/J37.pdf | |||
| |deadurl = yes | |||
| |archive-date = 11 January 2012 | |||
| |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20120111215457/http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/J37.pdf | |||
| |archivedate = 11 January 2012 | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| </ref> |
</ref> The treaty follows the main principles agreed in the original 1992 UN Framework Convention.<ref name="2004 grubb kyoto"/> According to the treaty, in 2012, Annex I Parties who have ratified the treaty must have fulfilled their obligations of greenhouse gas emissions limitations established for the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period (2008–2012). These emissions limitation commitments are listed in Annex B of the Protocol. | ||
| The Kyoto Protocol's first round commitments are the first detailed step taken within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.<ref name=gupta/> The Protocol establishes a structure of rolling emission reduction commitment periods. It set a timetable starting in 2006 for negotiations to establish emission reduction commitments for a second commitment period.<ref name="grubb commitments">{{harvnb|Grubb|Depledge|2001|p=269}}</ref> The first period emission reduction commitments expired on 31 December 2012. | The Kyoto Protocol's first round commitments are the first detailed step taken within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.<ref name=gupta/> The Protocol establishes a structure of rolling emission reduction commitment periods. It set a timetable starting in 2006 for negotiations to establish emission reduction commitments for a second commitment period.<ref name="grubb commitments">{{harvnb|Grubb|Depledge|2001|p=269}}</ref> The first period emission reduction commitments expired on 31 December 2012. | ||
| The first-round Kyoto emissions limitation commitments were not sufficient to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of GHGs. Stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations will require further emissions reductions after the end of the first-round Kyoto commitment period in 2012.<ref name="grubb commitments" /><ref name="ipcc kyoto stabilization"> | |||
| {{citation |title=Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations would depend upon emissions reductions beyond those agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol |df=dmy-all |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121030105841/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/058.htm |chapter=Question 7 |chapter-url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/058.htm |archive-date=30 October 2012}} | |||
| , p.122, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR SYR|2001}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would stop dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."<ref name="unfccc2005">{{cite web | The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would stop dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."<ref name="unfccc2005">{{cite web | ||
| Line 214: | Line 120: | ||
| |quote=Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner | |quote=Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner | ||
| |url=http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php | |url=http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php | ||
| | |
|access-date=15 November 2005 | ||
| |url-status=dead | |||
| |deadurl=yes | |||
| | |
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051028023600/http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php | ||
| | |
|archive-date= 28 October 2005 | ||
| |df= | |||
| }}</ref> Even if Annex I Parties succeed in meeting their first-round commitments, much greater emission reductions will be required in future to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations.<ref name="grubb commitments"/><ref name="ipcc kyoto stabilization"/> | }}</ref> Even if Annex I Parties succeed in meeting their first-round commitments, much greater emission reductions will be required in future to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations.<ref name="grubb commitments"/><ref name="ipcc kyoto stabilization"/> | ||
| For each of the different anthropogenic GHGs, different levels of emissions reductions would be required to meet the objective of |
For each of the different anthropogenic GHGs, different levels of emissions reductions would be required to meet the objective of ].<ref name="2007 meehl stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs">{{cite book | ||
| |year = 2007 | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| |contribution = FAQ 10.3 If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease? | |||
| | year=2007 | |||
| |url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html | |||
| | contribution=FAQ 10.3 If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease? | |||
| |last = Meehl | |||
| | url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html | |||
| | |
|first = G. A. | ||
| | |
|title = Global Climate Projections | ||
| | |
|series = Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | ||
| | |
|editor = Solomon, S. | ||
| |display-editors = etal | |||
| | |
|publisher = Cambridge University Press | ||
| |display-authors=etal |
|display-authors = etal | ||
| |access-date = 26 December 2011 | |||
| </ref> ] ({{chem|CO|2}}) is the most important anthropogenic GHG.<ref> | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20111224051815/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| |archive-date = 24 December 2011 | |||
| |url-status = dead | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| }}</ref> ] ({{CO2}}) is the most important anthropogenic GHG.<ref>{{cite book | |||
| | year=2007 | | year=2007 | ||
| | contribution=Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change | | contribution=Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change | ||
| Line 242: | Line 152: | ||
| | editor=Solomon, S. | | editor=Solomon, S. | ||
| | publisher=Cambridge University Press | | publisher=Cambridge University Press | ||
| |display-editors=etal |
| display-editors=etal | ||
| | access-date=26 December 2011 | |||
| </ref> Stabilizing the concentration of {{chem|CO|2}} in the atmosphere would ultimately require the effective elimination of anthropogenic {{chem|CO|2}} emissions.<ref name="2007 meehl stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs"/> | |||
| | archive-date=2 November 2018 | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181102212113/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html | |||
| | url-status=dead | |||
| }}</ref> Stabilizing the concentration of {{CO2}} in the atmosphere would ultimately require the effective elimination of anthropogenic {{CO2}} emissions.<ref name="2007 meehl stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs"/> | |||
| To achieve stabilization, global GHG emissions must peak, then decline.<ref name="emissions peak and decline">{{citation |title=5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation |df=dmy-all |access-date=17 July 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141127224337/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-4.html |url-status=dead |chapter=Synthesis report |chapter-url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-4.html |archive-date=27 November 2014}} | |||
| , in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 SYR|2007}}</ref> The lower the desired stabilization level, the sooner this peak and decline must occur.<ref name="emissions peak and decline" /> For a given stabilization level, larger emissions reductions in the near term allow for less stringent emissions reductions later.<ref name="near term emissions reductions"> | |||
| {{citation |title=Sec 8.5 Pathways to stabilisation |df=dmy-all |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121006161506/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_8_The_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pdf |url-status=dead |chapter=Chapter 8 The challenge of stabilisation |chapter-url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_8_The_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pdf |archive-date=6 October 2012}}, in {{harvnb|Stern|2006|p=199}} | |||
| </ref> On the other hand, less stringent near term emissions reductions would, for a given stabilization level, require more stringent emissions reductions later on.<ref name="near term emissions reductions" /> | |||
| The first period Kyoto emissions limitations can be viewed as a first-step towards achieving atmospheric stabilization of GHGs.<ref name="gupta" /> In this sense, the first period Kyoto commitments may affect what future atmospheric stabilization level can be achieved.<ref>{{citation |last=Höhne |first=N. |title=Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Stabilization of Carbon Dioxide Concentration |url=http://stabilisation.metoffice.com/posters/Hohne_Niklas.pdf |location=Cologne, Germany |publisher=ECOFYS energy & environment |access-date=17 July 2012 |archive-date=13 January 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200113095438/http://stabilisation.metoffice.com/posters/Hohne_Niklas.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
| == Principal concepts == | |||
| Some of the principal concepts of the Kyoto Protocol are: | Some of the principal concepts of the Kyoto Protocol are: | ||
| * Binding commitments for the Annex I Parties. The main feature of the Protocol<ref name="2011 unfccc kyoto protocol overview"> | * Binding commitments for the Annex I Parties. The main feature of the Protocol<ref name="2011 unfccc kyoto protocol overview">{{citation | ||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2011 | | year=2011 | ||
| | author=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) | | author=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) | ||
| Line 253: | Line 174: | ||
| | publisher=UNFCCC | | publisher=UNFCCC | ||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php | | url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php | ||
| | access-date=30 December 2011 | |||
| }} | |||
| | archive-date=16 May 2011 | |||
| </ref> is that it established legally binding commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases for Annex I Parties. The commitments were based on the Berlin Mandate, which was a part of UNFCCC negotiations leading up to the Protocol.<ref> | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516211124/http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php | |||
| {{Citation | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| |date=August 1999 – August 2000 | |||
| }}</ref> is that it established legally binding commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases for Annex I Parties. The commitments were based on the Berlin Mandate, which was a part of UNFCCC negotiations leading up to the Protocol.{{sfn|Depledge|2000|p=6}}<ref name="liverman">{{cite journal |last=Liverman |first=D. M. |year=2008 |title=Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere |url=http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf |url-status=dead |journal=Journal of Historical Geography |volume=35 |issue=2 |pages=279–296 |doi=10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140912161138/http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf |archive-date=12 September 2014 |access-date=10 May 2011 |df=dmy-all}}</ref>{{Rp|290|date=November 2012}} | |||
| |title=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Technical paper: Tracing the Origins of the Kyoto Protocol: An Article-by-Article Textual History | |||
| |publisher=UNFCCC | |||
| |last=Depledge|first=J. | |||
| |url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0200.pdf | |||
| |format=PDF | |||
| |page=6 | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref><ref name=liverman/>{{Rp|290|date=November 2012}} | |||
| * Implementation. In order to meet the objectives of the Protocol, Annex I Parties are required to prepare policies and measures for the reduction of greenhouse gases in their respective countries. In addition, they are required to increase the absorption of these gases and utilize all mechanisms available, such as joint implementation, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading, in order to be rewarded with credits that would allow more greenhouse gas emissions at home. | * Implementation. In order to meet the objectives of the Protocol, Annex I Parties are required to prepare policies and measures for the reduction of greenhouse gases in their respective countries. In addition, they are required to increase the absorption of these gases and utilize all mechanisms available, such as joint implementation, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading, in order to be rewarded with credits that would allow more greenhouse gas emissions at home. | ||
| * Minimizing Impacts on Developing Countries by establishing an ] fund for climate change. | * Minimizing Impacts on Developing Countries by establishing an ] fund for climate change. | ||
| Line 270: | Line 184: | ||
| * Compliance. Establishing a Compliance Committee to enforce compliance with the commitments under the Protocol. | * Compliance. Establishing a Compliance Committee to enforce compliance with the commitments under the Protocol. | ||
| === Flexibility mechanisms === | |||
| ==First commitment period: 2008–2012== | |||
| The Protocol defines three "]" that can be used by Annex I Parties in meeting their emission limitation commitments.<ref> | |||
| Under the Kyoto Protocol, 37 ] and the ] (the ]-15, made up of 15 states at the time of the Kyoto negotiations) commit themselves to binding targets for GHG emissions.<ref name="2011 unfccc kyoto protocol overview"/> The targets apply to the four greenhouse gases ] ({{Chem|CO|2|}}), ] ({{chem|CH|4}}), ] ({{chem|N|2|O}}), ] ({{chem|S|F|6}}), and two groups of gases, ]s (HFCs) and ]s (PFCs).<ref name="grubb kyoto gases"> | |||
| {{harvnb|Grubb|2003|p=147}} | |||
| </ref> The six GHG are translated into ] in determining reductions in emissions.<ref> | |||
| The benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by the ] of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3) were the values of "]" calculated for the ]. These figures are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable ] (CO<sub>2</sub>-eq) when computing overall sources and sinks. Source: {{cite web | |||
| |title=Methodological issues related to the Kyoto protocol | |||
| |url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf#page=31 | |||
| |date=25 March 1998 |accessdate=13 February 2010 | |||
| |publisher=Report of the Conference of the Parties on its third session, held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December 1997, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> These reduction targets are in addition to the industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987 ]. | |||
| Under the Protocol, only the Annex I Parties have committed themselves to national or joint reduction targets (formally called "quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives" (QELRO) – Article 4.1).<ref name="unfccc1997"> | |||
| {{cite pressrelease | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/info/indust.htm | |||
| | title=Industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% | |||
| | publisher=] | |||
| | date=11 December 1997 | |||
| | accessdate=6 August 2007 | |||
| }}</ref> Parties to the Kyoto Protocol not listed in Annex I of the Convention (the non-Annex I Parties) are mostly low-income developing countries,<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary"/>{{Rp|4|date=November 2012}} and may participate in the Kyoto Protocol through the Clean Development Mechanism (explained below).<ref name="grubb commitments"/> | |||
| The emissions limitations of Annex I Parties varies between different Parties.<ref name="2011 unfccc kyoto protocol targets"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2011 | |||
| | author=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) | |||
| | title=Kyoto Protocol | |||
| | publisher=UNFCCC | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/3145.php | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> Some Parties have emissions limitations reduce below the base year level, some have limitations at the base year level (no permitted increase above the base year level), while others have limitations above the base year level. | |||
| Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping.<ref name="shippingandaviation"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | last=Adam|first=David | |||
| | title=UK to seek pact on shipping and aviation pollution at climate talks | |||
| | work=The Guardian | |||
| | date=2 December 2007 | |||
| | url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/dec/03/climatechange.greenpolitics | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> Although Belarus and Turkey are listed in the Convention's Annex I, they do not have emissions targets as they were not Annex I Parties when the Protocol was adopted.<ref name="2011 unfccc kyoto protocol targets"/> Kazakhstan does not have a target, but has declared that it wishes to become an Annex I Party to the Convention.<ref name="2011 unfccc kyoto protocol targets"/> | |||
| {{hidden begin | |||
| |title = Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their 2008–2012 commitments (% of base year) and 1990 emission levels (% of all Annex I countries)<ref> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2011 | |||
| | author=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) | |||
| | title=Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | |||
| | publisher=UNFCCC | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref><ref> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| |date = 15 November 2005 | |||
| |author = European Environment Agency (EEA) | |||
| |title = Kyoto burden-sharing targets for EU-15 countries - EEA | |||
| |publisher = EEA | |||
| |url = http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/ds_resolveuid/41733CB9-4889-4CCC-B062-CA712286636F | |||
| |archive-url = http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20150413055945/http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/ds_resolveuid/41733CB9-4889-4CCC-B062-CA712286636F | |||
| |dead-url = yes | |||
| |archive-date = 13 April 2015 | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| }} | |||
| {| | |||
| |- | |||
| | style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"| | |||
| ] – 108% (2.1% of 1990 emissions) <br /> | |||
| ] – 87% <br /> | |||
| ] – 95% (subject to acceptance by other parties)<br /> | |||
| ] – 92.5% <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (0.6%) <br /> | |||
| Canada – 94% (3.33%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 95% () <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (1.24%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 79% <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (0.28%) | |||
| | style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"| | |||
| ] – 100% <br /> | |||
| ] – 100% <br /> | |||
| ] – 79% <br /> | |||
| ] – 125% <br /> | |||
| ] – 94% (0.52%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 110% (0.02%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 113% <br /> | |||
| ] – 93.5% <br /> | |||
| ] – 94% (8.55%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (0.17%) | |||
| | style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"| | |||
| ] – 92% (0.0015%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% () <br /> | |||
| ] – 72% <br /> | |||
| ] – 94% <br /> | |||
| ] – 100% (0.19%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 101% (0.26%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 94% (3.02%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (1.24%) | |||
| | style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"| | |||
| ] – 100% (17.4%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (0.42%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% () <br /> | |||
| Spain – 115% <br /> | |||
| ] – 104% <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (0.32%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 100% () <br /> | |||
| ] – 87.5% <br /> | |||
| ] – 93% (36.1%) (non-party) | |||
| |} | |||
| {{hidden end}} | |||
| For most state parties, 1990 is the base year for the national GHG inventory and the calculation of the assigned amount.<ref name="2008 unfccc kyoto protocol reference manual"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2008 | |||
| | author=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) | |||
| | title=Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual On Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount | |||
| | publisher=Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC) | |||
| | location=Bonn, Germany | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf | |||
| | format=PDF | |||
| | page=55 | |||
| | isbn=92-9219-055-5 | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> However, five state parties have an alternative base year:<ref name="2008 unfccc kyoto protocol reference manual"/> | |||
| * Bulgaria: 1988; | |||
| * Hungary: the average of the years 1985–1987; | |||
| * Poland: 1988; | |||
| * Romania: 1989; | |||
| * Slovenia: 1986. | |||
| Annex I Parties can use a range of sophisticated "flexibility" mechanisms (see below) to meet their targets. Annex I Parties can achieve their targets by allocating reduced annual allowances to major operators within their borders, or by allowing these operators to exceed their allocations by offsetting any excess through a mechanism that is agreed by all the parties to the UNFCCC, such as by buying ] from other operators which have excess emissions credits. | |||
| ==Flexibility mechanisms== | |||
| {{See also|Economics of climate change mitigation#Kyoto Protocol}} | |||
| The Protocol defines three "]" that can be used by Annex I Parties in meeting their emission limitation commitments.<ref> | |||
| {{citation | {{citation | ||
| |chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/225.htm | |chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/225.htm | ||
| |title = Executive summary | |title = Executive summary | ||
| |chapter = |
|chapter = Measures, and Instruments | ||
| |last1 = Bashmakov | |last1 = Bashmakov | ||
| |first1 = I. | |first1 = I. | ||
| |display-authors = etal | |display-authors = etal | ||
| |deadurl = yes | |||
| |url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/225.htm | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120117023130/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/225.htm | |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120117023130/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/225.htm | ||
| |archivedate = 17 January 2012 | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| |archive-date = 17 January 2012 | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | |||
| </ref>{{Rp|402|date=November 2012}} The flexibility mechanisms are International Emissions Trading (IET), the ] (CDM), and ] (JI). IET allows Annex I Parties to "trade" their emissions (], AAUs, or "allowances" for short).<ref>Clifford Chance LLP (2012). "Clean Development Mechanism: CDM and the UNFCC" {{cite web |url=http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/CDM%26UNFCCCcorrected.pdf |title=Archived copy |accessdate=2013-09-19 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060112/http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/CDM%26UNFCCCcorrected.pdf |archivedate=21 September 2013 |df=dmy-all }} . Advocates for International Development. Retrieved: 19 September 2013.</ref> | |||
| </ref>{{Rp|402|date=November 2012}} The flexibility mechanisms are International Emissions Trading (IET), the ] (CDM), and ] (JI). IET allows Annex I Parties to "trade" their emissions (], AAUs, or "allowances" for short).<ref>Clifford Chance LLP (2012). "Clean Development Mechanism: CDM and the UNFCC" {{cite web |url=http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/CDM%26UNFCCCcorrected.pdf |title=Archived copy |access-date=2013-09-19 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130921060112/http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/CDM%26UNFCCCcorrected.pdf |archive-date=21 September 2013 |df=dmy-all }}. Advocates for International Development. Retrieved: 19 September 2013.</ref> | |||
| The economic basis for providing this flexibility is that the ] cost of reducing (or abating) emissions differs among countries.<ref name="toth 2001 flexibility mechanisms"> | The economic basis for providing this flexibility is that the ] cost of reducing (or abating) emissions differs among countries.<ref name="toth 2001 flexibility mechanisms"> | ||
| {{citation | {{citation | ||
| |url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.htm | |chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.htm | ||
| |title = 10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of International Mechanisms | |title = 10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of International Mechanisms | ||
| |chapter = 10. Decision-making Frameworks | |chapter = 10. Decision-making Frameworks | ||
| Line 428: | Line 207: | ||
| |first1 = F. L. | |first1 = F. L. | ||
| |display-authors = etal | |display-authors = etal | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120117032405/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.htm | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 17 January 2012 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | ||
| </ref>{{Rp|660|date=November 2012}}<ref> | </ref>{{Rp|660|date=November 2012}}<ref> | ||
| {{citation | {{citation | ||
| |url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/246.htm | |chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/246.htm | ||
| |title = 6.3 International Policies, Measures, and Instruments | |title = 6.3 International Policies, Measures, and Instruments | ||
| |chapter = 6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments | |chapter = 6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments | ||
| Line 441: | Line 220: | ||
| |first1 = I. | |first1 = I. | ||
| |display-authors = etal | |display-authors = etal | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20090805204450/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar///wg3/246.htm | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 5 August 2009 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | ||
| </ref> "Marginal cost" is the cost of abating the last tonne of {{ |
</ref> "Marginal cost" is the cost of abating the last tonne of {{CO2}}-eq for an Annex I/non-Annex I Party. At the time of the original Kyoto targets, studies suggested that the flexibility mechanisms could reduce the overall (]) cost of meeting the targets.<ref name="hourcade 2001 economic costs of flexibility mechanisms"> | ||
| {{citation | {{citation | ||
| |url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm | |chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm | ||
| |title = 8.3.1 International Emissions Quota Trading Regimes | |title = 8.3.1 International Emissions Quota Trading Regimes | ||
| |chapter = 8. Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation | |chapter = 8. Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation | ||
| Line 454: | Line 233: | ||
| |first1 = J.-C. | |first1 = J.-C. | ||
| |display-authors = etal | |display-authors = etal | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120111150919/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 11 January 2012 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | ||
| </ref> |
</ref> Studies also showed that national losses in Annex I ] (GDP) could be reduced by the use of the flexibility mechanisms.<ref name="hourcade 2001 economic costs of flexibility mechanisms" /> | ||
| The CDM and JI are called "project-based mechanisms |
The CDM and JI are called "project-based mechanisms", in that they generate emission reductions from projects. The difference between IET and the project-based mechanisms is that IET is based on the setting of a quantitative restriction of emissions, while the CDM and JI are based on the idea of "production" of emission reductions.<ref name="toth 2001 flexibility mechanisms" /> The CDM is designed to encourage production of emission reductions in non-Annex I Parties, while JI encourages production of emission reductions in Annex I Parties. | ||
| The production of emission reductions generated by the CDM and JI can be used by Annex I Parties in meeting their emission limitation commitments.<ref> | The production of emission reductions generated by the CDM and JI can be used by Annex I Parties in meeting their emission limitation commitments.<ref> | ||
| {{citation | {{citation | ||
| |url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/247.htm | |chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/247.htm | ||
| |title = 6.3.2 Project-based Mechanisms (Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism) | |title = 6.3.2 Project-based Mechanisms (Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism) | ||
| |chapter = 6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments | |chapter = 6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments | ||
| Line 471: | Line 250: | ||
| |first1 = I. | |first1 = I. | ||
| |display-authors = etal | |display-authors = etal | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120113181950/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/247.htm | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 13 January 2012 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | ||
| </ref> The emission reductions produced by the CDM and JI are both measured against a hypothetical ] of emissions that would have occurred in the absence of a particular emission reduction project. The emission reductions produced by the CDM are called ]s (CERs); reductions produced by JI are called ]s (ERUs). The reductions are called "]" because they are emission reductions credited against a hypothetical baseline of emissions.{{ |
</ref> The emission reductions produced by the CDM and JI are both measured against a hypothetical ] of emissions that would have occurred in the absence of a particular emission reduction project. The emission reductions produced by the CDM are called ]s (CERs); reductions produced by JI are called ]s (ERUs). The reductions are called "]" because they are emission reductions credited against a hypothetical baseline of emissions.<ref>{{Cite book|last=Fernandez Quesada|first=Nicolas|title=Kyoto Protocol, Emissions Trading and Reduction Technologies for Climate Change Mitigation|date=2013|publisher=GRIN Verlag GmbH|isbn=978-3-656-47173-8|location=Munich|oclc=862560217}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=2lqtDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14 |title=International Conventions on Atmosphere Handbook|publisher=International Business Publications, USA|isbn=9781433066290|pages=14|date=3 March 2008}}</ref> | ||
| Only emission reduction projects that do not involve using nuclear energy are eligible for accreditation under the CDM, in order to prevent nuclear technology exports from becoming the default route for obtaining credits under the CDM. | |||
| Each Annex I country is required to submit an annual report of inventories of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals from sinks under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. These countries nominate a person (called a "designated national authority") to create and manage its ]. Virtually all of the non-Annex I countries have also established a designated national authority to manage their Kyoto obligations, specifically the "CDM process". This determines which GHG projects they wish to propose for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board. | Each Annex I country is required to submit an annual report of inventories of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals from sinks under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. These countries nominate a person (called a "designated national authority") to create and manage its ]. Virtually all of the non-Annex I countries have also established a designated national authority to manage their Kyoto obligations, specifically the "CDM process". This determines which GHG projects they wish to propose for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board. | ||
| ===International |
==== International emissions trading ==== | ||
| {{ |
{{excerpt|Carbon emission trading}} | ||
| ===== Intergovernmental emissions trading ===== | |||
| A number of emissions trading schemes (ETS) have been, or are planned to be, implemented.<ref name=hood> | |||
| The design of the ] (EU ETS) implicitly allows for trade of national Kyoto obligations to occur between participating countries.{{sfn|Carbon Trust|2009|p=24}} The Carbon Trust found that other than the trading that occurs as part of the EU ETS, no intergovernmental emissions trading had taken place.{{sfn|Carbon Trust|2009|pp=24–25}} | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| |date=November 2010 | |||
| | last = Hood | first = C. | |||
| | chapter=5. Current and proposed emissions trading systems | |||
| | title=Review Existing and Proposed Emissions Trading Systems: Information paper | |||
| | chapter-url=http://www.iea.org/papers/2010/ets_paper2010.pdf | |||
| | publisher=International Energy Agency (IEA) | |||
| | location=Head of Publications Service, 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France | |||
| | accessdate=7 July 2011}} | |||
| </ref>{{Rp|19–26|date=November 2012}} | |||
| One of the environmental problems with IET is the large surplus of allowances that are available. Russia, Ukraine, and the new EU-12 member states (the Kyoto Parties Annex I Economies-in-Transition, abbreviated "EIT": Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine)<ref>{{citation | |||
| ====Asia==== | |||
| * ''Japan:'' emissions trading in Tokyo started in 2010. This scheme is run by the ].<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|24|date=November 2012}} | |||
| ====Europe==== | |||
| * '']:'' the ] (EU ETS), which started in 2005. This is run by the ].<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|20|date=November 2012}} | |||
| * '']'': domestic emissions trading in Norway started in 2005.<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|21|date=November 2012}} This was run by the Norwegian Government, which is now a participant in the EU ETS. | |||
| * '']'': the Swiss ETS, which runs from 2008 to 2012, to coincide with the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period.<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|22|date=November 2012}} | |||
| * ''United Kingdom:'' | |||
| ** the ], which ran from 2002–06. This was a scheme run by the UK Government, which is now a participant in the EU ETS.<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|19|date=November 2012}} | |||
| ** the UK ], which started in 2010, and is run by the UK Government.<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} | |||
| ====North America==== | |||
| * ''Canada:'' emissions trading in ], Canada, which started in 2007. This is run by the ].<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|22|date=November 2012}} | |||
| * ''United States:'' | |||
| ** the ] (RGGI), which started in 2009. This scheme caps emissions from power generation in ten north-eastern US states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont).<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|24|date=November 2012}} | |||
| ** emissions trading in California, which started in 2013.<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|26|date=November 2012}} | |||
| * the ] (WCI), which is planned to start in 2012. This is a collective ETS agreed between 11 US states and ]s.<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} | |||
| ====Oceania==== | |||
| * ''Australia:'' the ] (NSW), which started in 2003. This scheme is run by the Australian ], and has now joined the Alfa Climate Stabilization (ACS).<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|19|date=November 2012}} | |||
| * ''New Zealand'': the ], which started in 2008.<ref name=hood/>{{Rp|23|date=November 2012}} | |||
| ====Intergovernmental Emissions Trading==== | |||
| The design of the ] (EU ETS) implicitly allows for trade of national Kyoto obligations to occur between participating countries (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 24).<ref name="2009 carbon trust carbon market"/> Carbon Trust (2009, pp. 24–25) found that other than the trading that occurs as part of the EU ETS, no intergovernmental emissions trading had taken place.<ref name="2009 carbon trust carbon market"/> | |||
| One of the environmental problems with IET is the large surplus of allowances that are available. Russia, Ukraine, and the new EU-12 member states (the Kyoto Parties Annex I Economies-in-Transition, abbreviated "IET": Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine)<ref> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| |title=Development and Climate Change: A Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group: Technical Report | |title=Development and Climate Change: A Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group: Technical Report | ||
| |year=2008 | |year=2008 | ||
| |author=World Bank | |author=World Bank | ||
| |url=http://beta.worldbank.org/overview/strategic-framework-development-and-climate-change | |url=http://beta.worldbank.org/overview/strategic-framework-development-and-climate-change | ||
| |publisher=The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. |
|publisher=The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. | ||
| |location=Washington, DC, USA | |||
| |access-date=3 April 2010 | |||
| }} | |||
| |archive-date=24 December 2009 | |||
| </ref>{{Rp|59|date=November 2012}} have a surplus of allowances, while many ] countries have a deficit.<ref name="2009 carbon trust carbon market"/>{{Rp|24|date=November 2012}} Some of the EITs with a surplus regard it as potential compensation for the trauma of their economic restructuring.<ref name="2009 carbon trust carbon market"/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} When the Kyoto treaty was negotiated, it was recognized that emissions targets for the EITs might lead to them having an excess number of allowances.<ref> | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091224213652/http://beta.worldbank.org/overview/strategic-framework-development-and-climate-change | |||
| |url-status=dead | |||
| }}</ref>{{Rp|59|date=November 2012}} have a surplus of allowances, while many ] countries have a deficit.{{sfn|Carbon Trust|2009|p=24}} Some of the EITs with a surplus regard it as potential compensation for the trauma of their economic restructuring.{{sfn|Carbon Trust|2009|p=25}} When the Kyoto treaty was negotiated, it was recognized that emissions targets for the EITs might lead to them having an excess number of allowances.<ref> | |||
| {{cite book | {{cite book | ||
| |year = 2001 | |year = 2001 | ||
| Line 543: | Line 292: | ||
| |url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm | |url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm | ||
| |display-authors = etal | |display-authors = etal | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120111150919/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 11 January 2012 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| </ref> |
</ref> This excess of allowances were viewed by the EITs as "headroom" to grow their economies.<ref>{{citation | ||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2003 | | year=2003 | ||
| | title=Green Investment Schemes: Options and Issues | | title=Green Investment Schemes: Options and Issues | ||
| | last1 |
| last1=Blyth | ||
| | first1=W. | |||
| | first2=R. | |||
| | last2=Baron | |||
| | page=11 | | page=11 | ||
| | publisher=Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Environment Directorate and International Energy Agency (IEA) | | publisher=Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Environment Directorate and International Energy Agency (IEA) | ||
| | location=Paris, France | | location=Paris, France | ||
