Participation in the Kyoto Protocol,
only where dark green is indicated the countries that have signed
and ratified the treaty, yellow is signed, but not yet ratified,
grey is not yet decided and red is no intention to ratify.
The
Kyoto Protocol is a
protocol to the
United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or
FCCC), aimed at combating
global
warming. The UNFCCC is an international
environmental treaty with the goal of achieving "stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic interference
with the climate system."
The
Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan
and entered
into force on 16 February 2005. As of November 2009,
187 states have
signed and ratified the protocol.
The most notable
non-member of the Protocol is the United States
, which is a signatory of UNFCCC and was responsible
for 36.1% of the 1990 emission levels.
Under the Protocol, 37 industrialized countries (called "
Annex
I countries") commit themselves to a reduction of four
greenhouse gases (GHG) (
carbon
dioxide,
methane,
nitrous oxide,
sulphur hexafluoride) and two groups of
gases (
hydrofluorocarbons and
perfluorocarbons) produced by them,
and all member countries give general commitments. Annex I
countries agreed to reduce their collective greenhouse gas
emissions by 5.2% from the 1990 level. Emission limits do not
include emissions by international aviation and shipping, but 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.
The benchmark 1990 emission levels were accepted by the Conference
of the Parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3)
[2348] 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
CO2 equivalents when computing overall
sources and sinks.
The Protocol allows for several "
flexible mechanisms", such as
emissions trading, the
clean development mechanism
(CDM) and
joint implementation
to allow
Annex I countries to meet their GHG emission limitations by
purchasing GHG emission reductions credits from elsewhere, through
financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I
countries, from other Annex I countries, or from annex I countries
with excess allowances.
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.
Countries
including Japan, Canada
, Italy
, the
Netherlands
, Germany
, France
, Spain
and others
are actively promoting government carbon
funds, supporting multilateral carbon funds intent on
purchasing carbon credits from
non-Annex I countries, and are working closely with their major
utility, energy, oil and gas and chemicals conglomerates to acquire
greenhouse gas
certificates as cheaply as possible. Virtually all of
the non-Annex I countries have also established a designated
national authority to manage its Kyoto obligations, specifically
the "CDM process" that determines which GHG projects they wish to
propose for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board.
Background
The prevailing international
scientific opinion on
climate change is that human activities resulted in substantial
global warming from the mid-20th century, and that continued growth
in greenhouse gas concentrations caused by human-induced emissions
would generate high risks of dangerous climate change.
The
Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted an average global
rise in
temperature of 1.4°
C (2.5°
F) to 5.8°C
(10.4°
F) between 1990 and 2100.
Ratification process
The Protocol was adopted by
COP 3
on 11 December 1997 in
Kyoto, Japan. It
was opened on 16 March 1998 for signature by parties to
UNFCCC.
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
November 2009, 186
countries and one regional economic organization (the EC
) have
ratified the agreement, representing over 63.9% of the 1990
emissions from Annex I countries. Australia ratified the
Kyoto Protocol on 3 December 2007, which came into effect at the
end of March 2008.
The most
notable non-party to the Protocol is the United States, which is a party to UNFCCC and was responsible for
36.1% of the 1990 emission levels of Annex I
countries.
The Protocol can be signed and ratified only by parties to UNFCCC,
(Article 24) and a country can withdraw by giving 12 months notice.
(Article 27)
Objectives
The objective is the "stabilization and reconstruction of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that
would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate
system."
The objective of the Kyoto climate change conference was to
establish a legally binding international agreement, whereby all
the participating nations commit themselves to tackling the issue
of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. The target agreed
upon was an average reduction of 5.2% from 1990 levels by the year
2012.
Proponents also note that Kyoto is a first step as requirements to
meet the UNFCCC will be modified until the objective is met, as
required by UNFCCC Article 4.2(d).
The five principal concepts of the Kyoto Protocol are:
- commitments to reduce greenhouse gases that are legally binding
for annex I countries, as well as general commitments for all
member countries;
- implementation to meet the Protocol objectives, to prepare
policies and measures which reduce greenhouse gases; increasing
absorption of these gases (for example through geosequestration and biosequestration) and use all mechanisms
available, such as joint implementation, clean development
mechanism and emissions trading; being rewarded with credits which
allow more greenhouse gas emissions at home;
- minimizing impacts on developing countries by establishing an
adaptation fund for climate change;
- accounting, reporting and review to ensure the integrity of the
Protocol;
- compliance by establishing a compliance committee to enforce
commitment to the Protocol.
2012 emission targets and "flexible mechanisms"
39 of the 40 Annex I countries have ratified the Protocol. Of these
34 have committed themselves to a reduction of greenhouse gases
(GHG) produced by them to targets that are set in relation to their
1990 emission levels, in accordance with Annex B of the Protocol.
The targets apply to the four greenhouse gases
carbon dioxide,
methane,
nitrous oxide,
sulphur hexafluoride, and two
groups of gases,
hydrofluorocarbons and
perfluorocarbons. The six GHG gases 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, Annex I countries have committed themselves to
national or joint reduction targets, (formally called "quantified
emission limitation and reduction objectives"- Article 4.1) that
range from a joint reduction of 8% for the
European Union and others, to 7% for the
United States (non-binding as the US is not a signatory), 6% for
Japan and 0% for Russia. The treaty permits emission increases of
8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland. Emission limits do not
include emissions by international aviation and shipping.
