Misplaced Pages

Kyoto Protocol: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 15:10, 12 October 2007 editGregorB (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers185,113 editsm →Increase in greenhouse gas emission since 1990: Ref fmt← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:03, 26 December 2024 edit undoJJMC89 bot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Administrators3,687,180 editsm Moving Category:Treaties of East Timor to Category:Treaties of Timor-Leste per Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Speedy 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|1997 international treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions}}
{{sprot}}
{{About|the international treaty|the rock band|Kyoto Protocol (band)}}
{{Copyedit|date=May 2007}}
<noinclude>{{Infobox Treaty
{{Treatybox|
treaty_name=Kyoto Protocol | name = Kyoto Protocol
| long_name = Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC
|colour_scheme=background:mediumseagreen
| image = Kyoto Protocol parties.svg
|image=]
| image_width = 355
|caption=The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the ]
| 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_signed=] ]
| date_drafted =
|place_signed=]
| date_signed = {{dts|11 December 1997}}<ref name=parties/>
|date_entered_into_force=], ].
| location_signed = ], ]
|conditions_for_entry_into_force=55 parties and at least 55% ] 1990 emissions by ] parties.
| date_sealed =
|parties=] (as of December 2006)
| date_effective = 16 February 2005<ref name=parties/>
|}}
| condition_effective = Ratification by at least 55 states to the Convention
The '''Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change''' is an amendment to the international ] on ], assigning mandatory emission limitations for the reduction of ] emissions to the signatory nations.
| 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>
| signatories = 84<ref name=parties/> (1998–1999 signing period)
| 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 = ]
| language =
| languages = Arabic, Mandarin, English, French, Russian, and Spanish
| website =
| wikisource = Kyoto Protocol
}}</noinclude>
<noinclude>{{Infobox Treaty
| name = Kyoto Protocol Extension (2012–2020)
| long_name = Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol
| type = Amendment to international agreement
| image = Doha Amendment of Kyoto.svg
| image_width = 350
| 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
| location_signed = ], ]
| date_sealed =
| date_effective = 31 December 2020<ref name=DOHARAT/>
| 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>
| signatories = <!--there is only ratification/acception...-->
| 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 =
| language =
| languages =
| website =
| wikisource = Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol
}}</noinclude>
{{Use dmy dates|date=August 2020}}
]]]
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 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 objective of the protocol is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."<ref>{{cite web | title=Article 2| work=The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | url=http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php | accessmonthday=November 15 | accessyear=2005 }}</ref>


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.
As of June 2007, a total of 172 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries).<ref>{{cite web | title=Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification, 10 July 2006 (PDF) |publisher=UNFCC| url=http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf | accessmonthday=October 30 | accessyear=2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.climnet.org/EUenergy/ratification/calendar.htm |title=Climate Action Network Europe: Ratification Calendar |accessmonthday=October 30 |accessyear=2006}} </ref> Notable exceptions include the ] and ]. Other countries, like ] and ], which have ratified the protocol, are not required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement.


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>
There is some debate about the usefulness of the protocol, and there have been some ] studies performed.


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.
== Description ==
{{See also|Global warming}}
The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the ]. ] that ] this ] commit to reduce their emissions of ] and five other ]es, or engage in ] if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.


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.
The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and more than 60% of countries in terms of global greenhouse gas emissions. This treaty expires in 2012, and international talks began in May 2007 on a future treaty to succeed the current one.<ref>, by Arthur Max, Associated press, 5/14/07.
</ref>


== Chronology ==
At its heart, the Kyoto Protocol establishes the following principles:
{{See also|History of climate change policy and politics|United Nations Climate Change Conference}}
* Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global legislation enacted under the ] aegis;
* Governments are separated into two general categories: developed countries, referred to as Annex I countries (who have accepted greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations and must submit an annual ]); and developing countries, referred to as Non-Annex I countries (who have no greenhouse gas emission reduction obligations but may participate in the ]);
* Any Annex I country that fails to meet its Kyoto obligation will be penalized by having to submit 1.3 emission allowances in a second commitment period for every ton of greenhouse gas emissions they exceed their cap in the first commitment period (i.e., 2008-2012);
* By 2008-2012, Annex I countries have to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by a collective average of 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as the ] member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their expected greenhouse gas emissions in 2008). While the average emissions reduction is 5%, national limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union to a 10% emissions increase for ]; but since the EU intends to meet its obligation by distributing different rates among its member states,<ref>{{cite web | title=The Kyoto protocol - A brief summary | work=European Commission | url=http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.htm | accessdate=2007-04-19 }}</ref> much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of the less developed EU countries (see below ]). Reduction limitations expire in 2013;
* Kyoto includes "flexible mechanisms" which allow Annex I economies to meet their greenhouse gas emission limitation by purchasing GHG emission reductions from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges, from projects which reduce emissions in non-Annex I economies under the ] (CDM), from other Annex 1 countries under the JI, or from Annex I countries with excess allowances. Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner. Under the aegis of the UN, Kyoto established this ] Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board to assess and approve projects (“CDM Projects”) in Non-Annex I economies prior to awarding CERs. (A similar scheme called “]” or “JI” applies in transitional economies mainly covering the ] and ]).


'''1992''' – The UN Conference on the Environment and Development is held in Rio de Janeiro. It results in the ] (UNFCCC) among other agreements.
What this means in practice is that Non-Annex I economies have no GHG emission restrictions, but when a greenhouse gas emission reduction project (a “Greenhouse Gas Project”) is implemented in these countries, that Greenhouse Gas Project will receive ] which can be sold to Annex I buyers.


'''1995''' – Parties to the UNFCCC meet in Berlin (the 1st Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC) to outline specific targets on emissions.
These Kyoto mechanisms are in place for two main reasons:
* The cost of complying with Kyoto is prohibitive {{Fact|date=January 2007}} for many {{Fact|date=January 2007}} Annex I countries (especially those countries, such as ] or the ] for example, with highly efficient, low greenhouse gas polluting industries, and high prevailing ]s). Kyoto therefore allows these countries to purchase Carbon Credits instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions domestically; and,
* This is seen as a means of encouraging Non-Annex I developing economies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions since doing so is now economically viable because of the sale of Carbon Credits.


'''1997''' – In December the parties conclude the Kyoto Protocol in Kyoto, Japan, in which they agree to the broad outlines of emissions targets.
All the Annex I economies have established Designated National Authorities to manage their greenhouse gas portfolios under Kyoto. Countries including Japan, ], ], the Netherlands, ], ], ] and many more, are actively promoting government carbon funds and supporting multilateral carbon funds intent on purchasing Carbon Credits from Non-Annex I countries. These government organizations are working closely with their major utility, energy, oil & gas and chemicals conglomerates to try to acquire as many Greenhouse Gas Certificates as cheaply as possible.


'''2004''' – Russia and Canada ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC bringing the treaty into effect on 16 February 2005.
Virtually all of the Non-Annex I countries have also set up their own Designated National Authorities to manage the Kyoto process (and specifically the “CDM process” whereby these host government entities decide which Greenhouse Gas Projects they do or do not wish to support for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board).


'''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>
The objectives of these opposing groups are quite different. Annex I entities want Carbon Credits as cheaply as possible, whilst Non-Annex I entities want to maximize the value of Carbon Credits generated from their domestic Greenhouse Gas Projects.


'''2012''' – On 31 December 2012, the first commitment period under the Protocol expired.
==Objectives==
] emissions of ].]]


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 ].
The objective is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system."<ref>{{cite web | title=Article 2| work=The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | url=http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php | accessmonthday=November 15 | accessyear=2005 }}</ref>


==Objectives==
The ] (IPCC) has predicted an average global rise in ] of 1.4°] (2.5°]) to 5.8&nbsp;°C (10.4°]) between 1990 and 2100).<ref>{{cite web | title=Executive Summary. Chapter 9: Projections of Future Climate Change | work=Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis | url=http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/339.htm | accessmonthday=November 15 | accessyear=2005 }}</ref>
{{Multiple image
|direction=vertical
| align=left
| image1= Major greenhouse gas trends.png
| alt1=Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations
| 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
| caption1=Kyoto is intended to cut ] emissions of ]es.
| 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>
}}


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">
Proponents also note that Kyoto is a first step<ref>{{cite web | last = Wigley | first = Tom | title = The effect of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming | date = Spring 2006 | url = http://www.ucar.edu/news/record/ | accessdate=2006-10-30 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | last = Wigley | first = Tom | title= The Kyoto Protocol: CO2, CH4, and climate implications | journal =Geophys. Res. Lett. | volume=25 | issue= 13 |pages= 2285 | publisher=] |url=http://www.agu.org/pubs/abs/gl/98GL01855/98GL01855.html | accessdate=March 4 | accessyear=2006 }}</ref> as requirements to meet the UNFCCC will be modified until the objective is met, as required by UNFCCC Article 4.2(d).<ref>{{cite web | title=Article 4 | work=The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | url=http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1362.php | accessmonthday=November 15 | accessyear=2005 }}</ref>
{{cite journal
|last = Grubb
|first = M.
|year = 2004
|title = Kyoto and the Future of International Climate Change Responses: From Here to Where?
|journal = International Review for Environmental Strategies
|volume = 5
|issue = 1
|page = 2 (PDF version)
|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
|archive-date = 11 January 2012
|df = dmy-all
}}
</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.
==Status of the agreement==
] The treaty was negotiated in ] in December 1997, opened for signature on ], ], and closed on ], ]. The agreement came into force on ], ] following ratification by ] on ], ]. As of December 2006, a total of 169 countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries).<ref>{{cite web | title=Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification, 10 July 2006 (PDF) |publisher=UNFCC| url=http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf | accessmonthday=October 30 | accessyear=2006 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.climnet.org/EUenergy/ratification/calendar.htm |title=Climate Action Network Europe: Ratification Calendar |accessmonthday=October 30 |accessyear=2006}} </ref>


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">
According to article 25 of the protocol, it 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 Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession." Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached on ] ] when ] ratified. The ratification by Russia on ] ] satisfied the "55%" clause and brought the treaty into force, effective ], ].
{{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
{{expand-section|date=May 2007}}<!--What does the protocol being "in force" entail?-->
|title=Article 2
|work=The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
|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
|access-date=15 November 2005
|url-status=dead
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20051028023600/http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php
|archive-date= 28 October 2005
}}</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 ].<ref name="2007 meehl stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of GHGs">{{cite book
==Details of the agreement==
|year = 2007
According to a press release from the ]:
|contribution = FAQ 10.3 If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?
|url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html
|last = Meehl
|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
|access-date = 26 December 2011
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20111224051815/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html
|archive-date = 24 December 2011
|url-status = dead
|df = dmy-all
}}</ref> ] ({{CO2}}) is the most important anthropogenic GHG.<ref>{{cite book
| year=2007
| contribution=Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change
| url=http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html
| author=Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
| title=Summary for Policymakers
| series=Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC
| editor=Solomon, S.
| publisher=Cambridge University Press
| display-editors=etal
| access-date=26 December 2011
| 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}}
:"''The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of ]es by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this limitation represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - ], ], ], ], ], and ] - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland.<ref>{{cite pressrelease | url=http://unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/info/indust.htm | title=Industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% | publisher=] | date=] | accessdate=2007-08-06 }}</ref>
, 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>
It is an agreement negotiated as an amendment to the ] (UNFCCC, which was adopted at the ] in ] in 1992). All parties to the UNFCCC can sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to the UNFCCC cannot. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP3) in 1997 in ], ].