| | url=http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/54/19842798.pdf | | url=http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/54/19842798.pdf | ||
| | access-date=16 December 2011 | |||
| }} OECD reference: COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)9 | |||
| | archive-date=22 December 2011 | |||
| </ref> The surplus has, however, also been referred to by some as "hot air," a term which Russia (a country with an estimated surplus of 3.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent allowances) views as "quite offensive."<ref> | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111222054248/http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/54/19842798.pdf | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| }} OECD reference: COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)9</ref> The surplus has, however, also been referred to by some as "hot air", a term which Russia (a country with an estimated surplus of 3.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent allowances) views as "quite offensive".<ref> | |||
| {{citation | {{citation | ||
| |date = 30 June 2008 | |date = 30 June 2008 | ||
| Line 571: | Line 325: | ||
| |url = http://www.ieep.eu/assets/433/ecc_russia.pdf | |url = http://www.ieep.eu/assets/433/ecc_russia.pdf | ||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20111222054254/http://www.ieep.eu/assets/433/ecc_russia.pdf | |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20111222054254/http://www.ieep.eu/assets/433/ecc_russia.pdf | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| |archive-date = 22 December 2011 | |archive-date = 22 December 2011 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| </ref> | </ref> | ||
| OECD countries with a deficit could meet their Kyoto commitments by buying allowances from transition countries with a surplus. Unless other commitments were made to reduce the total surplus in allowances, such trade would not actually result in emissions being reduced |
OECD countries with a deficit could meet their Kyoto commitments by buying allowances from transition countries with a surplus. Unless other commitments were made to reduce the total surplus in allowances, such trade would not actually result in emissions being reduced{{sfn|Carbon Trust|2009|p=25}} (see also the section below on the ]). | ||
| ====Green Investment |
===== "Green Investment Schemes" ===== | ||
| The "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS) is a plan for achieving environmental benefits from trading surplus allowances (AAUs) under the Kyoto Protocol.<ref name="Definition of Green Investment Scheme (GIS)">{{citation | |||
| A Green Investment Scheme (GIS) refers to a plan for achieving environmental benefits from trading surplus allowances (AAUs) under the Kyoto Protocol.<ref name="Definition of Green Investment Scheme (GIS)"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2011 | | year=2011 | ||
| | title=Carbon Finance - Glossary of Terms: Definition of "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS) | | title=Carbon Finance - Glossary of Terms: Definition of "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS) | ||
| | author=Carbon Finance at the World Bank | | author=Carbon Finance at the World Bank | ||
| | publisher=World Bank Carbon Finance Unit (CFU) | | publisher=World Bank Carbon Finance Unit (CFU) | ||
| | location=Washington, |
| location=Washington, DC, US | ||
| | url=http://go.worldbank.org/HZGVW3QN20 | | url=http://go.worldbank.org/HZGVW3QN20 | ||
| | archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100817010146/http://go.worldbank.org/HZGVW3QN20 | |||
| | accessdate=15 December 2011 | |||
| | url-status=dead | |||
| }} | |||
| | archive-date=17 August 2010 | |||
| </ref> The Green Investment Scheme (GIS), a mechanism in the framework of International Emissions Trading (IET), is designed to achieve greater flexibility in reaching the targets of the Kyoto Protocol while preserving environmental integrity of IET. However, using the GIS is not required under the Kyoto Protocol, and there is no official definition of the term.<ref name="Definition of Green Investment Scheme (GIS)"/> | |||
| | access-date=15 December 2011 | |||
| }}</ref> The Green Investment Scheme (GIS), a mechanism in the framework of International Emissions Trading (IET), is designed to achieve greater flexibility in reaching the targets of the Kyoto Protocol while preserving environmental integrity of IET. However, using the GIS is not required under the Kyoto Protocol, and there is no official definition of the term.<ref name="Definition of Green Investment Scheme (GIS)" /> | |||
| Under the GIS a |
Under the GIS a party to the protocol expecting that the development of its economy will not exhaust its Kyoto quota, can sell the excess of its Kyoto quota units (AAUs) to another party. The proceeds from the AAU sales should be "greened", i.e. channelled to the development and implementation of the projects either acquiring the greenhouse gases emission reductions (hard greening) or building up the necessary framework for this process (soft greening).{{sfn|Carbon Trust|2009|p=25}} | ||
| ====Trade in AAUs==== | ===== Trade in AAUs ===== | ||
| Latvia was one of the front-runners of GISs. World Bank (2011)<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus">{{citation | |||
| Latvia was one of the front-runners of GISs. World Bank (2011)<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2011 | | year=2011 | ||
| | author=World Bank | | author=World Bank | ||
| Line 604: | Line 356: | ||
| | publisher=World Bank Environment Department, Carbon Finance Unit | | publisher=World Bank Environment Department, Carbon Finance Unit | ||
| | location=Washington, DC, USA | | location=Washington, DC, USA | ||
| | access-date=26 January 2012 | |||
| }} | |||
| | archive-date=25 March 2020 | |||
| </ref>{{Rp|53|date=November 2012}} reported that Latvia has stopped offering AAU sales because of low AAU prices. In 2010, Estonia was the preferred source for AAU buyers, followed by the Czech Republic and Poland.<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus"/>{{Rp|53|date=November 2012}} | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200325045048/http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/State_and_Trends_Updated_June_2011.pdf | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref>{{Rp|53|date=November 2012}} reported that Latvia has stopped offering AAU sales because of low AAU prices. In 2010, Estonia was the preferred source for AAU buyers, followed by the Czech Republic and Poland.<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus" />{{Rp|53|date=November 2012}} | |||
| Japan's national policy to meet their Kyoto target includes the purchase of AAUs sold under GISs.<ref> | Japan's national policy to meet their Kyoto target includes the purchase of AAUs sold under GISs.<ref>{{citation | ||
| {{citation | |||
| | date=28 March 2008 | | date=28 March 2008 | ||
| | author=Government of Japan | | author=Government of Japan | ||
| Line 616: | Line 370: | ||
| | location=Tokyo, Japan | | location=Tokyo, Japan | ||
| | pages=81–82 | | pages=81–82 | ||
| | access-date=26 January 2012 | |||
| }} | |||
| | archive-date=20 April 2012 | |||
| </ref> In 2010, Japan and Japanese firms were the main buyers of AAUs.<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus"/>{{Rp|53|date=November 2012}} In terms of the international carbon market, trade in AAUs are a small proportion of overall market value.<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus"/>{{Rp|9|date=November 2012}} In 2010, 97% of trade in the international carbon market was driven by the ] (EU ETS).<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus"/>{{Rp|9|date=November 2012}} However, firms regulated under the EU ETS are unable to use AAUs in meeting their emissions caps.<ref> | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120420003913/https://www.env.go.jp/en/earth/cc/kptap.pdf | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| |date = September 2008 | |||
| }}</ref> In 2010, Japan and Japanese firms were the main buyers of AAUs.<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus" />{{Rp|53|date=November 2012}} In terms of the international carbon market, trade in AAUs are a small proportion of overall market value.<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus" />{{Rp|9|date=November 2012}} In 2010, 97% of trade in the international carbon market was driven by the ] (EU ETS).<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus" />{{Rp|9|date=November 2012}} | |||
| |last1 = Ramming | |||
| |first1 = I. | |||
| |editor = Carnahan, K. | |||
| |chapter = 34. AAU Trading and the Impact on Kyoto and EU Emissions Trading. Before the Flood or Storm in a Tea-cup? | |||
| |title = Greenhouse Gas Market Report 2008 | |||
| |publisher = International Emissions Trading Association (IETA) | |||
| |location = Geneva, Switzerland | |||
| |url = http://www.ieta.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%3Aghg-market-report-2008&catid=27%3Aarchived-reports&Itemid=93 | |||
| |page = 141 | |||
| |display-authors = etal | |||
| |deadurl = yes | |||
| |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20110405204811/http://www.ieta.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=71%3Aghg-market-report-2008&catid=27%3Aarchived-reports&Itemid=93 | |||
| |archivedate = 5 April 2011 | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| }} This document can also be downloaded as a {{dead link|date=December 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| ====Clean Development Mechanism==== | ===== Clean Development Mechanism ===== | ||
| Between 2001, which was the first year ] (CDM) projects could be registered, and 2012, the end of the first Kyoto commitment period, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO<sub>2</sub>e) in emission reductions.{{sfn|World Bank|2010}} Most of these reductions are through ], ], and fuel switching (World Bank, 2010, p. 262). By 2012, the largest potential for production of CERs are estimated in ] (52% of total CERs) and India (16%). CERs produced in Latin America and the Caribbean make up 15% of the potential total, with Brazil as the largest producer in the region (7%). | |||
| ===== Joint Implementation ===== | |||
| Between 2001, which was the first year ] (CDM) projects could be registered, and 2012, the end of the first Kyoto commitment period, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO<sub>2</sub>e) in emission reductions.<ref name=wdr>{{cite web | |||
| The formal crediting period for ] (JI) was aligned with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and did not start until January 2008 (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 20).{{sfn|Carbon Trust|2009}} In November 2008, only 22 JI projects had been officially approved and registered. The total projected emission savings from JI by 2012 are about one tenth that of the CDM. Russia accounts for about two-thirds of these savings, with the remainder divided up roughly equally between Ukraine and the EU's New Member States. Emission savings include cuts in methane, HFC, and N<sub>2</sub>O emissions. | |||
| |year=2010 | |||
| |author=World Bank | |||
| |title=World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change | |||
| |publisher=The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 | |||
| |url=http://go.worldbank.org/UVZ0HYFGG0 | |||
| |accessdate=6 April 2010}}</ref> Most of these reductions are through ], ], and fuel switching (World Bank, 2010, p. 262). By 2012, the largest potential for production of CERs are estimated in ] (52% of total CERs) and India (16%). CERs produced in Latin America and the Caribbean make up 15% of the potential total, with Brazil as the largest producer in the region (7%). | |||
| ==Details of the agreement== | |||
| ====Joint Implementation==== | |||
| The agreement is a protocol to the ] (UNFCCC) adopted at the ] in ] in 1992, which did not set any legally binding limitations on emissions or enforcement mechanisms. Only Parties to the UNFCCC can become Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. | |||
| National emission targets specified in the Kyoto Protocol exclude international aviation and shipping. Kyoto Parties can use ], ], and ] (LULUCF) in meeting their targets.<ref name="Dessai 2001 3">{{harvnb|Dessai|2001|p=3}}</ref> LULUCF activities are also called "sink" activities. Changes in sinks and land use can have an effect on the climate,<ref>{{citation | |||
| The formal crediting period for ] (JI) was aligned with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and did not start until January 2008 (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 20).<ref name="2009 carbon trust carbon market">{{cite web | |||
| |chapter-url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/annexessglossary-j-p.html | |||
| |date=March 2009 | |||
| |title |
|title = Glossary: Land use and Land-use change | ||
| |chapter = Annex II | |||
| |author=Carbon Trust | |||
| |editor = Baede, A.P.M. | |||
| |url=http://www.carbontrust.com/resources/reports/advice/global-carbon-mechanisms | |||
| |access-date = 28 May 2010 | |||
| |publisher=Carbon Trust website | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100501184723/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/annexessglossary-j-p.html | |||
| |accessdate=31 March 2010}}</ref> In November 2008, only 22 JI projects had been officially approved and registered. The total projected emission savings from JI by 2012 are about one tenth that of the CDM. Russia accounts for about two-thirds of these savings, with the remainder divided up roughly equally between the Ukraine and the EU's New Member States. Emission savings include cuts in methane, HFC, and N<sub>2</sub>O emissions. | |||
| |archive-date = 1 May 2010 | |||
| |url-status = dead | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 SYR|2007}}</ref> and indeed the ]'s Special Report on ] estimates that since 1750 a third of global warming has been caused by land use change.<ref>Robert T. Watson, Ian R. Noble, Bert Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath, David J. Verardo and David J. Dokken (editors), 2000, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Cambridge University Press, UK</ref> Particular criteria apply to the definition of forestry under the Kyoto Protocol. | |||
| ], ] management, ] land management, and ] are all eligible LULUCF activities under the Protocol.<ref name="forest management"> | |||
| ==Stabilization of GHG concentrations== | |||
| {{harvnb|Dessai|2001|p=9}} | |||
| </ref> Annex I Parties use of forest management in meeting their targets is capped.<ref name="forest management" /> | |||
| === First commitment period: 2008–2012 === | |||
| As noted ], the first-round Kyoto emissions limitation commitments are not sufficient to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of GHGs. Stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations will require further emissions reductions after the end of the first-round Kyoto commitment period in 2012.<ref name="grubb commitments"/><ref name="ipcc kyoto stabilization"> | |||
| Under the Kyoto Protocol, 37 ] and the ] (the ]-15, made up of 15 states at the time of the Kyoto negotiations) commit themselves to binding targets for GHG emissions.<ref name="2011 unfccc kyoto protocol overview" /> The targets apply to the four greenhouse gases ] ({{CO2}}), ] ({{chem2|CH4}}), ] ({{chem2|N2O}}), ] ({{chem2|SF6}}), and two groups of gases, ]s (HFCs) and ]s (PFCs).<ref name="grubb kyoto gases"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| {{harvnb|Grubb|2003|p=147}} | |||
| |chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/058.htm 7.32 | |||
| </ref> The six GHG are translated into ] in determining reductions in emissions.<ref>The benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by the ] of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3) were the values of "]" calculated for the ]. These figures are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable ] (CO<sub>2</sub>-eq) when computing overall sources and sinks. Source: {{cite web |date=25 March 1998 |title=Methodological issues related to the Kyoto protocol |url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf#page=31 |access-date=13 February 2010 |publisher=Report of the Conference of the Parties on its third session, held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December 1997, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change |archive-date=23 August 2000 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20000823193833/http://www.unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf#page=31 |url-status=live }}</ref> These reduction targets are in addition to the industrial gases, ]s, or CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987 ]. | |||
| |title = Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations would depend upon emissions reductions beyond those agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol | |||
| |chapter = Question 7 | |||
| |deadurl = yes | |||
| |url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/058.htm | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121030105841/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/058.htm | |||
| |archivedate = 30 October 2012 | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| }} | |||
| , p.122, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR SYR|2001}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| Under the Protocol, only the Annex I Parties have committed themselves to national or joint reduction targets (formally called "quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives" (QELRO) – Article 4.1).<ref name="unfccc1997">{{cite press release |url=http://unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/info/indust.htm |title=Industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% |publisher=] |date=11 December 1997 |access-date=6 August 2007 |archive-date=14 October 2007 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071014231213/http://unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/info/indust.htm |url-status=live }}</ref> Parties to the Kyoto Protocol not listed in Annex I of the convention (the non-Annex I Parties) are mostly low-income developing countries,<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary" />{{Rp|4|date=November 2012}} and may participate in the Kyoto Protocol through the Clean Development Mechanism (explained below).<ref name="grubb commitments" /> | |||
| ===Background=== | |||
| The emissions limitations of Annex I Parties varies between different Parties.<ref name="2011 unfccc kyoto protocol targets">{{cite web |title=Kyoto Protocol - Targets for the first commitment period |url=https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-kyoto-protocol/what-is-the-kyoto-protocol/kyoto-protocol-targets-for-the-first-commitment-period |access-date=28 January 2019 |publisher=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change |archive-date=26 September 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230926060848/https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-kyoto-protocol/what-is-the-kyoto-protocol/kyoto-protocol-targets-for-the-first-commitment-period |url-status=live }}</ref> Some Parties have emissions limitations reduce below the base year level, some have limitations at the base year level (no permitted increase above the base year level), while others have limitations above the base year level. | |||
| {{Multiple image | |||
| |direction=vertical | |||
| | align=right | |||
| | image1=Indicative probabilities of exceeding various increases in global mean temperature (relative to the pre-industrial level) for stabilization levels of 400, 450, 500, 550, 650 and 750 ppmv carbon dioxide equivalent.png | |||
| | alt1=Refer to caption | |||
| | image2=Projected global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil and other industrial sources between 2000-2100 using MiniCAM emissions scenarios from Clarke et al 2007.png | |||
| | alt2=Refer to caption | |||
| | caption1=Indicative probabilities of exceeding various increases in global mean temperature for different stabilization levels of atmospheric GHG concentrations.<ref name="global warming and stabilization targets"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| |url = http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_8_The_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pdf | |||
| |title = Box 8.1 Likelihood of exceeding a temperature increase at equilibrium | |||
| |chapter = Chapter 8 The challenge of stabilisation | |||
| |format = PDF | |||
| |page = 195 | |||
| |deadurl = yes | |||
| |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20121006161506/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_8_The_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pdf | |||
| |archivedate = 6 October 2012 | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|Stern|2006}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| | caption2=Different targets for stabilization require different levels of cuts in emissions over time.<ref name="emission reductions and timing"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | last1 = Fisher | first1 = B. | |||
| | chapter=Chapter 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context | |||
| | url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-3-5-1.html | |||
| | title=3.3.5.1 Emission reductions and timing | |||
| |display-authors=etal}} | |||
| , in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG3|2007}} | |||
| </ref> Lower stabilization targets require global emissions to be reduced more sharply in the near-term.<ref name="emission reductions and timing"/> | |||
| }} | |||
| Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping.<ref name="shippingandaviation"> | |||
| Analysts have developed ] of future changes in GHG emissions that lead to a stabilization in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs.<ref> | |||
| {{citation |last=Adam |first=David |title=UK to seek pact on shipping and aviation pollution at climate talks |date=2 December 2007 |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2007/dec/03/climatechange.greenpolitics |work=The Guardian}} | |||
| {{citation | |||
| </ref> Although Belarus and Turkey are listed in the convention's Annex I, they do not have emissions targets as they were not Annex I Parties when the Protocol was adopted.<ref name="2011 unfccc kyoto protocol targets" /> Kazakhstan does not have a target, but has declared that it wishes to become an Annex I Party to the convention.<ref>{{Cite web |title=Proposal to amend Annexes I and II to remove the name of Turkey and to amend Annex I to add the name of Kazakhstan |url=https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-convention/history-of-the-convention/proposal-to-amend-annexes-i-and-ii-to-remove-the-name-of-turkey-and-to-amend-annex-i-to-add-the-name |access-date=2020-04-22 |website=unfccc.int |archive-date=28 July 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200728202017/https://unfccc.int/process-and-meetings/the-convention/history-of-the-convention/proposal-to-amend-annexes-i-and-ii-to-remove-the-name-of-turkey-and-to-amend-annex-i-to-add-the-name |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
| | last1 = Fisher | first1 = B. | |||
| | chapter=Chapter 3: Issues related to mitigation in the long-term context | |||
| | url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-3-2.html | |||
| | title=3.3.2 Definition of a stabilization target | |||
| |display-authors=etal}} | |||
| , in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG3|2007}} | |||
| </ref> Climate models suggest that lower stabilization levels are associated with lower magnitudes of future global warming, while higher stabilization levels are associated with higher magnitudes of future global warming (see figure opposite).<ref name="global warming and stabilization targets"/> | |||
| {{hidden begin|title=Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their 2008–2012 commitments as % of base year, and 1990 emission levels (% of all Annex I countries)<ref name="2011 unfccc kyoto protocol targets" /><ref>{{cite web | |||
| To achieve stabilization, global GHG emissions must peak, then decline.<ref name="emissions peak and decline"> | |||
| |date = 12 November 2009 | |||
| {{citation | |||
| |title = Kyoto burden-sharing targets for EU-15 countries | |||
| | chapter=Synthesis report | |||
| |publisher = European Environment Agency (EEA) | |||
| | url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-4.html | |||
| |url = https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/kyoto-burden-sharing-targets-for-eu-15-countries | |||
| | title=5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation | |||
| |access-date = 28 January 2019 | |||
| }} | |||
| |archive-date = 22 December 2018 | |||
| , in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 SYR|2007}} | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181222030424/https://www.eea.europa.eu//data-and-maps/figures/kyoto-burden-sharing-targets-for-eu-15-countries | |||
| </ref> The lower the desired stabilization level, the sooner this peak and decline must occur (see figure opposite).<ref name="emissions peak and decline"/> For a given stabilization level, larger emissions reductions in the near term allow for less stringent emissions reductions later.<ref name="near term emissions reductions"> | |||
| |url-status = live | |||
| {{citation | |||
| }}</ref>}} | |||
| |url = http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_8_The_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pdf | |||
| {| | |||
| |chapter = Chapter 8 The challenge of stabilisation | |||
| |- | |||
| |title = Sec 8.5 Pathways to stabilisation | |||
| | style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"| | |||
| |deadurl = yes | |||
| ] – 108% (2.1% of 1990 emissions) <br /> | |||
| |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20121006161506/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_8_The_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pdf | |||
| ] – 87% <br /> | |||
| |archivedate = 6 October 2012 | |||
| ] – 95% (subject to acceptance by other parties)<br /> | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| ] – 92.5% <br /> | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|Stern|2006|p=199}} | |||
| ] – 92% (0.6%) <br /> | |||
| </ref> On the other hand, less stringent near term emissions reductions would, for a given stabilization level, require more stringent emissions reductions later on.<ref name="near term emissions reductions"/> | |||
| ] – 94% (3.33%) (withdrew) <br /> | |||
| ] – 95% () <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (1.24%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 79% <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (0.28%) | |||
| | style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"| | |||
| ] – 100% <br /> | |||
| ] – 100% <br /> | |||
| ] – 79% <br /> | |||
| ] – 125% <br /> | |||
| ] – 94% (0.52%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 110% (0.02%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 113% <br /> | |||
| ] – 93.5% <br /> | |||
| ] – 94% (8.55%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (0.17%) | |||
| | style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"| | |||
| ] – 92% (0.0015%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% <br /> | |||
| ] – 72% <br /> | |||
| ] – 94% <br /> | |||
| ] – 100% (0.19%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 101% (0.26%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 94% (3.02%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (1.24%) | |||
| | style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"| | |||
| ] – 100% (17.4%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (0.42%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% <br /> | |||
| ] – 115% <br /> | |||
| ] – 104% <br /> | |||
| ] – 92% (0.32%) <br /> | |||
| ] – 100% <br /> | |||
| ] – 87.5% <br /> | |||
| ] – 93% (36.1%) (non-party) | |||
| |} | |||
| {{hidden end}} | |||
| For most state parties, 1990 is the base year for the national GHG inventory and the calculation of the assigned amount.<ref name="2008 unfccc kyoto protocol reference manual">{{citation |author=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) |title=Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual On Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount |url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf |page=55 |year=2008 |location=Bonn, Germany |publisher=Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC) |isbn=978-92-9219-055-2 |access-date=30 December 2011 |archive-date=29 April 2010 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100429230813/http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> However, five state parties have an alternative base year:<ref name="2008 unfccc kyoto protocol reference manual" /> | |||
| The first period Kyoto emissions limitations can be viewed as a first-step towards achieving atmospheric stabilization of GHGs.<ref name=gupta/> In this sense, the first period Kyoto commitments may affect what future atmospheric stabilization level can be achieved.<ref> | |||
| * Bulgaria: 1988; | |||
| {{citation | |||
| * Hungary: the average of the years 1985–1987; | |||
| | last = Höhne | first = N. | |||
| * Poland: 1988; | |||
| | title=Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Stabilization of Carbon Dioxide Concentration | |||
| * Romania: 1989; | |||
| | publisher=ECOFYS energy & environment | |||
| * Slovenia: 1986. | |||
| | location=Cologne, Germany | |||
| | url=http://stabilisation.metoffice.com/posters/Hohne_Niklas.pdf | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| Annex I Parties can use a range of sophisticated "flexibility" mechanisms (see below) to meet their targets. Annex I Parties can achieve their targets by allocating reduced annual allowances to major operators within their borders, or by allowing these operators to exceed their allocations by offsetting any excess through a mechanism that is agreed by all the parties to the UNFCCC, such as by buying ] from other operators which have excess emissions credits. | |||
| ===Relation to temperature targets=== | |||
| At the ] held in 2010, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that future global warming should be limited ] relative to the pre-industrial temperature level.<ref> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2011 | |||
| | author=] (UNFCCC) | |||
| | title=Conference of the Parties - Sixteenth Session: Decision 1/CP.16: The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (English): Paragraph 4 | |||
| | publisher=UNFCCC Secretariat | |||
| | location=], ] | |||
| | page=3 | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2 | |||
| | format=PDF | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> One of the stabilization levels discussed in relation to this temperature target is to hold atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at 450 ] (ppm) {{chem|CO|2}}- eq.<ref> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2010 | |||
| | title=] 2010 | |||
| | chapter=13. Energy and the ultimate climate change target | |||
| | publisher=IEA | |||
| | location=Paris, France | |||
| | author=] (IEA) | |||
| | isbn=978-92-64-08624-1 | |||
| | chapter-url=http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo2010.pdf | |||
| | page=380 | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> Stabilization at 450 ppm could be associated with a 26 to 78% risk of exceeding the 2 °C target.<ref> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | date=February 2010 | |||
| | title=Working Paper: Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges | |||
| | last1 = Levin | first1 = K. | first2 = R. | last2 = Bradley | |||
| | publisher=] | |||
| | location=Washington DC, USA | |||
| | page=16 | |||
| | url=http://pdf.wri.org/working_papers/comparability_of_annex1_emission_reduction_pledges_2010-02-01.pdf | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| Scenarios assessed by Gupta ''et al.'' (2007)<ref name="450ppm scenarios"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | last1 = Gupta | first1 = S. | |||
| | chapter=Chapter 13: Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements | |||
| | url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html | |||
| | title=Box 13.7 The range of the difference between emissions in 1990 and emission allowances in 2020/2050 for various GHG concentration levels for Annex I and non-Annex I countries as a group | |||
| |display-authors=etal}} | |||
| , in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG3|2007}} | |||
| </ref> suggest that Annex I emissions would need to be 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. The only Annex I Parties to have made voluntary pledges in line with this are Japan (25% below 1990 levels by 2020) and Norway (30-40% below 1990 levels by 2020).<ref> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| |date=July 2011 | |||
| |last1=King | |||
| |first1=D. | |||
| |chapter=Copenhagen and Cancun | |||
| |title=International climate change negotiations: Key lessons and next steps | |||
| |publisher=Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford | |||
| |location=Oxford, UK | |||
| |page=14 | |||
| |doi=10.4210/ssee.pbs.2011.0003 | |||
| |url=http://edition2a.intellimag.com/?id=ssee-july2011 | |||
| |display-authors=etal | |||
| |deadurl=yes | |||
| |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130801031800/http://edition2a.intellimag.com/?id=ssee-july2011 | |||
| |archivedate= 1 August 2013 | |||
| |df= | |||
| }} PDF version is also {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113033748/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf |date=13 January 2012 }} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| Gupta ''et al.'' (2007)<ref name="450ppm scenarios"/> also looked at what 450 ppm scenarios projected for non-Annex I Parties. Projections indicated that by 2020, non-Annex I emissions in several regions (], the ], ], and ] ]) would need to be substantially reduced below ].<ref name="450ppm scenarios"/> "Business-as-usual" are projected non-Annex I emissions in the absence of any new policies to control emissions. Projections indicated that by 2050, emissions in all non-Annex I regions would need to be substantially reduced below "business-as-usual".<ref name="450ppm scenarios"/> | |||
| ==Details of the agreement== | |||
| The agreement is a protocol to the ] (UNFCCC) adopted at the ] in ] in 1992, which did not set any legally binding limitations on emissions or enforcement mechanisms. Only Parties to the UNFCCC can become Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 3) in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. | |||
| National emission targets specified in the Kyoto Protocol exclude international aviation and shipping. Kyoto Parties can use ], land use change, and ] (LULUCF) in meeting their targets.<ref name="Dessai 2001 3">{{harvnb|Dessai|2001|p=3}}</ref> LULUCF activities are also called "sink" activities. Changes in sinks and land use can have an effect on the climate,<ref> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/annexessglossary-j-p.html | |||
| | title=Glossary: Land use and Land-use change | |||
| | chapter=Annex II | |||
| |editor=Baede, A.P.M. | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 SYR|2007}} | |||
| </ref> and indeed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special Report on ] estimates that since 1750 a third of global warming has been caused by land use change.<ref>Robert T. Watson, Ian R. Noble, Bert Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath, David J. Verardo and David J. Dokken (editors), 2000, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Cambridge University Press, UK</ref> Particular criteria apply to the definition of forestry under the Kyoto Protocol. | |||
| ], ] management, ] land management, and ] are all eligible LULUCF activities under the Protocol.<ref name="forest management"> | |||
| {{harvnb|Dessai|2001|p=9}} | |||
| </ref> Annex I Parties use of forest management in meeting their targets is capped.<ref name="forest management"/> | |||
| ===Negotiations=== | ===Negotiations=== | ||
| Line 835: | Line 486: | ||
| Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC commits industrialized countries to " the lead" in reducing emissions.<ref name="grubb original unfccc target"> | Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC commits industrialized countries to " the lead" in reducing emissions.<ref name="grubb original unfccc target"> | ||
| {{harvnb|Grubb|2003|p=144}} | {{harvnb|Grubb|2003|p=144}} | ||
| </ref> The initial aim was for industrialized countries to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by |
</ref> The initial aim was for industrialized countries to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.<ref name="grubb original unfccc target"/> The failure of key industrialized countries to move in this direction was a principal reason why Kyoto moved to binding commitments.<ref name="grubb original unfccc target"/> | ||
| At the first UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Berlin, the ] was able to push for a mandate (the "Berlin mandate") where it was recognized that:<ref name="liverman berlin mandate"> | At the first UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Berlin, the ] was able to push for a mandate (the "Berlin mandate") where it was recognized that:<ref name="liverman berlin mandate"> | ||
| {{harvnb|Liverman|2009|p=290}} | {{harvnb|Liverman|2009|p=290}} | ||
| </ref> | </ref> | ||
| * developed nations had contributed most to the then-current concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere (see ]). | * developed nations had contributed most to the then-current concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere (see ]). | ||
| * developing country |
* developing country emissions per-capita (i.e., average emissions per head of population)<ref>{{citation | ||
| {{citation | |||
| | title=Table A1: Energy-related emissions: Indicator: per capita (metric tons) | | title=Table A1: Energy-related emissions: Indicator: per capita (metric tons) | ||
| | chapter=Part II: Selected Development Indicators | | chapter=Part II: Selected Development Indicators | ||
| | chapter-url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Statistical-Annex.pdf | | chapter-url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Statistical-Annex.pdf | ||
| | access-date=31 August 2012 | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|World Bank|2010|p=370}} | |||
| | archive-date=1 November 2012 | |||
| </ref> were still relatively low. | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121101133001/http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Statistical-Annex.pdf | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|World Bank|2010|p=370}}</ref> were still relatively low. | |||
| * and that the share of global emissions from developing countries would grow to meet their development needs. | * and that the share of global emissions from developing countries would grow to meet their development needs. | ||
| During negotiations, the G-77 represented 133 developing countries. China was not a member of the group but an associate.<ref> | During negotiations, the G-77 represented 133 developing countries. China was not a member of the group but an associate.<ref> | ||
| Line 860: | Line 513: | ||
| ====Emissions cuts==== | ====Emissions cuts==== | ||
| ].]] | |||
| [[File:Overview map of states committed to greenhouse gas limitations in the first Kyoto Protocol period (years 2008-2012) (greyscale).png|thumb|upright=1.8|alt=Refer to caption|Overview map of states committed to greenhouse gas (GHG) limitations in the first Kyoto Protocol period (2008–12):<ref>{{cite web | date=n.d. | url=http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php | title=Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Annex B | publisher=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | access-date= 8 October 2011}}</ref><br /> | |||