Annex I countries 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.
38 of
the 39 Annex I countries have agreed to cap their emissions in this
way, two others are required to do so under their conditions of
accession into the EU, and one more (Belarus
) is seeking to become an Annex I
country.
The Protocol provides for several "
flexible mechanisms" which enable
Annex I countries to meet their GHG emission targets by
acquiring GHG emission reductions credits. The credits are
acquired by an Annex I country financing projects that reduce
emissions in non-Annex I countries or other Annex I countries, or
by purchasing credits from Annex I countries with excess credits.
The flexible mechanisms are
emissions
trading, the
clean
development mechanism (CDM) and
joint implementation.
In practice this means that non-Annex I countries have no GHG
emission restrictions, but have financial incentives to develop GHG
emission reduction projects to receive "
carbon credits" that can then be sold to Annex
I countries, encouraging
sustainable development. In
addition, the flexible mechanisms allow annex I countries with
efficient, low GHG-emitting industries, and high prevailing
environmental standards to
purchase carbon credits on the world market instead of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions domestically. Annex I countries typically
will want to acquire carbon credits as cheaply as possible, while
non-Annex I countries want to maximize the value of carbon credits
generated from their domestic greenhouse gas projects.
Details of the agreement
According to a press release from the
United Nations Environment
Programme:
"After 10 days of tough negotiations, ministers and
other high-level officials from 160 countries reached agreement
this morning on a legally binding Protocol under which
industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of
greenhouse gases by 5.2%.
The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six
greenhouse gases by 2008-12,
calculated as an average over these five years. Cuts in the three
most important gases -
carbon dioxide
(CO
2),
methane (CH4), and
nitrous oxide (N20) - will be measured
against a base year of 1990. Cuts in three long-lived industrial
gases -
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and
sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) -
can be measured against either a 1990 or 1995 baseline."
National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European
Union and others, to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia,
and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for
Iceland.
The
agreement supplements 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 limitations or
enforcement mechanisms. All parties to UNFCCC can sign or
ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to UNFCCC cannot. The
Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference
of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 3) in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. Most
provisions of the Kyoto Protocol apply to developed countries,
listed in Annex I to UNFCCC.
National emission targets exclude international aviation and
shipping.
Common but differentiated responsibility
UNFCCC adopts a principle of "common but differentiated
responsibilities." The parties agreed that:
- the largest share of historical and current global emissions of
greenhouse gases originated in developed countries;
- per capita emissions in developing countries are still
relatively low;
- the share of global emissions originating in developing
countries will grow to meet social and development needs.
China, India and other developing countries were not included in
any numerical limitation of the Kyoto Protocol, because they were
not main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions in the
pre-treaty industrialization period. China has since become the
largest greenhouse gas emitter. However, even without
responsibility under the Kyoto target, developing countries are
also committed to share the common responsibility of all countries
to reduce emissions.
The protocol defines a mechanism of "compliance" as a "monitoring
compliance with the commitments and penalties for
non-compliance."
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.
Emissions trading
Kyoto provides for a 'cap and trade' system which imposes national
caps on the emissions of annex I countries. On average, this cap
requires countries to reduce their emissions by 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. One example of a 'cap and
trade' system is the '
EU ETS'. Other schemes
may follow suit in time.
The ultimate buyers of
credits are
often individual companies that expect emissions to exceed their
quota, their assigned allocation units, AAUs or '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.
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.
Since allowances and carbon credits are tradeable instruments with
a transparent price, financial investors can buy them on the
spot market for speculation purposes, or
link them to
futures contracts. A
high volume of trading in this secondary market helps price
discovery and liquidity, and in this way helps to keep down costs
and set a clear price signal in CO
2 which helps
businesses to plan investments. This market has grown
substantially, with banks, brokers, funds, arbitrageurs and private
traders now participating in a market valued at about $60 billion
in 2007. 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.
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.
Kyoto enables a group of several annex I countries to create a
market-within-a-market together. The EU elected to be treated as
such a group, and created the
EU Emissions Trading
Scheme (ETS). The EU ETS uses EAUs (EU Allowance Units), each
equivalent to a Kyoto AAU. The scheme went into operation on 1
January 2005, although a forward market has existed since
2003.
The UK established its own learning-by-doing voluntary scheme, the
UK ETS, which ran from 2002 through 2006. This market existed
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 sources of Kyoto credits are the
Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM) and
Joint Implementation
(JI) projects. 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 within annex I countries. CDM projects produce
Certified Emission Reductions (CERs), and JI projects produce
Emission Reduction Units (ERUs), each equivalent to one AAU. Kyoto
CERs are also accepted for meeting EU ETS obligations, and ERUs
will become similarly valid from 2008 for meeting ETS obligations
(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 allowances.
Since the creation of Kyoto is subject to a lengthy process of
registration and certification by the UNFCCC, and the projects
themselves require several years to develop, this market is at this
point largely a forward market where purchases are made at a
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 m; it is
estimated that more than EUR 620 m worth of credits were
transacted in 2005.