== Principal concepts ==
Most provisions of the Kyoto Protocol apply to developed countries, listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC. Emission figures exclude international aviation and shipping.
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">{{citation
| year=2011
| author=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
| title=Kyoto Protocol
| publisher=UNFCCC
| url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
| access-date=30 December 2011
| archive-date=16 May 2011
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110516211124/http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
| url-status=live
}}</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}}
* 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.
* 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 ===
===Common but differentiated responsibility===
The Protocol defines three "]" that can be used by Annex I Parties in meeting their emission limitation commitments.<ref>
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to a set of a "common but differentiated responsibilities." The parties agreed that
{{citation
|chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/225.htm
|title = Executive summary
|chapter = Measures, and Instruments
|last1 = Bashmakov
|first1 = I.
|display-authors = etal
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120117023130/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/225.htm
|df = dmy-all
|archive-date = 17 January 2012
}}, 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 |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 largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries;
{{citation
#Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
|chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.htm
#The share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet their social and development needs.<ref>
|title = 10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of International Mechanisms
{{cite web | title=The full text of the convention| work=The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change | url= http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php | accessmonthday=November 5 | accessyear=2006 }}</ref>
|chapter = 10. Decision-making Frameworks
|last1 = Toth
|first1 = F. L.
|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
}}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}}
</ref>{{Rp|660|date=November 2012}}<ref>
{{citation
|chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/246.htm
|title = 6.3 International Policies, Measures, and Instruments
|chapter = 6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments
|last1 = Bashmakov
|first1 = I.
|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
}}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}}
</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
|chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm
|title = 8.3.1 International Emissions Quota Trading Regimes
|chapter = 8. Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation
|last1 = Hourcade
|first1 = J.-C.
|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
}}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}}
</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", 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.
In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were not included in any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol because they were not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate change. However, even without the commitment to reduce according to the Kyoto target, developing countries do share the common responsibility that all countries have in reducing emissions.


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>
===Financial commitments===
{{citation
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. This was originally agreed in the ].
|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)
|chapter = 6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments
|last1 = Bashmakov
|first1 = I.
|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
}}, 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>{{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.
===Emissions trading===
{{main|Emissions trading}}
Kyoto is a ‘cap and trade’ system that imposes national caps on the emissions of Annex I countries. On average, this cap requires countries to reduce their emissions 5.2% below their 1990 baseline over the 2008 to 2012 period. Although these caps are national-level commitments, in practice most countries will devolve their emissions targets to individual industrial entities, such as a power plant or paper factory. An example of a 'cap and trade' system is the unrelated-to-Kyoto 'EU ETS'. Other countries may follow suit in time.


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.
This means that the ultimate buyers of Credits are often individual companies that expect their emissions to exceed their quota (their Assigned Allocation Units, Allowances for short). Typically, they will purchase Credits directly from another party with excess allowances, from a broker, from a JI/CDM developer, or on an exchange.


==== International emissions trading ====
National governments, some of whom may not have devolved responsibility for meeting Kyoto obligations to industry, and that have a net deficit of Allowances, will buy credits for their own account, mainly from JI/CDM developers. These deals are occasionally done directly through a national fund or agency, as in the case of the Dutch government’s ERUPT programme, or via collective funds such as the World Bank’s Prototype Carbon Fund (PCF). The PCF, for example, represents a consortium of six governments and 17 major utility and energy companies on whose behalf it purchases Credits.
{{excerpt|Carbon emission trading}}


===== Intergovernmental emissions trading =====
Since Carbon Credits are tradeable instruments with a transparent price, financial investors have started buying them for pure trading purposes. This market is expected to grow substantially, with banks, brokers, funds, arbitrageurs and private traders eventually participating. Emissions Trading PLC, for example, was floated on the London Stock Exchange's AiM market in 2005 with the specific remit of investing in emissions instruments.
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}}


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
Although Kyoto created a framework and a set of rules for a global carbon market, there are in practice several distinct schemes or markets in operation today, with varying degrees of linkages among them.
|title=Development and Climate Change: A Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group: Technical Report
|year=2008
|author=World Bank
|url=http://beta.worldbank.org/overview/strategic-framework-development-and-climate-change
|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
|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
|year = 2001
|contribution = 8.3.1.1 "Where Flexibility"
|title = 8. Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation
|page = 538
|series = Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. A Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
|editor = B. Metz
|display-editors = etal
|publisher = Cambridge University Press
|last1 = Hourcade
|first1 = J.-C.
|url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm
|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
}}
</ref> This excess of allowances were viewed by the EITs as "headroom" to grow their economies.<ref>{{citation
| year=2003
| title=Green Investment Schemes: Options and Issues
| last1=Blyth
| first1=W.
| first2=R.
| last2=Baron
| page=11
| publisher=Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Environment Directorate and International Energy Agency (IEA)
| location=Paris, France
| url=http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/54/19842798.pdf
| access-date=16 December 2011
| archive-date=22 December 2011
| 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
|date = 30 June 2008
|title = 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)
|last1 = Chiavari
|first1 = J.
|first2 = M.
|last2 = Pallemaerts
|page = 11
|publisher = Institute for European Environmental Policy
|location = Brussels, Belgium
|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
|url-status = dead
|archive-date = 22 December 2011
}}
</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{{sfn|Carbon Trust|2009|p=25}} (see also the section below on the ]).
Kyoto enables a group of several Annex I countries to join together to create a so-called ‘bubble’, or a cluster of countries that is given an overall emissions cap and is treated as a single entity for compliance purposes. The EU elected to be treated as such a group, and created the ] (ETS) as a market-within-a-market. The ETS’s currency is an EUA (EU Allowance). The scheme went into operation on ] ], although a forward market has existed since 2003.


===== "Green Investment Schemes" =====
The UK established its own learning-by-doing voluntary scheme, the UK ETS, which ran from 2002 through 2006. This market will exist alongside the EU’s scheme, and participants in the UK scheme have the option of applying to opt out of the first phase of the EU ETS, which lasts through 2007.
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
| year=2011
| title=Carbon Finance - Glossary of Terms: Definition of "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS)
| author=Carbon Finance at the World Bank
| publisher=World Bank Carbon Finance Unit (CFU)
| location=Washington, DC, US
| url=http://go.worldbank.org/HZGVW3QN20
| archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20100817010146/http://go.worldbank.org/HZGVW3QN20
| url-status=dead
| archive-date=17 August 2010
| 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 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}}
Next to the unrelated-to-Kyoto EU ETS, the most important sources of Kyoto-related credits are the ] (CDM) and the ] (JI) mechanism. The CDM allows the creation of new Carbon Credits by developing emission reduction projects in Non-Annex I countries, while JI allows project-specific credits to be converted from existing credits in Annex I countries. CDM projects produce Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), and JI projects produce Emission Reduction Units (ERUs). CERs are valid for meeting EU ETS obligations as of now, and ERUs will become similarly valid from 2008 (although individual countries may choose to limit the number and source of CER/JIs they will allow for compliance purposes starting from 2008). CERs/ERUs are overwhelmingly bought from project developers by funds or individual entities, rather than being exchange-traded like EUAs.


===== Trade in AAUs =====
Since the creation of these instruments is subject to a lengthy process of registration and certification by the UN, and the projects themselves require several years to develop, this market is at this point almost completely a forward market where purchases are made at a deep discount to their equivalent currency, the EUA, and are almost always subject to certification and delivery (although up-front payments are sometimes made). According to IETA, the market value of CDM/JI credits transacted in 2004 was EUR 245&nbsp;m; it is estimated that more than EUR 620&nbsp;m worth of credits were transacted in 2005.
Latvia was one of the front-runners of GISs. World Bank (2011)<ref name="world bank 2011 trade in aaus">{{citation
| year=2011
| author=World Bank
| title=State and Trends of the Carbon Market Report 2011
| url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Resources/State_and_Trends_Updated_June_2011.pdf
| publisher=World Bank Environment Department, Carbon Finance Unit
| location=Washington, DC, USA
| access-date=26 January 2012
| archive-date=25 March 2020
| 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>{{citation
Several non-Kyoto carbon markets are already in existence as well, and these are likely to grow in importance and numbers in the coming years. These include the ], the ] (RGGI) in the United States, the ], the State of California’s ] to reduce emissions, the commitment of hundreds of US mayors to adopt Kyoto targets for their cities, and the State of Oregon’s emissions abatement program.
| date=28 March 2008
| author=Government of Japan
| title=Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan (Provisional Translation)
| url=http://www.env.go.jp/en/earth/cc/kptap.pdf
| publisher=Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan
| location=Tokyo, Japan
| pages=81–82
| access-date=26 January 2012
| archive-date=20 April 2012
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120420003913/https://www.env.go.jp/en/earth/cc/kptap.pdf
| url-status=live
}}</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}}


===== Clean Development Mechanism =====
These initiatives, taken together would create a series of linked markets, rather than a single carbon market. The common theme across most of them is the adoption of market-based mechanisms centered on Carbon Credits that represent a reduction of CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. The fact that most of these initiatives have similar approaches to certifying their credits makes it conceivable that Carbon Credits in one market may in the long run be tradeable in most other schemes. This would broaden the current carbon market far more than the current focus on the CDM/JI and EU ETS domains. An obvious precondition, however, is a realignment of penalties and fines to similar levels, since these create an effective ceiling for each market.
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&nbsp;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.&nbsp;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 =====
===Revisions===
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.&nbsp;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.
The protocol left several issues open to be decided later by the ] (COP). ] attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in ] in late 2000, but was unable to reach an agreement due to disputes between the European Union on the one hand (which favoured a tougher agreement) and the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia on the other (which wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible).


==Details of the agreement==
In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting (COP6bis) was held in ] where the required decisions were adopted. After some concessions, the supporters of the protocol (led by the ]) managed to get ] and ] in as well by allowing more use of ].
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
] was held from ] ] &ndash; ] ] in ] to establish the final details of the protocol.
|chapter-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.
|access-date = 28 May 2010
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20100501184723/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/annexessglossary-j-p.html
|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">
The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP1) was held in ] from ] to ], ], along with the 11th conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP11). See ].
{{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 ===
===Enforcement===
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">
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 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 |title=An Introduction to the Kyoto Protocol Compliance Mechanism| publisher=UNFCC| accessdate=2006-10-30}}</ref>
{{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 |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 ].