| ] contains a list of the emissions cuts that were proposed by UNFCCC Parties during negotiations. The G77 and China were in favour of strong uniform emission cuts across the developed world.<ref name="liverman negotiations"> | |||
| {{legend|#000000|Annex I Parties who have agreed to reduce their GHG emissions below their individual base year levels (see definition in this article)}} | |||
| {{legend|#737373|Annex I Parties who have agreed to cap their GHG emissions at their base year levels}} {{legend|#f2f2f2|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}} | |||
| <br /> | |||
| For specific emission reduction commitments of Annex I Parties, see the section of the article on ].<br /> | |||
| <br /> | |||
| The European Union as a whole has, in accordance with this treaty, committed itself to a reduction of 8%. However, many member states (such as Greece, Spain, Ireland and Sweden) have not committed themselves to any reduction while France has committed itself not to expand its emissions (0% reduction).<ref>{{cite web |title=Kyoto 1st commitment period (2008–12) |url=https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/progress/kyoto_1_en |website=] |access-date=2020-03-15 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161221064248/https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/progress/kyoto_1_en |archive-date=2016-12-21 |url-status=unfit}}</ref>]] | |||
| There were multiple emissions cuts ] during negotiations. The G77 and China were in favour of strong uniform emission cuts across the developed world.<ref name="liverman negotiations"> | |||
| {{harvnb|Liverman|2009|p=291}} | {{harvnb|Liverman|2009|p=291}} | ||
| </ref> The US originally proposed for the second round of negotiations on Kyoto commitments to follow the negotiations of the first.<ref name="grubb second round negotiations"> | </ref> The US originally proposed for the second round of negotiations on Kyoto commitments to follow the negotiations of the first.<ref name="grubb second round negotiations"> | ||
| Line 867: | Line 527: | ||
| </ref> In the end, negotiations on the second period were set to open no later than 2005.<ref name="grubb second round negotiations"/> Countries over-achieving in their first period commitments can "bank" their unused allowances for use in the subsequent period.<ref name="grubb second round negotiations"/> | </ref> In the end, negotiations on the second period were set to open no later than 2005.<ref name="grubb second round negotiations"/> Countries over-achieving in their first period commitments can "bank" their unused allowances for use in the subsequent period.<ref name="grubb second round negotiations"/> | ||
| The EU initially argued for only three GHGs to be included – {{ |
The EU initially argued for only three GHGs to be included – {{CO2}}, {{chem2|CH4}}, and {{chem2|N2O}} – with other gases such as HFCs regulated separately.<ref name="liverman negotiations"/> The EU also wanted to have a "bubble" commitment, whereby it could make a collective commitment that allowed some EU members to increase their emissions, while others cut theirs.<ref name="liverman negotiations"/> | ||
| The most vulnerable nations – the ] (AOSIS) – pushed for deep uniform cuts by developed nations, with the goal of having emissions reduced to the greatest possible extent.<ref name="liverman negotiations"/> Countries that had supported differentiation of targets had different ideas as to how it should be calculated, and many different indicators were proposed.<ref name="grubb differentiation"/> Two examples include differentiation of targets based on ] (GDP), and differentiation based on ] (energy use per unit of economic output).<ref name="grubb differentiation"> | The most vulnerable nations – the ] (AOSIS) – pushed for deep uniform cuts by developed nations, with the goal of having emissions reduced to the greatest possible extent.<ref name="liverman negotiations"/> Countries that had supported differentiation of targets had different ideas as to how it should be calculated, and many different indicators were proposed.<ref name="grubb differentiation"/> Two examples include differentiation of targets based on ] (GDP), and differentiation based on ] (energy use per unit of economic output).<ref name="grubb differentiation"> | ||
| Line 875: | Line 535: | ||
| The final targets negotiated in the Protocol are the result of last minute political compromises.<ref name="liverman negotiations"/> The targets closely match those decided by Argentinian Raul Estrada, the ] who chaired the negotiations.<ref> | The final targets negotiated in the Protocol are the result of last minute political compromises.<ref name="liverman negotiations"/> The targets closely match those decided by Argentinian Raul Estrada, the ] who chaired the negotiations.<ref> | ||
| {{harvnb|Depledge|2000|p=46}} | {{harvnb|Depledge|2000|p=46}} | ||
| </ref> |
</ref> The numbers given to each Party by Chairman Estrada were based on targets already pledged by Parties, information received on latest negotiating positions, and the goal of achieving the strongest possible environmental outcome.<ref> | ||
| {{harvnb|Depledge|2000|p=44}} | {{harvnb|Depledge|2000|p=44}} | ||
| </ref> The final targets are weaker than those proposed by some Parties, e.g., the ] and the G-77 and China, but stronger than the targets proposed by others, e.g., Canada and the United States.<ref> | </ref> The final targets are weaker than those proposed by some Parties, e.g., the ] and the G-77 and China, but stronger than the targets proposed by others, e.g., Canada and the United States.<ref> | ||
| {{harvnb|Depledge|2000|p=45}} | {{harvnb|Depledge|2000|p=45}} | ||
| </ref> | </ref> | ||
| ==== Relation to temperature targets ==== | |||
| At the ] held in 2010, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that future global warming should be limited ] relative to the pre-industrial temperature level.<ref>{{citation |author=] (UNFCCC) |title=Conference of the Parties - Sixteenth Session: Decision 1/CP.16: The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (English): Paragraph 4 |url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2 |page=3 |year=2011 |location=], ] |publisher=UNFCCC Secretariat |format=PDF |access-date=17 July 2012 |archive-date=13 January 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200113095453/https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2 |url-status=live }}</ref> One of the stabilization levels discussed in relation to this temperature target is to hold atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at 450 ] (ppm) {{CO2}}- eq.<ref>{{citation |author=] (IEA) |title=World Energy Outlook 2010 |page=380 |year=2010 |access-date=17 July 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120715234406/http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo2010.pdf |url-status=dead |chapter=13. Energy and the ultimate climate change target |chapter-url=http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo2010.pdf |location=Paris, France |publisher=IEA |isbn=978-92-64-08624-1 |archive-date=15 July 2012 |title-link=World Energy Outlook}}</ref> Stabilization at 450 ppm could be associated with a 26 to 78% risk of exceeding the 2 °C target.<ref>{{citation |last1=Levin |first1=K. |title=Working Paper: Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges |date=February 2010 |url=http://pdf.wri.org/working_papers/comparability_of_annex1_emission_reduction_pledges_2010-02-01.pdf |page=16 |location=Washington DC, USA |publisher=] |last2=Bradley |first2=R. |access-date=17 July 2012 |archive-date=13 May 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130513000602/http://pdf.wri.org/working_papers/comparability_of_annex1_emission_reduction_pledges_2010-02-01.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref> | |||
| Scenarios assessed by Gupta ''et al.'' (2007)<ref name="450ppm scenarios">{{citation |last1=Gupta |first1=S. |title=Box 13.7 The range of the difference between emissions in 1990 and emission allowances in 2020/2050 for various GHG concentration levels for Annex I and non-Annex I countries as a group |df=dmy-all |access-date=17 July 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121210151654/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html |url-status=dead |chapter=Chapter 13: Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements |chapter-url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html |display-authors=etal |archive-date=10 December 2012}} | |||
| , in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG3|2007}}</ref> suggest that Annex I emissions would need to be 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. The only Annex I Parties to have made voluntary pledges in line with this are Japan (25% below 1990 levels by 2020) and Norway (30–40% below 1990 levels by 2020).<ref> | |||
| {{citation |author=King, D. |title=International climate change negotiations: Key lessons and next steps |date=July 2011 |url=http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf |page=12 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113033748/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf |url-status=dead |chapter=Copenhagen and Cancun |location=Oxford, UK |publisher=Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford |display-authors=etal |archive-date=13 January 2012}} | |||
| </ref> | |||
| Gupta ''et al.'' (2007)<ref name="450ppm scenarios" /> also looked at what 450 ppm scenarios projected for non-Annex I Parties. Projections indicated that by 2020, non-Annex I emissions in several regions (], the ], ], and ] ]) would need to be substantially reduced below ].<ref name="450ppm scenarios" /> "Business-as-usual" are projected non-Annex I emissions in the absence of any new policies to control emissions. Projections indicated that by 2050, emissions in all non-Annex I regions would need to be substantially reduced below "business-as-usual".<ref name="450ppm scenarios" /> | |||
| ===Financial commitments=== | ===Financial commitments=== | ||
| The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects. The principle was originally agreed in ]. One such project is ] |
The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects. The principle was originally agreed in ]. One such project is ],<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.adaptation-fund.org/|title=AF - Adaptation Fund|website=www.adaptation-fund.org|access-date=20 June 2011|archive-date=1 January 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110101083317/http://www.adaptation-fund.org/|url-status=live}}</ref> which has been established by the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. | ||
| === |
===Implementation provisions=== | ||
| The protocol left several issues open to be decided later by the sixth Conference of Parties ] of the UNFCCC, which attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in ] in late 2000, but it was unable to reach an agreement due to disputes between the European Union (who favoured a tougher implementation) and the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia (who wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible). | The protocol left several issues open to be decided later by the sixth Conference of Parties ] of the UNFCCC, which attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in ] in late 2000, but it was unable to reach an agreement due to disputes between the European Union (who favoured a tougher implementation) and the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia (who wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible). | ||
| In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting ( |
In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting (COP6-bis) was held in ],<ref>], {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200728204839/https://enb.iisd.org/climate/cop6bis/ |date=28 July 2020 }}, accessed 27 May 2020</ref> where the required decisions were adopted. After some concessions, the supporters of the protocol (led by the ]) managed to secure the agreement of Japan and ] by allowing more use of ]. | ||
| ] was held from 29 October 2001 through 9 November 2001 in ] to establish the final details of the protocol. | ] was held from 29 October 2001 through 9 November 2001 in ] to establish the final details of the protocol. | ||
| Line 894: | Line 564: | ||
| The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP1) was held in ] from 28 November to 9 December 2005, along with the 11th conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP11). See ]. | The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP1) was held in ] from 28 November to 9 December 2005, along with the 11th conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP11). See ]. | ||
| During COP13 in Bali, 36 developed ] countries (plus the EU as a party in the ]) agreed to a 10% emissions increase for ]; but, since the EU's member states each have individual obligations,<ref>{{cite web | title=The Kyoto protocol – A brief summary | work=European Commission | url=http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.htm | |
During COP13 in Bali, 36 developed ] countries (plus the EU as a party in the ]) agreed to a 10% emissions increase for ]; but, since the EU's member states each have individual obligations,<ref>{{cite web | title=The Kyoto protocol – A brief summary | work=European Commission | url=http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.htm | access-date=19 April 2007 | archive-date=10 August 2009 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090810105055/http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.htm | url-status=dead }}</ref> much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of the less developed EU countries (see below {{Section link||Increase in greenhouse gas emission since 1990}}).<ref>{{cite web |url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php |title=Kyoto Protocol |publisher=UNFCCC |date=14 May 2008 |access-date=21 May 2009 |archive-date=13 May 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080513194415/http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php |url-status=live }}</ref> Reduction limitations expired in 2013. | ||
| ===Mechanism of compliance=== | ===Mechanism of compliance=== | ||
| The protocol defines a mechanism of "compliance" as a "monitoring compliance with the commitments and penalties for non-compliance."<ref>{{cite web | The protocol defines a mechanism of "compliance" as a "monitoring compliance with the commitments and penalties for ]."<ref>{{cite web | ||
| |title=Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change | |title=Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change | ||
| |first= |
|first=S | ||
| |last=Maljean-Dubois | |||
| |work=Synthèse, n° 01, 2007 | |work=Synthèse, n° 01, 2007 | ||
| |publisher=Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations | |publisher=Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations | ||
| |url=http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Syntheses/Compliance-with-the-Kyoto-Protocol-on-Climate-Change |
|url=http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Syntheses/Compliance-with-the-Kyoto-Protocol-on-Climate-Change | ||
| |access-date=11 July 2008 | |||
| |archive-date=10 November 2009 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091110071921/http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Syntheses/Compliance-with-the-Kyoto-Protocol-on-Climate-Change | |||
| |url-status=dead | |||
| }}</ref> According to Grubb (2003),<ref name="grubb compliance"> | |||
| {{harvnb|Grubb|2003|p=157}} | {{harvnb|Grubb|2003|p=157}} | ||
| </ref> the explicit consequences of non-compliance of the treaty are weak compared to domestic law.<ref name="grubb compliance"/> Yet, the compliance section of the treaty was highly contested in the Marrakesh Accords.<ref name="grubb compliance"/> | </ref> the explicit consequences of non-compliance of the treaty are weak compared to domestic law.<ref name="grubb compliance"/> Yet, the compliance section of the treaty was highly contested in the Marrakesh Accords.<ref name="grubb compliance"/> | ||
| === |
===Monitoring emissions=== | ||
| Monitoring emissions in international agreements is tough as in international law, there is no police power, creating the incentive for states to find 'ways around' monitoring. The Kyoto Protocol regulated six sinks and sources of Gases. Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nirous oxide, Hydroflurocarbons, Sulfur hexafluouride and Perfluorocarbons. Monitoring these gases can become quite a challenge. Methane can be monitored and measured from irrigated rice fields and can be measured by the seedling growing up to harvest. Future implications state that this can be affected by more cost effective ways to control emissions as changes in types of fertilizer can reduce emissions by 50%. In addition to this, many countries are unable to monitor certain ways of carbon absorption through trees and soils to an accurate level.<ref>Victor, David G. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 2004.</ref> | |||
| ===Enforcing emission cuts=== | |||
| If the enforcement branch determines that an Annex I country is not in compliance with its emissions limitation, then that country is required to make up the difference during the second commitment period plus an additional 30%. In addition, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions trading program.<ref> | |||
| {{cite web | |||
| If the enforcement branch determines that an Annex I country is not in compliance with its emissions limitation, then that country is required to make up the difference during the second commitment period plus an additional 30%. In addition, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions trading program.<ref>{{cite web | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/compliance/introduction/items/3024.php | | url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/compliance/introduction/items/3024.php | ||
| | title=An Introduction to the Kyoto Protocol Compliance Mechanism | | title=An Introduction to the Kyoto Protocol Compliance Mechanism | ||
| | publisher=UNFCC | | publisher=UNFCC | ||
| | |
| access-date=30 October 2006 | ||
| | archive-date=14 May 2021 | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210514012212/https://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/compliance/introduction/items/3024.php | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| ==Ratification process== | ==Ratification process== | ||
| ===Countries that ratified the Protocol=== | |||
| The Protocol was adopted by ] of UNFCCC on 11 December 1997 in ], ]. It was opened on 16 March 1998 for signature during one year by parties to ], when it was signed Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, the Maldives, Samoa, St. Lucia and Switzerland. At the end of the signature period, 82 countries and the ] had signed. ] (which is required to become a party to the Protocol) started on 17 September with ratification by Fiji. Countries that did not sign acceded to the convention, which has the same legal effect.<ref name=parties/> | |||
| Article 25 of the Protocol specifies that the Protocol enters into force "on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in ] which accounted in total for at least 55% of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the ] countries, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession."<ref>{{cite web|title=The Kyoto Protocol full text (PDF)|url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf|publisher=UNFCC Homepage|access-date=17 November 2004|archive-date=5 October 2011|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111005085911/http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
| The Protocol was adopted by ] of UNFCCC on 11 December 1997 in ], ]. It was opened on 16 March 1998 for signature during one year by parties to ], when it was signed Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, the Maldives, Samoa, St. Lucia and Switzerland. At the end of the signature period, 82 countries and the ] had signed. ] (which is required to become a party to the Protocol) started on 17 September with ratification of Fiji. Countries that did not sign acceded to the convention, which has the same legal effect.<ref name=parties/> | |||
| The EU and its Member States ratified the Protocol in May 2002.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/02/794&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en |title=European Union ratifies the Kyoto Protocol |publisher=European Union |date=31 May 2002 |access-date=13 February 2010 |archive-date=17 December 2009 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091217030944/http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/02/794&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en |url-status=live }}</ref> Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached on 23 May 2002 when ] ratified the Protocol.<ref name=parties>{{cite web|title=Status of ratification|url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php|publisher=UNFCC Homepage|access-date=5 June 2012|archive-date=4 April 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160404010136/http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php|url-status=live}}</ref> The ratification by ] on 18 November 2004 satisfied the "55%" clause and brought the treaty into force, effective 16 February 2005, after the required lapse of 90 days.<ref>{{cite web|last=West|first=Larry|title=What is the Kyoto Protocol|url=http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprotocol.htm|publisher=About.com (Part of NYT)|access-date=5 June 2012|archive-date=2 March 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120302123655/http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprotocol.htm|url-status=dead}}</ref> | |||
| Article 25 of the Protocol specifies that the Protocol enters into force "on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in ] which accounted in total for at least 55% of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the ] countries, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession."<ref>{{cite web|title=The Kyoto Protocol full text (PDF)|url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf|publisher=UNFCC Homepage}}</ref> | |||
| As of May 2013, ] and one regional economic organization (the ]) have ratified the agreement, representing over 61.6% of the 1990 emissions from ] countries.<ref name = "Kyoto-PDF-unfccc">{{cite web | title=Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification | url=http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/application/pdf/kp_ratification.pdf | date=14 January 2009 | access-date=6 May 2009 | publisher=] | archive-date=25 March 2009 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090325015751/http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/application/pdf/kp_ratification.pdf | url-status=live }}</ref> One of the 191 ratifying states—Canada—has renounced the protocol. | |||
| The EU and its Member States ratified the Protocol in May 2002.<ref>{{cite press release |url=http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/02/794&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en |title=European Union ratifies the Kyoto Protocol |publisher=European Union|date=31 May 2002 |accessdate=13 February 2010 }}</ref> Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached on 23 May 2002 when ] ratified the Protocol.<ref name=parties>{{cite web|title=Status of ratification|url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php|publisher=UNFCC Homepage|accessdate=5 June 2012}}</ref> The ratification by ] on 18 November 2004 satisfied the "55%" clause and brought the treaty into force, effective 16 February 2005, after the required lapse of 90 days.<ref>{{cite web|last=West|first=Larry|title=What is the Kyoto Protocol|url=http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprotocol.htm|publisher=About.com (Part of NYT)|accessdate=5 June 2012}}</ref> | |||
| {{hidden begin|title=Convention Parties|titlestyle=text-align:left;|bodystyle=text-align:left;}} | |||
| As of May 2013, ] and one regional economic organization (the ]) have ratified the agreement, representing over 61.6% of the 1990 emissions from ] countries.<ref name = "Kyoto-PDF-unfccc">{{cite web | title=Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification | url=http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/application/pdf/kp_ratification.pdf | date=14 January 2009 | accessdate=6 May 2009 | publisher=] |format=PDF}}</ref> One of the 191 ratifying states—Canada—has renounced the protocol. | |||
| {{hidden begin | |||
| |title = Convention Parties | |||
| |titlestyle = text-align:left; | |||
| |bodystyle = text-align:left; | |||
| }} | |||
| {| | {| | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| Line 988: | Line 665: | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | |||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| Line 993: | Line 671: | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | |||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| Line 1,040: | Line 719: | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | |||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| Line 1,067: | Line 745: | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | |||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| Line 1,104: | Line 783: | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | |||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| Line 1,111: | Line 789: | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | |||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| ] <br /> | ] <br /> | ||
| Line 1,139: | Line 816: | ||
| ===Non-ratification by the US=== | ===Non-ratification by the US=== | ||
| The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998,<ref>{{cite web|title=Congressional Research Service Reports #98-349: Global Climate Change: Selected Legal Questions About the Kyoto Protocol|url=http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/ern/01jul/98-349.php}}</ref> during the ] presidency. To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the ], which had already passed the 1997 non-binding ], expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and "would seriously harm the economy of the United States". |
The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998,<ref>{{cite web|title=Congressional Research Service Reports #98-349: Global Climate Change: Selected Legal Questions About the Kyoto Protocol|url=http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/ern/01jul/98-349.php|access-date=22 April 2014|archive-date=6 May 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140506234653/http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/ern/01jul/98-349.php|url-status=dead}}</ref> during the ] presidency. To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the ], which had already passed the 1997 non-binding ], expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and "would seriously harm the economy of the United States". The resolution passed 95–0.<ref>Byrd-Hagel Resolution ({{cite web |url=http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html |title=Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98) Expressing the Sense of the Senate Regarding Conditions for the U.S. Signing the Global Climate Change Treaty |access-date=2014-12-14 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100626110143/http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html |archive-date=26 June 2010 |df=dmy-all }})</ref> Therefore, even though the ] signed the treaty,<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090502014031/http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/ |date=2 May 2009 }}. All Politics (CNN). 11 December 1997. Retrieved 5 November 2006.</ref> it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification. | ||
| At the outset of the ], Senators ], ], ], and ] wrote a letter to ] seeking to identify his position on the Kyoto Protocol and climate change policy.<ref>{{Cite web|title=ParlInfo - GRIEVANCE DEBATE: Environment: Greenhouse Policy|url=https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id:%22chamber/hansardr/2001-03-26/0103%22|access-date=2020-08-24|website=parlinfo.aph.gov.au}}</ref> In a letter dated March 13, 2001, President Bush responded that his "Administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously", but that "I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns."<ref>{{Cite web|title=Text of a Letter From The President|url=https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html|access-date=2020-08-24|website=georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov|archive-date=22 July 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090722073329/http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2001/03/20010314.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The administration also questioned the scientific certainty around climate change and cited potential harms of emissions reduction to the US economy.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Dessler |first=Andrew E. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Ivw7EAAAQBAJ |title=Introduction to Modern Climate Change |date=2021 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-1-108-84018-7 |pages=234 |language=en}}</ref> | |||
| When ] was elected US president in 2000, he was asked by ] ] what his administration's position was on climate change. Bush replied that he took climate change "very seriously",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Energy_+_Oil.htm#56|title=George W. Bush on Energy & Oil|website=www.ontheissues.org}}</ref> but that he 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 serious harm to the US economy."<ref name="Dessai 2001 5">{{harvnb|Dessai|2001|p=5}}</ref> The ] for Climate Change Research reported in 2001:<blockquote>This policy reversal received a massive wave of criticism that was quickly picked up by the international media. Environmental groups blasted the White House, while Europeans and Japanese alike expressed deep concern and regret. Almost all world leaders (e.g. China, Japan, South Africa, Pacific Islands, etc.) expressed their disappointment at Bush's decision.</blockquote>In response to this criticism, Bush stated: "I was responding to reality, and reality is the nation has got a real problem when it comes to energy." The Tyndall Centre called this "an overstatement used to cover up the big benefactors of this policy reversal, i.e., the US oil and coal industry, which has a powerful lobby with the administration and conservative ] congressmen."<ref>{{harvnb|Dessai|2001|pp=5–6}}</ref> | |||
| The ] for Climate Change Research reported in 2001:<blockquote>This policy reversal received a massive wave of criticism that was quickly picked up by the international media. Environmental groups blasted the White House, while Europeans and Japanese alike expressed deep concern and regret. ... Almost all world leaders (e.g. China, Japan, South Africa, Pacific Islands, etc.) expressed their disappointment at Bush's decision.<ref name="Dessai 2001 5–6">{{harvnb|Dessai|2001|pp=5–6}}</ref></blockquote>In response to this criticism, Bush stated: "I was responding to reality, and reality is the nation has got a real problem when it comes to energy". The Tyndall Centre called this "an overstatement used to cover up the big benefactors of this policy reversal, i.e., the US oil and coal industry, which has a powerful lobby with the administration and conservative ] congressmen."<ref name="Dessai 2001 5–6"/> | |||
| As of 2016, the US is the only signatory that has not ratified the Protocol.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-a&chapter=27&lang=en |title=United Nations Treaty Collection |publisher=}}</ref> The US accounted for 36% of emissions in 1990. As such, for the treaty to go into legal effect without US ratification, it would require a coalition including the EU, Russia, Japan, and small parties. A deal, without the US Administration, was reached in the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.<ref>{{harvnb|Dessai|2001|pp=5–10}}</ref> | |||
| As of 2023, the US is the only signatory that has not ratified the Protocol.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-a&chapter=27&lang=en|title=United Nations Treaty Collection|website=treaties.un.org|access-date=27 December 2014|archive-date=8 October 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181008095709/https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-a&chapter=27&lang=en|url-status=dead}}</ref> The US accounted for 36.1% of emissions in 1990.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Weiner |first1=John Barlow |last2=Bankobeza |first2=Gilbert |last3=Block |first3=Kitty |last4=Fraenkel |first4=Amy |last5=Hobgood |first5=Teresa |last6=Mattice |first6=Alice |last7=Wagner |first7=David W. |date=2003 |title=International Environmental Law |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/40707857 |journal=The International Lawyer |volume=37 |issue=2 |pages=575–587 |jstor=40707857 |issn=0020-7810 |access-date=27 June 2022 |archive-date=27 June 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220627045357/https://www.jstor.org/stable/40707857 |url-status=live }}</ref> As such, for the treaty to go into legal effect without US ratification, it would require a coalition including the EU, Russia, Japan, and small parties. A deal, without the US Administration, was reached in the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.<ref>{{harvnb|Dessai|2001|pp=5–10}}</ref> | |||
| ===Withdrawal of Canada=== | ===Withdrawal of Canada=== | ||
| {{Main |
{{Main|Kyoto Protocol and government action#Withdrawal of Canada}} | ||
| {{See also|Canada and the Kyoto Protocol}} | {{See also|Canada and the Kyoto Protocol}} | ||
| Line 1,154: | Line 833: | ||
| |title=Canada pulls out of Kyoto protocol | |title=Canada pulls out of Kyoto protocol | ||
| |work=The Guardian | |work=The Guardian | ||
| | |
|access-date=13 December 2011 | ||
| |date=13 December 2011 | |||
| |date=13 December 2011}}</ref> The Canadian government announced its withdrawal—possible at any time three years after ratification—from the Kyoto Protocol on 12 December 2011, effective 15 December 2012.<ref>{{cite web | |||
| |archive-date=17 December 2019 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191217115504/https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-pulls-out-kyoto-protocol | |||
| |url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref> The Canadian government announced its withdrawal—possible at any time three years after ratification—from the Kyoto Protocol on 12 December 2011, effective 15 December 2012.<ref>{{cite web | |||
| |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1100802--canada-withdrawing-from-kyoto?bn=1#article | |url=https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1100802--canada-withdrawing-from-kyoto?bn=1#article | ||
| |title=Canada withdrawing from Kyoto | |title=Canada withdrawing from Kyoto | ||
| |work=The Toronto Star | |work=The Toronto Star | ||
| |date=12 December 2011 | |||
| |date= 12 December 2011 |accessdate=12 December 2011}}</ref> Canada was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. The ] government prioritized oil sands development in Alberta, and deprioritized improving the environment. Environment minister ] cited Canada's liability to "enormous financial penalties" under the treaty unless it withdrew.<ref name=canadaguardian/><ref>{{cite web | |||
| |access-date=12 December 2011 | |||
| |url= http://business.financialpost.com/2011/12/13/canada-to-pull-out-of-kyoto-protocol/ | |||
| |archive-date=7 January 2012 | |||
| |title=Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107231408/http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1100802--canada-withdrawing-from-kyoto?bn=1#article | |||
| |work=Reuters | |||
| |url-status=live | |||
| |publisher=Financial Post | |||
| }}</ref> Canada was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. The ] government prioritized oil sands development in Alberta, and deprioritized the reduction of greenhouse emissions. Environment minister ] cited Canada's liability to "enormous financial penalties" under the treaty unless it withdrew.<ref name=canadaguardian/><ref>{{cite news | |||
| |first1 = David | last1 = Ljunggren | first2 = Randall | last2 = Palmer | |||
| |url = http://business.financialpost.com/2011/12/13/canada-to-pull-out-of-kyoto-protocol/ | |||
| |date=13 December 2011 | |||
| |title = Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol | |||
| |accessdate=9 January 2012 }}</ref> He also suggested that the recently signed ] may provide an alternative way forward.<ref name="bbc canada withdrawal">{{cite news | |||
| |agency = Reuters | |||
| |newspaper = Financial Post | |||
| |first1 = David | |||
| |last1 = Ljunggren | |||
| |first2 = Randall | |||
| |last2 = Palmer | |||
| |date = 13 December 2011 | |||
| |access-date = 9 January 2012 | |||
| |archive-date = 9 January 2012 | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120109011937/http://business.financialpost.com/2011/12/13/canada-to-pull-out-of-kyoto-protocol/ | |||
| |url-status = live | |||
| }}</ref> He also suggested that the recently signed ] may provide an alternative way forward.<ref name="bbc canada withdrawal">{{cite news | |||
| |title=Canada under fire over Kyoto protocol exit | |title=Canada under fire over Kyoto protocol exit | ||
| |newspaper=BBC News | |newspaper=BBC News | ||
| |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16165033 | |||
| |date=13 December 2011 | |||
| |date=13 December 2011}}</ref> The Harper government claimed it would find a "Made in Canada" solution, but never found any such solution. Canada's decision received a generally negative response from representatives of other ratifying countries.<ref name="bbc canada withdrawal"/> | |||
| |access-date=22 June 2018 | |||
| |archive-date=19 November 2018 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181119061022/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16165033 | |||
| |url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref> The Harper government claimed it would find a "Made in Canada" solution. Canada's decision received a generally negative response from representatives of other ratifying countries.<ref name="bbc canada withdrawal"/> | |||
| ===Other states and territories where the treaty |
===Other states and territories where the treaty was not applicable=== | ||
| Andorra, ], ], the United States and, following their withdrawal on 15 December 2012, Canada are the only UNFCCC Parties that are not party to the Protocol. Furthermore, the Protocol is not applied to UNFCCC observer the ]. Although the ] approved the protocol for the whole Kingdom, it did not deposit an instrument of ratification for Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten or the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.minbuza.nl/en/key-topics/treaties/search-the-treaty-database/1997/12/008415.html|work=]|title=Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change| |
Andorra, ], ], the United States and, following their withdrawal on 15 December 2012, Canada are the only UNFCCC Parties that are not party to the Protocol. Furthermore, the Protocol is not applied to UNFCCC observer the ]. Although the ] approved the protocol for the whole Kingdom, it did not deposit an instrument of ratification for Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten or the ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.minbuza.nl/en/key-topics/treaties/search-the-treaty-database/1997/12/008415.html|work=]|title=Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change|access-date=30 December 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140203014400/http://www.minbuza.nl/en/key-topics/treaties/search-the-treaty-database/1997/12/008415.html|archive-date=3 February 2014|url-status=dead}}</ref> | ||
| == |
== Country types and their emissions == | ||
| {{See also|List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita|List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions|GHG Protocol Corporate Standard}} | |||
| {{Main article|Kyoto Protocol and government action}} | |||