Several non-Kyoto carbon markets are in existence or being planned,
and these are likely to grow in importance and numbers in the
coming years. These include the
New South Wales
Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, the
Regional Greenhouse Gas
Initiative and
Western
Climate Initiative in the United States and Canada, the
Chicago Climate Exchange
and the State of California’s
recent initiative to
reduce emissions.
These initiatives taken together may create a series of partly
linked markets, rather than a single carbon market. The common
theme is the adoption of market-based mechanisms centered on carbon
credits that represent a reduction of CO
2 emissions. The
fact that some of these initiatives have similar approaches to
certifying their credits makes it possible that carbon credits in
one market may in the long run be tradeable in other schemes. The
scheme 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.
Revisions
The protocol left several issues open to be decided later by the
sixth Conference of Parties (COP).
COP6 attempted to
resolve these issues at its meeting in the Hague
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).
In 2001,
a continuation of the previous meeting (COP6bis) 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 get Japan and Russia in as well 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.
The 3 December 2007, Australia ratified the protocol during the
first day of the COP13 in Bali.
Of the
signatories, 36 developed C.G.
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 expire in 2013.
Enforcement
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.
Current positions of governments
Carbon emissions from various global
regions during the period 1800-2000 AD
Australia
On the change of
government
following the
election
in November 2007, Prime Minister
Kevin
Rudd signed the ratification immediately after assuming office
on 3 December 2007, just before the meeting of the
UN Framework
Convention on Climate Change; it took effect in March, 2008.
When he was in the
opposition, Rudd commissioned
Ross Garnaut to
report on the economic effects of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions. The report was submitted to the
Australian government on September 30,
2008. The policy of the Rudd government contrasts with that of the
former Australian government,
which refused to ratify the agreement on the ground that following
the protocol would be costly, and that countries like India and
China with expanding economies and large population would not have
any obligations. Furthermore, it was claimed that Australia was
already doing enough to cut emissions, with a pledge of $300
million to reduce greenhouse gas emissions over three years.
The greenhouse gas emissions in Australia from 2008 to 2012 was
projected to be at 9% above the level in 1990, including the
effects of
land
use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF). The figure is
slightly above the Kyoto Protocol limitation of 8%. In 2007, the
UNFCCC reported that the greenhouse gas emissions in Australia in
2004 were at 25.6% above the level in 1990, without the LULUCF
correction.
The previous Australian government, along with the United States,
agreed to sign the
Asia
Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate at the
ASEAN
regional forum on 28 July 2005.
Furthermore, the state of New
South Wales
(NSW) commenced the NSW greenhouse gas
abatement scheme. This mandatory scheme of greenhouse gas
emissions trading commenced on 1 January 2003 and is currently in
trial by the state government in NSW alone. Notably, this scheme
allows accredited certificate providers to trade emissions from
households in the state. As of 2006, the scheme is still in place
despite the outgoing
Prime Minister'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, except Western Australia. The
purpose of NETS is to establish an intra-Australian carbon trading
scheme to coordinate policy among regions. As the
Constitution of Australia does not
refer specifically to environmental matters (apart from water), the
allocation of responsibility is to be resolved at a political
level. In the later years of the Howard administration (1996-2007),
the states governed by the Labor took steps to establish a NETS (a)
to take action in a field where there were few mandatory federal
steps and (b) as a means of facilitating ratification of the Kyoto
Protocol by the incoming Labor government.
Greenpeace has called clause 3.7 of the
Kyoto Protocol the
"Australia clause" on the ground that
it unfairly made Australia a major beneficiary. The clause allows
annex 1 countries with a high rate of land clearing in 1990 to set
the level in that year as a base. Greenpeace argues that since
Australia had an extremely high level of land clearing in 1990,
Australia's "baseline" was unusually high compared to other
countries.
In May 2009, Kevin Rudd delayed and changed the carbon pollution
reduction scheme:
- the scheme would begin in 2011/2012, a year later than
initially scheduled (it had been scheduled to begin on 1 July
2010);
- there would be one-year fixed price of AU$10 per permit in
2011/2012 (previously, price was to under the price cap of
$40);
- there would be an unlimited amount of permits available from
the government in the first year (previously, estimated 300 million
tons of CO2 was to be auctioned off);
- a higher percentage of permits would be handed out, rather than
auctioned off (previously, 60% or 90% of permits were to be handed
out);
- compensation would be canceled in 2010/2011 and reduced in
2011/2012;
- households can reduce their carbon footprint by buying and
retiring permits into an Australian carbon trust (previously, no
such scheme was included);
- subject to an international agreement, Australia would commit
to a reduction of 25% from the 2000 level by 2020 (previously,
there was to be a reduction of 15%);
- 5% out of the 25% reduction could be achieved by the government
purchase of international off-sets (previously, no such scheme was
included).
Canada
On
17 December 2002,
Canada 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%. Despite strong public
support, there was still some opposition, particularly by the
Canadian Alliance, a precursor to
the governing
Conservative
Party, some business groups, and energy concerns, using
arguments similar to those being voiced in the U.S. In particular,
there was a fear that since U.S. companies would not be affected by
the Kyoto Protocol, Canadian companies would be at a disadvantage.