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" />
==Current positions of governments==
]
{{seealso|List of Kyoto Protocol signatories}}


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.
===Australia===
Because ] is one of the biggest emitters on a per capita basis<ref>{{cite book|url=http://www.deh.gov.au/soe/2001/settlements/settlements05-4a.html|title=Australia State of the Environment 2001 Report, Human Settlements Theme Report|publisher=Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage|first=Peter W. |last=Newton|date=2001| id= ISBN 0-643-06747-7| accessdate=2006-11-14}}</ref><ref> {{cite web| url=http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2006/1658637.htm |title= Renewable energy alternatives for electricity generation| publisher=ABC Radio website|date=] | accessdate=2006-10-30}}</ref> (albeit the lowest on a per square kilometre basis due to low overall population density), the country was granted a limitation of an 8% increase. This is because Australia used its relative smallness{{Fact|date=June 2007}}, and the dependence of Australian electricity generation on coal, as a negotiation tool while other big players were negotiating. The result of the negotiation was reported in the Australian media as being to Australia's advantage.{{Fact|date=January 2007}}


Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping.<ref name="shippingandaviation">
The Australian Prime Minister, ], has declined to ratify the Agreement and has argued that the protocol would cost Australians jobs,<ref name="bbc-aus">{{cite news |url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4797339.stm |title=Howard rejects emissions targets|work=BBC News Website| date=] |accessdate=2006-10-30}}</ref> due to countries with booming economies and massive populations such as China and India not having any reduction obligations. By way of example, industrial growth within China is expected to increase pollution within 9 months, and even if Australia were to shut down all of its coal fired power stations it would not negate this increase.{{Fact|date=January 2007}} Further, the Government takes the view that Australia is already doing enough to cut emissions; the Australian government has recently pledged $300 million over the next three years to reduce Greenhouse gas emissions.{{Fact|date=January 2007}} The Federal Opposition, the ], is in full support of the protocol<ref>{{cite news| url=http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1772952.htm | title=Govt still not serious about climate change: Labor|work=ABC News Online| date=] | accessdate=2006-10-30}}</ref> and it is currently a heavily debated issue within the political establishment. The opposition claims ratifying the protocol is a "risk free" prospect as they claim Australia would already be meeting the obligations the protocol would impose.{{Fact|date=January 2007}} This claim relies heavily on changes to land clearing policies that can only occur once, while ongoing emission sources have all increased substantially.
{{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}}
</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>


{{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
Analysis has projected Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions at 109% of the 1990 emissions level over the period 2008–12. This is slightly above its 108% Kyoto Protocol limitation. As of 2007, the UNFCCC is reporting that Australia's 2004 greenhouse gas emissions were at 125% of 1990 levels. Australia remains committed to meeting it assigned limit despite not ratifying the Protocol.<ref> (PDF), Australian Greenhouse Office, December 2006</ref>
|date = 12 November 2009
|title = Kyoto burden-sharing targets for EU-15 countries
|publisher = European Environment Agency (EEA)
|url = https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/figures/kyoto-burden-sharing-targets-for-eu-15-countries
|access-date = 28 January 2019
|archive-date = 22 December 2018
|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
|url-status = live
}}</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 />
] – 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 Australian government, along with the United States, agreed to sign the ] at the ] regional forum on ] ]. Furthermore, the Australian state of New South Wales (NSW) commenced The NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme (GGAS).<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.greenhousegas.nsw.gov.au/| title=Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme |publisher=NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme|accessdate=2006-10-31}}</ref> This mandatory greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme commenced on ] ] and is currently being trialed by the state government in NSW alone. Uniquely this scheme allows Accredited Certificate Providers (ACP) to trade emissions from householders in the state. As of 2006 the scheme is still in place despite Prime Minister John Howard's clear dismissal of emissions trading as a credible solution to climate change. Following the example of NSW, the National Emissions Trading Scheme (NETS) has been established as an initiative of State and Territory Governments of Australia, all of which have Labor Party governments.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.emissionstrading.net.au/home|title= National Emissions Trading Taskforce| accessdate=2006-10-31}}</ref> The focus of NETS is to bring into existence an intra-Australian carbon trading scheme and to coordinate policy developments to this end. According to the ],<ref>{{cite web| url=http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/html/pasteact/1/641/top.htm| title=COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT| publisher=The Attorney-General's Department |accessdate=2006-10-31}}</ref> environmental matters are under the jurisdiction of the States, and the NETS is intended to facilitate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the Labor Party if they are elected to government in the 2007 Federal Elections.
* 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.
] have called Clause 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol the ''"Australia Clause"'', as Australia was the major beneficiary. The clause allows for Annex 1 countries with high rates of land clearing in 1990 to consider that year a base level. Greenpeace argues that Australia had extremely high levels of land clearing in 1990, and that this meant that their "baseline" was unusually high compared to other countries.<ref name="aust clause">"", Greenpeace Asia Pacific, accessed 2007 May 18.</ref>


===Canada=== ===Negotiations===
On ], ], ] ratified the treaty that came into force in February 2005, requiring it to reduce emissions to 6% below 1990 levels during the 2008-2012 commitment period. At that time, numerous polls showed support for the Kyoto protocol at around 70%.<ref>{{cite press release | title=Support (74%) Remains High for Kyoto Protocol | Publisher= IPSOS News Center| url=http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=1667 | accessdate=November 15 | accessyear=2005 }}</ref><ref>{{cite web | title=Public Attitudes Towards the Kyoto Protocol | url=http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/10June02KyotoProt.pdf | accessmonthday=November 15 | accessyear=2005 |last = Graves| first=Frank |coauthors =Boucher, Christian | publisher=Ekos Research Associates}} </ref> Despite strong public support, there was still some opposition, particularly by the ], precursor to the governing ], some business groups,<ref>{{cite news | title=Business leaders call for climate change action | publisher=CBC | date=] ]|url=http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/11/17/kyotobiz-051117.html }}</ref> and energy concerns, using arguments similar to those being used in the US. In particular, there was a fear that since US companies would not be affected by the Kyoto Protocol that Canadian companies would be at a disadvantage in terms of trade. In 2005, the result was limited to an ongoing "war of words", primarily between the government of ] (Canada's primary oil and gas producer) and the federal government. There were even fears that Kyoto ], ] {{Fact|date=February 2007}}. As of 2003, the federal government claimed to have spent or committed 3.7 billion dollars on climate change programmes.<ref>{{cite news| title=Canada-Kyoto timeline| url=http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/timeline.html| date=]| accessdate=2006-11-01| publisher=CBC News}}</ref> By 2004, CO<sub>2</sub> emissions had risen to 27% above 1990 levels (which compares unfavorably to the 16% increase in emissions by the United States during that time).<ref>{{cite book| title=2006 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development| publisher=Office of the Auditor General of Canada| date=]| url=http://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/domino/reports.nsf/html/c2006menu_e.html}}</ref>


{{See also|Views on the Kyoto Protocol#Commentaries on negotiations}}
In January 2006, a Conservative minority government under ] was elected, who previously has expressed opposition to Kyoto, and in particular to the plan to participate in international emission trading. ], who replaced ] as the environment minister, has since endorsed some types of emission trading, and indicated interest in international trading.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=37ccc2a8-b164-458b-a11c-21cab1236a5a&k=44333| title=Ambrose drops hints that Canada's position on Kyoto may be changing| work=Canadian Press| date=] | accessdate=2006-11-01}}</ref> On ], ], Ambrose announced that Canada would have no chance of meeting its targets under Kyoto, and would look to participate in U.S. sponsored ]. "We've been looking at the Asia-Pacific Partnership for a number of months now because the key principles around are very much in line with where our government wants to go," Ambrose told reporters.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/04/25/ambrose060425.html|title=CBC News: "Canada supports six-nation climate change pact: Ambrose"|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref> On ], ], it was reported that environmental funding designed to meet the Kyoto standards had been cut, while the Harper government develops a new plan to take its place.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/02/AR2006050201774.html|work= Washington Post |title=Canada Alters Course on Kyoto| date=]| accessdate=2006-11-01}}</ref>
As the co-chair of UN Climate Change Conference in Nairobi in November 2006, Canada and its government received criticism from environmental groups and from other governments for its climate change positions.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/national/article.jsp?article=2006_11_16_1163698971|work= Maclean's |title=Rona Ambrose goes from Ottawa to Nairobi, but can’t shake her critics| date=]}}</ref> On ], ], Rona Ambrose moved from environment to become Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. The Environment portfolio went to ], the former President of the Treasury Board.


Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC commits industrialized countries to " the lead" in reducing emissions.<ref name="grubb original unfccc target">
Canada's federal government has introduced legislation to set mandatory emissions targets for industry, but it will not take effect until an estimated 2050. The government has since begun working with opposition parties to improve the legislation.
{{harvnb|Grubb|2003|p=144}}
</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">
A ],<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.parl.gc.ca/39/1/parlbus/chambus/house/bills/private/C-288/C-288_1/C-288_cover-e.html |title= Canadian Parliament Bill C-288 "An Act to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol"|publisher=House of Commons of Canada| accessdate= 2006-11-01| accessdate=2006-11-01}}</ref> was put forth by ], ], aiming to force the government to "ensure that Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol." With the support of the Liberals, the ] and the ], and with the current minority situation, the bill passed the ] on ], ] with a vote of 161-113,<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/14/kyoto-vote.html|title=Opposition MPs pass Kyoto bill despite Tory resistance|publisher=Canadian Broadcast Corporation| accessdate= 2007-02-15| accessdate=2007-02-15}}</ref> and is now being considered by the ]. If passed, the bill would give the government 60 days to form a detailed plan of action. The government has flatly refused to abide by the bill, which may spark a ], ], or ] once the bill becomes law, as is expected.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/02/15/kyoto-bill.html|title=Kyoto bill sparks constitutional questions|publisher="Canadian Broadcasting Corporation|accessdate=2007-02-15}}</ref>
{{harvnb|Liverman|2009|p=290}}
</ref>
* developed nations had contributed most to the then-current concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere (see ]).
* developing country emissions per-capita (i.e., average emissions per head of population)<ref>{{citation
| title=Table A1: Energy-related emissions: Indicator: per capita (metric tons)
| chapter=Part II: Selected Development Indicators
| chapter-url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Statistical-Annex.pdf
| access-date=31 August 2012
| archive-date=1 November 2012
| 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.
During negotiations, the G-77 represented 133 developing countries. China was not a member of the group but an associate.<ref>
{{harvnb|Dessai|2001|p=4}}
</ref> It has since become a member.<ref>
{{harvnb|G-77|2011}}
</ref>


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.<ref name="liverman berlin mandate"/> However, the large potential for growth in developing country emissions made negotiations on this issue tense.<ref name="grubb developing country emissions">
In May 2007 ] sued the Canadian federal government for failing to meet its Kyoto Protocol obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions linked to global warming. This was based on a clause in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act that requires Ottawa to "prevent air pollution that violates an international agreement binding on Canada,".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2007/05/friends_of_the_earth_sue_canad.php|title=Friends Of The Earth sue Canada for breaching Kyoto Protocol|publisher=Seed Magazine|accessdate=2007-06-01}}</ref> Canada's obligation to the treaty begins in 2008.
{{harvnb|Grubb|2003|pp=145–146}}
</ref> 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.<ref name="grubb developing country 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.<ref name="grubb developing country emissions"/>


===People's Republic of China=== ====Emissions cuts====
].]]
In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People's Republic of China were about 54% of the USA emissions.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.carbonplanet.com/home/country_emissions.php|title=Greenhouse Gas Emissions By Country|publisher=Carbon Planet|accessdate=2007-05-20}}</ref> However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html|title=New coal plants bury 'Kyoto'|author=Mark Clayton|date=December 23, 2004|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-05-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.newstarget.com/021386.html|title=Coal emissions blanket China with pollution|author=Ben Kage|publisher=NewsTarget|date=January 4, 2007|accessdate=2007-05-20}}</ref> Various predictions see China overtaking the US in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010,<ref>{{cite news|url=http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11707-chinas-emissions-to-surpass-the-us-within-months.html|title=China's emissions may surpass the US in 2007|author=Catherine Brahic|date=April 25, 2007|publisher=]|accessdate=2007-05-20}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1962439.ece|author=Saeed Shah|title=China to pass US greenhouse gas levels by 2010|publisher=]|date= ], ]|accessdate=2007-05-20}}
[[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 />
</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/PEK78904.htm|publisher=] ]|title=China fears disasters, grain cut from global warming|date=December 27, 2006|accessdate=2007-05-20}}</ref> and according to many other estimates, this already occurred in 2006.<ref>] retrieved June 20 2007</ref><ref> http://www.energybulletin.net/31156.html </ref><ref> http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2106689,00.html </ref>
{{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}}
</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">
{{harvnb|Grubb|2003|p=148}}
</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 – {{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 Chinese government insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. Because China has emplaced ] while maintaining low emissions per capita, it claims it should therefore in both of the above aspects be considered a contributor to the world's environment. In addition, the country's ] - measured as energy consumption per unit of GDP - was lowered by 47 per cent between 1991 and 2005; from 1950 to 2002, China’s carbon dioxide emissions from fossil sources accounted for only 9.33% of the global total in the same period, and in 2004, its per-capita emission of carbon dioxide from fossil sources was 3.65 tons, which is 87% of the world average and 33 per cent of that of ] countries.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/ea28ab22-11f3-11dc-b963-000b5df10621.html|title=China is shouldering its climate change burden|author=Ma Kai|publish=]|date=June 3, 2007|accessdate=2007-06-04}}</ref>