| {{See also|List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita|List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions|List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions}} | |||
| ===Annex I countries=== | ===Annex I countries=== | ||
| Total aggregate GHG emissions excluding emissions/removals from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF, i.e., carbon storage in forests and soils) for all Annex I Parties (see list below) including the United States taken together decreased from 19.0 to 17.8 thousand ] (Tg, which is equal to 10<sup>9</sup> kg) {{CO2}} equivalent, a decline of 6.0% during the 1990–2008 period.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications">{{citation | |||
| [[File:CO2emissions1.jpg|thumb|Anthropogenic emissions of CO<sub>2</sub>-equivalents per year by the 10 largest emitters (the European Union is lumped as a single area, because of their integrated carbon trading scheme). Data sorted based on 2010 contributions. | |||
| {{legend|#FF6600|China (party, no binding targets)}} | |||
| {{legend|#0000FF|United States (non-party)}} | |||
| {{legend|#FFFF00|European Union (party, binding targets)}} | |||
| {{legend|#616228|India (party, no binding targets)}} | |||
| {{legend|#FF0000|Russia (party, binding targets 2008-2012)}} | |||
| {{legend|#CCFFCC|Indonesia (party, no binding targets)}} | |||
| {{legend|#948A54|Brazil (party, no binding targets)}} | |||
| {{legend|#1FE9FF|Japan (party, no binding targets)}} | |||
| {{legend|#AD9618|Congo (DR) (party, no binding targets)}} | |||
| {{legend|#9537DA|Canada (former party, binding targets 2008-2012)}} | |||
| {{legend|#A6A6A6|Other countries}}]] | |||
| Total aggregate GHG emissions excluding emissions/removals from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF, i.e., carbon storage in forests and soils) for all Annex I Parties (see list below) including the United States taken together decreased from 19.0 to 17.8 thousand ] (Tg, which is equal to 10<sup>9</sup> kg) {{chem|CO|2}} equivalent, a decline of 6.0% during the 1990-2008 period.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | year=2011 | | year=2011 | ||
| | author=] (UNFCCC) | | author=] (UNFCCC) | ||
| Line 1,201: | Line 886: | ||
| | publisher=United Nations Office at Geneva | | publisher=United Nations Office at Geneva | ||
| | location=Geneva (Switzerland) | | location=Geneva (Switzerland) | ||
| | access-date=9 December 2011 | |||
| }} | |||
| | archive-date=23 April 2022 | |||
| </ref>{{Rp|3|date=November 2012}} Several factors have contributed to this decline.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} The first is due to the economic restructuring in the Annex I Economies in Transition<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} (the EITs – see ] for the list of EITs). Over the period 1990-1999, emissions fell by 40% in the EITs following the collapse of ] in the former ] and ] countries.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"> | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220423082034/http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/sbi/eng/inf01.pdf | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| |title=Long-term trend in global {{chem|CO|2}} emissions; 2011 report | |||
| }}</ref>{{Rp|3|date=November 2012}} Several factors have contributed to this decline.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} The first is due to the economic restructuring in the Annex I Economies in Transition<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} (the EITs – see ] for the list of EITs). Over the period 1990–1999, emissions fell by 40% in the EITs following the collapse of ] in the former ] and ] countries.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions">{{citation | |||
| |title=Long-term trend in global {{CO2}} emissions; 2011 report | |||
| |date=21 September 2011 | |date=21 September 2011 | ||
| | |
|last1=Olivier | ||
| |first1=J. G. J. | |||
| |url=http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdf | |url=http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdf | ||
| |publisher=PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) of the European |
|publisher=PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) | ||
| |location=The Hague, Netherlands | |location=The Hague, Netherlands | ||
| |isbn=978-90-78645-68-9 | |isbn=978-90-78645-68-9 | ||
| |display-authors=etal | |||
| |display-authors=etal}} PBL publication number 500253004. JRC Technical Note number JRC65918.</ref>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} This led to a massive contraction of their heavy industry-based economies, with associated reductions in their fossil fuel consumption and emissions.<ref name="2009 carbon trust carbon market"/>{{Rp|24|date=November 2012}} | |||
| |access-date=9 December 2011 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111221123511/http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/cms/publicaties/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef_19sept.pdf | |||
| Emissions growth in Annex I Parties have also been limited due to policies and measures (PaMs).<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} In particular, PaMs were strengthened after 2000, helping to enhance energy efficiency and develop renewable energy sources.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} Energy use also decreased during the economic crisis in 2007-2008.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} | |||
| |archive-date=21 December 2011 | |||
| |url-status=dead | |||
| ====Projections==== | |||
| }} PBL publication number 500253004. JRC Technical Note number JRC65918.</ref>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} This led to a massive contraction of their heavy industry-based economies, with associated reductions in their fossil fuel consumption and emissions.{{sfn|Carbon Trust|2009|p=24}} | |||
| UNFCCC (2011)<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} made projections of changes in emissions of the Annex I Parties and the effectiveness of their PaMs. It was noted that their projections should be interpreted with caution.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|7|date=November 2012}} For the 39 Annex I Parties, UNFCCC (2011) projected that existing PaMs would lead to annual emissions in 2010 of 17.5 thousand Tg {{chem|CO|2}} eq, excluding LULUCF, which is a decrease of 6.7% from the 1990 level.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} Annual emissions in 2020 excluding LULUCF were projected to reach 18.9 thousand Tg {{chem|CO|2}} eq, which is an increase of 0.6% on the 1990 level.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} | |||
| UNFCCC (2011)<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} made an estimate of the total effect of implemented and adopted PaMs. Projected savings were estimated relative to a ] where PaMs are not implemented. PaMs were projected to deliver emissions savings relative to baseline of about 1.5 thousand Tg {{chem|CO|2}} eq by 2010, and 2.8 thousand Tg {{chem|CO|2}} eq by 2020.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} In percentage terms, and using annual emissions in the year 1990 as a reference point, PaMs were projected to deliver at least a 5.0% reduction relative to baseline by 2010, and a 10.0% reduction relative to baseline in 2020.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} Scenarios reviewed by UNFCCC (2011)<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} still suggested that total Annex I annual emissions would increase out to 2020 (see the preceding paragraph). | |||
| Emissions growth in Annex I Parties have also been limited due to policies and measures (PaMs).<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} In particular, PaMs were strengthened after 2000, helping to enhance energy efficiency and develop renewable energy sources.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} Energy use also decreased during the economic crisis in 2007–2008.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications"/>{{Rp|14|date=November 2012}} | |||
| ====Annex I Parties with targets==== | |||
| ====Annex I parties with targets==== | |||
| {| class="wikitable" | |||
| {| class="wikitable sortable" | |||
| |+ Percentage changes in emissions for Annex I Parties with Kyoto targets<ref>Emissions data given in this table may not fully reflect progress towards the first-round Kyoto targets. This is because of the implicit trading of targets under the EU ETS (see ]), possible effects of trade in AAUs (see ]), and the use of different emissions base years for some Parties (see ]).</ref> | |||
| |+ Percentage changes in emissions from the base year (1990 for most countries) for Annex I Parties with Kyoto targets | |||
| ! Country/region !! Kyoto<br />target<br />2008-2012 !! Kyoto<br />target<br />2013-2020!! <br />GHG<br />emissions<br />1990-2008<br />including<br />LULUCF<ref name="unfccc 2011 annex i emissions"> | |||
| ! Country !! Kyoto<br />target<br />2008–2012<ref name="Shislov" /> !! Kyoto<br />target<br />2013–2020<ref>{{cite web | url=https://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kp_doha_amendment_english.pdf | title=Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol | date=2012 | publisher=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | access-date=2019-12-13 | archive-date=24 December 2022 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221224054705/http://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kp_doha_amendment_english.pdf | url-status=live }}</ref> !! GHG<br />emissions<br />2008–2012<br />including<br />]<ref name="Shislov" /> !! GHG<br />emissions<br />2008–2012<br />excluding<br />LULUCF<ref name="Shislov" /> | |||
| {{harvnb|UNFCCC|2011|p=7}} | |||
| </ref><ref>Aggregate emissions of the Kyoto "basket" of GHGs (see ]), measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, and ''including'' changes in emissions due to carbon sinks (])</ref> !! GHG<br />emissions<br />1990-2008<br />excluding<br />LULUCF<ref name="unfccc 2011 annex i emissions"/><ref>Aggregate emissions of the Kyoto "basket" of GHGs (see ]), measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, and ''excluding'' changes in emissions due to carbon sinks (])</ref> !! {{CO2}}<br />emissions<br />from fuel<br />combustion<br />only<br />1990-2009<br /><ref> | |||
| {{harvnb|IEA|2011|p=13}} | |||
| </ref><ref>{{CO<sub>2</sub>}} emissions from fuel combustion only. Estimates applying the Kyoto targets to International Energy Agency (IEA) data suggest the overall Kyoto target is equivalent to about 4.7% on an aggregate basis for {{CO<sub>2</sub>}} emissions from fuel combustion</ref> | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| | |
| ] || +8 || −0.5 || +3.2 || +30.3 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || −13 || −20 || +3.2 || +4.9 | |||
| | ]<ref name="Canada withdrawal">''StarTribune'' - {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150321002817/http://www.startribune.com/world/135469408.html |date=21 March 2015 }} Retrieved 4 May 2012.</ref><ref>In 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol</ref> || -6 || - || +33.6 || +24.1 || +20.4 | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| | |
| ] || −8 || −20 || −13.9 || −14.0 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || −8 || −20 || −53.4 || −52.8 | |||
| | '']'' || -8 || -20<ref name=EU>For the region encompassing the European Union, Croatia and Iceland</ref> || || || | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] |
| ] (withdrew) || −6 || ''N/A'' || +18.5 || +18.5 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −5 || −20 || −10.8 || −7.5 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −8 || −20 || −30.6 || −30.0 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −21 || −20 || −17.3 || −14.8 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || −8 || −20 || −54.2 || −55.3 | |||
| | ] || -8 (0)|| -20<ref name=EU/> || -12.7 || -5.9 || +0.6<ref>Monaco's {{CO2}} emissions from fuel combustion are included with France's.</ref> | |||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || 0 || −20 || −5.5 || −4.7 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || 0 || −20 || −10.5 || −10.0 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −21 || −20 || −24.3 || −23.6 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || +25 || −20 || +11.5 || +11.9 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −6 || −20 || −43.7 || −41.8 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || +10 || −20 || +10.2 || +19.4 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || +13 || −20 || +11.0 || +5.1 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −6 || −20 || −7.0 || −4.0 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −6 || ''N/A'' || −2.5 || +1.4 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −8 || −20 || −61.2 || −56.4 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −8 || −16 || +4.1 || +2.4 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −8 || −20 || −57.9 || −55.6 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −28 || −20 || −9.3 || −8.7 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | |
| ] || −8 || −22 || −12.5 || −12.5 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −6 || −20 || −6.2 || −6.4 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || 0 || ''N/A'' || −2.7 || +20.4 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || +1 || −16 || +4.6 || +7.5 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | |
| ] || −6 || −20 || −29.7 || −28.8 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || +27 || −20 || +5.5 || +22.4 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −8 || −20 || −57.0 || −55.7 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || 0 || ''N/A'' || −36.3 || −32.7 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −8 || −20 || −37.2 || −36.8 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −8 || −20 || −9.7 || −3.2 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || +15 || −20 || +20.0 || +23.7 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || +4 || −20 || −18.2 || −15.3 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −8 || −15.8 || −3.9 || −0.8 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || 0 || −24 || −57.1 || −56.6 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] || |
| ] || −13 || −20 || −23.0 || −22.6 | ||
| |- | |- | ||
| | ] |
| ] (did not ratify) || −7 || ''N/A'' || +9.5 || +9.5 | ||
| |- | |||
| | ] || -8 || -20<ref name=EU/> || +5.2 || +5.2 || +21.2 | |||
| |- | |||
| | ] || 0 || -24 || -52.2 || -53.9 || -62.7 | |||
| |} | |} | ||
| ''Data given in the table above may not be fully reflective of a country's progress towards meeting its first-round Kyoto target. The summary below contains more up-to-date information on how close countries are to meeting their first-round targets.'' | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| Collectively the group of industrialized countries committed to a Kyoto target, i.e., the Annex I countries excluding the US, |
Collectively the group of industrialized countries committed to a Kyoto target, i.e., the Annex I countries excluding the US, had a target of reducing their GHG emissions by 4.2% on average for the period 2008–2012 relative to the base year, which in most cases is 1990.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|24|date=November 2012}} | ||
| As noted in the preceding section, between |
As noted in the preceding section, between 1990 and 1999, there was a large reduction in the emissions of the EITs.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} The reduction in the EITs is largely responsible for the total (aggregate) reduction (excluding LULUCF) in emissions of the Annex I countries, excluding the US.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} Emissions of the Annex II countries (Annex I minus the EIT countries) have experienced a limited increase in emissions from 1990 to 2006, followed by stabilization and a more marked decrease from 2007 onwards.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} The emissions reductions in the early nineties by the 12 EIT countries who have since joined the EU, assist the present EU-27 in meeting its collective Kyoto target.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} | ||
| In December 2011, Canada's environment minister, ], formally announced that ] would withdraw from the Kyoto accord a day after the end of the ] (see the section on the ]).<ref name="vaughan 2011 canada withdrawal">{{cite web | |||
| Almost all European countries are on track to achieve their first-round Kyoto targets.<ref name="eea 1st round kyoto"> | |||
| {{harvnb|EEA|2012|p=7}} | |||
| </ref> Spain plans to meet its target by purchasing a large quantity of Kyoto units through the flexibility mechanisms.<ref name="eea 1st round kyoto"/> Australia,<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} Canada<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} (Canada withdrew from the Kyoto treaty in 2012),<ref name="vaughan 2011 canada withdrawal"/> and Italy<ref name="eea 1st round kyoto"/> are not on course to meet their first-round Kyoto targets. In order to meet their targets, these countries would need to purchase emissions credits from other Kyoto countries.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} As noted in the section on ], purchasing surplus credits from the EIT countries would not actually result in total emissions being reduced. An alternative would be the purchase of CDM credits or the use of the voluntary Green Investment Scheme. | |||
| In December 2011, Canada's environment minister, ], formally announced that ] would withdraw from the Kyoto accord a day after the end of the ] (see the section on the ]).<ref name="vaughan 2011 canada withdrawal"> | |||
| {{cite web | |||
| | url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-withdrawal-kyoto-protocol?intcmp=239 | | url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-withdrawal-kyoto-protocol?intcmp=239 | ||
| | last= Vaughan |
| last= Vaughan | ||
| | first= A | |||
| | title= What does Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto protocol mean? | | title= What does Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto protocol mean? | ||
| | work= The Guardian | | work= The Guardian | ||
| | date= 13 December 2011 | | date= 13 December 2011 | ||
| | |
| access-date= 17 December 2011 | ||
| | archive-date= 19 April 2015 | |||
| }} | |||
| | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150419040405/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-withdrawal-kyoto-protocol?intcmp=239 | |||
| </ref> | |||
| | url-status= live | |||
| }}</ref> | |||
| ====Annex I |
====Annex I parties without Kyoto targets==== | ||
| Belarus, Malta, and Turkey are Annex I Parties but did not have first-round Kyoto targets.<ref>{{citation | |||
| |title = CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2011 - Highlights | |||
| Belarus, Malta, and Turkey are Annex I Parties but do not have first-round Kyoto targets.<ref> | |||
| |year = 2011 | |||
| {{citation | |||
| |author = International Energy Agency (IEA) | |||
| |title=CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2011 - Highlights | |||
| |url = http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf | |||
| |year=2011 | |||
| |publisher = IEA | |||
| |author=International Energy Agency (IEA) | |||
| |location = Paris, France | |||
| |url=http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf | |||
| |page = 13 | |||
| |publisher=IEA | |||
| |access-date = 9 December 2011 | |||
| |location=Paris, France | |||
| |archive-date = 2 February 2012 | |||
| |page=13 | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120202035728/http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf | |||
| }} | |||
| |url-status = dead | |||
| </ref> The US has a Kyoto target of a 6% reduction relative to the 1990 level, but has not ratified the treaty.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} Emissions in the US have increased 11% since 1990, and according to Olivier ''et al.'' (2011),<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|25|date=November 2012}} it will be unable to meet its original Kyoto target. | |||
| }}</ref> The US had a Kyoto target of a 7% reduction relative to the 1990 level, but has not ratified the treaty.<ref name="Shislov" /> If the US had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the average percentage reduction in total GHG emissions for the Annex I group would have been a 5.2% reduction relative to the base year.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|26|date=November 2012}} | |||
| If the US had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the average percentage reduction in total GHG emissions for the Annex I group would have been a 5.2% reduction relative to the base year.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|26|date=November 2012}} Including the US in their calculation, Olivier ''et al.'' (2011)<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|26|date=November 2012}} projected that the Annex I countries would collectively achieve a 7% reduction relative to the base year, which is lower than the original target of a 5.2% reduction. This projection excludes expected purchases of emissions credits.<ref name="Long term trend in global CO2 emissions"/>{{Rp|26|date=November 2012}} | |||
| ===Non-Annex I=== | ===Non-Annex I=== | ||
| {{Multiple image | {{Multiple image | ||
| | direction = vertical | |||
| | align = right | |||
| | image1 = Annual per capita carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.png | |||
| | alt1 = Refer to caption | |||
| | image2 = Annual carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.png | |||
| | alt2 = Refer to caption | |||
| | width = 200 | |||
| | caption1 = Annual per capita carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., average emissions per person) from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties | |||
| | caption2 = Annual carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties | |||
| }} | |||
| UNFCCC (2005) compiled and synthesized information reported to it by non-Annex I Parties.<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary"> | UNFCCC (2005) compiled and synthesized information reported to it by non-Annex I Parties.<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary">{{Citation | ||
| {{Citation | |||
| |date=25 October 2005 | |date=25 October 2005 | ||
| |author=UNFCCC | |author=UNFCCC | ||
| Line 1,370: | Line 1,044: | ||
| |url=http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600003578#beg | |url=http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600003578#beg | ||
| |publisher=United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland | |publisher=United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland | ||
| |access-date=20 May 2010 | |||
| |accessdate=20 May 2010}}</ref> Most non-Annex I Parties belonged in the low-income group, with very few classified as middle-income.<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary"/>{{Rp|4|date=November 2012}} Most Parties included information on policies relating to ]. Sustainable development priorities mentioned by non-Annex I Parties included poverty alleviation and access to basic education and health care.<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary"/>{{Rp|6|date=November 2012}} Many non-Annex I Parties are making efforts to amend and update their ] to include global concerns such as climate change.<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary"/>{{Rp|7|date=November 2012}} | |||
| |archive-date=15 November 2023 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231115231850/http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600003578#beg | |||
| |url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref> Most non-Annex I Parties belonged in the low-income group, with very few classified as middle-income.<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary"/>{{Rp|4|date=November 2012}} Most Parties included information on policies relating to ]. Sustainable development priorities mentioned by non-Annex I Parties included poverty alleviation and access to basic education and health care.<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary"/>{{Rp|6|date=November 2012}} Many non-Annex I Parties are making efforts to amend and update their ] to include global concerns such as climate change.<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary"/>{{Rp|7|date=November 2012}} | |||
| A few Parties, e.g., South Africa and ], stated their concern over how efforts to reduce emissions by Annex I Parties could adversely affect their economies.<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary"/>{{Rp|7|date=November 2012}} The economies of these countries are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing, and export of ]s. | A few Parties, e.g., South Africa and ], stated their concern over how efforts to reduce emissions by Annex I Parties could adversely affect their economies.<ref name="2005 unfccc non-annex i summary"/>{{Rp|7|date=November 2012}} The economies of these countries are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing, and export of ]s. | ||
| '''Emissions''' | |||
| GHG emissions, excluding land use change and forestry (LUCF), reported by 122 non-Annex I Parties for the year 1994 or the closest year reported, totalled 11.7 billion tonnes (billion = 1,000,000,000) of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq. CO<sub>2</sub> was the largest proportion of emissions (63%), followed by ] (26%) and ] (N<sub>2</sub>O) (11%). | GHG emissions, excluding land use change and forestry (LUCF), reported by 122 non-Annex I Parties for the year 1994 or the closest year reported, totalled 11.7 billion tonnes (billion = 1,000,000,000) of CO<sub>2</sub>-eq. CO<sub>2</sub> was the largest proportion of emissions (63%), followed by ] (26%) and ] (N<sub>2</sub>O) (11%). | ||
| Line 1,382: | Line 1,058: | ||
| * The Asia and Pacific region's aggregate emissions were 7.9 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 2.6 tonnes. | * The Asia and Pacific region's aggregate emissions were 7.9 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 2.6 tonnes. | ||
| * The Latin America and ] region's aggregate emissions were 2 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 4.6 tonnes. | * The Latin America and ] region's aggregate emissions were 2 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 4.6 tonnes. | ||
| * The "other" region includes ], Armenia, ], Georgia, Malta, ], and ]. Their aggregate emissions were 0.1 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 5.1 tonnes. | * The "other" region includes ], Armenia, ], Georgia, Malta, ], and ]. Their aggregate emissions were 0.1 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 5.1 tonnes. | ||
| Parties reported a high level of uncertainty in LUCF emissions, but in aggregate, there appeared to only be a small difference of 1.7% with and without LUCF. With LUCF, emissions were 11.9 billion tonnes, without LUCF, total aggregate emissions were 11.7 billion tonnes. | Parties reported a high level of uncertainty in LUCF emissions, but in aggregate, there appeared to only be a small difference of 1.7% with and without LUCF. With LUCF, emissions were 11.9 billion tonnes, without LUCF, total aggregate emissions were 11.7 billion tonnes. | ||
| ==Problem areas== | |||
| ''Trends'' | |||
| In several large developing countries and fast growing economies (China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, and Iran) GHG emissions have increased rapidly (PBL, 2009).<ref>{{cite web|title=Industrialised countries will collectively meet 2010 Kyoto target |author=PBL |date=16 October 2009 |publisher=Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) website |url=http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/COP13Bali/moreinfo/Industrialised-countries-will-collectively-meet-2010-Kyoto-target.html |accessdate=3 April 2010 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100409000327/http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/COP13Bali/moreinfo/Industrialised-countries-will-collectively-meet-2010-Kyoto-target.html |archivedate=9 April 2010 }}</ref> For example, emissions in China have risen strongly over the 1990–2005 period, often by more than 10% year. Emissions per-capita in non-Annex I countries are still, for the most part, much lower than in industrialized countries. Non-Annex I countries do not have quantitative emission reduction commitments, but they are committed to mitigation actions. China, for example, has had a national policy programme to reduce emissions growth, which included the closure of old, less efficient coal-fired power plants. | |||
| ==Cost estimates== | |||
| Barker ''et al.'' (2007, p. 79) assessed the literature on cost estimates for the Kyoto Protocol.<ref>{{cite book | |||
| |year=2007 | |||
| |contribution=Mitigation costs across sectors and macro-economic costs | |||
| |title=Technical summary | |||
| |series=Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | |||
| |editor1-first = B. | editor1-last = Metz | editor2-first = O. R. | editor2-last = Davidson | editor3-first = P. R. | editor3-last = Bosch | editor4-first = R. | editor4-last = Dave | editor5-first = L. A. | editor5-last = Meyer | |||
| |publisher=Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website | |||
| |isbn=978-0-521-88011-4 | |||
| | last1 = Barker | first1 = T. | |||
| |url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/tssts-ts-11-2-mitigation-costs.html | |||
| |accessdate=16 April 2011|display-authors=etal}}</ref> Due to non-US participation in the Kyoto treaty, costs estimates were found to be much lower than those estimated in the previous ]. Without US participation, and with full use of the Kyoto flexible mechanisms, costs were estimated at less than 0.05% of Annex B GDP. This compared to earlier estimates of 0.1–1.1%. Without use of the flexible mechanisms, costs without US participation were estimated at less than 0.1%. This compared to earlier estimates of 0.2–2%. These cost estimates were viewed as being based on much evidence and high agreement in the literature. | |||
| ==Views on the Protocol== | |||
| {{Main article|Views on the Kyoto Protocol}} | |||
| === Views and criticism of the Protocol === | |||
| {{Main|Views on the Kyoto Protocol|Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol}} | |||
| {{Update section|date=June 2021}} | |||
| Gupta ''et al.'' (2007) assessed the literature on climate change policy. They found that no authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these agreements had, or will, succeed in solving the climate problem.<ref name=gupta>{{cite book | Gupta ''et al.'' (2007) assessed the literature on climate change policy. They found that no authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these agreements had, or will, succeed in solving the climate problem.<ref name=gupta>{{cite book | ||
| |year=2007 | |year = 2007 | ||
| |contribution=13.3.1 Evaluations of existing climate change agreements. In (book chapter): Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements. |
|contribution = 13.3.1 Evaluations of existing climate change agreements. In (book chapter): Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements. | ||
| |title = Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. | |||
| |series = Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | |||
| |editor = B. Metz | |||
| |display-editors = etal | |||
| |publisher=Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website | |publisher = Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website | ||
| | |
|last1 = Gupta | ||
| |first1 = S. | |||
| |url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-1.html | |||
| |url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-1.html | |||
| |accessdate=2 April 2010|display-authors=etal}}</ref> In these assessments, it was assumed that the UNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. The Framework Convention and its Protocol include provisions for future policy actions to be taken. | |||
| |access-date = 2 April 2010 | |||
| |display-authors = etal | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100503040428/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-1.html | |||
| |archive-date = 3 May 2010 | |||
| |url-status = dead | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| }}</ref> In these assessments, it was assumed that the UNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. The Framework Convention and its Protocol include provisions for future policy actions to be taken. | |||
| Gupta ''et al.'' (2007)<ref name="gupta kyoto assessment"> | Gupta ''et al.'' (2007)<ref name="gupta kyoto assessment">{{citation | ||
| |last1 = Gupta | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | |
|first1 = S. | ||
| | |
|chapter = Chapter 13: Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements | ||
| | |
|chapter-url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-es.html | ||
| |title=Executive Summary | |title = Executive Summary | ||
| |display-authors=etal |
|display-authors = etal | ||
| |access-date = 31 August 2012 | |||
| , in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG3|2007}} | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120515123900/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-es.html | |||
| </ref> described the Kyoto first-round commitments as "modest," stating that they acted as a constraint on the treaty's effectiveness. It was suggested that subsequent Kyoto commitments could be made more effective with measures aimed at achieving deeper cuts in emissions, as well as having policies applied to a larger share of global emissions.<ref name="gupta kyoto assessment"/> In 2008, countries with a Kyoto cap made up less than one-third of annual global carbon dioxide emissions from fuel ].<ref> | |||
| |archive-date = 15 May 2012 | |||
| {{cite book | |||
| |url-status = dead | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| }} | |||
| , in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG3|2007}}</ref> described the Kyoto first-round commitments as "modest", stating that they acted as a constraint on the treaty's effectiveness. It was suggested that subsequent Kyoto commitments could be made more effective with measures aimed at achieving deeper cuts in emissions, as well as having policies applied to a larger share of global emissions.<ref name="gupta kyoto assessment"/> In 2008, countries with a Kyoto cap made up less than one-third of annual global carbon dioxide emissions from fuel ].<ref>{{cite book | |||
| | title=CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions from Fuel Combustion - 2011 Highlights | | title=CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions from Fuel Combustion - 2011 Highlights | ||
| | author=International Energy Agency (IEA) | | author=International Energy Agency (IEA) | ||
| Line 1,431: | Line 1,106: | ||
| | location=Paris, France | | location=Paris, France | ||
| | page=12 | | page=12 | ||
| | access-date=31 August 2012 | |||
| }} | |||
| | archive-date=2 February 2012 | |||
| </ref> | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120202035728/http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf | |||
| | url-status=dead | |||
| }}</ref> | |||
| World Bank (2010)<ref name="world bank kyoto comments"> | World Bank (2010)<ref name="world bank kyoto comments">{{citation | ||
| {{citation | |||
| | title=5. Integrating development into a global climate regime | | title=5. Integrating development into a global climate regime | ||
| | url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf | | url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf | ||
| | access-date=31 August 2012 | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|World Bank|2010|p=233}} | |||
| | archive-date=12 June 2013 | |||
| </ref> commented on how the Kyoto Protocol had only had a slight effect on curbing global emissions growth. The treaty was negotiated in 1997, but in 2006, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions had grown by 24%.<ref> | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130612091346/http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|World Bank|2010|p=233}}</ref> commented on how the Kyoto Protocol had only had a slight effect on curbing global emissions growth. The treaty was negotiated in 1997, but in 2006, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions had grown by 24%.<ref>{{citation | |||
| | title=5. Integrating development into a global climate regime | | title=5. Integrating development into a global climate regime | ||
| | url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf | | url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf | ||
| | access-date=31 August 2012 | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|World Bank|2010|p=248}} | |||
| | archive-date=12 June 2013 | |||
| </ref> World Bank (2010) also stated that the treaty had provided only limited financial support to developing countries to assist them in reducing their emissions and adapting to climate change.<ref name="world bank kyoto comments"/> | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130612091346/http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| }}, in {{harvnb|World Bank|2010|p=248}}</ref> World Bank (2010) also stated that the treaty had provided only limited financial support to developing countries to assist them in reducing their emissions and adapting to climate change.<ref name="world bank kyoto comments"/> | |||
| Some |
Some environmentalists have supported the Kyoto Protocol because it is "the only game in town", and possibly because they expect that future emission reduction commitments may demand more stringent emission reductions (Aldy ''et al.''., 2003, p. 9).<ref name="aldy">{{cite journal | ||
| |year = 2008 | |||
| |title = Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere | |||
| |doi = 10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008 | |||
| |last = Liverman | |||
| |first = D. M. | |||
| |journal = Journal of Historical Geography | |||
| |url = http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf | |||
| |accessdate = 10 May 2011 | |||
| |volume = 35 | |||
| |pages = 279–296 | |||
| |issue = 2 | |||
| |deadurl = yes | |||
| |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20140912161138/http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf | |||
| |archivedate = 12 September 2014 | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| }}</ref> | |||
| This has particularly centered on the balance between the low emissions and high vulnerability of the developing world to climate change, compared to high emissions in the developed world. Another criticism of the Kyoto Protocol and other international conventions, is the right of indigenous peoples right to participate. Quoted here from The Declaration of the ], it says "Despite the recognition of our role in preventing global warming, when it comes time to sign international conventions like the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, once again, our right to participate in national and international discussions that directly affect or Peoples and territories is denied."<ref name=":0">{{Cite book|url=https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/51559162|title=Indigenous peoples and environmental issues : an encyclopedia|last=1950-|first=Johansen, Bruce E. (Bruce Elliott),|date=2003-01-01|publisher=Greenwood Press|year=|isbn=9780313323980|location=|pages=115–116|oclc=51559162|quote=|via=}}</ref> Additionally, later in the declaration, it reads <blockquote>"We denounce the fact that neither the nor the Kyoto Protocol recognizes the existence or the contributions of Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, the debates under these instruments have not considered the suggestions and proposals of the Indigenous Peoples nor have the appropriate mechanisms to guarantee our participation in all the debates that directly concern the Indigenous Peoples has been established."<ref name=":0" /></blockquote>Some environmentalists have supported the Kyoto Protocol because it is "the only game in town," and possibly because they expect that future emission reduction commitments may demand more stringent emission reductions (Aldy ''et al.''., 2003, p. 9).<ref name=aldy>{{cite journal | |||