In 2005,
a "war of words" was ongoing, primarily between Alberta
, Canada's primary oil and gas producer, and the
federal government. In 2003, the federal government claimed
that it had spent or committed $3.7 billion on climate change
programs. By 2004, CO
2 emissions had risen to 27% above
the level in 1990, which compares unfavorably with the 16% increase
in emissions in the U.S. in the same time.By 2006 they were down to
21.7% above 1990 levels.
In January 2006, a Conservative minority government under
Stephen Harper was elected, who previously
has expressed opposition to Kyoto, and in particular to the
international emission trading.
Rona
Ambrose, who replaced
Stéphane
Dion as the environment minister, has since endorsed and
expressed interests in some types of emission trading. On 25 April
2006, Ambrose announced that Canada would have no chance of meeting
its targets under Kyoto, but would look to participate in the
Asia-Pacific
Partnership on Clean Development and Climate sponsored by the
U.S. "We've been looking at the Asia-Pacific Partnership for a
number of months now because the key principles around [it] are
very much in line with where our government wants to go," Ambrose
told reporters. On 2 May 2006, it was reported that the funding to
meet the Kyoto standards had been cut, while the Harper government
develops a new plan to take its place.As the co-chair of the UN
Climate Change Conference in Nairobi in November 2006, the Canadian
government received criticism from environmental groups and other
governments for its position. On 4 January 2007, Rona Ambrose moved
from the Ministry of the Environment to become Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs. The environment portfolio went to
John Baird, the
former President of the Treasury Board.
The federal government has introduced legislation to set mandatory
emissions targets for industry, but they will not take effect until
2012, with a benchmark date of 2006 as opposed to Kyoto's 1990. The
government has since begun working with opposition parties to
modify the legislation.
A
private member's bill was
put forth by
Pablo Rodriguez,
Liberal, 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
New Democratic
Party and the
Bloc
Québécois, and with the current minority situation, the bill
passed the
House of
Commons on 14 February 2007 with a vote of 161 to 113. The
Senate passed the bill, and it
received
Royal Assent on 22 June 2007.
However, the government, as promised, has largely ignored the bill,
which was to force the government 60 days to form a detailed plan,
citing economic reasons.
In May 2007, the
Friends of the
Earth sued the federal government for failing to meet the Kyoto
Protocol obligations to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The
obligations were 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". Canada's
obligation to the treaty began in 2008.
Regardless of the federal policy, some
provinces are pursuing policies to restrain emissions, including
Quebec
, Ontario
, British Columbia
and Manitoba
as part of the Western Climate
Initiative.
Environmental groups in Canada are working together to demand that
Canadian politicians take the threat of climate change seriously
and make the necessary changes to ensure the safety and health of
future generations. Participating groups have created a petition
called
KYOTOplus, on which signatories
commit to the following acts:
• set a national target to cut greenhouse gas emissions at least 25
per cent from 1990 levels by 2020;
• implement an effective national plan to reach this target and
help developing countries adapt and build low-carbon economies;
and
• adopt a strengthened second phase of the Kyoto Protocol at the
United Nations climate change conference at Copenhagen, Denmark in
December 2009.
KYOTOplus is a national, non-partisan,
petition-centered campaign for urgent federal government action on
climate change. There are over fifty partner organizations,
including:
Climate Action
Network Canada,
Sierra Club
Canada,
Sierra Youth
Coalition,
Oxfam Canada, the
Canadian Youth Climate
Coalition,
Greenpeace Canada,
KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives and the David
Suzuki Foundation.
People's Republic of China
As of August 27, 2008 China surpassed the United States as the
biggest emitter in the world of CO
2 from power
generation, according to the Center for Global Development. On a
per capita basis, however, the emission by the power sector in the
U.S. is still nearly four times that in China.The top ten power
sector emitters in the world in absolute terms are China, the
United States, India, Russia, Germany, Japan, the United Kingdom,
Australia, South Africa, and South Korea. If the 27 member states
of the European Union are counted as a single country, the E.U.
would rank as the third biggest CO
2 polluter, after
China and the United States. In per capita terms, emissions from
the U.S. power sector are the second highest in the world. The
production of electricity in the U.S. produces about 9.5 tons of
CO
2 per person per year, compared to 2.4 tons per person
per year in China, 0.6 in India, and 0.1 in Brazil. The average per
capita emission from electricity and heat production in the E.U. is
3.3 tons per year. Only Australia, at greater than 10 tons per
year, emits more power-related emissions per person than the U.S
does.
In a related report, Canadian economists Jeff Rubin and Benjamin
Tal issued a report dated March 27, 2008, The Carbon Tariff Relying
on data from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Energy
Information Administration, Rubin and Tal ground their proposal for
a carbon tariff in striking facts, including the following:
- China’s GHG emissions have increased by 120% since the
beginning of the decade, while U.S. emissions have increased 16%
over the same period;
- China now exceeds the United States as the single largest GHG
emitter, and accounts for more than a fifth of global GHG
emissions;
- China relies more heavily on coal-fired power plants, the most
GHG-intensive energy source, than do most OECD countries. Between
now and 2012, the increase in Chinese coal-based emissions will
exceed the entire level of coal-based emissions in the United
States.