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">
In June of 2007, China unveiled a 62-page climate change plan and promised to put climate change at the heart of its energy policies but insisted that developed countries had an “unshirkable responsibility” to take the lead on cutting greenhouse gas emissions and that the "common but differentiated responsibility" principle, as agreed up in the ] should be applied.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6717671.stm|title=China unveils climate change plan|author=BBC|publisher=]|date=June 4, 2007|accessdate=2007-06-04}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/34ef96a2-1258-11dc-a475-000b5df10621.html|title=China urges rich nations to lead on climate|author=Richard McGregor|publisher=]|date=June 4, 2007|accessdate=2007-06-04}}</ref>
{{harvnb|Grubb|2003|p=151}}
</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>
In response to critics of the nation's energy policy, China responded that those criticisms were unjust.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50B12F83A5B0C748CDDA80994DE404482|title=China to Pass U.S. in 2009 In Emissions|author=Keith Bradsher|publisher=]|date=November 7, 2006|accessdate=2007-05-20}}</ref>
{{harvnb|Depledge|2000|p=46}}
</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}}
</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}}
</ref>


==== Relation to temperature targets ====
===European Union===
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&nbsp;ppm could be associated with a 26 to 78% risk of exceeding the 2&nbsp;°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>
{{seealso|Energy policy of the European Union}}
On ], ], all fifteen then-members of the ] deposited the relevant ratification paperwork at the UN. The EU produces around 22% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and has agreed to a cut, on average, by '''8% from 1990 ]s'''. On ] ], the ] announced plans for a ] that included a unilateral 20% reduction in GHG emissions by 2020.


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}}
The EU has consistently been one of the major nominal supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, negotiating hard to get wavering countries on board.
, 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&nbsp;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" />
In December 2002, the EU created an ] in an effort to meet these tough targets. Quotas were introduced in six key industries: energy, steel, cement, glass, brick making, and paper/cardboard. There are also fines for member nations that fail to meet their obligations, starting at €40/ton of carbon dioxide in 2005, and rising to €100/ton in 2008. Current EU projections suggest that by 2008 the EU will be at 4.7% below 1990 levels.


===Financial commitments===
Transport CO2 emissions in the EU grew by 32% between 1990 and 2004. The share of transport in CO2 emissions was 21% in 1990, but by 2004 this had grown to 28%.


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.
The position of the EU is not without controversy in Protocol negotiations, however. One criticism is that, rather than reducing 8%, all the EU member countries should cut 15% as the EU insisted a uniform target of 15% for other developed countries during the negotiation while allowing itself to share a big reduction in the former East Germany to meet the 15% goal for the entire EU. Also, emission levels of former ] countries who now are members of the EU have already been reduced as a result of their economic restructuring. This may mean that the region's 1990 baseline level is inflated compared to that of other developed countries, thus giving European economies a potential competitive advantage over the U.S.


===Implementation provisions===
Both the EU (as the ]) and its member states are signatories to the Kyoto treaty.
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 (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 ].
====Germany====


] was held from 29 October 2001 through 9 November 2001 in ] to establish the final details of the protocol.
Germany has reduced greenhouse gas emissions by 17.2% between 1990 and 2004.<ref>{{cite web | title=GHG DATA 2006 &ndash; Highlights from Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Data for 1990-2004 for Annex I Parties | url=http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/ghg_booklet_06.pdf | publisher=] | date=] | accessdate=2007-08-06}}</ref>
On ], ], the German government announced it would exempt its coal industry from requirements under the EU internal emission trading system. Claudia Kemfert, an energy professor at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin said, "For all its support for a clean environment and the Kyoto Protocol, the cabinet decision is very disappointing. The energy lobbies have played a big role in this decision."<ref>{{cite news| url= http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/business/worldbusiness/29green.html?ex=1309233600&en=4cd4442637d83026&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss |work=New York Times | title=New German Rule Could Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions | date=] | accessdate= 2006-11-01}} </ref>


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 ].
====United Kingdom====
The ] fully endorses goals for ] reduction and has committed to proportionate reduction in national emissions on a phased basis. The United Kingdom is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol.


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.
On March 13, 2007, a draft ] was published after cross-party pressure over several years, led by environmental groups. Informed by the Energy White Paper 2003,<ref>, ], published February 2002, accessed 19 May 2007</ref> The Bill aims to put in place a framework to achieve a mandatory 60% cut in the UK's ] by 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), with an intermediate target of between 26% and 32% by 2020.<ref>, ], published 13 March 2007, accessed 13 March 2007.</ref> If approved, the United Kingdom is likely to become the first country to set such a long-range and significant carbon reduction target into law.


===Mechanism of compliance===
The UK currently ] to meet its Kyoto limitation for the basket of greenhouse gases, assuming the Government is able to curb rising carbon dioxide emissions between now (2007) and the period 2008-2012.<ref name="defra1">{{cite web| url= http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2007/070131a.htm | publisher=] | title= 2005 UK climate change sustainable development indicator and greenhouse gas emissions final figures | accessdate=2007-06-22}}</ref> Although the UK's overall greenhouse gas emissions have fallen, annual net ] emissions have risen by around 2% since Tony Blair's Labour Party came to power in 1997.<ref name="defra1"/> As a result it now seems highly unlikely that the Government will be able to honour its manifesto pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by the year 2010,<ref name="defra1"/> unless immediate and drastic action is taken under after the passing of the Climate Change Bill.


The protocol defines a mechanism of "compliance" as a "monitoring compliance with the commitments and penalties for ]."<ref>{{cite web
====France====
|title=Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change
In 2004, ] shut down its last coal mine, and now gets 80% of its electricity from ].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3651881.stm|title=news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3651881.stm<!--INSERT TITLE-->|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref> Because of this, France now has the cleanest air of any industrialized country, and the cheapest electricity bills in all of Europe.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/60minutes/main2655782.shtml|title=www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/04/06/60minutes/main2655782.shtml<!--INSERT TITLE-->|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref> Under various assumptions, including the use of ] technology, the earth has enough uranium to provide all of the world's energy needs for several centuries.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html|title=www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/cohen.html<!--INSERT TITLE-->|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref>
|first=S
|last=Maljean-Dubois
|work=Synthèse, n° 01, 2007
|publisher=Institute for Sustainable Development and International Relations
|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}}
</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"/>


===India=== ===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>
]
] signed and ratified the Protocol in August, 2002. Since India is exempted from the framework of the treaty, it is expected to gain from the protocol in terms of transfer of technology and related foreign investments. At the ] meeting in June 2005, Indian Prime Minister ] pointed out that the per-capita emission rates of the developing countries are a tiny fraction of those in the developed world. Following the principle of ''common but differentiated responsibility'', India maintains that the major responsibility of curbing emission rests with the developed countries, which have accumulated emissions over a long period of time.


===Russia=== ===Enforcing emission cuts===
{{seealso|Energy policy of Russia}}
] approved the treaty on ], ] and Russia officially notified the United Nations of its ratification on ], ]. The issue of Russian ratification was particularly closely watched in the international community, as the accord was brought into force 90 days after Russian ratification (], ]).


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
President Putin had earlier decided in favour of the protocol in September 2004, along with the Russian cabinet,<ref> {{cite news |url=http://www.mosnews.com/money/2004/09/30/kyotoapproved.shtml | title =Russian Government Approves Kyoto Protocol Ratification| work=mosnews.com| date=]| accessdate=2006-11-02}}</ref> against the opinion of the Russian Academy of Sciences, of the Ministry for Industry and Energy and of the then president's economic adviser, ], and in exchange to EU's support for Russia's admission in the ].<ref>{{cite news| url=http://english.pravda.ru/main/18/88/354/14495_kyoto.html | work=Pravada |title= Russia forced to ratify Kyoto Protocol to become WTO member| date=2004-10-26|accessdate=2006-11-03}}</ref> As anticipated after this, ratification by the lower (] ]) and upper house of parliament did not encounter any obstacles.
| url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/compliance/introduction/items/3024.php
| title=An Introduction to the Kyoto Protocol Compliance Mechanism
| 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>


==Ratification process==
The Kyoto Protocol limits emissions to a percentage increase or decrease from their 1990 levels. Since 1990 the economies of most countries in the former ] have collapsed, as have their greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this, Russia should have no problem meeting its commitments under Kyoto, as its current emission levels are substantially below its limitations.
===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>
It is debatable whether Russia will benefit from selling emissions credits to other countries in the Kyoto Protocol.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.sysecol.ethz.ch/Articles_Reports/Illarionov_Press_Conf.pdf |title=PRESS CONFERENCE WITH PRESIDENTIAL ECONOMIC ADVISER ANDREI ILLARIONOV| date=] | accessdate=2006-11-03}}</ref>


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>
===United States===
{{seealso|Energy policy of the United States}}
The ] (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The signature alone is symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is non-binding on the United States unless ratified. The United States was, as of 2005, the largest single emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.<ref>{{cite web | title=United States Country Analysis Brief | url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/Usa/Full.html | date=2005 | accessmonthday=December 5 | accessyear=2006| publisher=US Energy Information Administration}}</ref> China was projected to take over at the top of the table by late 2007,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2272661220070323|title=www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL2272661220070323<!--INSERT TITLE-->|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref> however one study now concludes this has already occurred.<ref>] retrieved June 20 2007</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.
On ], ], before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95&ndash;0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html | title= Text of the Byrd-Hagel Resolution| date=] | accessdate=2006-11-05}}</ref><ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=105&session=1&vote=00205 | title= U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 105th Congress - 1st Session:S.Res. 98| date=] | accessdate=2007-01-31}}</ref> which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". On ], ], Vice President ] symbolically signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator ] indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was participation by the developing nations.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyoto/ |date=] |title=Clinton Hails Global Warming Pact | work =All Politics | publisher =CNN | accessdate=2006-11-05}}</ref> The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.


