Kyoto Protocol
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).[11] 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.[19][20] 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."[21] 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.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.[39]: 12 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.The "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS) is a plan for achieving environmental benefits from trading surplus allowances (AAUs) under the Kyoto Protocol.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.[60] 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.[65] 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.[82] 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.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.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 Andorra (non-party to Kyoto) Holy See (non-party to Kyoto) The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998,[99] 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".[102] 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 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.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.[115]: 25 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.[122] 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.[123] 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.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.[11] In several large developing countries and fast growing economies (China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, and Iran) GHG emissions have increased rapidly (PBL, 2009).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.[131] Criticisms of flexibility have, for example, included the ineffectiveness of emissions trading in promoting investment in non-fossil energy sources,[136] and adverse impacts of CDM projects on local communities in developing countries.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.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.[139] 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.[140][141] 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.[149] 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).
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). [ 75 ]
Kyoto Protocol (band)UN member statesSecretary-General of the United NationsWikisourceKyoto International Conference CenterJapaneseHepburninternational treatyUnited Nations Framework Convention on Climate Changegreenhouse gas emissionsscientific consensusglobal warmingCO2 emissionsCanadacarbon dioxide (CO2)methane (CH4)nitrous oxide (N2O)hydrofluorocarbonsperfluorocarbonssulfur hexafluoride (SF6)nitrogen trifluoride (NF3)economic development2007–2008 financial crisisEastern Blocdissolution of the Soviet UnionAustraliaEuropean Unionmember statesBelarusIcelandKazakhstanLiechtensteinNorwaySwitzerlandUkraineNew ZealandRussiaUnited StatesParis AgreementHistory of climate change policy and politicsUnited Nations Climate Change ConferenceFramework Convention on Climate ChangeConference of the Parties (COP)COP 11globalgreenhouse gasesCarbon dioxideadaptationClean Development MechanismJoint ImplementationAssigned Amount Unitsmarginalaggregategross domestic productCertified emission reductionsemission reduction unitscreditsgreenhouse gas inventoryCarbon emission tradingemissions tradingcarbon pricinglimit climate changepledgesfossil fuelsclimate changerenewable energywind powersolar powercarbon budgetsoversupplyChina's national carbon trading schemeEU-ETSglobal warming potentialEuropean Union Emissions Trading SchemeEuropean Union Emission Trading Schemerenewable energy commercialisationenergy efficiencyEarth SummitRio de Janeiroland useland use changeforestryIntergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeLand use, land-use change, and forestryForest managementcroplandgrazingrevegetationindustrialized countriesEuropean Communitymethanenitrous oxidesulphur hexafluorideCO2 equivalentschlorofluorocarbonsMontreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone LayerAustriaBelgiumBulgariaCroatiaCzech RepublicDenmarkEstoniaFinlandFranceGermanyGreeceHungaryIrelandLatviaLithuaniaLuxembourgNetherlandsPolandPortugalRomaniaRussian FederationSlovakiaSloveniaSwedenUnited KingdomUnited States of Americaemission allowancesKyoto Protocol and government actionAlliance of Small Island Statesenergy intensity