In June 2007, China unveiled a 62-page climate change plan and
promised to put climate change at the center of its energy policy
and insisted that developed countries had an “unshirkable
responsibility” to take the lead on cutting greenhouse gas
emissions and that the principle of "common but differentiated
responsibility", as agreed up in the
UNFCCC,
should be applied.
China stated the criticisms of its energy policy were unjust. It is
unfair to compare among different countries, since China alone
makes up one-fifth of the world's population and the per capita
emission in China was low compared to the emission in the
industrialized world. Even after one combines the population of the
E.U., the U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and South
Korea, China would still outnumber them by a few hundred million. A
comparison of yearly emissions also neglects the cumulative amount
generated by developed countries. Studies of
carbon leakage also suggest that nearly a
quarter of China's emissions result from production of goods
exported to developed countries.
European Union
On 31 May 2002, all fifteen then-members of the
European Union 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
emission
level. Denmark has committed itself to reducing its emissions
by 21%.
On 10 January 2007, the European
Commission
announced plans for a European Union energy
policy that included a unilateral 20% reduction in GHG
emissions by 2020.
The EU has consistently been one of the major nominal supporters of
the Kyoto Protocol, negotiating hard to get wavering countries on
board.
In December 2002, the EU created an
emissions trading
system 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.
Transport CO
2 emissions in the EU grew by 32% between
1990 and 2004. The share of transport in CO
2 emissions
was 21% in 1990, but by 2004 this had grown to 28%.
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
Warsaw Pact
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.
Both the EU (as the
European
Community) and its member states are signatories to the Kyoto
treaty.
Greece, however was excluded from the Kyoto Protocol on Earth Day
(22 April 2008) due to unfulfilled commitment of creating the
adequate mechanisms of monitoring and reporting emissions, which is
the minimum obligation, and delivering false reports by having no
other data to report.A United Nations committee has decided to
reinstate Greece in the emissions-trading system of the Kyoto
Protocol after a seven-month suspension (on November 15).
Germany
Germany reduced gas emissions by 22.4% between 1990 and 2008.On 28
June 2006, the German government announced that it would exempt its
coal industry from requirements under the E.U. 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." However,
Germany's voluntary commitment to reduce CO
2 emissions
by 21% from the level in 1990 has practically been met, because
emission has already been reduced by 19%. Germany is thus
contributing 75% of the 8% reduction promised by the E.U.
United Kingdom
The
energy policy of
the United Kingdom fully endorses goals for
carbon dioxide emissions reduction
and has committed to proportionate reduction in national emissions
on a phased basis. The U.K. is a signatory to the Kyoto
Protocol.
On 13 March 2007, a draft
Climate Change Bill was
published after cross-party pressure over several years, led by
environmental groups. Informed by the Energy White Paper 2003, the
bill aims to achieve a mandatory reduction of 60% in the
carbon emission from the 1990 level by 2050,
with an intermediate target of between 26% and 32% by 2020. On 26
November 2008, the Climate Change Act became law with a target of
80% reduction over 1990. The U.K. is the first country to ratify a
law with such a long-range and significant carbon reduction
target.
The U.K. currently
appears on course to meet its Kyoto limitation for the basket
of greenhouse gases, assuming the government is able to curb CO₂
emissions between 2007 and 2008 to 2012. Although the overall
greenhouse gas emissions in the U.K. have fallen, annual net
carbon dioxide emission has increased
by about 2% since the Labour Party came to power in 1997. As a
result, it now seems highly unlikely that the government will be
able to honor its pledge to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20%
from the 1990 level by 2010, unless an immediate and drastic action
is taken under after the ratification of the
Climate Change
Bill.
France
In 2004,
France shut down
its last coal mine, and now gets 80% of its electricity from
nuclear power and therefore has
relatively low CO2 emissions.
Norway
Between
1990 and 2007, Norway
's greenhouse gas emissions increased by 12%.
As well as directly reducing their own greenhouse gas emissions,
Norway's idea for carbon neutrality is to finance reforestation in
China, a legal provision of the Kyoto protocol.
India
India
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
G8 meeting in June
2005, Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan
Singh 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. However, the U.S.
and other Western nations assert that India, along with China, will
account for most of the emissions in the coming decades, owing to
their rapid industrialization and economic growth.
Pakistan
Although the Minister of State for environment Malik Min Aslam was
at first not very receptive, he subsequently convinced the Shaukat
Aziz cabinet to ratify the Protocol. The decision was taken in 2001
but due to international circumstances, it was announced in
Argentina in 2004 and accepted in 2005, opening the way for the
creation of a policy framework. On 11 January, 2005, Pakistan
submitted its instruments of accession to the Kyoto Protocol. The
Ministry of Environment assigned the task to work as designated
national authority (DNA). In February, 2006, the national CDM
operational strategy was approved, and on 27 April, 2006, the first
CDM project was approved by DNA. It was reduction of large N2O from
nitric acid production (investor: Mitsubishi, Japan), estimating 1
million CERs annually. Finally, in November, 2006, the first CDM
project was registered with the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
It was expected that the Protocol would help Pakistan lower
dependence on fossil fuels through renewable energy projects.