{{hidden begin|title=Convention Parties|titlestyle=text-align:left;|bodystyle=text-align:left;}}
The ] Administration released an economic analysis in ], prepared by the ], which concluded that with emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the "]" &mdash; which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates through ] &mdash; the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses, however, prepared by the ]{{Fact|date=April 2007}} and the ]{{Fact|date=April 2007}}, ] (EIA){{Fact|date=April 2007}}, and others{{Fact|date=April 2007}}, demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the Protocol.
{|

|-
The current President, ], has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide<ref> {{cite web | title=China Country Analysis Brief | url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/china.html | accessmonthday=November 15 | accessyear=2005 |publisher=US Energy Information Administration}}
| style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"|
</ref>). Bush also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which are present in the climate change issue.{{Fact|date=May 2007}} Furthermore, the U.S. is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
] <br />

] <br />
<blockquote>This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is the ]. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from Kyoto&nbsp;… America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change&nbsp;… Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."<ref>{{cite press release | url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-2.html| publisher=The Whitehouse |title= President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change | date= ]| accessdate=2006-11-05}}</ref></blockquote>
] <br />

] <br />
In keeping with its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken no specific actions towards mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the ] (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.{{Fact|date=January 2007}} At the ] meeting in June 2005 administration officials expressed a desire for "practical commitments industrialized countries can meet without damaging their economies". According to those same officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to reduce its ] 18% by 2012.<ref>{{cite news| url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/01/AR2005070101915.html |work=Washington Post | title= Climate Plan Splits U.S. and Europe| first=Juliet | last=Eilperin |date=]|accessdate=2006-11-05}}</ref> The United States has signed the ], a pact that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while being more flexible, but critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures.{{Fact|date=January 2007}}
] <br />

] <br />
In September 2006 the journal '']'' reported that the ] had blocked an internal report which concluded that global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions may be contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=11336 |publisher=Environmental News Network |title= Agency Blocked Hurricane Report | date=]| first=Randolph E. |last=Schmid | accessdate=2006-11-05}}</ref>
] <br />
Australia <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
Canada <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
China <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
]
| style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"|
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
France <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
Germany <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
Ireland <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
Japan <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
]
| style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"|
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
New Zealand <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
]
| style="width:25%; vertical-align:top;"|
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] (non-party to Kyoto) <br />
South Africa <br />
Spain <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
United Kingdom <br />
United States (non-party to Kyoto) <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
] <br />
]
* '''Observers:'''
] (non-party to Kyoto) <br />
] (non-party to Kyoto)
|}
{{hidden end}}


===Non-ratification by the US===
The Administration's position is not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For example, ] notes that the target 18% reduction in ] is still actually an increase in overall emissions.<ref>{{cite news | first=Paul | last=Krugman | title=Ersatz Climate Policy (requires login)| url= http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/15/opinion/15KRUG.html | work=New York Times| accessdate=November 15 | accessyear=2005 }}</ref> The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official, former oil industry advocate and current ] officer, ], watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies.<ref>{{cite news| url = http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4075986.stm |publisher= BBC |title= Bush aide 'edited climate papers' | date=]|accessdate=2006-11-07}}</ref> Critics point to the administration's close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, ] papers showed the administration thanking ] executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group ] was also a factor.<ref>{{cite news| url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,1501646,00.html |work=Guardian |title= Revealed - how oil giant influenced Bush| date=] | last=Vidal | first= John | accessdate=2006-11-07}} </ref>
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>
In 2002, Congressional researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from undermining the Protocol's object and purpose, and that while the President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone; Congress can create compatible laws on its own initiative.<ref>{{cite web | url=http://www.opencrs.com/getfile.php?rid=33856 | publisher=Congressional Research Service | title= Global Climate Change - Selected Legal Questions About the Kyoto Protocol (pdf)| last = Ackerman | first = David M. |date =] | accessdate=2006-11-07 }}</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"/>
====Local governments====
As of ], ], eight Northeastern US states are involved in the ] (RGGI),<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.rggi.org/ |title=Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative| accessdate=2006-11-07}} </ref> which is a state level emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the state-level program will indirectly apply pressure on the federal government by demonstrating that reductions can be achieved without being a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol.
* '''Participating states''': ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] (these states represent over 46 million people).
* '''Observer states and regions''': ], ], ], ].


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>
On ], ], the ] (representing over 33 million Californians) reached an agreement with Governor ] to reduce the state's greenhouse-gas emissions, which rank at 12th-largest in the world, by 25% by the year 2020. This resulted in the ] which effectively puts California in line with the Kyoto limitations, but at a date later than the 2008-2012 Kyoto commitment period.


===Withdrawal of Canada===
As of ], ], 663 US cities in 50 states, representing more than 72 million Americans support Kyoto after Mayor ] of ] started a nationwide effort to get cities to agree to the protocol.
*'''Large participating cities''': ]; ];]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ];]; ]; ]; ];]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ]; ].
*'''Full list of cities and mayors''':<ref>{{cite web| url=http://usmayors.org/climateprotection/listofcities.htm |title=Mayors Climate Protection Center, List of Cities|accessdate=31-08-2007}}</ref>


{{Main|Kyoto Protocol and government action#Withdrawal of Canada}}
==Support==
{{See also|Canada and the Kyoto Protocol}}
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol state that reducing these emissions is crucially important, as ] is causing the earth's atmosphere to heat up. This is supported by ].


In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia stated that they would not take on further Kyoto targets.<ref name=canadaguardian>{{cite web
No country has passed national legislation requiring compliance with their treaty obligation.
|url=https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-pulls-out-kyoto-protocol
The governments of all of the countries whose parliaments have ratified the Protocol are supporting it. Most prominent among advocates of Kyoto have been the European Union and many ] organizations. The United Nations and some individual nations' scientific advisory bodies (including the ] national science academies) have also issued reports favoring the Kyoto Protocol.
|title=Canada pulls out of Kyoto protocol
|work=The Guardian
|access-date=13 December 2011
|date=13 December 2011
|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
|title=Canada withdrawing from Kyoto
|work=The Toronto Star
|date=12 December 2011
|access-date=12 December 2011
|archive-date=7 January 2012
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120107231408/http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1100802--canada-withdrawing-from-kyoto?bn=1#article
|url-status=live
}}</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
|url = http://business.financialpost.com/2011/12/13/canada-to-pull-out-of-kyoto-protocol/
|title = Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol
|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
|newspaper=BBC News
|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16165033
|date=13 December 2011
|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 was not applicable===
An international day of action was planned for ] ], to coincide with the Meeting of the Parties in Montreal. The planned demonstrations were endorsed by the Assembly of Movements of the ].<!--<ref>{{cite web|url=http://portal.campaigncc.org/?q=image/tid/27|title=campaigncc.org Campaign against Climate Change. UK activists portal|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref> Note this link is now broken. It is not in the Wayback Archive either-->
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 ==
A group of major Canadian corporations also called for urgent action regarding climate change, and have suggested that Kyoto is only a first step.<ref>{{cite news | url = http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/11/17/kyotobiz-051117.html | publisher = CBC | title=Business leaders call for climate change action }}</ref>
{{See also|List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita|List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions|GHG Protocol Corporate Standard}}


===Annex I countries===
In the United States, there is at least one student group, ], which aims to use student interest to support pressure towards reducing emissions as targeted by the Kyoto Protocol compliance.
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>&nbsp;kg) {{CO2}} equivalent, a decline of 6.0% during the 1990–2008 period.<ref name="2011 unfccc synthesis of annex I communications">{{citation
| year=2011
| author=] (UNFCCC)
| title=Compilation and synthesis of fifth national communications. Executive summary. Note by the secretariat.
| url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/sbi/eng/inf01.pdf
| publisher=United Nations Office at Geneva
| location=Geneva (Switzerland)
| access-date=9 December 2011
| archive-date=23 April 2022
| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220423082034/http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/sbi/eng/inf01.pdf
| url-status=live
}}</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
|last1=Olivier
|first1=J. G. J.
|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 Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC)
|location=The Hague, Netherlands
|isbn=978-90-78645-68-9
|display-authors=etal
|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
|archive-date=21 December 2011
|url-status=dead
}} 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}}


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}}
==Opposition==
Some public policy experts who are skeptical of ] see Kyoto as a scheme to either slow the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the ] in what they claim is a global ] initiative. Others argue the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions (], The ], and ] added notes to this effect when signing the protocol).<ref>{{cite web| url=http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/application/pdf/kpstats.pdf |publisher=UNFCCC| title= Kyoto protocol status(pdf)| accessdate=2006-11-07}}</ref>


====Annex I parties with targets====
Some ] have been critical of the Kyoto Protocol.<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4504298 |publisher=NPR | title=An Economist's View of the Kyoto Climate Treaty| first=Robert O.| last= Mendelsohn| date=] | accessdate=2006-11-07}}</ref><ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.business.uiuc.edu/seppala/econ102/kyoto.html |work=]| title=Environmental Economists Debate Merit of U.S.'s Kyoto Withdrawal| first=Jon E.| last= Hilsenrath| date= ] | accessdate=2006-11-07}}</ref> Many see the costs of the Kyoto Protocol as outweighing the benefits, some believing the standards which Kyoto sets to be too optimistic, others seeing a highly inequitable and inefficient agreement which would do little to curb greenhouse gas emissions.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060407.html |publisher=Straight Dope |title=Is global warming for real? | first=Cecil|last=Adams| date=] | accessdate=2006-11-07}} </ref><ref> {{cite web | title=The Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on U.S. Economic Growth and Projected Budget Surpluses | url=http://www.accf.org/publications/testimonies/test-impactkyoto-march25-1999.html | accessdate=2005-11-15}}</ref> It should be noted, however, that this opposition is not unanimous, and that the inclusion of emissions trading has led some environmental economists to embrace the treaty.
{| class="wikitable sortable"

|+ Percentage changes in emissions from the base year (1990 for most countries) for Annex I Parties with Kyoto targets
Further, there is controversy surrounding the use of 1990 as a base year, as well as not using per capita emissions as a basis. Countries had different achievements in energy efficiency in 1990. For example, the former Soviet Union and eastern European countries did little to tackle the problem and their energy efficiency was at its worst level in 1990; the year just before their ] regimes fell. On the other hand, Japan, as a big importer of natural resources, had to improve its efficiency after the ] and its emissions level in 1990 was better than most developed countries. However, such efforts were set aside, and the inactivity of the former Soviet Union was overlooked and could even generate big income due to the emission trade. There is an argument that the use of per capita emissions as a basis in the following Kyoto-type treaties can reduce the sense of inequality among developed and developing countries alike, as it can reveal inactivities and responsibilities among countries.
! 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" />

==Cost-benefit analysis==
Economists have been trying to analyse the overall net benefit of Kyoto Protocol through ]. Just as in the case of climatology, there is disagreement due to large uncertainties in economic variables.<ref>{{cite web | title="Economic Effects of a Complex Agreement Depend on Many Assumptions"| url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/kyotobrf.html| publisher=US Department of Energy | accessmonthday=November 15 | accessyear=2005 }}</ref> Some of the estimates indicate either that observing the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than not observing the Kyoto Protocol or that the Kyoto Protocol has a marginal net benefit which exceeds the cost of simply adjusting to global warming.{{Fact|date=April 2007}} However, a study in Nature<ref>{{cite journal | first=Giulio A. |last= De Leo| coauthors = Luca Rizzi, Andrea Caizzi and Marino Gatto | url=http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v413/n6855/abs/413478a0.html| title=Carbon emissions: The economic benefits of the Kyoto Protocol| journal = Nature | volume = 413 | pages = 478-479|date = ] | doi = 10.1038/35097156 | accessdate = 2006-11-07 }}</ref> found that "''accounting only for local external costs, together with production costs, to identify energy strategies, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would imply lower, not higher, overall costs.''"