| |title=Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Policy Architectures | |title=Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Policy Architectures | ||
| |date=9 September 2003 | |date=9 September 2003 | ||
| | |
|last1=Aldy | ||
| |first1=J. E. | |||
| |journal=Climate Policy | |journal=Climate Policy | ||
| |volume=3 | |volume=3 | ||
| |issue= |
|issue=4 | ||
| |pages=373–397 | |pages=373–397 | ||
| |url=https://www.feem.it/m/publications_pages/NDL2003-064.pdf | |||
| |url=http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17261/thirteen_plus_one.html | |||
| | |
|access-date=2 April 2010 | ||
| |doi=10.1016/j.clipol.2003.09.004 | |||
| |doi=10.1016/j.clipol.2003.09.004|display-authors=etal}}</ref> In 2001, seventeen national science academies stated that ratification of the Protocol represented a "small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."<ref> | |||
| |bibcode=2003CliPo...3..373A | |||
| The joint-statement was made by the ], the ], the ], the ], the Caribbean Academy of Sciences, the ], the ], the ], the ], the Indonesian Academy of Sciences, the ], ] (Italy), the Academy of Sciences Malaysia, the ], the ], and the ] (UK). {{citation | |||
| |display-authors=etal | |||
| | title=The Science of Climate Change | |||
| |hdl=10419/118092 | |||
| | publisher=Royal Society | |||
| |s2cid=219598167 | |||
| | location=London, UK | |||
| |archive-date=6 May 2020 | |||
| | author=Joint statement by 17 national science academies | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200506213826/https://www.feem.it/m/publications_pages/NDL2003-064.pdf | |||
| | url=http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf | |||
| |url-status=live | |||
| | date=17 May 2001 | |||
| }}</ref> In 2001, seventeen national science academies stated that ratification of the Protocol represented a "small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."<ref>The joint-statement was made by the ], the ], the ], the ], the Caribbean Academy of Sciences, the ], the ], the ], the ], the Indonesian Academy of Sciences, the ], ] (Italy), the Academy of Sciences Malaysia, the ], the ], and the ] (UK). {{citation |author= |title=The Science of Climate Change (Joint statement by 17 National Science Academies) |date=17 May 2001 |url=http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf |location=London, UK |publisher=Royal Society |isbn=978-0854035588 |access-date=14 April 2013 |archive-date=19 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419074652/https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf |url-status=live }}. Statement {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130513024522/http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2001/science-climate-change/ |date=13 May 2013 }} at the UK Royal Society. Also published as: {{citation |title=Joint statement: The Science of Climate Change (editorial) |date=18 May 2001 |journal=Science |volume=292 |issue=5520 |page=1261 |doi=10.1126/science.292.5520.1261 |pmid=11360966 |s2cid=129309907|author1=Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences the Arts |author2=Royal Society of Canada |author3=German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina |author4=Indian National Science Academy |author5=Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy) |author6=Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand |author7=Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences |author8=Royal Society (UK) }}</ref> Some environmentalists and scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).<ref>{{cite journal | |||
| | isbn=0854035583 | |||
| }}. Statement at the UK Royal Society. Also published as: {{citation | |||
| |title=The Science of Climate Change (editorial) | |||
| |date=18 May 2001 | |||
| |journal=Science | |||
| |volume=292 | |||
| |issue=5520 | |||
| |page=1261 | |||
| |doi=10.1126/science.292.5520.1261 | |||
| |url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/292/5520/1261 | |||
| }} | |||
| </ref> Some environmentalists and scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).<ref>{{cite journal | |||
| |date=April 2000 | |date=April 2000 | ||
| | last = Grubb | first = M. | | last = Grubb | first = M. | ||
| Line 1,500: | Line 1,155: | ||
| |doi=10.2139/ssrn.229280 | |doi=10.2139/ssrn.229280 | ||
| |hdl=10419/155084 | |hdl=10419/155084 | ||
| | s2cid = 54779393 |hdl-access=free | |||
| }}</ref> | }}</ref> | ||
| Line 1,506: | Line 1,162: | ||
| |title = 22. Creating a global price for carbon | |title = 22. Creating a global price for carbon | ||
| |url = http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_22_Creating_a_Global_Price_for_Carbon.pdf | |url = http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_22_Creating_a_Global_Price_for_Carbon.pdf | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120818155729/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_22_Creating_a_Global_Price_for_Carbon.pdf | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 18 August 2012 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }}, in {{harvnb|Stern|2006|p=478}} | }}, in {{harvnb|Stern|2006|p=478}} | ||
| Line 1,516: | Line 1,172: | ||
| |work = ABC News Online | |work = ABC News Online | ||
| |date = 26 October 2006 | |date = 26 October 2006 | ||
| | |
|access-date = 30 October 2006 | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20071011163324/http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1772952.htm | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 11 October 2007 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }}</ref><ref name="australia signing">{{cite news | }}</ref><ref name="australia signing">{{cite news | ||
| |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7124236.stm | |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7124236.stm | ||
| |title=Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto | |title=Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto | ||
| | |
|work=BBC News | ||
| |date=3 December 2007 | |date=3 December 2007 | ||
| |access-date=5 December 2007 | |||
| |accessdate=5 December 2007}}</ref> which took effect in March 2008.<ref>{{cite news | |||
| |archive-date=10 September 2008 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910120527/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7124236.stm | |||
| |url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref> which took effect in March 2008.<ref>{{cite news | |||
| |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7124236.stm | |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7124236.stm | ||
| |title=Australia's Rudd sworn in as PM | |title=Australia's Rudd sworn in as PM | ||
| Line 1,532: | Line 1,192: | ||
| |publisher=BBC | |publisher=BBC | ||
| |date=3 December 2007 | |date=3 December 2007 | ||
| | |
|access-date=3 December 2007 | ||
| |archive-date=3 December 2007 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071203201241/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7124236.stm | |||
| |url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref> | |||
| === Compliance === | |||
| 38 developed countries committed to limiting their greenhouse gas emissions. Because the United States did not ratify and Canada withdrew, the emission limits remained in force for 36 countries. All of them complied with the Protocol. However, nine countries (Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Switzerland) had to resort to the flexibility mechanisms because their national emissions were slightly greater than their targets.<ref name="Shislov" /> | |||
| In total, the 36 countries that fully participated in the Protocol were committed to reducing their aggregate emissions by 4% from the 1990 base year. Their average annual emissions in 2008–2012 were 24.2% below the 1990 level. Hence, they surpassed their aggregate commitment by a large margin. If the United States and Canada are included, the emissions decreased by 11.8%. The large reductions were mainly thanks to the ], which reduced the emissions of the ] by tens of percents in the early 1990s. In addition, the ] significantly reduced emissions during the first Kyoto commitment period.<ref name="Shislov" /> | |||
| The 36 countries that were committed to emission reductions only accounted for 24% of the global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010.<ref name="Shislov" /> Even though these countries significantly reduced their emissions during the Kyoto commitment period, other countries increased their emissions so much that the global emissions increased by 32% from 1990 to 2010.<ref name="GapReport" /> | |||
| === Emission trends in developing countries === | |||
| In several large developing countries and fast growing economies (China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, and Iran) GHG emissions have increased rapidly (PBL, 2009).<ref>{{cite web |author=PBL |date=16 October 2009 |title=Industrialised countries will collectively meet 2010 Kyoto target |url=http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/COP13Bali/moreinfo/Industrialised-countries-will-collectively-meet-2010-Kyoto-target.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100409000327/http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/COP13Bali/moreinfo/Industrialised-countries-will-collectively-meet-2010-Kyoto-target.html |archive-date=9 April 2010 |access-date=3 April 2010 |publisher=Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) website}}</ref> For example, emissions in China have risen strongly over the 1990–2005 period, often by more than 10% year. Emissions per-capita in non-Annex I countries are still, for the most part, much lower than in industrialized countries. Non-Annex I countries do not have quantitative emission reduction commitments, but they are committed to mitigation actions. China, for example, has had a national policy programme to reduce emissions growth, which included the closure of old, less efficient coal-fired power plants. | |||
| ===Views on the flexibility mechanisms=== | ===Views on the flexibility mechanisms=== | ||
| {{Further |
{{Further|Flexible Mechanisms#Views on the flexibility mechanisms|carbon emission trading}} | ||
| Another area which has been commented on is the role of the Kyoto ] – ], ], and the ] (CDM).<ref name="toth flexibility mechanisms"> | Another area which has been commented on is the role of the Kyoto ] – ], ], and the ] (CDM).<ref name="toth flexibility mechanisms"> | ||
| Toth ''et al.'' summarize the arguments for and against flexibility: {{citation | Toth ''et al.'' summarize the arguments for and against flexibility: {{citation | ||
| |url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.htm | |chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.htm | ||
| |title = Sec 10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of International Mechanisms | |title = Sec 10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of International Mechanisms | ||
| |chapter = Ch 10: Decision-making Frameworks | |chapter = Ch 10: Decision-making Frameworks | ||
| Line 1,546: | Line 1,220: | ||
| |first1 = F. L. | |first1 = F. L. | ||
| |display-authors = etal | |display-authors = etal | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120117032405/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.htm | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 17 January 2012 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | ||
| </ref><ref> | </ref><ref> | ||
| {{citation | {{citation | ||
| |url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/059.htm | |chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/059.htm | ||
| |title = Sec 1.3.3 How Has Global Climate Policy Treated Equity? | |title = Sec 1.3.3 How Has Global Climate Policy Treated Equity? | ||
| |chapter = Ch 1: Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Sustainable Development | |chapter = Ch 1: Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Sustainable Development | ||
| Line 1,559: | Line 1,233: | ||
| |first1 = T. | |first1 = T. | ||
| |display-authors = etal | |display-authors = etal | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121030113019/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/059.htm | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 30 October 2012 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | }}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}} | ||
| Line 1,578: | Line 1,252: | ||
| |publisher = Institute for Applied Ecology | |publisher = Institute for Applied Ecology | ||
| |location = Berlin, Germany | |location = Berlin, Germany | ||
| |url = http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/resources/?118000/An-evaluation-of-the-CDM-and-options-for-improvement | |chapter-url = http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/resources/?118000/An-evaluation-of-the-CDM-and-options-for-improvement | ||
| |archive-url = https://archive. |
|archive-url = https://archive.today/20130415150840/http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/resources/?118000/An-evaluation-of-the-CDM-and-options-for-improvement | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| |archive-date = 15 April 2013 | |archive-date = 15 April 2013 | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| Line 1,587: | Line 1,261: | ||
| </ref> | </ref> | ||
| One of the arguments made in favour of the flexibility mechanisms is that they can reduce the costs incurred by Annex I Parties in meeting their Kyoto commitments.<ref name="toth flexibility mechanisms"/> Criticisms of flexibility have, for example, included the ineffectiveness of emissions trading in promoting investment in non-fossil energy sources,<ref>{{citation | |||
| As mentioned earlier, a number of Annex I Parties have implemented emissions trading schemes (ETSs) as part of efforts to meet their Kyoto commitments. General commentaries on emissions trading are contained in ] and ]. Individual articles on the ETSs contain commentaries on these schemes (see ] for a list of ETSs). | |||
| One of the arguments made in favour of the flexibility mechanisms is that they can reduce the costs incurred by Annex I Parties in meeting their Kyoto commitments.<ref name="toth flexibility mechanisms"/> Criticisms of flexibility have, for example, included the ineffectiveness of emissions trading in promoting investment in non-fossil energy sources,<ref> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | author=United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs | | author=United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs | ||
| | title= |
| title=World Economic and Social Survey 2009: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet | ||
| | chapter=VI. Financing the development response to climate change | | chapter=VI. Financing the development response to climate change | ||
| | year=2009 | |||
| | page=162 | | page=162 | ||
| | url=https://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wess2009files/wess09/wess2009.pdf | | chapter-url=https://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wess2009files/wess09/wess2009.pdf | ||
| | publisher=United Nations | | publisher=United Nations | ||
| | location=New York, USA | | location=New York, USA | ||
| | isbn=978-92-1-109159-5 | | isbn=978-92-1-109159-5 | ||
| | access-date=28 June 2017 | |||
| }} | |||
| | archive-date=17 June 2013 | |||
| </ref> and adverse impacts of CDM projects on local communities in developing countries.<ref> | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130617053100/http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wess2009files/wess09/wess2009.pdf | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref> and adverse impacts of CDM projects on local communities in developing countries.<ref> | |||
| {{harvnb|Spash|2010|p=185}} | {{harvnb|Spash|2010|p=185}} | ||
| </ref> | </ref> | ||
| China, India, Indonesia and Brazil were not required to reduce their CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. The remaining signatory countries were not obliged to implement a common framework nor specific measures, but to reach an emission reduction target for which they can benefit of a ] for carbon credits multilaterally exchanged from each other.<ref name="OCLC 1027999644" /> The ] Scheme (ETS) allowed countries to host polluting industries and to buy from other countries the property of their environmental merits and virtuous patterns.<ref name="OCLC 1027999644">{{cite book | author =Geoffrey Wells| author2 = Janet Ratnanunga | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=V9K5XphOdukC&pg=PA89 | title = Sustainable Business: Theory and Practice of Business Under Sustainability Principles | page = 89 | publisher = Edward Elgar Publishing | date = January 1, 2013 | isbn = 9781781001868 | oclc = 1027999644 | chapter = 5 - Carbon accounting and carbon auditing for business}}</ref> | |||
| === Philosophy === | |||
| As the Kyoto Protocol seeks to reduce environmental pollutants while at the same time altering the freedoms of some citizens. | |||
| A 2021 review considers both the institutional design and the political strategies that have affected the adoption of the Kyoto protocol. It concludes that the Kyoto protocol's relatively small impact on global carbon dioxide emissions reflects a number of factors, including "deliberate political strategy, unequal power, and the absence of leadership" among and within nations.<ref name="Stoddard"/> The efforts of fossil fuel interests and conservative think tanks to spread ] and ] have influenced public opinion and political action both within the United States and beyond it. The direct lobbying of fossil fuel companies and their funding of political actors have slowed political action to address climate change at regional, national, and international levels.<ref name="Stoddard">{{cite journal |last1=Stoddard |first1=Isak |display-authors=etal |last2=Anderson |first2=Kevin |last3=Capstick |first3=Stuart |last4=Carton |first4=Wim |last5=Depledge |first5=Joanna |last6=Facer |first6=Keri |last7=Gough |first7=Clair |last8=Hache |first8=Frederic |last9=Hoolohan |first9=Claire |last10=Hultman |first10=Martin |last11=Hällström |first11=Niclas |last12=Kartha |first12=Sivan |last13=Klinsky |first13=Sonja |last14=Kuchler |first14=Magdalena |last15=Lövbrand |first15=Eva |last16=Nasiritousi |first16=Naghmeh |last17=Newell |first17=Peter |last18=Peters |first18=Glen P. |last19=Sokona |first19=Youba |last20=Stirling |first20=Andy |last21=Stilwell |first21=Matthew |last22=Spash |first22=Clive L. |last23=Williams |first23=Mariama |title=Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve? |journal=Annual Review of Environment and Resources |date=18 October 2021 |volume=46 |issue=1 |pages=653–689 |doi=10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104 |hdl=1983/93c742bc-4895-42ac-be81-535f36c5039d |s2cid=233815004 |url=https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/305689845/Full_text_PDF_final_published_version_.pdf |access-date=31 August 2022 |language=en |issn=1543-5938 }}{{Dead link|date=June 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> | |||
| As discussed by ], one can achieve both economic and political freedom through capitalism; nonetheless, it is never guaranteed that one is going to have equality of wealth of those on top of the "food chain" of this capitalistic world.<ref>{{Cite journal|date=2017-03-02|title=Capitalist realism|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Capitalist_realism&oldid=768189102|journal=Misplaced Pages|language=en}}</ref> All these alterations come to what the leaders of the citizens choose to impose in means of improving ones lifestyle. In the case of the Kyoto Protocol, it seeks to impose regulations that will reduce production of pollutants towards the environment. Furthermore, seeking to compromise the freedoms of both private and public citizens. In one side it imposes bigger regulations towards companies and reducing their profits as they need to fulfill such regulations with, which are oftentimes more expensive, alternatives for production. On the other hand, it seeks to reduce the emissions that potentially cause the rapid environmental change called ]. | |||
| ==Amendment and successor== | |||
| The conditions of the Kyoto Protocol consist of mandatory targets on greenhouse gas emissions for the world's leading economies. As provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "These targets range from -8 per cent to +10 per cent of the countries' individual 1990 emissions levels with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below existing 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012." <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/2879.php|title=A Summary of the Kyoto Protocol|last=Change|first=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate|website=unfccc.int|access-date=2017-03-03}}</ref> | |||
| {{Main|Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions}} | |||
| In the non-binding "]" agreed on 16 February 2007, heads of governments from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa agreed in principle on the outline of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisaged a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and ], and initially hoped that it would be in place by 2009.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6364663.stm|title=Politicians sign new climate pact|publisher=BBC|date=16 February 2007|access-date=28 May 2007|archive-date=5 May 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070505000449/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6364663.stm|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2014683,00.html|title=Global leaders reach climate change agreement|work=The Guardian|location=UK|date=16 February 2007|access-date=28 May 2007|archive-date=5 June 2007|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070605050658/http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2014683,00.html|url-status=live}}</ref> | |||
| These goals are challenged, however, by climate change deniers, who condemn strong scientific evidence of the human impact on climate change. One prominent scholar opines that these climate change deniers "arguably" breach Rousseau's notion of the social contract, which is an implicit agreement among the members of a society to coordinate efforts in the name of overall social benefit. The climate change denial movement hinders efforts at coming to agreements as a collective global society on climate change.<ref>{{Cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=OFcdDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT93&lpg=PT93&dq=kyoto+protocol+social+contract&source=bl&ots=93zVaUURaH&sig=LKlZaN4CNJJ9ZIDzvJBshK_6euo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiio4ya9bjSAhUrilQKHZ09BnwQ6AEIUDAJ#v=onepage&q=kyoto%20protocol%20social%20contract&f=false|title=Remaking the Urban Social Contract: Health, Energy, and the Environment|last=Pagano|first=Michael A.|date=2016-08-30|publisher=University of Illinois Press|isbn=9780252099137|language=en}}</ref> | |||
| The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 was one of the annual series of UN meetings that followed the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. In 1997 the talks led to the Kyoto Protocol, and the conference in Copenhagen was considered to be the opportunity to agree a successor to Kyoto that would bring about meaningful carbon cuts.<ref>{{cite news | |||
| ==Conference of the Parties== | |||
| {{further information|United Nations Climate Change conference}} | |||
| The official meeting of all states party to the Kyoto Protocol is the ''Conference of the Parties''. It is held every year as part of the United Nations Climate Change conference, which also serves as the formal meeting of UNFCCC. The first Meetings of Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) was held in 2005 in conjunction with the eleventh Conferences of parties to UNFCCC (COP). Also parties to the Convention that are not parties to the Protocol can participate in Protocol-related meetings as observers. The first conference was held in 1995 in Berlin, while the 2013 conference was held in ]. Later COPs were held in Lima, Peru in 2014 and in Paris, France in 2015. COP 21 aims to hold the increase in the global average rise in temperature below 2 degree. COP 22 Marakash, Morocco and COP 23 in Bonn, Germany. | |||
| ==Amendment and possible successors== | |||
| {{Main article|Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions}} | |||
| {{Expand section|]|date = December 2015|small = }} | |||
| In the non-binding "]" agreed on 16 February 2007, heads of governments from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, ], ], ] and ] agreed in principle on the outline of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisaged a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and ], and initially hoped that it would be in place by 2009.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6364663.stm|title=Politicians sign new climate pact|publisher=BBC |date=16 February 2007|accessdate=28 May 2007}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2014683,00.html|title=Global leaders reach climate change agreement|work=The Guardian |location=UK|date=16 February 2007|accessdate=28 May 2007}}</ref> | |||
| The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 was one of the annual series of UN meetings that followed the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. In 1997 the talks led to the Kyoto Protocol, and the conference in Copenhagen was considered to be the opportunity to agree a successor to Kyoto that would bring about meaningful carbon cuts.<ref>{{cite web | |||
| | url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/25/copenhagen-climate-change-summit | | url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/25/copenhagen-climate-change-summit | ||
| | title=Why the Copenhagen climate change cliffhanger could drag on a little longer | | title=Why the Copenhagen climate change cliffhanger could drag on a little longer | ||
| | last=Adam | | last=Adam | ||
| | first=David | | first=David | ||
| | |
| newspaper=The Guardian | ||
| | date=25 March 2009 | | date=25 March 2009 | ||
| | |
| access-date=14 April 2009 | ||
| | archive-date=6 September 2013 | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130906061004/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/mar/25/copenhagen-climate-change-summit | |||
| | url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref><ref>{{cite news | |||
| |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c | |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c | ||
| |quote=The poll comes as UN negotiations to agree a new global treaty to regulate carbon pollution gather pace in advance of a key meeting in Copenhagen in December. Officials will try to agree a successor to the Kyoto protocol, the first phase of which expires in 2012. | |quote=The poll comes as UN negotiations to agree a new global treaty to regulate carbon pollution gather pace in advance of a key meeting in Copenhagen in December. Officials will try to agree a successor to the Kyoto protocol, the first phase of which expires in 2012. | ||
| |title=World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree | |title=World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree | ||
| | |
|newspaper=The Guardian | ||
| |last=Adam | |last=Adam | ||
| |first=David | |first=David | ||
| |date=14 April 2009 | |date=14 April 2009 | ||
| | |
|access-date=14 April 2009 | ||
| |archive-date=6 September 2013 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130906090708/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-target-2c | |||
| |url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref> | |||
| The ] include voluntary pledges made by 76 developed and developing countries to control their emissions of greenhouse gases.<ref name="king 2011 cancun agreement"> | The ] include voluntary pledges made by 76 developed and developing countries to control their emissions of greenhouse gases.<ref name="king 2011 cancun agreement"> | ||
| {{citation | {{citation | ||
| |date=July 2011 | |date= July 2011 | ||
| | |
|author= King, D. | ||
| |chapter= Copenhagen and Cancun | |||
| |first1=D. | |||
| |title= International climate change negotiations: Key lessons and next steps | |||
| |chapter=Copenhagen and Cancun | |||
| |publisher= Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford | |||
| |title=International climate change negotiations: Key lessons and next steps | |||
| |location= Oxford, UK | |||
| |publisher=Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford | |||
| |page= 12 | |||
| |location=Oxford, UK | |||
| |url = http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf | |||
| |page=12 | |||
| |display-authors = etal | |||
| |doi=10.4210/ssee.pbs.2011.0003 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113033748/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf | |||
| |url=http://edition2a.intellimag.com/?id=ssee-july2011 | |||
| |archive-date = 13 January 2012 | |||
| |display-authors=etal | |||
| |url-status=dead | |||
| |deadurl=yes | |||
| }} | |||
| |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20130801031800/http://edition2a.intellimag.com/?id=ssee-july2011 | |||
| </ref> In 2010, these 76 countries were collectively responsible for 85% of annual global emissions.<ref name="king 2011 cancun agreement"/><ref name="unep 2012 emissions gap">{{citation | |||
| |archivedate= 1 August 2013 | |||
| |df= | |||
| }} PDF version is also {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113033748/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf |date=13 January 2012 }} | |||
| </ref> In 2010, these 76 countries were collectively responsible for 85% of annual global emissions.<ref name="king 2011 cancun agreement"/><ref name="unep 2012 emissions gap"> | |||
| {{citation | |||
| | date=November 2012 | | date=November 2012 | ||
| | author=United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) | | author=United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) | ||
| Line 1,668: | Line 1,336: | ||
| | pages=14–18 | | pages=14–18 | ||
| | url=http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapreport.pdf | | url=http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapreport.pdf | ||
| | access-date=10 December 2012 | |||
| }} Executive summary in | |||
| | archive-date=13 May 2016 | |||
| </ref> | |||
| | archive-url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160513232928/http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapreport.pdf | |||
| | url-status=dead | |||
| }} Executive summary in {{Webarchive|url=http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160513232948/http://www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgap2012/ |date=13 May 2016 }}</ref> | |||
| By May 2012, the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada had indicated they would not sign up to a second Kyoto commitment period.<ref>{{cite news | By May 2012, the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada had indicated they would not sign up to a second Kyoto commitment period.<ref>{{cite news | ||
| |url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/16/bonn-climate-talks-eu-kyoto | |url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/16/bonn-climate-talks-eu-kyoto | ||
| |title=Bonn climate talks: EU plays down talk of Kyoto protocol rift | |title= Bonn climate talks: EU plays down talk of Kyoto protocol rift | ||
| |first= James |
|first= James | ||
| |last= Murray | |last= Murray | ||
| |work=The Guardian | |work= The Guardian | ||
| |date= 16 May 2012 | |date= 16 May 2012 | ||
| |quote=A number of large emitters, including the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada, have signalled they will not sign up to Kyoto or to a second commitment period of Kyoto, while large emerging economies will only sign up to an agreement that does not impose binding emission reduction targets on them. |
|quote= A number of large emitters, including the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada, have signalled they will not sign up to Kyoto or to a second commitment period of Kyoto, while large emerging economies will only sign up to an agreement that does not impose binding emission reduction targets on them. | ||
| |access-date= 21 November 2012 | |||
| |archive-date= 19 April 2015 | |||
| |url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/09/australia-kyoto-protocol-second-phase | |||
| |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150419033029/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/16/bonn-climate-talks-eu-kyoto | |||
| |title=Kyoto protocol: Australia signs up to second phase | |||
| |url-status= live | |||
| |first=Fiona | |||
| }}</ref> In November 2012, Australia confirmed it would participate in a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol and New Zealand confirmed that it would not.<ref>{{cite news |last=Harvey |first=Fiona |author-link=Fiona Harvey |date=9 November 2012 |title=Kyoto protocol: Australia signs up to second phase |url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/09/australia-kyoto-protocol-second-phase |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140903165834/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/09/australia-kyoto-protocol-second-phase |archive-date=3 September 2014 |access-date=21 November 2012 |work=The Guardian}}</ref> | |||
| |last=Harvey | |||
| |work=The Guardian | |||
| |date= 9 November 2012 | |||
| |accessdate=21 November 2012}}</ref> | |||
| New Zealand's climate minister Tim Groser said the 15-year-old Kyoto Protocol was outdated, and that New Zealand was "ahead of the curve" in looking for a replacement that would include developing nations.<ref>{{cite news| url= http://www.3news.co.nz/Groser-NZ-ahead-of-the-curve-in-quitting-Kyoto-Protocol/tabid/1160/articleID/278937/Default.aspx |work=3 News NZ |title= Groser defends quitting Kyoto Protocol| date=3 December 2012}}</ref> Non-profit environmental organisations such as the ] criticised New Zealand's decision to pull out.<ref>{{cite news| url= http://www.3news.co.nz/NZs-environmental-reputation-nosedive/tabid/1160/articleID/279779/Default.aspx|work=3 News NZ |
New Zealand's climate minister Tim Groser said the 15-year-old Kyoto Protocol was outdated, and that New Zealand was "ahead of the curve" in looking for a replacement that would include developing nations.<ref>{{cite news | url= http://www.3news.co.nz/Groser-NZ-ahead-of-the-curve-in-quitting-Kyoto-Protocol/tabid/1160/articleID/278937/Default.aspx | work= 3 News NZ | title= Groser defends quitting Kyoto Protocol | date= 3 December 2012 | access-date= 7 December 2018 | archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140701131342/http://www.3news.co.nz/Groser-NZ-ahead-of-the-curve-in-quitting-Kyoto-Protocol/tabid/1160/articleID/278937/Default.aspx | archive-date= 1 July 2014 | url-status= dead | df= dmy-all }}</ref> Non-profit environmental organisations such as the ] criticised New Zealand's decision to pull out.<ref>{{cite news| url= http://www.3news.co.nz/NZs-environmental-reputation-nosedive/tabid/1160/articleID/279779/Default.aspx| work= 3 News NZ| title= NZ's climate reputation 'nosedive'| date= 10 December 2012| access-date= 7 December 2018| archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20140701140314/http://www.3news.co.nz/NZs-environmental-reputation-nosedive/tabid/1160/articleID/279779/Default.aspx| archive-date= 1 July 2014| url-status= dead| df= dmy-all}}</ref> | ||
| On 8 December 2012, at the end of the ], an agreement was reached to extend the Protocol to 2020 and to set a date of 2015 for the development of a successor document, to be implemented from 2020 (see lede for more information).<ref>{{cite news | On 8 December 2012, at the end of the ], an agreement was reached to extend the Protocol to 2020 and to set a date of 2015 for the development of a successor document, to be implemented from 2020 (see lede for more information).<ref>{{cite news | ||
| |url= |
|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20653018 | ||
| |title=UN climate talks extend Kyoto Protocol, promise compensation | |title=UN climate talks extend Kyoto Protocol, promise compensation | ||
| |work=BBC News | |work=BBC News | ||
| |date=8 December 2012 | |||
| |date= 8 December 2012 }}</ref> The outcome of the Doha talks has received a mixed response, with small island states critical of the overall package.The Kyoto second commitment period applies to about 11% of annual global emissions of greenhouse gases. Other results of the conference include a timetable for a global agreement to be adopted by 2015 which includes all countries.<ref name="unfccc 2012 doha press release"> | |||
| |access-date=22 June 2018 | |||
| |archive-date=16 July 2018 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180716140524/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20653018 | |||
| |url-status=live | |||
| }}</ref> The outcome of the Doha talks has received a mixed response, with small island states critical of the overall package. The Kyoto second commitment period applies to about 11% of annual global emissions of greenhouse gases. Other results of the conference include a timetable for a global agreement to be adopted by 2015 which includes all countries.<ref name="unfccc 2012 doha press release"> | |||
| {{citation | {{citation | ||
| |author=UN Climate Change Secretariat | |author=UN Climate Change Secretariat | ||
| Line 1,701: | Line 1,375: | ||
| |date=8 December 2012 | |date=8 December 2012 | ||
| |url=http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/121208_final_pr_cop18_cf.pdf | |url=http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/121208_final_pr_cop18_cf.pdf | ||
| |url-status=dead | |||
| |deadurl=yes | |||
| | |
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130330051943/http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/121208_final_pr_cop18_cf.pdf | ||
| | |
|archive-date=30 March 2013 | ||
| |df= | |||
| }}, p.2. | }}, p.2. | ||
| </ref> At the Doha meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC on 8 December 2012, the European Union chief climate negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, pledged to extend the treaty, binding on the 27 European Member States, up to the year 2020 pending an internal ratification procedure. | </ref> At the Doha meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC on 8 December 2012, the European Union chief climate negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, pledged to extend the treaty, binding on the 27 European Member States, up to the year 2020 pending an internal ratification procedure. | ||
| Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, called |
], ], called on world leaders to come to an agreement on halting global warming during the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly<ref>{{Cite web | url=http://sd.iisd.org/events/69th-session-of-the-un-general-assembly-unga-69 | title=Event: 69th Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA 69) | SDG Knowledge Hub | website=Sd.iisd.org | access-date=6 October 2014 | archive-date=10 March 2016 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160310204438/http://sd.iisd.org/events/69th-session-of-the-un-general-assembly-unga-69 | url-status=dead }}</ref> on 23 September 2014 in New York. The next climate summit was held ], out of which emerged the ], the successor to the Kyoto Protocol. | ||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
| {{portal|border=no|Global warming|Ecology|Energy|Environment|World}} | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | * ] | ||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] or REDD | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] or UNFCCC | |||
| * ] | |||
| * ] | |||
| ==Notes== | |||
| ==References== | |||
| {{Reflist}} | {{Reflist}} | ||
| == |
=== Sources === | ||
| {{refbegin|30em}} | {{refbegin|30em}} | ||
| * {{citation | * {{citation | ||
| |date=March 2009 | |date=March 2009 | ||
| |title=Global Carbon Mechanisms: Emerging lessons and implications (CTC748) | |title=Global Carbon Mechanisms: Emerging lessons and implications (CTC748) | ||
| Line 1,750: | Line 1,402: | ||