Although Pakistan was not a big polluter, it was a victim. Global
warming had led to 'freak weather' in the country with
record-breaking cold and heat, and droughts and floods.
Russia
Vladimir Putin approved the treaty on
4 November 2004, and Russia officially notified the United Nations
of its ratification on 18 November 2004. 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 (16 February 2005).
President Putin had earlier decided in favor of the protocol in
September 2004, along with the Russian cabinet, against the opinion
of the Russian Academy of Sciences, of the Ministry for Industry
and Energy, and of the then-president's economic adviser,
Andrey Illarionov, and in exchange for the
EU's support for Russia's admission into the
WTO. As anticipated, after this, ratification by the
lower (22 October 2004) and upper house of parliament did not
encounter any obstacles.
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 Soviet Union
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.
There is an ongoing scientific debate on whether Russia will
actually gain from selling credits for unused AAUs.
United States
The
United
States (U.S.), although a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol,
has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the Protocol. The
signature alone is merely symbolic, as the Kyoto Protocol is
non-binding on the United States unless ratified.
The America's Climate
Security Act of 2007, also more commonly referred to in the
U.S.
as the
"Cap and Trade Bill", was proposed for
greater U.S. alignment with the Kyoto standards and goals.
That bill was almost 500 pages long, and would have provided for
establishment of a federal bureau of Carbon Trading, Regulation,
and Enforcement with mandates which some authorities suggest would
amount to the largest tax increase in the history of the United
States.
On 25 July 1997, 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 95–0 vote the
Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res.
98), 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 nations as
well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to
the economy of the United States". On 12 November 1998, Vice
President
Al Gore symbolically signed the
protocol. Both Gore and Senator
Joseph
Lieberman indicated that the protocol would not be acted upon
in the Senate until there was participation by the developing
nations. The Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol to
the Senate for ratification.
The
Clinton Administration released an
economic analysis in July 1998, prepared by the
Council of Economic Advisors,
which concluded that with emissions trading among the annex B/annex
I countries, and participation of key developing countries in the
"
Clean Development
Mechanism"—which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions
rates through 2012—the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol
could be reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Estimates of
the cost of achieving the Kyoto Protocol carbon reduction targets
in the United States, as compared by the
Energy Information
Administration (EIA), predicted losses to GDP of between 1.0%
and 4.2% by 2010, reducing to between 0.5% and 2.0% by 2020. Some
of these estimates assumed that action had been taken by 1998, and
would be increased by delays in starting action.
President
George W. Bush did not submit the treaty for Senate
ratification based on the exemption granted to China (now the
world's largest gross emitter of carbon dioxide, although emission
is low
per capita). Bush opposed the
treaty because of the strain he believed the treaty would put on
the economy; he emphasized the
uncertainties which he
believed were present in the scientific evidence. Furthermore, the
U.S. was concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For
example, the U.S. did not support the split between annex I
countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
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 People's Republic of China
.
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 ...
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 ...
Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal
of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere."
In June 2002, the
Environmental Protection
Agency 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. At the
G8 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
carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United
States has signed the
Asia
Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, 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.
The Administration's position was not uniformly accepted in the
U.S. For example,
Paul Krugman noted
that the target 18% reduction in
carbon
intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions.
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
Exxon Mobil
officer,
Philip Cooney, watered down
descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by
government scientists, charges the White House denies. Critics
point to the Bush administration's close ties to the oil and gas
industries.
In June 2005, State
Department
papers showed the administration thanking
Exxon 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
Global Climate
Coalition was also a factor.
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.
President
Barack Obama has, as yet,
taken no action with the senate that would change the position of
the United States towards this protocol. When Obama was in Turkey
in April 2009, he said that "it doesn't make sense for the United
States to sign [the Kyoto Protocol] because [it] is about to end".
At this time, two years and eleven months remained from the
four-year commitment period.
States and local governments
The Framework Convention on Climate Change is a treaty negotiated
between countries at the UN; thus individual states are not free to
participate independently within this Protocol to the
treaty.Nonetheless, several separate initiatives have started at
the level of state or city.Eight Northeastern U.S. states created
the
Regional
Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a state level emissions
capping and trading program, using their own
independently-developed mechanisms. Their first allowances were
auctioned in November 2008.
- Participating states:
Maine
, New Hampshire
, Vermont
, Connecticut
, New
York
, New
Jersey
, Delaware
, Massachusetts
, and Maryland
(these states represent over 46 million people,
20% of the US population).
- Observer states and
regions: Pennsylvania
, District of Columbia
, Rhode
Island
.
On 27
September 2006, California
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed into law
the bill AB 32, also known as
the Global Warming
Solutions Act, establishing a timetable to reduce the state's
greenhouse-gas emissions, which rank at 12th-largest in the world,
by 25% by the year 2020. This law effectively puts
California in line with the Kyoto limitations, but at a date later
than the 2008-2012 Kyoto commitment period. Many of the features of
the Californian system are similar to the Kyoto mechanisms,
although the scope and targets are different. The parties in the
Western Climate
Initiative expect to be compatible with some or all of the
Californian model.