The recent ] project found that the Kyoto Protocol would slow down the process of global warming, but have a superficial overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue, however, that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future.<ref> {{cite web | url = http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/australia.pdf | first= Ross | last=McKitrick | title= Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties Inquiry into the Kyoto Protocol (pdf) |date= ]|accessdate = 2006-11-07 }}</ref> They also advocate commitment to the ]. Critics point out that additional higher curbs on carbon emission are likely to cause significantly higher increase in cost, making such defence moot. Moreover, the precautionary principle could apply to any political, social, economic or environmental consequence, which might have equally devastating effect in terms of poverty and environment, making the precautionary argument irrelevant. The ] (a UK government sponsored report into the economic impacts of climate change) concluded that one percent of global GDP is required to be invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of global GDP.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/8A8/C1/Summary_of_Conclusions.pdf| title=Stern Review: The Economics of Climate Change, Summary of Conclusions (pdf)|authorlink=Nicholas Stern|first=Nicholas |last=Stern|date=]| accessdate = 2006-11-11}}</ref>

===Discount rates===
One problem in attempting to measure the "absolute" costs and benefits of different policies to global warming is choosing a proper ]. Over a long time horizon such as that in which benefits accrue under Kyoto, small changes in the discount rate create very large discrepancies between net benefits in various studies. However, this difficulty is generally not applicable to "relative" comparison of alternative policies under a long time horizon. This is because changes in discount rates tend to equally adjust the net cost/benefit of different policies unless there are significant discrepancies of cost and benefit over time horizon.

While it has been difficult to arrive at a scenario under which the net benefits of Kyoto are positive using traditional discounting methods such as the Shadow Price of Capital approach,<ref>{{cite journal | url=http://www.ciesin.org/docs/010-291/010-291.html | first= Daniel A. | last= Farber | coauthors=Paul A. Hemmersbaugh| title=The Shadow of the Future: Discount Rates, Later Generations, and the Environment | journal=Vanderbilt Law Review |volume=46 |pages= 267-304| date=1993| accessdate = 2006-11-07 }}</ref> there is an argument that a much lower discount rate should be utilized; that high rates are biased toward the current generation. This may appear to be a philosophical value judgment, outside the realm of economics, but it could be equally argued that the study of the allocation of resources does include how those resources are allocated over time.

==Increase in greenhouse gas emission since 1990==
Below is a list of the change in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 to 2004 for some countries that are part of the Climate Change Convention as reported by the United Nations.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://unfccc.int/files/essential_background/background_publications_htmlpdf/application/pdf/ghg_table_06.pdf| title=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Changes in GHG emissions from 1990 to 2004 for Annex I Parties}}</ref>

{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"
|- |-
| ] || +8 || −0.5 || +3.2 || +30.3
!Country !!Change in greenhouse gas <br />Emissions (1990-2004) !!EU Assigned Objective <br />for 2012 || Treaty Obligation 2008-2012
|- |-
| ] || −13 || −20 || +3.2 || +4.9
|align=left | Germany ||-17%||-21%||-8%
|- |-
| ] || −8 || −20 || −13.9 || −14.0
|align=left | Canada ||+27%||N/A||-6%
|- |-
| ] || −8 || −20 || −53.4 || −52.8
|align=left | Australia ||+25%||N/A||+8%*
|- |-
| ] (withdrew) || −6 || ''N/A'' || +18.5 || +18.5
|align=left | Spain ||+49%||+15%||-8%
|- |-
| ] || −5 || −20 || −10.8 || −7.5
|align=left | United States ||+16%||N/A||-7%*
|- |-
| ] || −8 || −20 || −30.6 || −30.0
|align=left | Norway ||+10%||N/A||+1%
|- |-
| ] || −21 || −20 || −17.3 || −14.8
|align=left | New Zealand ||+21%||N/A||0%
|- |-
| ] || −8 || −20 || −54.2 || −55.3
|align=left | France ||-0.8%||0%||-8%
|- |-
| ] || 0 || −20 || −5.5 || −4.7
|align=left | Greece ||+27%||+25%||-8%
|- |-
| ] || 0 || −20 || −10.5 || −10.0
|align=left | Ireland ||+23%||+13%||-8%
|- |-
| ] || −21 || −20 || −24.3 || −23.6
|align=left | Japan ||+6.5%||N/A||-6%
|- |-
| ] || +25 || −20 || +11.5 || +11.9
|align=left | United Kingdom ||-14%||-12.5%||-8%
|- |-
| ] || −6 || −20 || −43.7 || −41.8
|align=left | Portugal ||+41%||+27%||-8%
|- |-
| ] || +10 || −20 || +10.2 || +19.4
|align=left | EU-15 ||-0.8%||N/A||-8%
|} |-
| ] || +13 || −20 || +11.0 || +5.1
<nowiki> *</nowiki> Since Australia and the US did not ratify the treaty, the emissions targets are not a treaty obligation.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php| title=Countries included in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol and their emissions targets|publisher=UNFCCC}}</ref>
|-

| ] || −6 || −20 || −7.0 || −4.0
Below is a table of the changes in CO2 emission of some other countries which are large contributors, but are not required to meet numerical limitations.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/carbondioxide.html| title=International Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Carbon Intensity|publisher=The Energy Information Administration}}</ref>
|-

| ] || −6 || ''N/A'' || −2.5 || +1.4
{| class="wikitable" style="text-align: center"
|-
| ] || −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
!Country !!Change in greenhouse gas <br />Emissions (1990-2004)
|- |-
| ] || −13 || −20 || −23.0 || −22.6
|align=left | China ||+47%
|- |-
| ] (did not ratify) || −7 || ''N/A'' || +9.5 || +9.5
|align=left | India ||+55%
|} |}


]
Comparing total greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 to 1990 levels, the US emissions were up by 16%,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-basics/facts_and_figures/us_ghgemissions90_04.cfm|title=U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1990 - 2004|publisher=Pew Center for Global Climate Change|accessdate=2007-01-19}}</ref> with irregular fluctuations from one year to another but a general trend to increase.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads06/06Trends.pdf| title= U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Reports}}</ref> At the same time, the EU group of 23 (EU-23) Nations had reduced their emissions by 5%.<ref>{{cite web| url=http://reports.eea.europa.eu/eea_report_2006_9/en/eea_report_9_2006.pdf| title=Greenhouse gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2006| publisher=European Environment Agency|accessdate=2007-01-19}}</ref> In addition, the EU-15 group of nations (a large subset of EU-23) reduced their emissions by 0.8% between 1990 and 2004, while emission rose 2.5% from 1999 to 2004. Part of the increases for some of the European Union countries are still inline with the treaty, being part of the cluster of countries implementation (see objectives in the list above).


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}}
Further complicating the debate over the Kyoto Protocol is the fact that CO2 emissions growth in the US was far ahead of that of the EU-15 from 1990-2000, but from 2000-2004, America's rate of growth in CO2 emissions was eight percentage points lower than from 1995-2000, while the EU-15 saw an increase of 2.3 points. From 2000-2004, the United States' CO2 emissions growth rate was 2.1%, compared to the EU-15's 4.5%. That happened while the US economy was expanding 38% faster than the economies of the EU-15 while experiencing population growth at twice the rate of the EU-15.<ref>http://online.wsj.com/article_print/SB116606091947649743.html</ref> This naturally has led to questions and debate about the merits of a mandatory emissions cap approach (as currently adopted under Kyoto) versus a voluntary approach to emissions reduction (as adopted by the United States.


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}}
As of year-end 2006, the United Kingdom and Sweden were the only EU countries on pace to meet their Kyoto emissions commitments by 2010. While UN statistics indicate that, as a group, the 36 Kyoto signatory countries can meet the 5% reduction target by 2012, most of the progress in greenhouse gas reduction has come from the stark decline in Eastern European countries' emissions after the fall of communism in the 1990s.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=31&art_id=qw116072424316B264|title=Industrial world losing sight of Kyoto target |accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref>


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
==Successor==
| url= https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-withdrawal-kyoto-protocol?intcmp=239
{{main|Post-Kyoto negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions}}
| last= Vaughan
In the non-binding '] agreed on February 16, 2007, Presidents or Prime Ministers from ], ], ], ], ], ], ], the ], ], ], ], ] and ] agreed in principle on the outline of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisage a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and ], and hoped that this would be in place by 2009.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6364663.stm|title=BBC: Politicians sign new climate pact, February 16, 2007|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2014683,00.html|title=Guardian Unlimited: Global leaders reach climate change agreement|accessdate=2007-05-28}}</ref>
| first= A
| title= What does Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto protocol mean?
| work= The Guardian
| 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
| url-status= live
}}</ref>


====Annex I parties without Kyoto targets====
On ], ], leaders at the ] agreed that the G8 nations would 'aim to at least halve global ] by 2050'. The details enabling this to be achieved would be negotiated by environment ministers within the ] in a process that would also include the major ].<ref name="G8ClimateProtectio">{{cite web
Belarus, Malta, and Turkey are Annex I Parties but did not have first-round Kyoto targets.<ref>{{citation
|url=http://www.g-8.de/nn_92160/Content/EN/Artikel/__g8-summit/2007-06-07-g8-klimaschutz__en.html
|title = CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2011 - Highlights
|title=Breakthrough on climate protection
|year = 2011
|publisher=''G8 Summit 2007 Heiligendamm''
|author = International Energy Agency (IEA)
|date=2007-06-07
|url = http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf
|accessdate=2007-06-07
|publisher = IEA
|location = Paris, France
|page = 13
|access-date = 9 December 2011
|archive-date = 2 February 2012
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120202035728/http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf
|url-status = dead
}}</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}}

===Non-Annex I===

{{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">{{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 at Geneva, Switzerland
|access-date=20 May 2010
|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.

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&nbsp;billion tonnes (billion&nbsp;=&nbsp;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%).

The ] 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 CO<sub>2</sub>-eq, excluding LUCF) averaged 2.8&nbsp;tonnes for the 122 non-Annex I Parties.
* The Africa region's ] emissions were 1.6&nbsp;billion&nbsp;tonnes, with per capita emissions of 2.4&nbsp;tonnes.
* The Asia and Pacific region's aggregate emissions were 7.9&nbsp;billion&nbsp;tonnes, with per capita emissions of 2.6&nbsp;tonnes.
* The Latin America and ] region's aggregate emissions were 2&nbsp;billion&nbsp;tonnes, with per capita emissions of 4.6&nbsp;tonnes.
* The "other" region includes ], Armenia, ], Georgia, Malta, ], and ]. Their aggregate emissions were 0.1&nbsp;billion&nbsp;tonnes, with per capita emissions of 5.1&nbsp;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&nbsp;billion&nbsp;tonnes, without LUCF, total aggregate emissions were 11.7&nbsp;billion&nbsp;tonnes.