| |url=http://www.carbontrust.com/resources/reports/advice/global-carbon-mechanisms | |url=http://www.carbontrust.com/resources/reports/advice/global-carbon-mechanisms | ||
| |publisher=Carbon Trust | |publisher=Carbon Trust | ||
| |access-date=24 July 2012 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130504022256/http://www.carbontrust.com/resources/reports/advice/global-carbon-mechanisms | |||
| |archive-date=4 May 2013 | |||
| |url-status=dead | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| * {{Citation | * {{Citation | ||
| |date=25 November 2000 | |date=25 November 2000 | ||
| |title=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Technical paper: Tracing the Origins of the Kyoto Protocol: An Article-by-Article Textual History | |title=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Technical paper: Tracing the Origins of the Kyoto Protocol: An Article-by-Article Textual History | ||
| |publisher=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | |||
| |publisher=UNFCCC | |||
| |last=Depledge | |last=Depledge | ||
| |first=J. | |||
| |url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0200.pdf | |url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0200.pdf | ||
| |access-date=11 August 2009 | |||
| |format=PDF | |||
| |archive-date=7 August 2009 | |||
| |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090807210132/http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0200.pdf | |||
| |url-status=live | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| * {{citation | * {{citation | ||
| |date = December 2001 | |date = December 2001 | ||
| |last = Dessai | |last = Dessai | ||
| |first = S. | |first = S. | ||
| |title = Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12: The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol? | |title = Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12: The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol? | ||
| |url = http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/climate-regime-hague-marrakech-saving-or-sinking-kyoto-protocol | |url = http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/climate-regime-hague-marrakech-saving-or-sinking-kyoto-protocol | ||
| |publisher = Tyndall Centre | |publisher = Tyndall Centre | ||
| |location = Norwich, UK | |location = Norwich, UK | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20121031094826/http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/climate-regime-hague-marrakech-saving-or-sinking-kyoto-protocol | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 31 October 2012 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| * {{citation | |||
| | author=EEA | |||
| | year=2012 | |||
| | title=Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2012 - Tracking progress towards Kyoto and 2020 targets. A report by the European Environment Agency (EEA) | |||
| | publisher=Publications Office of the European Union | |||
| | location=Luxembourg | |||
| | isbn=978-92-9213-331-3 | |||
| | issn=1725-9177 | |||
| | doi=10.2800/56770 | |||
| | url=http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/ghg-trends-and-projections-2012/at_download/file | |||
| }}. Report No 6/2012. Report . | |||
| * {{citation | * {{citation | ||
| | author=G-77 | | author=G-77 | ||
| Line 1,790: | Line 1,438: | ||
| | title=The Group of 77 - Member States | | title=The Group of 77 - Member States | ||
| | publisher=The Group of 77 | | publisher=The Group of 77 | ||
| | |
| access-date=22 October 2012 | ||
| | archive-date=2 November 2012 | |||
| }} | |||
| | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20121102220933/http://www.g77.org/doc/members.html | |||
| | url-status=dead | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{citation | * {{citation | ||
| |title=The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol | |title=The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol | ||
| Line 1,802: | Line 1,453: | ||
| |citeseerx = 10.1.1.163.1719 }} | |citeseerx = 10.1.1.163.1719 }} | ||
| * {{citation | * {{citation | ||
| |year = 2001 | |year = 2001 | ||
| | |
|last1 = Grubb | ||
| | |
|first1 = M. | ||
| |first2 = J. | |first2 = J. | ||
| |last2 = Depledge | |last2 = Depledge | ||
| |title = The Seven Myths of Kyoto | |title = The Seven Myths of Kyoto | ||
| |url = http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/JR09.pdf | |url = http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/JR09.pdf | ||
| | |
|journal = Climate Policy | ||
| | |
|volume = 1 | ||
| | |
|issue = 2 | ||
| | |
|pages = 269–272 | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20111203132721/http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/JR09.pdf | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 3 December 2011 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| |doi = 10.3763/cpol.2001.0126 | |||
| |bibcode = 2001CliPo...1..269G | |||
| |s2cid = 219597384 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| * {{Citation | year = 2001 | author = IPCC TAR WG3 | author-link = IPCC | title = Climate Change 2001: Mitigation | series = Contribution of Working Group III to the ] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | editor1-last = Metz | editor1-first = B. | editor2-last = Davidson | editor2-first = O. | editor3-last = Swart | editor3-first = R. | editor4-last = Pan | editor4-first = J. | display-editors = etal | publisher = Cambridge University Press | url = http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm | isbn = 978-0-521-80769-2 | url-status = dead | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20170227094845/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg3%2Findex.htm | archive-date = 27 February 2017 | df = dmy-all }} (pb: {{ISBNT|0-521-01502-2}}). | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| | author=IEA | |||
| | year=2011 | |||
| | title=CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions From Fuel Combustion: Highlights (2011 edition) | |||
| | publisher=International Energy Agency (IEA) | |||
| | location=Paris, France | |||
| | url=http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/CO2highlights.pdf | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| | author=IEA | |||
| | year=2012 | |||
| | title=CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions From Fuel Combustion: Highlights (2012 edition) | |||
| | publisher=International Energy Agency (IEA) | |||
| | location=Paris, France | |||
| | url=http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/CO2emissionfromfuelcombustionHIGHLIGHTS.pdf | |||
| }}. Data as an | |||
| * {{Citation | year = 2001 | author = IPCC TAR WG3 | author-link = IPCC | title = Climate Change 2001: Mitigation | series = Contribution of Working Group III to the ] of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change | editor1-last = Metz | editor1-first = B. | editor2-last = Davidson | editor2-first = O. | editor3-last = Swart | editor3-first = R. | editor4-last = Pan | editor4-first = J. | display-editors = etal | publisher = Cambridge University Press | url = http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.htm | isbn = 0-521-80769-7 | deadurl = yes | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20170227094845/http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_tar%2Fwg3%2Findex.htm | archivedate = 27 February 2017 | df = dmy-all }} (pb: {{ISBNT|0-521-01502-2}}). | |||
| * {{Citation | * {{Citation | ||
| |year = 2001 | |year = 2001 | ||
| |author = IPCC TAR SYR | |author = IPCC TAR SYR | ||
| |author-link = IPCC | |author-link = IPCC | ||
| |title = Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report (SYR) | |title = Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report (SYR) | ||
| |series = Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the ] (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) | |series = Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the ] (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) | ||
| |editor1-last = Watson |
|editor1-last = Watson | ||
| |editor1-first = R. T. | |||
| |editor2 = Core Writing Team | |||
| |publisher = Cambridge University Press | |publisher = Cambridge University Press | ||
| |url |
|url = http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/index.htm | ||
| |isbn = 0-521-80770- |
|isbn = 978-0-521-80770-8 | ||
| |access-date = 17 July 2012 | |||
| |archive-date = 3 November 2018 | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181103153646/http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/index.htm | |||
| |url-status = dead | |||
| }} (pb: {{ISBNT|0-521-01507-3}}). | }} (pb: {{ISBNT|0-521-01507-3}}). | ||
| * {{Citation | year = 2007 | author = IPCC AR4 WG3 | author-link = IPCC | title = Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change | series = Contribution of Working Group III (WG3) to the ] (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) | editor1-last = Metz | editor1-first = B. | editor2-last = Davidson | editor2-first = O. R. | editor3-last = Bosch | editor3-first = P. R. | editor4-last = Dave | editor4-first = R. | editor5-last = Meyer | editor5-first = L. A. | publisher = Cambridge University Press | url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html | isbn = 978-0-521-88011-4 | access-date = 17 July 2012 | archive-date = 12 October 2014 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20141012170817/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html | url-status = dead }} (pb: {{ISBNT|978-0-521-70598-1}}). | |||
| * {{Citation | * {{Citation | ||
| |year = 2007 | |year = 2007 | ||
| |author = IPCC AR4 |
|author = IPCC AR4 SYR | ||
| |author-link = IPCC | |author-link = IPCC | ||
| |title = Climate Change 2007: |
|title = Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (SYR) | ||
| |series = Contribution of Working |
|series = Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the ] (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) | ||
| |editor1 = Core Writing Team | |||
| |editor1-last = Metz | editor1-first = B. | editor2-last = Davidson | editor2-first = O. R. | editor3-last = Bosch | editor3-first = P. R. | editor4-last = Dave | editor4-first = R. | editor5-last = Meyer | editor5-first = L. A. | |||
| |editor2-last = Pachauri | |||
| |publisher = Cambridge University Press | |||
| |editor2-first = R.K. | |||
| |url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html | |||
| |editor3-last = Reisinger | |||
| |isbn = 978-0-521-88011-4 | |||
| |editor3-first = A. | |||
| }} (pb: {{ISBNT|978-0-521-70598-1}}). | |||
| |publisher = IPCC | |||
| * {{Citation | |||
| |location = ], ] | |||
| | year = 2007 | |||
| |url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html | |||
| | author = IPCC AR4 SYR | |||
| |isbn = 978-92-9169-122-7 | |||
| | author-link = IPCC | |||
| |access-date = 17 July 2012 | |||
| | title = Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (SYR) | |||
| |archive-date = 3 November 2018 | |||
| | series = Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the ] (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) | |||
| |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181103154032/https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html | |||
| | editor1 = Core Writing Team | editor2-last = Pachauri | editor2-first = R.K. | editor3-last = Reisinger | editor3-first = A. | |||
| |url-status = live | |||
| | publisher = IPCC | |||
| | location=], ] | |||
| | url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html | |||
| | isbn = 92-9169-122-4 | |||
| }}. | }}. | ||
| * {{citation | * {{citation | ||
| |year = 2009 | |year = 2009 | ||
| |title = Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere | |title = Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere | ||
| |doi = 10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008 | |doi = 10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008 | ||
| |last = Liverman | |last = Liverman | ||
| |first = D.M. | |first = D.M. | ||
| |journal = Journal of Historical Geography | |journal = Journal of Historical Geography | ||
| |url = http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf | |url = http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf | ||
| | |
|volume = 35 | ||
| | |
|issue = 2 | ||
| | |
|pages = 279–296 | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20140912161138/http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 12 September 2014 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| * {{citation | * {{citation | ||
| |last = Spash | |last = Spash | ||
| |first = C.L. | |first = C.L. | ||
| |title = The Brave New World of Carbon Trading | |title = The Brave New World of Carbon Trading | ||
| |url = http://clivespash.org/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE.pdf | |url = http://clivespash.org/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE.pdf | ||
| | |
|journal = New Political Economy | ||
| | |
|volume = 15 | ||
| | |
|issue = 2 | ||
| | |
|pages = 169–195 | ||
| | |
|year = 2010 | ||
| | |
|doi = 10.1080/13563460903556049 | ||
| | |
|s2cid = 44071002 | ||
| | |
|url-status = dead | ||
| | |
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130510185658/http://clivespash.org/2010_Spash_Brave_New_World_NPE.pdf | ||
| | |
|archive-date = 10 May 2013 | ||
| |df = dmy-all | |df = dmy-all | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| * {{citation | * {{citation | ||
| Line 1,909: | Line 1,551: | ||
| | url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm | | url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm | ||
| | archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407172811/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm | | archive-url=http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100407172811/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.htm | ||
| | |
| url-status=dead | ||
| | archive-date=2010-04-07 | | archive-date=2010-04-07 | ||
| | publisher=HM Treasury | | publisher=HM Treasury | ||
| | location=London, UK | | location=London, UK | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| * {{citation | |||
| |date = 9 May 1992 | |||
| |location = New York | |||
| |author = United Nations | |||
| |title = United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | |||
| |url = http://unfccc.int/not_assigned/b/items/1417.php | |||
| |deadurl = yes | |||
| |archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20050404103328/http://unfccc.int/not_assigned/b/items/1417.php | |||
| |archivedate = 4 April 2005 | |||
| |df = dmy-all | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| | title=Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | |||
| | author=United Nations | |||
| | year=1998 | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php | |||
| }}. Also in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, French and Russian. | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| | date=November 2012 | |||
| | author=UNEP | |||
| | title=The Emissions Gap Report 2012 | |||
| | publisher=United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) | |||
| | location=Nairobi, Kenya | |||
| | url=http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapreport.pdf | |||
| }} Executive summary in | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| |date = 6 June 1995 | |||
| |author = UNFCCC | |||
| |title = FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1: Report of the Conference of the Parties on its first session, held at Berlin from 28 March to 7 April 1995. Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its first session | |||
| |url = http://maindb.unfccc.int/library/view_pdf.pl?url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop1/07a01.pdf | |||
| |publisher = United Nations Office | |||
| |location = Geneva, Switzerland | |||
| }}{{dead link|date=March 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}. Available as a in the official UN languages. | |||
| * {{Citation | |||
| |date=25 October 2005 | |||
| |author=UNFCCC | |||
| |title=Sixth compilation and synthesis of initial national communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention. Note by the secretariat. Executive summary. Document code FCCC/SBI/2005/18 | |||
| |url=http://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/advanced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600003578#beg | |||
| |publisher=United Nations Office | |||
| | location=Geneva, Switzerland | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| | year=2011 | |||
| | author=UNFCCC | |||
| | title=Compilation and synthesis of fifth national communications. Executive summary. Note by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/sbi/eng/inf01.pdf | |||
| | format=PDF | |||
| | publisher=United Nations Office | |||
| | location=Geneva, Switzerland | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| | author=UNFCCC | |||
| | date=28 March 2012 | |||
| | title=Annex I national communications (NC5) | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/items/4903.php | |||
| | publisher=UNFCCC | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| | author=UNFCCC | |||
| | date=2 October 2012 | |||
| | title=Reports on in-depth reviews of national communications of Annex I Parties | |||
| | url=http://unfccc.int/national_reports/annex_i_natcom/idr_reports/items/4056.php | |||
| | publisher=UNFCCC | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{citation | |||
| |author=UNFCCC | |||
| |date=22 January 2013 | |||
| |title=Non-Annex I national communications | |||
| |url=http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non-annex_i_natcom/items/2979.php | |||
| |publisher=UNFCCC | |||
| |deadurl=yes | |||
| |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20140913171139/http://unfccc.int/national_reports/non-annex_i_natcom/items/2979.php | |||
| |archivedate=13 September 2014 | |||
| |df= | |||
| }} | |||
| * {{citation | * {{citation | ||
| |year=2010 | |year=2010 | ||
| |author=World Bank | |author=World Bank | ||
| |title=World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change | |title=World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change | ||
| |journal=Climate and Development | |||
| |volume=2 | |||
| |issue=3 | |||
| |page=299 | |||
| |publisher=The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank | |publisher=The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank | ||
| |location=Washington DC, USA | |||
| |doi=10.3763/cdev.2010.0046 | |||
| |bibcode=2010CliDe...2..299M | |||
| |s2cid=154615933 | |||
| |url=http://go.worldbank.org/UVZ0HYFGG0 | |url=http://go.worldbank.org/UVZ0HYFGG0 | ||
| |archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120309211226/http://go.worldbank.org/UVZ0HYFGG0 | |||
| |url-status=dead | |||
| |archive-date=9 March 2012 | |||
| |access-date=10 April 2012 | |||
| }} | }} | ||
| {{refend}} | {{refend}} | ||
| ==Further reading== | |||
| * Ekardt, F./von Hövel, A.: ''Distributive Justice, Competitiveness, and Transnational Climate Protection''. In: Carbon & Climate Law Review, Vol. 3., 2009, p. 102–114. | |||
| * Katy Longden, Roshni Pabari, Munir Hassan, and Dalia Majumder-Russel, "." Advocates for International Development (June 2012) | |||
| * Romain Morel, and Igor Shishlov, "." CDC Climat Research (May 2014) | |||
| ;Economics | |||
| * {{Cite journal | |||
| |date=May 1999 | |||
| |title=The Costs of the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation | |||
| |editor-last = Weyant | editor-first = J. P. | |||
| |journal=Energy Journal | |||
| |issue=Special issue | |||
| |url=http://emf.stanford.edu/publications/the_costs_of_the_kyoto_protocol_a_multimodel_evaluation/ | |||
| |accessdate=8 August 2009}} From this issue: | |||
| ** {{Cite journal | |||
| |title=The Kyoto Protocol: A Cost-Effective Strategy for Meeting Environmental Objectives? | |||
| | last1 = Manne | first1 = A. S. | first2 = R. | last2 = Richels | |||
| |url=http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/53/1923159.pdf | |||
| |accessdate=8 August 2009}} | |||
| ** {{Cite journal | title = Requiem for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto Protocol | authorlink1 = William Nordhaus | last1 = Nordhaus | first1 = W. D. | first2 = J. G. | last2 = Boyer | url = http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Kyoto.pdf | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20001006234806/http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Kyoto.pdf | dead-url = yes | archive-date = 6 October 2000 | accessdate = 8 August 2009 }} | |||
| ==External links== | ==External links== | ||
| {{Wikisource}} | {{Wikisource}} | ||
| {{Commons category|Kyoto Protocol}} | {{Commons category|Kyoto Protocol}} | ||
| * Protocol text ( and ), and {{dead link|date=April 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | * Protocol text ( {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090825212122/http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html |date=25 August 2009 }} and {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111005085911/http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf |date=5 October 2011 }}), {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130617035353/http://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/CTC/Ch_XXVII-7-b.pdf |date=17 June 2013 }} and {{dead link|date=April 2018 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }} | ||
| * , its (Targets for Belarus) and its (extension period |
* {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417192203/https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-a&chapter=27&clang=_en |date=17 April 2021 }}, its {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417184545/https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-b&chapter=27&clang=_en |date=17 April 2021 }} (Targets for Belarus) and its {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230601190245/https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-c&chapter=27&clang=_en |date=1 June 2023 }} (extension period 2012–2020) | ||
| * – fully indexed and crosslinked with other documents | * – fully indexed and crosslinked with other documents | ||
| * | * {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090814111134/http://mindprod.com/environment/kyoto.html |date=14 August 2009 }} | ||
| * | |||
| * on the ''Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change'' in the | |||
| {{ |
{{Climate change}} | ||
| {{Pollution}} | |||
| {{Authority control}} | {{Authority control}} | ||
| {{Portal bar|Global warming|Energy|Environment}} | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,055: | Line 1,619: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,075: | Line 1,638: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,100: | Line 1,654: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,106: | Line 1,661: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,125: | Line 1,679: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,141: | Line 1,695: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,148: | Line 1,701: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,165: | Line 1,716: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,171: | Line 1,721: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,179: | Line 1,731: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,199: | Line 1,751: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,226: | Line 1,793: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| Line 2,237: | Line 1,801: | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | ] | ||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
| ] | |||
Latest revision as of 23:03, 26 December 2024
1997 international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions This article is about the international treaty. For the rock band, see Kyoto Protocol (band).| Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC | |
|---|---|
 Annex B parties with binding targets in the second period Annex B parties with binding targets in the first period but not the second Non-Annex B parties without binding targets Annex B parties with binding targets in the first period but which withdrew from the Protocol Signatories to the Protocol that have not ratified Other UN member states and observers that are not party to the Protocol | |
| Signed | 11 December 1997 |
| Location | Kyoto, Japan |
| Effective | 16 February 2005 |
| Condition | Ratification by at least 55 states to the Convention |
| Expiration | 31 December 2012 (first commitment period) 31 December 2020 (second commitment period) |
| Signatories | 84 (1998–1999 signing period) |
| Parties | 192 (the European Union, Cook Islands, Niue, and all UN member states except Andorra, Canada, South Sudan, and the United States as of 2022) |
| Depositary | Secretary-General of the United Nations |
| Languages | Arabic, Mandarin, English, French, Russian, and Spanish |
| Full text | |
| [REDACTED] Kyoto Protocol at Wikisource | |
| Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol | |
|---|---|
 Acceptance of the Doha Amendment
States that ratified
Kyoto protocol parties that did not ratify
Non-parties to the Kyoto Protocol | |
| Type | Amendment to international agreement |
| Drafted | 8 December 2012 |
| Location | Doha, Qatar |
| Effective | 31 December 2020 |
| Condition | Ratification by 144 state parties required |
| Expiration | 31 December 2020 |
| Ratifiers | 147 |
| Full text | |
| [REDACTED] Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol at Wikisource | |
The Kyoto Protocol (Japanese: 京都議定書, Hepburn: Kyōto Giteisho) was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that human-made CO2 emissions are driving it. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There were 192 parties (Canada withdrew from the protocol, effective December 2012) to the Protocol in 2020.
The Kyoto Protocol implemented the objective of the UNFCCC to reduce the onset of global warming by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to "a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (Article 2). The Kyoto Protocol applied to the seven greenhouse gases listed in Annex A: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). Nitrogen trifluoride was added for the second compliance period during the Doha Round.
The Protocol was based on the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities: it acknowledged that individual countries have different capabilities in combating climate change, owing to economic development, and therefore placed the obligation to reduce current emissions on developed countries on the basis 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. All 36 countries that fully participated in the first commitment period complied with the Protocol. However, nine countries had to resort to the flexibility mechanisms by funding emission reductions in other countries because their national emissions were slightly greater than their targets. The 2007–2008 financial crisis reduced emissions. The greatest emission reductions were seen in the former Eastern Bloc countries because the dissolution of the Soviet Union reduced their emissions in the early 1990s. Even though the 36 developed countries reduced their emissions, the global emissions increased by 32% from 1990 to 2010.
A second commitment period was agreed to in 2012 to extend the agreement to 2020, known as the Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol, in which 37 countries had binding targets: Australia, the European Union (and its then 28 member states, now 27), Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine stated that they may withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol or not put into legal force the Amendment with second round targets. Japan, New Zealand, and Russia had participated in Kyoto's first-round but did not take on new targets in the second commitment period. Other developed countries without second-round targets were Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which did not ratify). If they were to remain as a part of the protocol, Canada would be hit with a $14 billion fine, which would be devastating to their economy, hence the reluctant decision to exit. As of October 2020, 147 states had accepted the Doha Amendment. It entered into force on 31 December 2020, following its acceptance by the mandated minimum of at least 144 states, although the second commitment period ended on the same day. Of the 37 parties with binding commitments, 34 had ratified.
Negotiations were held in the framework of the yearly UNFCCC Climate Change Conferences on measures to be taken after the second commitment period ended in 2020. This resulted in the 2015 adoption of the Paris Agreement, which is a separate instrument under the UNFCCC rather than an amendment of the Kyoto Protocol.
Chronology
See also: History of climate change policy and politics and United Nations Climate Change Conference1992 – The UN Conference on the Environment and Development is held in Rio de Janeiro. It results in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) among other agreements.
1995 – Parties to the UNFCCC meet in Berlin (the 1st Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC) to outline specific targets on emissions.
1997 – In December the parties conclude the Kyoto Protocol in Kyoto, Japan, in which they agree to the broad outlines of emissions targets.
2004 – Russia and Canada ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC bringing the treaty into effect on 16 February 2005.
2011 – Canada became the first signatory to announce its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.
2012 – On 31 December 2012, the first commitment period under the Protocol expired.
The official meeting of all states party to the Kyoto Protocol is the annual Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The first conference was held in 1995 in Berlin (COP 1). The first Meeting of Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) was held in 2005 in conjunction with COP 11.
Objectives
Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases..png)
In order to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of CO2, emissions worldwide would need to be dramatically reduced from their present level.
The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol was to control emissions of the main anthropogenic (human-emitted) greenhouse gases (GHGs) in ways that reflect underlying national differences in GHG emissions, wealth, and capacity to make the reductions. The treaty follows the main principles agreed in the original 1992 UN Framework Convention. According to the treaty, in 2012, Annex I Parties who have ratified the treaty must have fulfilled their obligations of greenhouse gas emissions limitations established for the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period (2008–2012). These emissions limitation commitments are listed in Annex B of the Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol's first round commitments are the first detailed step taken within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol establishes a structure of rolling emission reduction commitment periods. It set a timetable starting in 2006 for negotiations to establish emission reduction commitments for a second commitment period. The first period emission reduction commitments expired on 31 December 2012.
The first-round Kyoto emissions limitation commitments were not sufficient to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of GHGs. Stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations will require further emissions reductions after the end of the first-round Kyoto commitment period in 2012.
The ultimate objective of the UNFCCC is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would stop dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Even if Annex I Parties succeed in meeting their first-round commitments, much greater emission reductions will be required in future to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations.
For each of the different anthropogenic GHGs, different levels of emissions reductions would be required to meet the objective of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG. Stabilizing the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would ultimately require the effective elimination of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.
To achieve stabilization, global GHG emissions must peak, then decline. The lower the desired stabilization level, the sooner this peak and decline must occur. For a given stabilization level, larger emissions reductions in the near term allow for less stringent emissions reductions later. On the other hand, less stringent near term emissions reductions would, for a given stabilization level, require more stringent emissions reductions later on.
The first period Kyoto emissions limitations can be viewed as a first-step towards achieving atmospheric stabilization of GHGs. In this sense, the first period Kyoto commitments may affect what future atmospheric stabilization level can be achieved.
Principal concepts
Some of the principal concepts of the Kyoto Protocol are:
- Binding commitments for the Annex I Parties. The main feature of the Protocol is that it established legally binding commitments to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases for Annex I Parties. The commitments were based on the Berlin Mandate, which was a part of UNFCCC negotiations leading up to the Protocol.
- Implementation. In order to meet the objectives of the Protocol, Annex I Parties are required to prepare policies and measures for the reduction of greenhouse gases in their respective countries. In addition, they are required to increase the absorption of these gases and utilize all mechanisms available, such as joint implementation, the clean development mechanism and emissions trading, in order to be rewarded with credits that would allow more greenhouse gas emissions at home.
- Minimizing Impacts on Developing Countries by establishing an adaptation fund for climate change.
- Accounting, Reporting and Review in order to ensure the integrity of the Protocol.
- Compliance. Establishing a Compliance Committee to enforce compliance with the commitments under the Protocol.
Flexibility mechanisms
The Protocol defines three "Flexibility Mechanisms" that can be used by Annex I Parties in meeting their emission limitation commitments. The flexibility mechanisms are International Emissions Trading (IET), the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI). IET allows Annex I Parties to "trade" their emissions (Assigned Amount Units, AAUs, or "allowances" for short).
The economic basis for providing this flexibility is that the marginal cost of reducing (or abating) emissions differs among countries. "Marginal cost" is the cost of abating the last tonne of CO2-eq for an Annex I/non-Annex I Party. At the time of the original Kyoto targets, studies suggested that the flexibility mechanisms could reduce the overall (aggregate) cost of meeting the targets. Studies also showed that national losses in Annex I gross domestic product (GDP) could be reduced by the use of the flexibility mechanisms.
The CDM and JI are called "project-based mechanisms", in that they generate emission reductions from projects. The difference between IET and the project-based mechanisms is that IET is based on the setting of a quantitative restriction of emissions, while the CDM and JI are based on the idea of "production" of emission reductions. The CDM is designed to encourage production of emission reductions in non-Annex I Parties, while JI encourages production of emission reductions in Annex I Parties.
The production of emission reductions generated by the CDM and JI can be used by Annex I Parties in meeting their emission limitation commitments. The emission reductions produced by the CDM and JI are both measured against a hypothetical baseline of emissions that would have occurred in the absence of a particular emission reduction project. The emission reductions produced by the CDM are called Certified emission reductions (CERs); reductions produced by JI are called emission reduction units (ERUs). The reductions are called "credits" because they are emission reductions credited against a hypothetical baseline of emissions.
Only emission reduction projects that do not involve using nuclear energy are eligible for accreditation under the CDM, in order to prevent nuclear technology exports from becoming the default route for obtaining credits under the CDM.
Each Annex I country is required to submit an annual report of inventories of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals from sinks under UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. These countries nominate a person (called a "designated national authority") to create and manage its greenhouse gas inventory. Virtually all of the non-Annex I countries have also established a designated national authority to manage their Kyoto obligations, specifically the "CDM process". This determines which GHG projects they wish to propose for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board.
International emissions trading
This section is an excerpt from Carbon emission trading.
Emissions trading sets a quantitative total limit on the emissions produced by all participating emitters, which correspondingly determines the prices of emissions. Under emission trading, a polluter having more emissions than their quota has to purchase the right to emit more from emitters with fewer emissions. This can reduce the competitiveness of fossil fuels, which are the main driver of climate change. Instead, carbon emissions trading may accelerate investments into renewable energy, such as wind power and solar power.
However, such schemes are usually not harmonized with defined carbon budgets that are required to maintain global warming below the critical thresholds of 1.5 °C or "well below" 2 °C, with oversupply leading to low prices of allowances with almost no effect on fossil fuel combustion. Emission trade allowances currently cover a wide price range from €7 per tonne of CO2 in China's national carbon trading scheme to €63 per tonne of CO2 in the EU-ETS (as of September 2021).
Other greenhouse gases can also be traded but are quoted as standard multiples of carbon dioxide with respect to their global warming potential.Intergovernmental emissions trading
The design of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) implicitly allows for trade of national Kyoto obligations to occur between participating countries. The Carbon Trust found that other than the trading that occurs as part of the EU ETS, no intergovernmental emissions trading had taken place.
One of the environmental problems with IET is the large surplus of allowances that are available. Russia, Ukraine, and the new EU-12 member states (the Kyoto Parties Annex I Economies-in-Transition, abbreviated "EIT": Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine) have a surplus of allowances, while many OECD countries have a deficit. Some of the EITs with a surplus regard it as potential compensation for the trauma of their economic restructuring. When the Kyoto treaty was negotiated, it was recognized that emissions targets for the EITs might lead to them having an excess number of allowances. This excess of allowances were viewed by the EITs as "headroom" to grow their economies. The surplus has, however, also been referred to by some as "hot air", a term which Russia (a country with an estimated surplus of 3.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent allowances) views as "quite offensive".
OECD countries with a deficit could meet their Kyoto commitments by buying allowances from transition countries with a surplus. Unless other commitments were made to reduce the total surplus in allowances, such trade would not actually result in emissions being reduced (see also the section below on the Green Investment Scheme).
"Green Investment Schemes"
The "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS) is a plan for achieving environmental benefits from trading surplus allowances (AAUs) under the Kyoto Protocol. The Green Investment Scheme (GIS), a mechanism in the framework of International Emissions Trading (IET), is designed to achieve greater flexibility in reaching the targets of the Kyoto Protocol while preserving environmental integrity of IET. However, using the GIS is not required under the Kyoto Protocol, and there is no official definition of the term.