As of 14
June 2009, 944 U.S. cities in 50 states, the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico, representing over 80 million Americans support
Kyoto after Mayor Greg Nickels of
Seattle
started a nationwide effort to get cities to
agree to the protocol. On 29 October 2007, it was reported
that Seattle met their target reduction in 2005, reducing their
greenhouse gas emissions by 8 percent since 1990.
- Large participating
cities: Albany, New York
; Albuquerque, New Mexico
; Alexandria, Virginia
; Ann Arbor, Michigan
; Arlington, Texas
; Atlanta, Georgia
; Austin, Texas
; Baltimore, Maryland
; Berkeley, California
; Boston, Massachusetts
; Charleston, South Carolina
;Chattanooga, Tennessee
; Chicago, Illinois
; Cincinnati, Ohio
; Columbus, Ohio
; Dallas, Texas
; Denver, Colorado
; Des Moines, Iowa
; Fayetteville, Arkansas
; Hartford, Connecticut
; Honolulu, Hawaii
; Indianapolis, Indiana
; Jersey City, New Jersey
; Lansing, Michigan
; Las Vegas, Nevada
; Lexington, Kentucky
; Lincoln, Nebraska
; Little Rock, Arkansas
; Los Angeles, California
; Louisville, Kentucky
; Madison, Wisconsin
; Miami, Florida
; Milwaukee, Wisconsin
; Minneapolis, Minnesota
; Nashville, Tennessee
; New Orleans, Louisiana
; New York, New York
; Oakland, California
; Omaha, Nebraska
; Pasadena, California
; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
; Phoenix, Arizona
; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
; Portland, Oregon
; Providence, Rhode Island
; Richmond, Virginia
; Sacramento, California
; Salt Lake City, Utah
; San Antonio, Texas
; San Francisco, California
; San Jose, California
; Santa Ana, California
; Santa Fe, New Mexico
; Seattle, Washington; St. Louis, Missouri
; Tacoma, Washington
; Tallahassee, Florida
; Tampa, Florida
; Topeka, Kansas
; Tulsa, Oklahoma
; Virginia Beach, Virginia
; Washington, D.C.; West Palm Beach, Florida
; Wilmington, Delaware
; Wilmington, North Carolina
.
- There is a full list of cities and
mayors.
Support
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol state that reducing these emissions
is crucially important, as
carbon
dioxide is believed to be causing the Earth's atmosphere to
heat up. This is supported by
attribution
analysis.
Most prominent among advocates of Kyoto have been the European
Union and many
environmentalist
organizations. The United Nations and some individual nations'
scientific advisory bodies (including the
G8
national science academies) have also issued reports favoring the
Kyoto Protocol.
An international day of action was planned for 3 December 2005, to
coincide with the Meeting of the Parties in Montreal. The planned
demonstrations were endorsed by the Assembly of Movements of the
World Social Forum.
A group of major Canadian corporations also called for urgent
action regarding climate change, and have suggested that Kyoto is
only a first step.
In the United States, there is at least one student group,
Kyoto Now!, which aims to use student interest to
support pressure towards reducing emissions as targeted by the
Kyoto Protocol compliance.
Criticism
Some
argue the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse
emissions (Niue
, The
Cook
Islands
, and Nauru added notes to this
effect when signing the protocol).
Some
environmental
economists have been critical of the Kyoto Protocol. 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. Finally, some
economists such as
Gwyn Prins and
Steve Rayner think that an entirely
different approach needs to be followed than the approach suggested
by the Kyoto Protocol.
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
communist regimes fell.
On the other hand,
Japan, as a big importer of natural resources, had to
improve its efficiency after the 1973
oil crisis 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.
Cost-benefit analysis
Economists have been trying to analyze the overall net benefit of
Kyoto Protocol through
cost-benefit analysis. There is
disagreement due to large uncertainties in economic variables. 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. However, a study by De Leo
et al. 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
Copenhagen consensus
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. They also advocate commitment to the
precautionary principle. Critics
point out that additional higher curbs on carbon emission are
likely to cause significantly higher increase in cost, making such
defense 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
Stern Review (a UK government sponsored
report into the economic impacts of climate change) concluded that
one percent of global GDP is required to be invested 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.
Discount rates
One problem in attempting to measure the "absolute" costs and
benefits of different policies to global warming is choosing a
proper
discount rate. 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.
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,.
Change 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.
Below is a table of the changes in greenhouse gas emissions of some
countries.
Comparing total greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 to 1990 levels,
the U.S. emissions were up by 15.8%, with irregular fluctuations
from one year to another but a general trend to increase. At the
same time, the EU group of 23 (EU-23) Nations had reduced their
emissions by 5%. 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 in
line with the treaty, being part of the cluster of countries
implementation (see objectives in the list above).
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.
Successor
In the
non-binding 'Washington Declaration' agreed on
16 February 2007, Heads of governments from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, 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 envisage a global cap-and-trade system that
would apply to both industrialized nations and
developing countries, and hoped that this
would be in place by 2009.