==Problem areas==

=== 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
|year = 2007
|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
|last1 = Gupta
|first1 = S.
|url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-1.html
|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">{{citation
|last1 = Gupta
|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
|display-authors = etal
|access-date = 31 August 2012
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20120515123900/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-es.html
|archive-date = 15 May 2012
|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
| author=International Energy Agency (IEA)
| url=http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/CO2highlights.pdf
| publisher=IEA
| location=Paris, France
| page=12
| access-date=31 August 2012
| archive-date=2 February 2012
| 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">{{citation
| title=5. Integrating development into a global climate regime
| url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf
| access-date=31 August 2012
| archive-date=12 June 2013
| 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=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
| url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf
| access-date=31 August 2012
| archive-date=12 June 2013
| 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 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.&nbsp;9).<ref name="aldy">{{cite journal
|title=Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Policy Architectures
|date=9 September 2003
|last1=Aldy
|first1=J. E.
|journal=Climate Policy
|volume=3
|issue=4
|pages=373–397
|url=https://www.feem.it/m/publications_pages/NDL2003-064.pdf
|access-date=2 April 2010
|doi=10.1016/j.clipol.2003.09.004
|bibcode=2003CliPo...3..373A
|display-authors=etal
|hdl=10419/118092
|s2cid=219598167
|archive-date=6 May 2020
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200506213826/https://www.feem.it/m/publications_pages/NDL2003-064.pdf
|url-status=live
}}</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.&nbsp;5).<ref>{{cite journal
|date=April 2000
| last = Grubb | first = M.
|title=The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Appraisal. FEEM Working Paper No. 30 2000
|publisher=SSRN
|ssrn=229280
|doi=10.2139/ssrn.229280
|hdl=10419/155084
| s2cid = 54779393 |hdl-access=free
}}</ref> }}</ref>


The United States (under former President ]) and Australia (initially, under former Prime Minister ]) did not ratify the Kyoto treaty.<ref name="stern us and australia">
A round of climate change talks under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (]) concluded in ] ] with agreement on key elements for an effective international response to climate change.<ref> http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_and_advisories/application/pdf/20070831_vienna_closing_press_release.pdf</ref>
{{citation
|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-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
}}, in {{harvnb|Stern|2006|p=478}}
</ref> According to Stern (2006),<ref name="stern us and australia"/> their decision was based on the lack of quantitative emission commitments for emerging economies (see also the ] section). Australia, under former Prime Minister ], has since ratified the treaty,<ref>{{cite news
|url = http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1772952.htm
|title = Govt still not serious about climate change: Labor
|work = ABC News Online
|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
}}</ref><ref name="australia signing">{{cite news
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7124236.stm
|title=Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto
|work=BBC News
|date=3 December 2007
|access-date=5 December 2007
|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
|title=Australia's Rudd sworn in as PM
|work=BBC News
|publisher=BBC
|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 ===
A key feature of the talks was a United Nations report that showed how ] could yield significant cuts in emissions at low cost.
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 talks are meant to set the stage for a major international meeting to be held in ], ], in December


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" />
==Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate ==

{{seealso|Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate}}
=== Emission trends in developing countries ===
The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is an agreement between six ] nations: ], ], ], ], ], and the ]. The partnership had its official launch in January 2006 at a ceremony in Sydney, Australia. Within the past year, the six nations have initiated nearly 100 projects aimed at clean energy capacity building and market formation. Building on these activities, long-term projects are schedule to deploy clean energy and environment technologies and services. The pact allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol whilst being more flexible while critics have said the pact will be ineffective without any enforcement measures and ultimately aims to void the negotiations leading to the Protocol called to replace the current Kyoto Protocol (negotiations started in Montreal in December 2005).
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===

{{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">
Toth ''et al.'' summarize the arguments for and against flexibility: {{citation
|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
|chapter = Ch 10: Decision-making Frameworks
|last1 = Toth
|first1 = F. L.
|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
}}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}}
</ref><ref>
{{citation
|chapter-url = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/059.htm
|title = Sec 1.3.3 How Has Global Climate Policy Treated Equity?
|chapter = Ch 1: Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Sustainable Development
|last1 = Banuri
|first1 = T.
|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
}}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}}
</ref> The flexibility mechanisms have attracted both positive and negative comments.<ref>
{{citation
| title=Part III: How good (or bad) are the Mechanisms?
}}, in {{harvnb|Carbon Trust|2009|pp=53–79}}
</ref><ref>
{{Citation
|date = 5 November 2007
|last = Schneider
|first = L.
|title = 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
|chapter = Ch 5: Overall conclusions
|pages = 72–73
|publisher = Institute for Applied Ecology
|location = Berlin, Germany
|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.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
}}
</ref><ref>
{{harvnb|Spash|2010}}
</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
| author=United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
| title=World Economic and Social Survey 2009: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet
| chapter=VI. Financing the development response to climate change
| year=2009
| page=162
| chapter-url=https://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wess2009files/wess09/wess2009.pdf
| publisher=United Nations
| location=New York, USA
| isbn=978-92-1-109159-5
| access-date=28 June 2017
| archive-date=17 June 2013
| 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}}
</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>

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>

==Amendment and successor==
{{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>

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
| 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
| last=Adam
| first=David
| newspaper=The Guardian
| 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
|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
|newspaper=The Guardian
|last=Adam
|first=David
|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">
{{citation
|date= July 2011
|author= King, 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= 12
|url = http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf
|display-authors = etal
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120113033748/http://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.pdf
|archive-date = 13 January 2012
|url-status=dead
}}
</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
| author=United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
| title=The Emissions Gap Report 2012
| publisher=UNEP
| location=Nairobi, Kenya
| pages=14–18
| url=http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapreport.pdf
| access-date=10 December 2012
| archive-date=13 May 2016
| 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
|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
|first= James
|last= Murray
|work= The Guardian
|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.
|access-date= 21 November 2012
|archive-date= 19 April 2015
|archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20150419033029/http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/may/16/bonn-climate-talks-eu-kyoto
|url-status= live
}}</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>

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
|url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20653018
|title=UN climate talks extend Kyoto Protocol, promise compensation
|work=BBC News
|date=8 December 2012
|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
|author=UN Climate Change Secretariat
|title=Doha climate conference opens gateway to greater ambition and action on climate change (press release)
|publisher=UN Climate Change Secretariat
|location=Bonn, Germany
|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-status=dead
|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
}}, 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.

], ], 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) &#124; 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}}
{{EnergyPortal}}
* ]
*]
* ]
*]
* ]
*]
* ]
*]
* ]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
* ]


==References== ==References==
{{reflist|2}} {{Reflist}}

=== Sources ===
{{refbegin|30em}}
* {{citation
|date=March 2009
|title=Global Carbon Mechanisms: Emerging lessons and implications (CTC748)
|author=Carbon Trust
|url=http://www.carbontrust.com/resources/reports/advice/global-carbon-mechanisms
|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
|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
|publisher=United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
|last=Depledge
|first=J.
|url=http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0200.pdf
|access-date=11 August 2009
|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
|date = December 2001
|last = Dessai
|first = S.
|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
|publisher = Tyndall Centre
|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
}}
* {{citation
| author=G-77
| date=22 November 2011
| url=http://g77.org/doc/members.html
| title=The Group of 77 - Member States
| 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
|title=The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol
|last=Grubb
| first=M.
|date=July–September 2003
|journal=World Economics
|volume=4
|issue=3
|citeseerx = 10.1.1.163.1719 }}
* {{citation
|year = 2001
|last1 = Grubb
|first1 = M.
|first2 = J.
|last2 = Depledge
|title = The Seven Myths of Kyoto
|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
|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
|year = 2001
|author = IPCC TAR SYR
|author-link = IPCC
|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)
|editor1-last = Watson
|editor1-first = R. T.
|editor2 = Core Writing Team
|publisher = Cambridge University Press
|url = http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/index.htm
|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}}).
* {{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
|year = 2007
|author = IPCC AR4 SYR
|author-link = IPCC
|title = Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report (SYR)
|series = Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the ] (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
|editor1 = Core Writing Team
|editor2-last = Pachauri
|editor2-first = R.K.
|editor3-last = Reisinger
|editor3-first = A.
|publisher = IPCC
|location = ], ]
|url = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html
|isbn = 978-92-9169-122-7
|access-date = 17 July 2012
|archive-date = 3 November 2018
|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181103154032/https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/contents.html
|url-status = live
}}.
* {{citation
|year = 2009
|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
|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
}}
* {{citation
|last = Spash
|first = C.L.
|title = The Brave New World of Carbon Trading
|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
}}
* {{citation
| year=2006
| last=Stern
| first=N.
| title=Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change (pre-publication edition)
| 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
| url-status=dead
| archive-date=2010-04-07
| publisher=HM Treasury
| location=London, UK
}}
* {{citation
|year=2010
|author=World Bank
|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
|location=Washington DC, USA
|doi=10.3763/cdev.2010.0046
|bibcode=2010CliDe...2..299M
|s2cid=154615933
|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}}


==External links== ==External links==
{{wikisource}} {{Wikisource}}
{{wikinews|Kyoto Protocol comes into effect}} {{Commons category|Kyoto Protocol}}
* 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 }}
===Protocol===
* {{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 }}
*


{{Climate change}}
===Implementation===
{{Authority control}}
*
* by Prof. Adil Najam of The ]
* . Source from the ]. Comprehensive analysis of China's recent economic development and its effects on Chinese emissions.
*
* - Broadcast ] ] on ] '']'' (] format).
* - Article by Jamais Cascio on the Kyoto Protocol
* - junkscience.com's Kyoto Protocol implementation cost claims, with counting clock.
* - An initiative to track and scrutinize carbon sink projects
* of the Carbon Trust and Imperial College London on implementing the Kyoto Protocol
* - article by Anup Shah explaining why developing and industrialized countries are not subject to similar targets
*
*
* "Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations"
* - evidence that the figures reported by many countries are wrong, especially for methane.
* - Independent news on climate change and its consequences


]
{{Global warming}}
]

] ]
]
]
]
]
]
] ]
]

]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
] ]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

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
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
Signed11 December 1997
LocationKyoto, Japan
Effective16 February 2005
ConditionRatification by at least 55 states to the Convention
Expiration31 December 2012 (first commitment period)
31 December 2020 (second commitment period)
Signatories84 (1998–1999 signing period)
Parties192 (the European Union, Cook Islands, Niue, and all UN member states except Andorra, Canada, South Sudan, and the United States as of 2022)
DepositarySecretary-General of the United Nations
LanguagesArabic, Mandarin, English, French, Russian, and Spanish
Full text
Kyoto Protocol at Wikisource
Kyoto Protocol Extension (2012–2020)
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
TypeAmendment to international agreement
Drafted8 December 2012
LocationDoha, Qatar
Effective31 December 2020
ConditionRatification by 144 state parties required
Expiration31 December 2020
Ratifiers147
Full text
Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol at Wikisource

Kyoto International Conference Center

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 Conference

1992 – 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

Atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrationsKyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.Refer to captionIn 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.
Allowance prices for carbon emission trade in all major emission trading schemes in Euro per ton of CO2 emitted (from 2008 until August 2024)
Carbon emission trading (also called carbon market, emission trading scheme (ETS) or cap and trade) is a type of emissions trading scheme designed for carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs). A form of carbon pricing, its purpose is to limit climate change by creating a market with limited allowances for emissions. Carbon emissions trading is a common method that countries use to attempt to meet their pledges under the Paris Agreement, with schemes operational in China, the European Union, and other countries.