Under the GIS a party to the protocol expecting that the development of its economy will not exhaust its Kyoto quota, can sell the excess of its Kyoto quota units (AAUs) to another party. The proceeds from the AAU sales should be "greened", i.e. channelled to the development and implementation of the projects either acquiring the greenhouse gases emission reductions (hard greening) or building up the necessary framework for this process (soft greening).
Trade in AAUs
Latvia was one of the front-runners of GISs. World Bank (2011) reported that Latvia has stopped offering AAU sales because of low AAU prices. In 2010, Estonia was the preferred source for AAU buyers, followed by the Czech Republic and Poland.
Japan's national policy to meet their Kyoto target includes the purchase of AAUs sold under GISs. In 2010, Japan and Japanese firms were the main buyers of AAUs. In terms of the international carbon market, trade in AAUs are a small proportion of overall market value. In 2010, 97% of trade in the international carbon market was driven by the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).
Clean Development Mechanism
Between 2001, which was the first year Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects could be registered, and 2012, the end of the first Kyoto commitment period, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in emission reductions. Most of these reductions are through renewable energy commercialisation, energy efficiency, and fuel switching (World Bank, 2010, p. 262). By 2012, the largest potential for production of CERs are estimated in China (52% of total CERs) and India (16%). CERs produced in Latin America and the Caribbean make up 15% of the potential total, with Brazil as the largest producer in the region (7%).
Joint Implementation
The formal crediting period for Joint Implementation (JI) was aligned with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and did not start until January 2008 (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 20). In November 2008, only 22 JI projects had been officially approved and registered. The total projected emission savings from JI by 2012 are about one tenth that of the CDM. Russia accounts for about two-thirds of these savings, with the remainder divided up roughly equally between Ukraine and the EU's New Member States. Emission savings include cuts in methane, HFC, and N2O emissions.
Details of the agreement
The agreement is a protocol to the United Nations Framework 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 emissions or enforcement mechanisms. Only Parties to the UNFCCC can become Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan.
National emission targets specified in the Kyoto Protocol exclude international aviation and shipping. Kyoto Parties can use land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) in meeting their targets. LULUCF activities are also called "sink" activities. Changes in sinks and land use can have an effect on the climate, and indeed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Special Report on Land use, land-use change, and forestry estimates that since 1750 a third of global warming has been caused by land use change. Particular criteria apply to the definition of forestry under the Kyoto Protocol.
Forest management, cropland management, grazing land management, and revegetation are all eligible LULUCF activities under the Protocol. Annex I Parties use of forest management in meeting their targets is capped.
First commitment period: 2008–2012
Under the Kyoto Protocol, 37 industrialized countries and the European Community (the European Union-15, made up of 15 states at the time of the Kyoto negotiations) commit themselves to binding targets for GHG emissions. The targets apply to the four greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), and two groups of gases, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs). The six GHG are translated into CO2 equivalents in determining reductions in emissions. These reduction targets are in addition to the industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
Under the Protocol, only the Annex I Parties have committed themselves to national or joint reduction targets (formally called "quantified emission limitation and reduction objectives" (QELRO) – Article 4.1). Parties to the Kyoto Protocol not listed in Annex I of the convention (the non-Annex I Parties) are mostly low-income developing countries, and may participate in the Kyoto Protocol through the Clean Development Mechanism (explained below).
The emissions limitations of Annex I Parties varies between different Parties. Some Parties have emissions limitations reduce below the base year level, some have limitations at the base year level (no permitted increase above the base year level), while others have limitations above the base year level.
Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping. Although Belarus and Turkey are listed in the convention's Annex I, they do not have emissions targets as they were not Annex I Parties when the Protocol was adopted. Kazakhstan does not have a target, but has declared that it wishes to become an Annex I Party to the convention.
Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their 2008–2012 commitments as % of base year, and 1990 emission levels (% of all Annex I countries)|
Australia – 108% (2.1% of 1990 emissions) |
Finland – 100% |
Liechtenstein – 92% (0.0015%) |
Russian Federation – 100% (17.4%) |
For most state parties, 1990 is the base year for the national GHG inventory and the calculation of the assigned amount. However, five state parties have an alternative base year:
- Bulgaria: 1988;
- Hungary: the average of the years 1985–1987;
- Poland: 1988;
- Romania: 1989;
- Slovenia: 1986.
Annex I Parties can use a range of sophisticated "flexibility" mechanisms (see below) to meet their targets. Annex I Parties can achieve their targets by allocating reduced annual allowances to major operators within their borders, or by allowing these operators to exceed their allocations by offsetting any excess through a mechanism that is agreed by all the parties to the UNFCCC, such as by buying emission allowances from other operators which have excess emissions credits.
Negotiations
See also: Views on the Kyoto Protocol § Commentaries on negotiationsArticle 4.2 of the UNFCCC commits industrialized countries to " the lead" in reducing emissions. The initial aim was for industrialized countries to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by 2000. The failure of key industrialized countries to move in this direction was a principal reason why Kyoto moved to binding commitments.
At the first UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Berlin, the G77 was able to push for a mandate (the "Berlin mandate") where it was recognized that:
- developed nations had contributed most to the then-current concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere (see Greenhouse gas emissions).
- developing country emissions per-capita (i.e., average emissions per head of population) were still relatively low.
- and that the share of global emissions from developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.
During negotiations, the G-77 represented 133 developing countries. China was not a member of the group but an associate. It has since become a member.
The Berlin mandate was recognized in the Kyoto Protocol in that developing countries were not subject to emission reduction commitments in the first Kyoto commitment period. However, the large potential for growth in developing country emissions made negotiations on this issue tense. In the final agreement, the Clean Development Mechanism was designed to limit emissions in developing countries, but in such a way that developing countries do not bear the costs for limiting emissions. The general assumption was that developing countries would face quantitative commitments in later commitment periods, and at the same time, developed countries would meet their first round commitments.
Emissions cuts
_greenhouse_gas_emissions_limitations_targets_and_the_percentage_change_in_their_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990_and_2009.png)
_(greyscale).png)
Annex I Parties who have agreed to reduce their GHG emissions below their individual base year levels (see definition in this article) Annex I Parties who have agreed to cap their GHG emissions at their base year levels 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 "flexible mechanisms".
The European Union as a whole has, in accordance with this treaty, committed itself to a reduction of 8%. However, many member states (such as Greece, Spain, Ireland and Sweden) have not committed themselves to any reduction while France has committed itself not to expand its emissions (0% reduction).
There were multiple emissions cuts proposed by UNFCCC parties during negotiations. The G77 and China were in favour of strong uniform emission cuts across the developed world. The US originally proposed for the second round of negotiations on Kyoto commitments to follow the negotiations of the first. In the end, negotiations on the second period were set to open no later than 2005. Countries over-achieving in their first period commitments can "bank" their unused allowances for use in the subsequent period.
The EU initially argued for only three GHGs to be included – CO2, CH4, and N2O – with other gases such as HFCs regulated separately. The EU also wanted to have a "bubble" commitment, whereby it could make a collective commitment that allowed some EU members to increase their emissions, while others cut theirs.
The most vulnerable nations – the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) – pushed for deep uniform cuts by developed nations, with the goal of having emissions reduced to the greatest possible extent. Countries that had supported differentiation of targets had different ideas as to how it should be calculated, and many different indicators were proposed. Two examples include differentiation of targets based on gross domestic product (GDP), and differentiation based on energy intensity (energy use per unit of economic output).
The final targets negotiated in the Protocol are the result of last minute political compromises. The targets closely match those decided by Argentinian Raul Estrada, the diplomat who chaired the negotiations. The numbers given to each Party by Chairman Estrada were based on targets already pledged by Parties, information received on latest negotiating positions, and the goal of achieving the strongest possible environmental outcome. The final targets are weaker than those proposed by some Parties, e.g., the Alliance of Small Island States and the G-77 and China, but stronger than the targets proposed by others, e.g., Canada and the United States.
Relation to temperature targets
At the 16th Conference of the Parties held in 2010, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that future global warming should be limited below 2°C relative to the pre-industrial temperature level. One of the stabilization levels discussed in relation to this temperature target is to hold atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at 450 parts per million (ppm) CO2- eq. Stabilization at 450 ppm could be associated with a 26 to 78% risk of exceeding the 2 °C target.
Scenarios assessed by Gupta et al. (2007) suggest that Annex I emissions would need to be 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. The only Annex I Parties to have made voluntary pledges in line with this are Japan (25% below 1990 levels by 2020) and Norway (30–40% below 1990 levels by 2020).
Gupta et al. (2007) also looked at what 450 ppm scenarios projected for non-Annex I Parties. Projections indicated that by 2020, non-Annex I emissions in several regions (Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia, and centrally planned Asia) would need to be substantially reduced below "business-as-usual". "Business-as-usual" are projected non-Annex I emissions in the absence of any new policies to control emissions. Projections indicated that by 2050, emissions in all non-Annex I regions would need to be substantially reduced below "business-as-usual".
Financial commitments
The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects. The principle was originally agreed in UNFCCC. One such project is The Adaptation Fund, which has been established by the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.
Implementation provisions
The protocol left several issues open to be decided later by the sixth Conference of Parties COP6 of the UNFCCC, which attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in the Hague in late 2000, but it was unable to reach an agreement due to disputes between the European Union (who favoured a tougher implementation) and the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia (who wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible).
In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting (COP6-bis) was held in Bonn, where the required decisions were adopted. After some concessions, the supporters of the protocol (led by the European Union) managed to secure the agreement of Japan and Russia by allowing more use of carbon dioxide sinks.
COP7 was held from 29 October 2001 through 9 November 2001 in Marrakech to establish the final details of the protocol.
The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP1) was held in Montreal from 28 November to 9 December 2005, along with the 11th conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP11). See United Nations Climate Change Conference.
During COP13 in Bali, 36 developed Contact Group countries (plus the EU as a party in the European Union) agreed to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland; but, since the EU's member states each have individual obligations, much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of the less developed EU countries (see below § Increase in greenhouse gas emission since 1990). Reduction limitations expired in 2013.
Mechanism of compliance
The protocol defines a mechanism of "compliance" as a "monitoring compliance with the commitments and penalties for non-compliance." According to Grubb (2003), the explicit consequences of non-compliance of the treaty are weak compared to domestic law. Yet, the compliance section of the treaty was highly contested in the Marrakesh Accords.
Monitoring emissions
Monitoring emissions in international agreements is tough as in international law, there is no police power, creating the incentive for states to find 'ways around' monitoring. The Kyoto Protocol regulated six sinks and sources of Gases. Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nirous oxide, Hydroflurocarbons, Sulfur hexafluouride and Perfluorocarbons. Monitoring these gases can become quite a challenge. Methane can be monitored and measured from irrigated rice fields and can be measured by the seedling growing up to harvest. Future implications state that this can be affected by more cost effective ways to control emissions as changes in types of fertilizer can reduce emissions by 50%. In addition to this, many countries are unable to monitor certain ways of carbon absorption through trees and soils to an accurate level.
Enforcing emission cuts
If the enforcement branch determines that an Annex I country is not in compliance with its emissions limitation, then that country is required to make up the difference during the second commitment period plus an additional 30%. In addition, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions trading program.
Ratification process
Countries that ratified the Protocol
The Protocol was adopted by COP 3 of UNFCCC on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. It was opened on 16 March 1998 for signature during one year by parties to UNFCCC, when it was signed Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, the Maldives, Samoa, St. Lucia and Switzerland. At the end of the signature period, 82 countries and the European Community had signed. Ratification (which is required to become a party to the Protocol) started on 17 September with ratification by Fiji. Countries that did not sign acceded to the convention, which has the same legal effect.
Article 25 of the Protocol specifies that the Protocol enters into force "on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in total for at least 55% of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Annex I countries, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession."
The EU and its Member States ratified the Protocol in May 2002. Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached on 23 May 2002 when Iceland ratified the Protocol. The ratification by Russia on 18 November 2004 satisfied the "55%" clause and brought the treaty into force, effective 16 February 2005, after the required lapse of 90 days.
As of May 2013, 191 countries and one regional economic organization (the EC) have ratified the agreement, representing over 61.6% of the 1990 emissions from Annex I countries. One of the 191 ratifying states—Canada—has renounced the protocol.
Convention PartiesNon-ratification by the US
The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998, during the Clinton presidency. To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and "would seriously harm the economy of the United States". The resolution passed 95–0. Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty, it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.
At the outset of the Bush administration, Senators Chuck Hagel, Jesse Helms, Larry Craig, and Pat Roberts wrote a letter to President George W. Bush seeking to identify his position on the Kyoto Protocol and climate change policy. In a letter dated March 13, 2001, President Bush responded that his "Administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously", but that "I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns." The administration also questioned the scientific certainty around climate change and cited potential harms of emissions reduction to the US economy.
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research reported in 2001:
This policy reversal received a massive wave of criticism that was quickly picked up by the international media. Environmental groups blasted the White House, while Europeans and Japanese alike expressed deep concern and regret. ... Almost all world leaders (e.g. China, Japan, South Africa, Pacific Islands, etc.) expressed their disappointment at Bush's decision.
In response to this criticism, Bush stated: "I was responding to reality, and reality is the nation has got a real problem when it comes to energy". The Tyndall Centre called this "an overstatement used to cover up the big benefactors of this policy reversal, i.e., the US oil and coal industry, which has a powerful lobby with the administration and conservative Republican congressmen."
As of 2023, the US is the only signatory that has not ratified the Protocol. The US accounted for 36.1% of emissions in 1990. As such, for the treaty to go into legal effect without US ratification, it would require a coalition including the EU, Russia, Japan, and small parties. A deal, without the US Administration, was reached in the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.
Withdrawal of Canada
Main article: Kyoto Protocol and government action § Withdrawal of Canada See also: Canada and the Kyoto ProtocolIn 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia stated that they would not take on further Kyoto targets. The Canadian government announced its withdrawal—possible at any time three years after ratification—from the Kyoto Protocol on 12 December 2011, effective 15 December 2012. Canada was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. The Harper government prioritized oil sands development in Alberta, and deprioritized the reduction of greenhouse emissions. Environment minister Peter Kent cited Canada's liability to "enormous financial penalties" under the treaty unless it withdrew. He also suggested that the recently signed Durban agreement may provide an alternative way forward. The Harper government claimed it would find a "Made in Canada" solution. Canada's decision received a generally negative response from representatives of other ratifying countries.
Other states and territories where the treaty was not applicable
Andorra, Palestine, South Sudan, the United States and, following their withdrawal on 15 December 2012, Canada are the only UNFCCC Parties that are not party to the Protocol. Furthermore, the Protocol is not applied to UNFCCC observer the Holy See. Although the Kingdom of the Netherlands approved the protocol for the whole Kingdom, it did not deposit an instrument of ratification for Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten or the Caribbean Netherlands.
Country types and their emissions
See also: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita, List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions, and GHG Protocol Corporate StandardAnnex I countries
Total aggregate GHG emissions excluding emissions/removals from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF, i.e., carbon storage in forests and soils) for all Annex I Parties (see list below) including the United States taken together decreased from 19.0 to 17.8 thousand teragrams (Tg, which is equal to 10 kg) CO2 equivalent, a decline of 6.0% during the 1990–2008 period. Several factors have contributed to this decline. The first is due to the economic restructuring in the Annex I Economies in Transition (the EITs – see Intergovernmental Emissions Trading for the list of EITs). Over the period 1990–1999, emissions fell by 40% in the EITs following the collapse of central planning in the former Soviet Union and east European countries. This led to a massive contraction of their heavy industry-based economies, with associated reductions in their fossil fuel consumption and emissions.
Emissions growth in Annex I Parties have also been limited due to policies and measures (PaMs). In particular, PaMs were strengthened after 2000, helping to enhance energy efficiency and develop renewable energy sources. Energy use also decreased during the economic crisis in 2007–2008.
Annex I parties with targets
| Country | Kyoto target 2008–2012 |
Kyoto target 2013–2020 |
GHG emissions 2008–2012 including LULUCF |
GHG emissions 2008–2012 excluding LULUCF |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia | +8 | −0.5 | +3.2 | +30.3 |
| Austria | −13 | −20 | +3.2 | +4.9 |
| Belgium | −8 | −20 | −13.9 | −14.0 |
| Bulgaria | −8 | −20 | −53.4 | −52.8 |
| Canada (withdrew) | −6 | N/A | +18.5 | +18.5 |
| Croatia | −5 | −20 | −10.8 | −7.5 |
| Czech Republic | −8 | −20 | −30.6 | −30.0 |
| Denmark | −21 | −20 | −17.3 | −14.8 |
| Estonia | −8 | −20 | −54.2 | −55.3 |
| Finland | 0 | −20 | −5.5 | −4.7 |
| France | 0 | −20 | −10.5 | −10.0 |
| Germany | −21 | −20 | −24.3 | −23.6 |
| Greece | +25 | −20 | +11.5 | +11.9 |
| Hungary | −6 | −20 | −43.7 | −41.8 |
| Iceland | +10 | −20 | +10.2 | +19.4 |
| Ireland | +13 | −20 | +11.0 | +5.1 |
| Italy | −6 | −20 | −7.0 | −4.0 |
| Japan | −6 | N/A | −2.5 | +1.4 |
| Latvia | −8 | −20 | −61.2 | −56.4 |
| Liechtenstein | −8 | −16 | +4.1 | +2.4 |
| Lithuania | −8 | −20 | −57.9 | −55.6 |
| Luxembourg | −28 | −20 | −9.3 | −8.7 |
| Monaco | −8 | −22 | −12.5 | −12.5 |
| Netherlands | −6 | −20 | −6.2 | −6.4 |
| New Zealand | 0 | N/A | −2.7 | +20.4 |
| Norway | +1 | −16 | +4.6 | +7.5 |
| Poland | −6 | −20 | −29.7 | −28.8 |
| Portugal | +27 | −20 | +5.5 | +22.4 |
| Romania | −8 | −20 | −57.0 | −55.7 |
| Russia | 0 | N/A | −36.3 | −32.7 |
| Slovakia | −8 | −20 | −37.2 | −36.8 |
| Slovenia | −8 | −20 | −9.7 | −3.2 |
| Spain | +15 | −20 | +20.0 | +23.7 |
| Sweden | +4 | −20 | −18.2 | −15.3 |
| Switzerland | −8 | −15.8 | −3.9 | −0.8 |
| Ukraine | 0 | −24 | −57.1 | −56.6 |
| United Kingdom | −13 | −20 | −23.0 | −22.6 |
| United States (did not ratify) | −7 | N/A | +9.5 | +9.5 |
Collectively the group of industrialized countries committed to a Kyoto target, i.e., the Annex I countries excluding the US, had a target of reducing their GHG emissions by 4.2% on average for the period 2008–2012 relative to the base year, which in most cases is 1990.
As noted in the preceding section, between 1990 and 1999, there was a large reduction in the emissions of the EITs. The reduction in the EITs is largely responsible for the total (aggregate) reduction (excluding LULUCF) in emissions of the Annex I countries, excluding the US. Emissions of the Annex II countries (Annex I minus the EIT countries) have experienced a limited increase in emissions from 1990 to 2006, followed by stabilization and a more marked decrease from 2007 onwards. The emissions reductions in the early nineties by the 12 EIT countries who have since joined the EU, assist the present EU-27 in meeting its collective Kyoto target.
In December 2011, Canada's environment minister, Peter Kent, formally announced that Canada would withdraw from the Kyoto accord a day after the end of the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference (see the section on the withdrawal of Canada).
Annex I parties without Kyoto targets
Belarus, Malta, and Turkey are Annex I Parties but did not have first-round Kyoto targets. The US had a Kyoto target of a 7% reduction relative to the 1990 level, but has not ratified the treaty. If the US had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the average percentage reduction in total GHG emissions for the Annex I group would have been a 5.2% reduction relative to the base year.
Non-Annex I
Annual per capita carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., average emissions per person) from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties
Annual carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties
UNFCCC (2005) compiled and synthesized information reported to it by non-Annex I Parties. Most non-Annex I Parties belonged in the low-income group, with very few classified as middle-income. Most Parties included information on policies relating to sustainable development. Sustainable development priorities mentioned by non-Annex I Parties included poverty alleviation and access to basic education and health care. Many non-Annex I Parties are making efforts to amend and update their environmental legislation to include global concerns such as climate change.
A few Parties, e.g., South Africa and Iran, stated their concern over how efforts to reduce emissions by Annex I Parties could adversely affect their economies. The economies of these countries are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing, and export of fossil fuels.
GHG emissions, excluding land use change and forestry (LUCF), reported by 122 non-Annex I Parties for the year 1994 or the closest year reported, totalled 11.7 billion tonnes (billion = 1,000,000,000) of CO2-eq. CO2 was the largest proportion of emissions (63%), followed by methane (26%) and nitrous oxide (N2O) (11%).
The energy sector was the largest source of emissions for 70 Parties, whereas for 45 Parties the agriculture sector was the largest. Per capita emissions (in tonnes of CO2-eq, excluding LUCF) averaged 2.8 tonnes for the 122 non-Annex I Parties.
- The Africa region's aggregate emissions were 1.6 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 2.4 tonnes.
- The Asia and Pacific region's aggregate emissions were 7.9 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 2.6 tonnes.
- The Latin America and Caribbean region's aggregate emissions were 2 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 4.6 tonnes.
- The "other" region includes Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Malta, Moldova, and North Macedonia. Their aggregate emissions were 0.1 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 5.1 tonnes.
Parties reported a high level of uncertainty in LUCF emissions, but in aggregate, there appeared to only be a small difference of 1.7% with and without LUCF. With LUCF, emissions were 11.9 billion tonnes, without LUCF, total aggregate emissions were 11.7 billion tonnes.
Problem areas
Views and criticism of the Protocol
Main articles: Views on the Kyoto Protocol and Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol | This section needs to be updated. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (June 2021) |
Gupta et al. (2007) assessed the literature on climate change policy. They found that no authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these agreements had, or will, succeed in solving the climate problem. In these assessments, it was assumed that the UNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. The Framework Convention and its Protocol include provisions for future policy actions to be taken.
Gupta et al. (2007) described the Kyoto first-round commitments as "modest", stating that they acted as a constraint on the treaty's effectiveness. It was suggested that subsequent Kyoto commitments could be made more effective with measures aimed at achieving deeper cuts in emissions, as well as having policies applied to a larger share of global emissions. In 2008, countries with a Kyoto cap made up less than one-third of annual global carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion.
World Bank (2010) commented on how the Kyoto Protocol had only had a slight effect on curbing global emissions growth. The treaty was negotiated in 1997, but in 2006, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions had grown by 24%. World Bank (2010) also stated that the treaty had provided only limited financial support to developing countries to assist them in reducing their emissions and adapting to climate change.
Some environmentalists have supported the Kyoto Protocol because it is "the only game in town", and possibly because they expect that future emission reduction commitments may demand more stringent emission reductions (Aldy et al.., 2003, p. 9). In 2001, seventeen national science academies stated that ratification of the Protocol represented a "small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases." Some environmentalists and scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).
The United States (under former President George W. Bush) and Australia (initially, under former Prime Minister John Howard) did not ratify the Kyoto treaty. According to Stern (2006), their decision was based on the lack of quantitative emission commitments for emerging economies (see also the 2000 onwards section). Australia, under former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has since ratified the treaty, which took effect in March 2008.
Compliance
38 developed countries committed to limiting their greenhouse gas emissions. Because the United States did not ratify and Canada withdrew, the emission limits remained in force for 36 countries. All of them complied with the Protocol. However, nine countries (Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Switzerland) had to resort to the flexibility mechanisms because their national emissions were slightly greater than their targets.
In total, the 36 countries that fully participated in the Protocol were committed to reducing their aggregate emissions by 4% from the 1990 base year. Their average annual emissions in 2008–2012 were 24.2% below the 1990 level. Hence, they surpassed their aggregate commitment by a large margin. If the United States and Canada are included, the emissions decreased by 11.8%. The large reductions were mainly thanks to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which reduced the emissions of the Eastern Bloc by tens of percents in the early 1990s. In addition, the financial crisis of 2007–08 significantly reduced emissions during the first Kyoto commitment period.
The 36 countries that were committed to emission reductions only accounted for 24% of the global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Even though these countries significantly reduced their emissions during the Kyoto commitment period, other countries increased their emissions so much that the global emissions increased by 32% from 1990 to 2010.
Emission trends in developing countries
In several large developing countries and fast growing economies (China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, and Iran) GHG emissions have increased rapidly (PBL, 2009). For example, emissions in China have risen strongly over the 1990–2005 period, often by more than 10% year. Emissions per-capita in non-Annex I countries are still, for the most part, much lower than in industrialized countries. Non-Annex I countries do not have quantitative emission reduction commitments, but they are committed to mitigation actions. China, for example, has had a national policy programme to reduce emissions growth, which included the closure of old, less efficient coal-fired power plants.
Views on the flexibility mechanisms
Further information: Flexible Mechanisms § Views on the flexibility mechanisms, and carbon emission tradingAnother area which has been commented on is the role of the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms – carbon emission trading, Joint Implementation, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). The flexibility mechanisms have attracted both positive and negative comments.
One of the arguments made in favour of the flexibility mechanisms is that they can reduce the costs incurred by Annex I Parties in meeting their Kyoto commitments. Criticisms of flexibility have, for example, included the ineffectiveness of emissions trading in promoting investment in non-fossil energy sources, and adverse impacts of CDM projects on local communities in developing countries.
China, India, Indonesia and Brazil were not required to reduce their CO2 emissions. The remaining signatory countries were not obliged to implement a common framework nor specific measures, but to reach an emission reduction target for which they can benefit of a secondary market for carbon credits multilaterally exchanged from each other. The Emissions-trading Scheme (ETS) allowed countries to host polluting industries and to buy from other countries the property of their environmental merits and virtuous patterns.
A 2021 review considers both the institutional design and the political strategies that have affected the adoption of the Kyoto protocol. It concludes that the Kyoto protocol's relatively small impact on global carbon dioxide emissions reflects a number of factors, including "deliberate political strategy, unequal power, and the absence of leadership" among and within nations. The efforts of fossil fuel interests and conservative think tanks to spread disinformation and climate change denial have influenced public opinion and political action both within the United States and beyond it. The direct lobbying of fossil fuel companies and their funding of political actors have slowed political action to address climate change at regional, national, and international levels.
Amendment and successor
Main article: Post–Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissionsIn the non-binding "Washington Declaration" agreed on 16 February 2007, heads of governments from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa agreed in principle on the outline of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisaged a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, and initially hoped that it would be in place by 2009.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December 2009 was one of the annual series of UN meetings that followed the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio. In 1997 the talks led to the Kyoto Protocol, and the conference in Copenhagen was considered to be the opportunity to agree a successor to Kyoto that would bring about meaningful carbon cuts.
The 2010 Cancún agreements include voluntary pledges made by 76 developed and developing countries to control their emissions of greenhouse gases. In 2010, these 76 countries were collectively responsible for 85% of annual global emissions.
By May 2012, the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada had indicated they would not sign up to a second Kyoto commitment period. In November 2012, Australia confirmed it would participate in a second commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol and New Zealand confirmed that it would not.
New Zealand's climate minister Tim Groser said the 15-year-old Kyoto Protocol was outdated, and that New Zealand was "ahead of the curve" in looking for a replacement that would include developing nations. Non-profit environmental organisations such as the World Wildlife Fund criticised New Zealand's decision to pull out.
On 8 December 2012, at the end of the 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference, an agreement was reached to extend the Protocol to 2020 and to set a date of 2015 for the development of a successor document, to be implemented from 2020 (see lede for more information). The outcome of the Doha talks has received a mixed response, with small island states critical of the overall package. The Kyoto second commitment period applies to about 11% of annual global emissions of greenhouse gases. Other results of the conference include a timetable for a global agreement to be adopted by 2015 which includes all countries. At the Doha meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC on 8 December 2012, the European Union chief climate negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger, pledged to extend the treaty, binding on the 27 European Member States, up to the year 2020 pending an internal ratification procedure.
Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United Nations, called on world leaders to come to an agreement on halting global warming during the 69th Session of the UN General Assembly on 23 September 2014 in New York. The next climate summit was held in Paris in 2015, out of which emerged the Paris Agreement, the successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
See also
- Clean Development Mechanism
- Copenhagen Accord
- Kyoto Protocol and government action
- List of climate change initiatives
- Supplementarity
References
- ^ "Status of ratification". UNFCC Homepage. Archived from the original on 4 April 2016. Retrieved 5 June 2012.
- "Kyoto Protocol on the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change" (PDF). United Nations. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 October 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2004.
- "What is the Kyoto Protocol?". UNFCCC. Archived from the original on 13 December 2023. Retrieved 31 May 2021.
- "Status of Ratification". unfccc.int. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Archived from the original on 5 September 2020. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
- ^ "7 .a Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change". UN Treaty Database. Archived from the original on 8 October 2018. Retrieved 27 November 2014.
- ^ "7 .c Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol". UN Treaty Database. Archived from the original on 4 February 2021. Retrieved 19 April 2015.
- "Nigeria, Jamaica bring closure to the Kyoto Protocol era, in last-minute dash". Climate Change News. 2 October 2020. Archived from the original on 6 April 2023. Retrieved 31 May 2021.
- "Overview of greenhouse gases - Defra, UK". Naei.beis.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 23 January 2023. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
- "Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol" (PDF). Unfcc.int. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 December 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
- ^ Shishlov, Igor; Morel, Romain; Bellassen, Valentin (2016). "Compliance of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period" (PDF). Climate Policy. 16 (6): 768–782. Bibcode:2016CliPo..16..768S. doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1164658. ISSN 1469-3062. S2CID 156120010. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 January 2023. Retrieved 5 September 2021.
- ^ "The Emissions Gap Report 2012" (PDF). United Nations Environment Programme. 2012. p. 2. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 January 2023. Retrieved 7 December 2019.
- Figueres, C. (15 December 2012), "Environmental issues: Time to abandon blame-games and become proactive - Economic Times", The Economic Times / Indiatimes.com, Times Internet, archived from the original on 23 January 2023, retrieved 18 December 2012
- "Canada pulls out of Kyoto Protocol". CBC News. 12 December 2011. Archived from the original on 11 January 2023. Retrieved 11 January 2023.
- "United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change". United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Archived from the original on 8 December 2022. Retrieved 23 July 2016.
- "A Climate Change Plan for the Purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act 2012: Canada's Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol". 11 February 2015. Archived from the original on 11 February 2015. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
- Granger Morgan *, M.; Dowlatabadi, H.; Henrion, M.; Keith, D.; Lempert, R.; McBride, S.; Small, M.; Wilbanks, T. (2009). "BOX NT.1 Summary of Climate Change Basics". Non-Technical Summary. Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2: Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decision making. A Report by the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington D.C., USA.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. p. 11. Archived from the original on 27 May 2010.
(* is Lead Author)
- ^ Grubb, M. (2004). "Kyoto and the Future of International Climate Change Responses: From Here to Where?" (PDF). International Review for Environmental Strategies. 5 (1): 2 (PDF version). Archived from the original (PDF) on 11 January 2012.
- ^ Gupta, S.; et al. (2007). "13.3.1 Evaluations of existing climate change agreements. In (book chapter): Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements.". In B. Metz; et al. (eds.). Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website. Archived from the original on 3 May 2010. Retrieved 2 April 2010.
- ^ Grubb & Depledge 2001, p. 269
- ^ "Question 7", Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations would depend upon emissions reductions beyond those agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol, archived from the original on 30 October 2012 , p.122, in IPCC TAR SYR 2001
- "Article 2". The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Archived from the original on 28 October 2005. Retrieved 15 November 2005.
Such a level should be achieved within a time-frame sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner
- ^ Meehl, G. A.; et al. (2007). "FAQ 10.3 If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?". In Solomon, S.; et al. (eds.). Global Climate Projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on 24 December 2011. Retrieved 26 December 2011.
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007). "Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change". In Solomon, S.; et al. (eds.). Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press. Archived from the original on 2 November 2018. Retrieved 26 December 2011.
- ^ "Synthesis report", 5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation, archived from the original on 27 November 2014, retrieved 17 July 2012 , in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
- ^ "Chapter 8 The challenge of stabilisation" (PDF), Sec 8.5 Pathways to stabilisation, archived from the original (PDF) on 6 October 2012, in Stern 2006, p. 199
- Höhne, N., Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Stabilization of Carbon Dioxide Concentration (PDF), Cologne, Germany: ECOFYS energy & environment, archived (PDF) from the original on 13 January 2020, retrieved 17 July 2012
- ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC, archived from the original on 16 May 2011, retrieved 30 December 2011
- Depledge 2000, p. 6.
- Liverman, D. M. (2008). "Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere" (PDF). Journal of Historical Geography. 35 (2): 279–296. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008. Archived from the original (PDF) on 12 September 2014. Retrieved 10 May 2011.
- Bashmakov, I.; et al., "Measures, and Instruments", Executive summary, archived from the original on 17 January 2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
- Clifford Chance LLP (2012). "Clean Development Mechanism: CDM and the UNFCC" "Archived copy" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 September 2013. Retrieved 19 September 2013.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link). Advocates for International Development. Retrieved: 19 September 2013. - ^ Toth, F. L.; et al., "10. Decision-making Frameworks", 10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of International Mechanisms, archived from the original on 17 January 2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
- Bashmakov, I.; et al., "6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments", 6.3 International Policies, Measures, and Instruments, archived from the original on 5 August 2009, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
- ^ Hourcade, J.-C.; et al., "8. Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation", 8.3.1 International Emissions Quota Trading Regimes, archived from the original on 11 January 2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
- Bashmakov, I.; et al., "6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments", 6.3.2 Project-based Mechanisms (Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism), archived from the original on 13 January 2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
- Fernandez Quesada, Nicolas (2013). Kyoto Protocol, Emissions Trading and Reduction Technologies for Climate Change Mitigation. Munich: GRIN Verlag GmbH. ISBN 978-3-656-47173-8. OCLC 862560217.
- International Conventions on Atmosphere Handbook. International Business Publications, USA. 3 March 2008. p. 14. ISBN 9781433066290.
- "Emissions Trading Worldwide: Status Report 2021". Berlin: International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP). Retrieved 8 August 2021.
- Olivier, J.G.J.; Peters, J.A.H.W. (2020). "Trends in global CO2 and total greenhouse gas emissions (2020)" (PDF). The Hague: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency.
- "Policy Brief: EU emissions trading". Mercator Research Institute on Global Commons and Climate Change. Archived from the original on 2 March 2022. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
- Yuan, Lin (22 July 2021). "China's national carbon market exceeds expectations". Archived from the original on 4 November 2022. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
- "Carbon Price Viewer". EMBER. Archived from the original on 2 March 2023. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
- ^ Carbon Trust 2009, p. 24.
- Carbon Trust 2009, pp. 24–25.
- World Bank (2008), Development and Climate Change: A Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group: Technical Report, Washington, DC, USA: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank., archived from the original on 24 December 2009, retrieved 3 April 2010
- ^ Carbon Trust 2009, p. 25.
- Hourcade, J.-C.; et al. (2001). "8.3.1.1 "Where Flexibility"". In B. Metz; et al. (eds.). 8. Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation. Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. A Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 538. Archived from the original on 11 January 2012.
- Blyth, W.; Baron, R. (2003), Green Investment Schemes: Options and Issues (PDF), Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Environment Directorate and International Energy Agency (IEA), p. 11, archived (PDF) from the original on 22 December 2011, retrieved 16 December 2011 OECD reference: COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)9
- Chiavari, J.; Pallemaerts, M. (30 June 2008), Energy and Climate Change in Russia (note requested by the European Parliament's temporary committee on Climate Change, Policy Department Economy and Science, DG Internal Policies, European Parliament) (PDF), Brussels, Belgium: Institute for European Environmental Policy, p. 11, archived from the original (PDF) on 22 December 2011
- ^ Carbon Finance at the World Bank (2011), Carbon Finance - Glossary of Terms: Definition of "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS), Washington, DC, US: World Bank Carbon Finance Unit (CFU), archived from the original on 17 August 2010, retrieved 15 December 2011
- ^ World Bank (2011), State and Trends of the Carbon Market Report 2011 (PDF), Washington, DC, USA: World Bank Environment Department, Carbon Finance Unit, archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2020, retrieved 26 January 2012
- Government of Japan (28 March 2008), Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan (Provisional Translation) (PDF), Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan, pp. 81–82, archived (PDF) from the original on 20 April 2012, retrieved 26 January 2012
- World Bank 2010.
- Carbon Trust 2009.
- Dessai 2001, p. 3
- Baede, A.P.M. (ed.), "Annex II", Glossary: Land use and Land-use change, archived from the original on 1 May 2010, retrieved 28 May 2010, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
- Robert T. Watson, Ian R. Noble, Bert Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath, David J. Verardo and David J. Dokken (editors), 2000, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry, Cambridge University Press, UK
- ^ Dessai 2001, p. 9
- Grubb 2003, p. 147
- 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" calculated for the IPCC Second Assessment Report. These figures are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions 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 its third session, held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December 1997, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 25 March 1998. Archived (PDF) from the original on 23 August 2000. Retrieved 13 February 2010.
- "Industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2%" (Press release). United Nations Environment Programme. 11 December 1997. Archived from the original on 14 October 2007. Retrieved 6 August 2007.
- ^ UNFCCC (25 October 2005), Sixth compilation and synthesis of initial national communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention. Note by the secretariat. Executive summary. Document code FCCC/SBI/2005/18, United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland, archived from the original on 15 November 2023, retrieved 20 May 2010
- ^ "Kyoto Protocol - Targets for the first commitment period". United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Archived from the original on 26 September 2023. Retrieved 28 January 2019.
- Adam, David (2 December 2007), "UK to seek pact on shipping and aviation pollution at climate talks", The Guardian
- "Proposal to amend Annexes I and II to remove the name of Turkey and to amend Annex I to add the name of Kazakhstan". unfccc.int. Archived from the original on 28 July 2020. Retrieved 22 April 2020.
- "Kyoto burden-sharing targets for EU-15 countries". European Environment Agency (EEA). 12 November 2009. Archived from the original on 22 December 2018. Retrieved 28 January 2019.
- ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2008), Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual On Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount (PDF), Bonn, Germany: Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC), p. 55, ISBN 978-92-9219-055-2, archived (PDF) from the original on 29 April 2010, retrieved 30 December 2011
- ^ Grubb 2003, p. 144
- ^ Liverman 2009, p. 290
- "Part II: Selected Development Indicators" (PDF), Table A1: Energy-related emissions: Indicator: per capita (metric tons), archived (PDF) from the original on 1 November 2012, retrieved 31 August 2012, in World Bank 2010, p. 370
- Dessai 2001, p. 4
- G-77 2011
- ^ Grubb 2003, pp. 145–146
- "Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Annex B". United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. n.d. Retrieved 8 October 2011.
- "Kyoto 1st commitment period (2008–12)". European Commission. Archived from the original on 21 December 2016. Retrieved 15 March 2020.
- ^ Liverman 2009, p. 291
- ^ Grubb 2003, p. 148
- ^ Grubb 2003, p. 151
- Depledge 2000, p. 46
- Depledge 2000, p. 44
- Depledge 2000, p. 45
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Conference of the Parties - Sixteenth Session: Decision 1/CP.16: The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (English): Paragraph 4 (PDF), Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC Secretariat, p. 3, archived (PDF) from the original on 13 January 2020, retrieved 17 July 2012
- International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010), "13. Energy and the ultimate climate change target" (PDF), World Energy Outlook 2010, Paris, France: IEA, p. 380, ISBN 978-92-64-08624-1, archived from the original (PDF) on 15 July 2012, retrieved 17 July 2012
- Levin, K.; Bradley, R. (February 2010), Working Paper: Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges (PDF), Washington DC, USA: World Resources Institute, p. 16, archived (PDF) from the original on 13 May 2013, retrieved 17 July 2012
- ^ Gupta, S.; et al., "Chapter 13: Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements", Box 13.7 The range of the difference between emissions in 1990 and emission allowances in 2020/2050 for various GHG concentration levels for Annex I and non-Annex I countries as a group, archived from the original on 10 December 2012, retrieved 17 July 2012 , in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
- King, D.; et al. (July 2011), "Copenhagen and Cancun", International climate change negotiations: Key lessons and next steps (PDF), Oxford, UK: Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, p. 12, archived from the original (PDF) on 13 January 2012
- "AF - Adaptation Fund". www.adaptation-fund.org. Archived from the original on 1 January 2011. Retrieved 20 June 2011.
- International Institute for Sustainable Development, Sixth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change: Resumed Session Archived 28 July 2020 at the Wayback Machine, accessed 27 May 2020
- "The Kyoto protocol – A brief summary". European Commission. Archived from the original on 10 August 2009. Retrieved 19 April 2007.
- "Kyoto Protocol". UNFCCC. 14 May 2008. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008. Retrieved 21 May 2009.
- Maljean-Dubois, S. "Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change". Synthèse, n° 01, 2007. Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations. Archived from the original on 10 November 2009. Retrieved 11 July 2008.
- ^ Grubb 2003, p. 157
- Victor, David G. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 2004.
- "An Introduction to the Kyoto Protocol Compliance Mechanism". UNFCC. Archived from the original on 14 May 2021. Retrieved 30 October 2006.
- "The Kyoto Protocol full text (PDF)" (PDF). UNFCC Homepage. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 October 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2004.
- "European Union ratifies the Kyoto Protocol" (Press release). European Union. 31 May 2002. Archived from the original on 17 December 2009. Retrieved 13 February 2010.
- West, Larry. "What is the Kyoto Protocol". About.com (Part of NYT). Archived from the original on 2 March 2012. Retrieved 5 June 2012.
- "Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification" (PDF). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 14 January 2009. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 March 2009. Retrieved 6 May 2009.
- "Congressional Research Service Reports #98-349: Global Climate Change: Selected Legal Questions About the Kyoto Protocol". Archived from the original on 6 May 2014. Retrieved 22 April 2014.
- Byrd-Hagel Resolution ("Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98) Expressing the Sense of the Senate Regarding Conditions for the U.S. Signing the Global Climate Change Treaty". Archived from the original on 26 June 2010. Retrieved 14 December 2014.)
- "Clinton Hails Global Warming Pact" Archived 2 May 2009 at the Wayback Machine. All Politics (CNN). 11 December 1997. Retrieved 5 November 2006.
- "ParlInfo - GRIEVANCE DEBATE: Environment: Greenhouse Policy". parlinfo.aph.gov.au. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
- "Text of a Letter From The President". georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov. Archived from the original on 22 July 2009. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
- Dessler, Andrew E. (2021). Introduction to Modern Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 234. ISBN 978-1-108-84018-7.
- ^ Dessai 2001, pp. 5–6
- "United Nations Treaty Collection". treaties.un.org. Archived from the original on 8 October 2018. Retrieved 27 December 2014.
- Weiner, John Barlow; Bankobeza, Gilbert; Block, Kitty; Fraenkel, Amy; Hobgood, Teresa; Mattice, Alice; Wagner, David W. (2003). "International Environmental Law". The International Lawyer. 37 (2): 575–587. ISSN 0020-7810. JSTOR 40707857. Archived from the original on 27 June 2022. Retrieved 27 June 2022.
- Dessai 2001, pp. 5–10
- ^ "Canada pulls out of Kyoto protocol". The Guardian. 13 December 2011. Archived from the original on 17 December 2019. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
- "Canada withdrawing from Kyoto". The Toronto Star. 12 December 2011. Archived from the original on 7 January 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2011.
- Ljunggren, David; Palmer, Randall (13 December 2011). "Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol". Financial Post. Reuters. Archived from the original on 9 January 2012. Retrieved 9 January 2012.
- ^ "Canada under fire over Kyoto protocol exit". BBC News. 13 December 2011. Archived from the original on 19 November 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
- "Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change". Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Netherlands). Archived from the original on 3 February 2014. Retrieved 30 December 2012.
- ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Compilation and synthesis of fifth national communications. Executive summary. Note by the secretariat. (PDF), Geneva (Switzerland): United Nations Office at Geneva, archived (PDF) from the original on 23 April 2022, retrieved 9 December 2011
- ^ Olivier, J. G. J.; et al. (21 September 2011), Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions; 2011 report (PDF), The Hague, Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC), ISBN 978-90-78645-68-9, archived from the original (PDF) on 21 December 2011, retrieved 9 December 2011 PBL publication number 500253004. JRC Technical Note number JRC65918.
- "Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol" (PDF). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 2012. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 December 2022. Retrieved 13 December 2019.
- Vaughan, A (13 December 2011). "What does Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto protocol mean?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 19 April 2015. Retrieved 17 December 2011.
- International Energy Agency (IEA) (2011), CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2011 - Highlights (PDF), Paris, France: IEA, p. 13, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 February 2012, retrieved 9 December 2011
- ^ Gupta, S.; et al., "Chapter 13: Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements", Executive Summary, archived from the original on 15 May 2012, retrieved 31 August 2012 , in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
- International Energy Agency (IEA). CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion - 2011 Highlights (PDF). Paris, France: IEA. p. 12. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2 February 2012. Retrieved 31 August 2012.
- ^ 5. Integrating development into a global climate regime (PDF), archived (PDF) from the original on 12 June 2013, retrieved 31 August 2012, in World Bank 2010, p. 233
- 5. Integrating development into a global climate regime (PDF), archived (PDF) from the original on 12 June 2013, retrieved 31 August 2012, in World Bank 2010, p. 248
- Aldy, J. E.; et al. (9 September 2003). "Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Policy Architectures" (PDF). Climate Policy. 3 (4): 373–397. Bibcode:2003CliPo...3..373A. doi:10.1016/j.clipol.2003.09.004. hdl:10419/118092. S2CID 219598167. Archived (PDF) from the original on 6 May 2020. Retrieved 2 April 2010.
- The joint-statement was made by the Australian Academy of Science, the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Canada, the Caribbean Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the French Academy of Sciences, the German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, the Indian National Science Academy, the Indonesian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), the Academy of Sciences Malaysia, the Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the Royal Society (UK). The Science of Climate Change (Joint statement by 17 National Science Academies) (PDF), London, UK: Royal Society, 17 May 2001, ISBN 978-0854035588, archived (PDF) from the original on 19 April 2015, retrieved 14 April 2013. Statement website Archived 13 May 2013 at the Wayback Machine at the UK Royal Society. Also published as: Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences the Arts; Royal Society of Canada; German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina; Indian National Science Academy; Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy); Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences; Royal Society (UK) (18 May 2001), "Joint statement: The Science of Climate Change (editorial)", Science, 292 (5520): 1261, doi:10.1126/science.292.5520.1261, PMID 11360966, S2CID 129309907
- Grubb, M. (April 2000). "The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Appraisal. FEEM Working Paper No. 30 2000". SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.229280. hdl:10419/155084. S2CID 54779393. SSRN 229280.
{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires|journal=(help) - ^ 22. Creating a global price for carbon (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 18 August 2012, in Stern 2006, p. 478
- "Govt still not serious about climate change: Labor". ABC News Online. 26 October 2006. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007. Retrieved 30 October 2006.
- "Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto". BBC News. 3 December 2007. Archived from the original on 10 September 2008. Retrieved 5 December 2007.
- "Australia's Rudd sworn in as PM". BBC News. BBC. 3 December 2007. Archived from the original on 3 December 2007. Retrieved 3 December 2007.
- PBL (16 October 2009). "Industrialised countries will collectively meet 2010 Kyoto target". Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) website. Archived from the original on 9 April 2010. Retrieved 3 April 2010.
- ^ Toth et al. summarize the arguments for and against flexibility: Toth, F. L.; et al., "Ch 10: Decision-making Frameworks", Sec 10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of International Mechanisms, archived from the original on 17 January 2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
- Banuri, T.; et al., "Ch 1: Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Sustainable Development", Sec 1.3.3 How Has Global Climate Policy Treated Equity?, archived from the original on 30 October 2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
- Part III: How good (or bad) are the Mechanisms?, in Carbon Trust 2009, pp. 53–79
- Schneider, L. (5 November 2007), "Ch 5: Overall conclusions", Is the CDM fulfilling its environmental and sustainable development objectives? An evaluation of the CDM and options for improvement. A report prepared for the WWF, Berlin, Germany: Institute for Applied Ecology, pp. 72–73, archived from the original on 15 April 2013
- Spash 2010
- United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (2009), "VI. Financing the development response to climate change" (PDF), World Economic and Social Survey 2009: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet, New York, USA: United Nations, p. 162, ISBN 978-92-1-109159-5, archived (PDF) from the original on 17 June 2013, retrieved 28 June 2017
- Spash 2010, p. 185
- ^ Geoffrey Wells; Janet Ratnanunga (1 January 2013). "5 - Carbon accounting and carbon auditing for business". Sustainable Business: Theory and Practice of Business Under Sustainability Principles. Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 89. ISBN 9781781001868. OCLC 1027999644.
- ^ Stoddard, Isak; Anderson, Kevin; Capstick, Stuart; Carton, Wim; Depledge, Joanna; Facer, Keri; Gough, Clair; Hache, Frederic; Hoolohan, Claire; Hultman, Martin; Hällström, Niclas; Kartha, Sivan; Klinsky, Sonja; Kuchler, Magdalena; Lövbrand, Eva; Nasiritousi, Naghmeh; Newell, Peter; Peters, Glen P.; Sokona, Youba; Stirling, Andy; Stilwell, Matthew; Spash, Clive L.; Williams, Mariama; et al. (18 October 2021). "Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve?" (PDF). Annual Review of Environment and Resources. 46 (1): 653–689. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104. hdl:1983/93c742bc-4895-42ac-be81-535f36c5039d. ISSN 1543-5938. S2CID 233815004. Retrieved 31 August 2022.
- "Politicians sign new climate pact". BBC. 16 February 2007. Archived from the original on 5 May 2007. Retrieved 28 May 2007.
- "Global leaders reach climate change agreement". The Guardian. UK. 16 February 2007. Archived from the original on 5 June 2007. Retrieved 28 May 2007.
- Adam, David (25 March 2009). "Why the Copenhagen climate change cliffhanger could drag on a little longer". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 6 September 2013. Retrieved 14 April 2009.
- Adam, David (14 April 2009). "World will not meet 2C warming target, climate change experts agree". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 6 September 2013. Retrieved 14 April 2009.
The poll comes as UN negotiations to agree a new global treaty to regulate carbon pollution gather pace in advance of a key meeting in Copenhagen in December. Officials will try to agree a successor to the Kyoto protocol, the first phase of which expires in 2012.
- ^ King, D.; et al. (July 2011), "Copenhagen and Cancun", International climate change negotiations: Key lessons and next steps (PDF), Oxford, UK: Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, p. 12, archived from the original (PDF) on 13 January 2012
- United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (November 2012), The Emissions Gap Report 2012 (PDF), Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP, pp. 14–18, archived from the original (PDF) on 13 May 2016, retrieved 10 December 2012 Executive summary in other languages Archived 13 May 2016 at the Portuguese Web Archive
- Murray, James (16 May 2012). "Bonn climate talks: EU plays down talk of Kyoto protocol rift". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 19 April 2015. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
A number of large emitters, including the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada, have signalled they will not sign up to Kyoto or to a second commitment period of Kyoto, while large emerging economies will only sign up to an agreement that does not impose binding emission reduction targets on them.
- Harvey, Fiona (9 November 2012). "Kyoto protocol: Australia signs up to second phase". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 3 September 2014. Retrieved 21 November 2012.
- "Groser defends quitting Kyoto Protocol". 3 News NZ. 3 December 2012. Archived from the original on 1 July 2014. Retrieved 7 December 2018.
- "NZ's climate reputation 'nosedive'". 3 News NZ. 10 December 2012. Archived from the original on 1 July 2014. Retrieved 7 December 2018.
- "UN climate talks extend Kyoto Protocol, promise compensation". BBC News. 8 December 2012. Archived from the original on 16 July 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
- UN Climate Change Secretariat (8 December 2012), Doha climate conference opens gateway to greater ambition and action on climate change (press release) (PDF), Bonn, Germany: UN Climate Change Secretariat, archived from the original (PDF) on 30 March 2013, p.2.
- "Event: 69th Session of the UN General Assembly (UNGA 69) | SDG Knowledge Hub". Sd.iisd.org. Archived from the original on 10 March 2016. Retrieved 6 October 2014.
Sources
- Carbon Trust (March 2009), Global Carbon Mechanisms: Emerging lessons and implications (CTC748), Carbon Trust, archived from the original on 4 May 2013, retrieved 24 July 2012
- Depledge, J. (25 November 2000), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Technical paper: Tracing the Origins of the Kyoto Protocol: An Article-by-Article Textual History (PDF), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, archived (PDF) from the original on 7 August 2009, retrieved 11 August 2009
- Dessai, S. (December 2001), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12: The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?, Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre, archived from the original on 31 October 2012
- G-77 (22 November 2011), The Group of 77 - Member States, The Group of 77, archived from the original on 2 November 2012, retrieved 22 October 2012
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Grubb, M. (July–September 2003), "The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol", World Economics, 4 (3), CiteSeerX 10.1.1.163.1719
- Grubb, M.; Depledge, J. (2001), "The Seven Myths of Kyoto" (PDF), Climate Policy, 1 (2): 269–272, Bibcode:2001CliPo...1..269G, doi:10.3763/cpol.2001.0126, S2CID 219597384, archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2011
- IPCC TAR WG3 (2001), Metz, B.; Davidson, O.; Swart, R.; Pan, J.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-80769-2, archived from the original on 27 February 2017
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 0-521-01502-2). - IPCC TAR SYR (2001), Watson, R. T.; Core Writing Team (eds.), Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report (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 978-0-521-80770-8, archived from the original on 3 November 2018, retrieved 17 July 2012 (pb: 0-521-01507-3).
- IPCC AR4 WG3 (2007), Metz, B.; Davidson, O. R.; Bosch, P. R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L. A. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III (WG3) to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4, archived from the original on 12 October 2014, retrieved 17 July 2012
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) (pb: 978-0-521-70598-1). - IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), Core Writing Team; Pachauri, R.K.; Reisinger, A. (eds.), Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (SYR), Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland: IPCC, ISBN 978-92-9169-122-7, archived from the original on 3 November 2018, retrieved 17 July 2012
{{citation}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link). - Liverman, D.M. (2009), "Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere" (PDF), Journal of Historical Geography, 35 (2): 279–296, doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008, archived from the original (PDF) on 12 September 2014
- Spash, C.L. (2010), "The Brave New World of Carbon Trading" (PDF), New Political Economy, 15 (2): 169–195, doi:10.1080/13563460903556049, S2CID 44071002, archived from the original (PDF) on 10 May 2013
- Stern, N. (2006), Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change (pre-publication edition), London, UK: HM Treasury, archived from the original on 7 April 2010
- World Bank (2010), "World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change", Climate and Development, 2 (3), Washington DC, USA: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank: 299, Bibcode:2010CliDe...2..299M, doi:10.3763/cdev.2010.0046, S2CID 154615933, archived from the original on 9 March 2012, retrieved 10 April 2012
External links
- Protocol text (HTML Archived 25 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine and PDF Archived 5 October 2011 at the Wayback Machine), 2007 Archived 17 June 2013 at the Wayback Machine and 2012 amendment
- List of countries who have ratified, accepted, approved, or accessed the Kyoto Protocol Archived 17 April 2021 at the Wayback Machine, its first amendment Archived 17 April 2021 at the Wayback Machine (Targets for Belarus) and its second amendment Archived 1 June 2023 at the Wayback Machine (extension period 2012–2020)
- Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change at Law-Ref.org – fully indexed and crosslinked with other documents
- The layman's guide to the Kyoto Protocol Archived 14 August 2009 at the Wayback Machine
- Environmental treaties
- 1997 in Japan
- 2005 in the environment
- Carbon dioxide
- Carbon finance
- December 1997 events in Japan
- History of Kyoto
- Treaties concluded in 1997
- Treaties entered into by the European Union
- Treaties entered into force in 2005
- Treaties extended to Bermuda
- Treaties extended to Gibraltar
- Treaties extended to Greenland
- Treaties extended to Guernsey
- Treaties extended to Hong Kong
- Treaties extended to Jersey
- Treaties extended to Macau
- Treaties extended to the Isle of Man
- Treaties extended to the Cayman Islands
- Treaties extended to the Falkland Islands
- Treaties extended to the Faroe Islands
- Treaties of Afghanistan
- Treaties of Albania
- Treaties of Algeria
- Treaties of Angola
- Treaties of Antigua and Barbuda
- Treaties of Argentina
- Treaties of Armenia
- Treaties of Australia
- Treaties of Austria
- Treaties of Azerbaijan
- Treaties of Bahrain
- Treaties of Bangladesh
- Treaties of Barbados
- Treaties of Belarus
- Treaties of Belgium
- Treaties of Belize
- Treaties of Benin
- Treaties of Bhutan
- Treaties of Bolivia
- Treaties of Bosnia and Herzegovina
- Treaties of Botswana
- Treaties of Brazil
- Treaties of Brunei
- Treaties of Bulgaria
- Treaties of Burkina Faso
- Treaties of Burundi
- Treaties of Cambodia
- Treaties of Cameroon
- Treaties of Cape Verde
- Treaties of Chad
- Treaties of Chile
- Treaties of Colombia
- Treaties of Costa Rica
- Treaties of Croatia
- Treaties of Cuba
- Treaties of Cyprus
- Treaties of Denmark
- Treaties of Djibouti
- Treaties of Dominica
- Treaties of Timor-Leste
- Treaties of Ecuador
- Treaties of Egypt
- Treaties of El Salvador
- Treaties of Equatorial Guinea
- Treaties of Eritrea
- Treaties of Eswatini
- Treaties of Estonia
- Treaties of Ethiopia
- Treaties of Fiji
- Treaties of Finland
- Treaties of France
- Treaties of Gabon
- Treaties of Georgia (country)
- Treaties of Germany
- Treaties of Ghana
- Treaties of Greece
- Treaties of Grenada
- Treaties of Guatemala
- Treaties of Guinea
- Treaties of Guinea-Bissau
- Treaties of Guyana
- Treaties of Haiti
- Treaties of Honduras
- Treaties of Hungary
- Treaties of Iceland
- Treaties of India
- Treaties of Indonesia
- Treaties of Iran
- Treaties of Iraq
- Treaties of Ireland
- Treaties of Israel
- Treaties of Italy
- Treaties of Ivory Coast
- Treaties of Jamaica
- Treaties of Japan
- Treaties of Jordan
- Treaties of Kazakhstan
- Treaties of Kenya
- Treaties of Kiribati
- Treaties of Kuwait
- Treaties of Kyrgyzstan
- Treaties of Laos
- Treaties of Latvia
- Treaties of Lebanon
- Treaties of Lesotho
- Treaties of Liberia
- Treaties of Liechtenstein
- Treaties of Lithuania
- Treaties of Luxembourg
- Treaties of Madagascar
- Treaties of Malawi
- Treaties of Malaysia
- Treaties of Mali
- Treaties of Malta
- Treaties of Mauritania
- Treaties of Mauritius
- Treaties of Mexico
- Treaties of Moldova
- Treaties of Monaco
- Treaties of Mongolia
- Treaties of Montenegro
- Treaties of Morocco
- Treaties of Mozambique
- Treaties of Myanmar
- Treaties of Namibia
- Treaties of Nauru
- Treaties of Nepal
- Treaties of New Zealand
- Treaties of Nicaragua
- Treaties of Niger
- Treaties of Nigeria
- Treaties of Niue
- Treaties of North Korea
- Treaties of North Macedonia
- Treaties of Norway
- Treaties of Oman
- Treaties of Pakistan
- Treaties of Palau
- Treaties of Panama
- Treaties of Papua New Guinea
- Treaties of Paraguay
- Treaties of Peru
- Treaties of Poland
- Treaties of Portugal
- Treaties of Qatar
- Treaties of Romania
- Treaties of Russia
- Treaties of Rwanda
- Treaties of Saint Kitts and Nevis
- Treaties of Saint Lucia
- Treaties of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
- Treaties of Samoa
- Treaties of San Marino
- Treaties of São Tomé and Príncipe
- Treaties of Saudi Arabia
- Treaties of Senegal
- Treaties of Serbia
- Treaties of Seychelles
- Treaties of Sierra Leone
- Treaties of Singapore
- Treaties of Slovakia
- Treaties of Slovenia
- Treaties of South Africa
- Treaties of South Korea
- Treaties of Spain
- Treaties of Sri Lanka
- Treaties of Suriname
- Treaties of Sweden
- Treaties of Switzerland
- Treaties of Syria
- Treaties of Tajikistan
- Treaties of Tanzania
- Treaties of Thailand
- Treaties of the Bahamas
- Treaties of the Central African Republic
- Treaties of the Comoros
- Treaties of the Cook Islands
- Treaties of the Czech Republic
- Treaties of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
- Treaties of the Dominican Republic
- Treaties of the Federated States of Micronesia
- Treaties of the Gambia
- Treaties of the Islamic State of Afghanistan
- Treaties of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya
- Treaties of the Maldives
- Treaties of the Marshall Islands
- Treaties of the Netherlands
- Treaties of the People's Republic of China
- Treaties of the Philippines
- Treaties of the Republic of the Congo
- Treaties of the Republic of the Sudan (1985–2011)
- Treaties of the Solomon Islands
- Treaties of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia
- Treaties of the United Arab Emirates
- Treaties of the United Kingdom
- Treaties of Togo
- Treaties of Tonga
- Treaties of Trinidad and Tobago
- Treaties of Tunisia
- Treaties of Turkey
- Treaties of Turkmenistan
- Treaties of Tuvalu
- Treaties of Uganda
- Treaties of Ukraine
- Treaties of Uruguay
- Treaties of Uzbekistan
- Treaties of Vanuatu
- Treaties of Venezuela
- Treaties of Vietnam
- Treaties of Yemen
- Treaties of Zambia
- Treaties of Zimbabwe
- United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
- History of climate variability and change