On 7 June 2007, leaders at the
33rd G8
summit agreed that the G8 nations would 'aim to at least halve
global
CO2 emissions by
2050'. The details enabling this to be achieved would be negotiated
by environment ministers within the
United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in a process
that would also include the major
emerging economies.
A round of climate change talks under the auspices of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (
Vienna Climate Change Talks
2007) concluded in 31 August 2007 with agreement on key
elements for an effective international response to climate
change.
A key feature of the talks was a United Nations report that showed
how
energy efficiency could yield
significant cuts in emissions at low cost.
The
talks are meant to set the stage for a major international meeting
to be held in Nusa
Dua
, Bali
, which
started on 3 December 2007.
The 2008
Conference was held in December 2008 in Poznań
, Poland
. One of the main topics on this meeting
was the discussion of a possible implementation of avoided
deforestation also known as
Reducing
emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) into
the future Kyoto Protocol.
UN negotiations are now gathering pace in advance of a
key meeting in
Copenhagen in December 2009.
Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate
The Asia
Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is an
agreement among seven Asia-Pacific
nations: Australia, Canada, China, India, Japan, South Korea
, and the United States. Between them, these seven countries are
responsible for more than half of the world's carbon dioxide
emissions.
The partnership had its official launch in January 2006 at a
ceremony in Sydney, Australia. The alliance states that member
nations have initiated nearly 100 projects aimed at clean energy
capacity building and market formation since then . Building on
these activities, long-term projects are scheduled to deploy clean
energy and environment technologies and services. The pact allows
those countries to set arbitrary goals for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions individually, without any enforcement mechanism for these
goals.
Supporters of the pact see it as "complementing the Kyoto Protocol"
whilst being more flexible. Critics have said the pact will be
ineffective without any enforcement measures and is a means to
undermine the negotiations leading to the Protocol scheduled to
replace the current Kyoto Protocol (negotiations started in
Montreal in December 2005).
U.S. Senator John
McCain said the partnership "[amounted] to nothing more than a
nice little public relations ploy," while
the Economist described the partnership as
"patent fig-leaf for the refusal of America and Australia to ratify
Kyoto".
See also
References
- Global Warming Glossary, International Rivers,
published November 2008, accessed 9 July 2009
- European Union ratifies the Kyoto Protocol
- 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 Bonn-based Clean Development Mechanism Executive Board
to assess and approve projects ("CDM Projects") in non-Annex I
countries prior to awarding CERs. (A similar scheme called
"Joint Implementation" or "JI" applies
in transitional economies mainly covering the former Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe).
- Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change,
S. Maljean-Dubois, Synthèse, n° 01, 2007, Institute for Sustainable
Development and International Relations. [1]
- Point
Carbon Market news
- Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto, BBC News, December
3, 2007, retrieved December 5, 2007.
-
http://unfccc.int/files/inc/graphics/image/gif/graph3_2007_ori.gif
- " Australia and the Kyoto Protocol", Greenpeace
Asia Pacific, accessed 18 May 2007.
- >
-
http://research.cibcwm.com/economic_public/download/smar08.pdf
- Tao Wang & Jim Watson: Who Owns China's
Carbon Emissions? Tyndall Centre Briefing Note No. 23 October
2007
- Energy White Paper 2003, Department of Trade and
Industry, published February 2002, accessed 19 May 2007
- New Bill and strategy lay foundations for tackling climate
change, Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, published 13 March
2007. Retrieved 13 March 2007.
- Climate Change Act 2008, Department of Energy and
Climate Change webpage, retrieved 2009-10-11.
- Industries asked to adopt CDM, The News
International, May 5, 2009
- http://lieberman.senate.gov/documents/amendment.pdf
- Roger Harrabin, China 'now top carbon polluter' BBC News, 2008-04-14,
retrieved 2009-10-01. Archived ar WebCite
- Ekardt/von Hövel, Carbon & Climate Law Review 2009, p.
102-114
- Amanda Griscom Little, "Pact or Fiction? New Asia-Pacific climate pact is
long on PR, short on substance", Grist.org article, 4 August
2005]
- "Better late than never: India talks about tackling
climate change", The Economist, 30 July 2007
Further reading
- Ekardt, F./von Hövel, A.: Distributive Justice,
Competitiveness, and Transnational Climate Protection. In:
Carbon & Climate Law Review, Vol. 3., 2009,
p. 102-114.
External links
- 92% (0.4%)
- 92% (0.8%)
- 92% (0.6%)
- 95% ()
- 92% (1.24%)
- 92% (0.4%)
- 92% (0.28%)
- 92% (0.4%)
- 92% (0.6%)
- 94% (0.52%)
- 92% (0.2%)
- 92% (0.17%)
- (0.0015%) 92%
- 92% ()
- 92% (0.1%)
- 92% (0.0015%)
- 100% (0.19%)
- 92% (0.3%)
- 92% (1.24%)
- 100% (17.4%)
- 92% (0.42%)
- 92% ()
- 92% (0.4%)
- 92% (0.32%)
()
- 100% ()
- 93% (36.1%) (non-party)
Wikis
Quiz
Facts
Map
Search