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)
Austria – 87%
Belarus – 95% (subject to acceptance by other parties)
Belgium – 92.5%
Bulgaria – 92% (0.6%)
Canada – 94% (3.33%) (withdrew)
Croatia – 95% ()
Czech Republic – 92% (1.24%)
Denmark – 79%
Estonia – 92% (0.28%)

Finland – 100%
France – 100%
Germany – 79%
Greece – 125%
Hungary – 94% (0.52%)
Iceland – 110% (0.02%)
Ireland – 113%
Italy – 93.5%
Japan – 94% (8.55%)
Latvia – 92% (0.17%)

Liechtenstein – 92% (0.0015%)
Lithuania – 92%
Luxembourg – 72%
Netherlands – 94%
New Zealand – 100% (0.19%)
Norway – 101% (0.26%)
Poland – 94% (3.02%)
Portugal – 92%
Romania – 92% (1.24%)

Russian Federation – 100% (17.4%)
Slovakia – 92% (0.42%)
Slovenia – 92%
Spain – 115%
Sweden – 104%
Switzerland – 92% (0.32%)
Ukraine – 100%
United Kingdom – 87.5%
United States of America – 93% (36.1%) (non-party)

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 negotiations

Article 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

Refer to caption
Kyoto Parties with first period (2008–12) greenhouse gas emissions limitations targets, and the percentage change in their carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990 and 2009. For more detailed country/region information, see Kyoto Protocol and government action.
Refer to caption
Overview map of states committed to greenhouse gas (GHG) limitations in the first Kyoto Protocol period (2008–12):
  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 Parties

Afghanistan
Albania
Algeria
Angola
Antigua and Barbuda
Argentina
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahamas
Bahrain
Bangladesh
Barbados
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Benin
Bhutan
Bolivia
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Botswana
Brazil
Brunei
Bulgaria
Burkina Faso
Myanmar
Burundi
Cambodia
Cameroon
Canada
Cape Verde
Central African Republic
Chad
Chile
China
Colombia
Comoros
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Republic of the Congo
Cook Islands
Costa Rica
Ivory Coast
Croatia
Cuba
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Djibouti
Dominica

Dominican Republic
Ecuador
East Timor
Egypt
El Salvador
Equatorial Guinea
Eritrea
Estonia
Eswatini
Ethiopia
European Union
Fiji
Finland
France
Gabon
Gambia
Georgia
Germany
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Guatemala
Guinea
Guinea-Bissau
Guyana
Haiti
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
India
Indonesia
Iran
Iraq
Ireland
Israel
Italy
Jamaica
Japan
Jordan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
Kiribati
North Korea
South Korea
Kuwait
Kyrgyzstan
Laos
Latvia
Lebanon
Lesotho
Liberia
Libya

Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Madagascar
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mali
Malta
Marshall Islands
Mauritania
Mauritius
Mexico
Federated States of Micronesia
Moldova
Monaco
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Mozambique
Namibia
Nauru
Nepal
Netherlands
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Niue
North Macedonia
Norway
Oman
Pakistan
Palau
Panama
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
Peru
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Qatar
Romania
Russia
Rwanda
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines
Samoa
San Marino

São Tomé and Príncipe
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Serbia
Seychelles
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Slovakia
Slovenia
Solomon Islands
Somalia (non-party to Kyoto)
South Africa
Spain
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Suriname
Sweden
Switzerland
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Thailand
Togo
Tonga
Trinidad and Tobago
Tunisia
Turkey
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
United Kingdom
United States (non-party to Kyoto)
Uruguay
Uzbekistan
Vanuatu
Venezuela
Vietnam
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe

  • Observers:

Andorra (non-party to Kyoto)
Holy See (non-party to Kyoto)

Non-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 Protocol

In 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 Standard

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 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

Percentage changes in emissions from the base year (1990 for most countries) for Annex I Parties with Kyoto 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
Refer to caption and image description
CO2 emissions from fuel combustion of Annex I Kyoto Protocol (KP) Parties, 1990–2009. Total Annex I KP emissions are shown, along with emissions of Annex II KP and Annex I EITs.

Collectively the group of industrialized countries 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

Refer to captionAnnual 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 PartiesRefer to captionAnnual 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 trading

Another 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 emissions

In 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

References

  1. ^ "Status of ratification". UNFCC Homepage. Archived from the original on 4 April 2016. Retrieved 5 June 2012.
  2. "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.
  3. "What is the Kyoto Protocol?". UNFCCC. Archived from the original on 13 December 2023. Retrieved 31 May 2021.
  4. "Status of Ratification". unfccc.int. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Archived from the original on 5 September 2020. Retrieved 28 February 2020.
  5. ^ "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.
  6. ^ "7 .c Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol". UN Treaty Database. Archived from the original on 4 February 2021. Retrieved 19 April 2015.
  7. "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.
  8. "Overview of greenhouse gases - Defra, UK". Naei.beis.gov.uk. Archived from the original on 23 January 2023. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
  9. "Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol" (PDF). Unfcc.int. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 December 2022. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
  10. ^ 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.
  11. ^ "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.
  12. 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
  13. "Canada pulls out of Kyoto Protocol". CBC News. 12 December 2011. Archived from the original on 11 January 2023. Retrieved 11 January 2023.
  14. "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.
  15. "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.
  16. 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)
  17. ^ 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.
  18. ^ 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.
  19. ^ Grubb & Depledge 2001, p. 269
  20. ^ "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
  21. "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
  22. ^ 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.
  23. 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.
  24. ^ "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
  25. ^ "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
  26. 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
  27. ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC, archived from the original on 16 May 2011, retrieved 30 December 2011
  28. Depledge 2000, p. 6.
  29. 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.
  30. Bashmakov, I.; et al., "Measures, and Instruments", Executive summary, archived from the original on 17 January 2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
  31. 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.
  32. ^ 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
  33. 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
  34. ^ 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
  35. 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
  36. 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.
  37. International Conventions on Atmosphere Handbook. International Business Publications, USA. 3 March 2008. p. 14. ISBN 9781433066290.
  38. "Emissions Trading Worldwide: Status Report 2021". Berlin: International Carbon Action Partnership (ICAP). Retrieved 8 August 2021.
  39. 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.
  40. "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.
  41. Yuan, Lin (22 July 2021). "China's national carbon market exceeds expectations". Archived from the original on 4 November 2022. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
  42. "Carbon Price Viewer". EMBER. Archived from the original on 2 March 2023. Retrieved 8 August 2021.
  43. ^ Carbon Trust 2009, p. 24.
  44. Carbon Trust 2009, pp. 24–25.
  45. 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
  46. ^ Carbon Trust 2009, p. 25.
  47. 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.
  48. 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
  49. 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
  50. ^ 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
  51. ^ 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
  52. 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
  53. World Bank 2010.
  54. Carbon Trust 2009.
  55. Dessai 2001, p. 3
  56. 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
  57. 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
  58. ^ Dessai 2001, p. 9
  59. Grubb 2003, p. 147
  60. 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.
  61. "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.
  62. ^ 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
  63. ^ "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.
  64. Adam, David (2 December 2007), "UK to seek pact on shipping and aviation pollution at climate talks", The Guardian
  65. "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.
  66. "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.
  67. ^ 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
  68. ^ Grubb 2003, p. 144
  69. ^ Liverman 2009, p. 290
  70. "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
  71. Dessai 2001, p. 4
  72. G-77 2011
  73. ^ Grubb 2003, pp. 145–146
  74. "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.
  75. "Kyoto 1st commitment period (2008–12)". European Commission. Archived from the original on 21 December 2016. Retrieved 15 March 2020.
  76. ^ Liverman 2009, p. 291
  77. ^ Grubb 2003, p. 148
  78. ^ Grubb 2003, p. 151
  79. Depledge 2000, p. 46
  80. Depledge 2000, p. 44
  81. Depledge 2000, p. 45
  82. 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
  83. 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
  84. 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
  85. ^ 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
  86. 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
  87. "AF - Adaptation Fund". www.adaptation-fund.org. Archived from the original on 1 January 2011. Retrieved 20 June 2011.
  88. 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
  89. "The Kyoto protocol – A brief summary". European Commission. Archived from the original on 10 August 2009. Retrieved 19 April 2007.
  90. "Kyoto Protocol". UNFCCC. 14 May 2008. Archived from the original on 13 May 2008. Retrieved 21 May 2009.
  91. 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.
  92. ^ Grubb 2003, p. 157
  93. Victor, David G. The Collapse of the Kyoto Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global Warming. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University Press, 2004.
  94. "An Introduction to the Kyoto Protocol Compliance Mechanism". UNFCC. Archived from the original on 14 May 2021. Retrieved 30 October 2006.
  95. "The Kyoto Protocol full text (PDF)" (PDF). UNFCC Homepage. Archived (PDF) from the original on 5 October 2011. Retrieved 17 November 2004.
  96. "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.
  97. West, Larry. "What is the Kyoto Protocol". About.com (Part of NYT). Archived from the original on 2 March 2012. Retrieved 5 June 2012.
  98. "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.
  99. "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.
  100. 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.)
  101. "Clinton Hails Global Warming Pact" Archived 2 May 2009 at the Wayback Machine. All Politics (CNN). 11 December 1997. Retrieved 5 November 2006.
  102. "ParlInfo - GRIEVANCE DEBATE: Environment: Greenhouse Policy". parlinfo.aph.gov.au. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
  103. "Text of a Letter From The President". georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov. Archived from the original on 22 July 2009. Retrieved 24 August 2020.
  104. Dessler, Andrew E. (2021). Introduction to Modern Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 234. ISBN 978-1-108-84018-7.
  105. ^ Dessai 2001, pp. 5–6
  106. "United Nations Treaty Collection". treaties.un.org. Archived from the original on 8 October 2018. Retrieved 27 December 2014.
  107. 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.
  108. Dessai 2001, pp. 5–10
  109. ^ "Canada pulls out of Kyoto protocol". The Guardian. 13 December 2011. Archived from the original on 17 December 2019. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
  110. "Canada withdrawing from Kyoto". The Toronto Star. 12 December 2011. Archived from the original on 7 January 2012. Retrieved 12 December 2011.
  111. 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.
  112. ^ "Canada under fire over Kyoto protocol exit". BBC News. 13 December 2011. Archived from the original on 19 November 2018. Retrieved 22 June 2018.
  113. "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.
  114. ^ 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
  115. ^ 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.
  116. "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.
  117. 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.
  118. 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
  119. ^ 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
  120. 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.
  121. ^ 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
  122. 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
  123. 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.
  124. 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
  125. 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)
  126. ^ 22. Creating a global price for carbon (PDF), archived from the original (PDF) on 18 August 2012, in Stern 2006, p. 478
  127. "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.
  128. "Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto". BBC News. 3 December 2007. Archived from the original on 10 September 2008. Retrieved 5 December 2007.
  129. "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.
  130. 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.
  131. ^ 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
  132. 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
  133. Part III: How good (or bad) are the Mechanisms?, in Carbon Trust 2009, pp. 53–79
  134. 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
  135. Spash 2010
  136. 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
  137. Spash 2010, p. 185
  138. ^ 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.
  139. ^ 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.
  140. "Politicians sign new climate pact". BBC. 16 February 2007. Archived from the original on 5 May 2007. Retrieved 28 May 2007.
  141. "Global leaders reach climate change agreement". The Guardian. UK. 16 February 2007. Archived from the original on 5 June 2007. Retrieved 28 May 2007.
  142. 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.
  143. 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.
  144. ^ 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
  145. 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
  146. 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.
  147. 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.
  148. "Groser defends quitting Kyoto Protocol". 3 News NZ. 3 December 2012. Archived from the original on 1 July 2014. Retrieved 7 December 2018.
  149. "NZ's climate reputation 'nosedive'". 3 News NZ. 10 December 2012. Archived from the original on 1 July 2014. Retrieved 7 December 2018.
  150. "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.
  151. 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.
  152. "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

External links

Climate change
Overview
Causes
Overview
Sources
History
Effects and issues
Physical
Flora and fauna
Social and economic
By country and region
Mitigation
Economics and finance
Energy
Preserving and enhancing
carbon sinks
Personal
Society and adaptation
Society
Adaptation
Communication
International agreements
Background and theory
Measurements
Theory
Research and modelling
Categories: