The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends 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 (a) global warming is occurring and (b) it is
extremely likely that human-made CO2 emissions have predominantly caused it. The Kyoto Protocol
was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997 and entered into force on February 16, 2005.
There are currently 192 parties (Canadawithdrew effective December 2012)[4] to the Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol implemented the objective of the UNFCCC to fight global warming by reducing
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere to "a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system" (Art. 2). The Protocol is based on the principle
of common but differentiated responsibilities: it puts the obligation to 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. A second commitment
period was agreed on in 2012, known as the Doha Amendment to the protocol, in which 37 countries
have binding targets: Australia, the European Union (and its 28 member
states), Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, Liechtenstein, Norway, Switzerland, and Ukraine. Belarus,
Kazakhstan and Ukraine have stated that they may withdraw from the Protocol or not put into legal
force the Amendment with second round targets.[8] Japan, New Zealand and Russia have
participated in Kyoto's first-round but have not taken on new targets in the second commitment
period. Other developed countries without second-round targets are Canada (which withdrew from
the Kyoto Protocol in 2012) and the United States (which has not ratified the Protocol). As of July
2016, 66[9] states have accepted the Doha Amendment, while entry into force requires the
acceptances of 144 states. Of the 37 countries with binding commitments, 7 have ratified.
Negotiations were held in the framework of the yearly UNFCCC Climate Change Conferences on
measures to be taken after the second commitment period ends in 2020. This resulted in the 2015
adoption of the Paris Agreement, which is a separate instrument under the UNFCCC rather than an
amendment of the Kyoto protocol.

Contents
[hide]

1Background
o 1.1Chronology
o 1.2Article 2 of the UNFCCC
2Objectives
3First commitment period: 200812
4Flexibility mechanisms
o 4.1International Emissions Trading
4.1.1Asia
4.1.2Europe
4.1.3North America
4.1.4Oceania
4.1.5Intergovernmental Emissions Trading
4.1.6Green Investment Scheme
4.1.7Trade in AAUs
4.1.8Clean Development Mechanism
4.1.9Joint Implementation
5Stabilization of GHG concentrations
o 5.1Background
o 5.2Relation to temperature targets
 6Details of the agreement
o 6.1Negotiations
6.1.1Emissions cuts
o 6.2Financial commitments
o 6.3Implementational provisions
o 6.4Mechanism of compliance
o 6.5Enforcement
7Ratification process
o 7.1Non-ratification by the US
o 7.2Withdrawal of Canada
o 7.3Other states and territories where the treaty is not applicable
8Government action and emissions
o 8.1Annex I countries
8.1.1Projections
8.1.2Annex I Parties with targets
8.1.3Annex I Parties without Kyoto targets
o 8.2Non-Annex I
9Cost estimates
10Views on the Protocol
o 10.1Views on the flexibility mechanisms
o 10.2Philosophy
11Conference of the Parties
12Amendment and possible successors
13See also
14Notes
15References
16Further reading
17External links

Background[edit]
Main article: Global warming
See also: global climate model Projections of future climate change, and Scientific opinion on
climate change
The view that human activities are likely responsible for most of the observed increase in global
mean temperature ("global warming") since the mid-20th century is an accurate reflection of current
scientific thinking.[10][11] Human-induced warming of the climate is expected to continue throughout the
21st century and beyond.[11]
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) have produced a range of
projections of what the future increase in global mean temperature might be.[12] The IPCC's
projections are "baseline" projections, meaning that they assume no future efforts are made to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The IPCC projections cover the time period from the beginning
of the 21st century to the end of the 21st century.[12][13] The "likely" range (as assessed to have a
greater than 66% probability of being correct, based on the IPCC's expert judgement) is a projected
increase in global mean temperature over the 21st century of between 1.1 and 6.4 C.[12]
The range in temperature projections partly reflects different projections of future greenhouse gas
emissions.[14]:2224 Different projections contain different assumptions of future social and economic
development (e.g., economic growth, population level, energy policies), which in turn affects
projections of future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[14]:2224 The range also reflects uncertainty in
the response of the climate system to past and future GHG emissions (measured by the climate
sensitivity).[14]:2224

Chronology[edit]
See also: History of climate change science
1992 The UN Conference on the Environment and Development is held in Rio de Janeiro. It results
in the Framework Convention on Climate Change ("FCCC" or "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.
2002 Russia and Canada ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC bringing the treaty into effect on
February 16, 2005.
2011 Canada became the first signatory to announce its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.[15]
2012 On December 31, 2012, the first commitment period under the Protocol expired.

Article 2 of the UNFCCC[edit]

Main article: United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Interpreting Article 2
Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC).[16] Article 2 of the Convention states its ultimate objective, which is to stabilize the
concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic (i.e., human) interference with the climate system."[17] The natural, technical,
and social sciences can provide information on decisions relating to this objective, e.g., the possible
magnitude and rate of future climate changes.[17] However, the IPCC has also concluded that the
decision of what constitutes "dangerous" interference requires value judgements, which will vary
between different regions of the world.[17] Factors that might affect this decision include the local
consequences of climate change impacts, the ability of a particular region to adapt to climate
change (adaptive capacity), and the ability of a region to reduce its GHG emissions(mitigative
capacity).[17]

Objectives[edit]

Kyoto is intended to cut globalemissions of greenhouse gases.

In order to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of CO
2, emissions worldwide would need to be dramatically reduced from their present level.[18]

The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to control emissions of the main anthropogenic (i.e., human-
emitted) greenhouse gases (GHGs) in ways that reflect underlying national differences in GHG
emissions, wealth, and capacity to make the reductions.[19] The treaty follows the main principles
agreed in the original 1992 UN Framework Convention.[19] 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 (20082012). 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 (Gupta et al., 2007).[20] 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
(see Kyoto Protocol#Successor for details).[21] The first period emission reduction commitments
expired on December 31, 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."[22] 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.[21][23]
For each of the different anthropogenic GHGs, different levels of emissions reductions would be
required to meet the objective of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations (see United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change#Stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations).[24]Carbon dioxide (CO
2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG.[25] Stabilizing the concentration of CO
2 in the atmosphere would ultimately require the effective elimination of anthropogenic CO
2emissions.[24]

Some of the principal concepts of the Kyoto Protocol are:

Binding commitments for the Annex I Parties. The main feature of the Protocol[26] 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.[27][28]:290
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.

First commitment period: 200812[edit]

Under the Kyoto Protocol, 38 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.[26] The targets apply to the four greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH
4), nitrous oxide (N
2O), sulphur hexafluoride (SF
6), and two groups of gases, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs).[29] The six
GHG are translated into CO2 equivalents in determining reductions in emissions.[30] 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).[31] Parties to the Kyoto Protocol not listed in Annex I of the Convention (the non-Annex I
Parties) are mostly low-income developing countries,[32]:4 and may participate in the Kyoto Protocol
through the Clean Development Mechanism (explained below).[21]
The emissions limitations of Annex I Parties varies between different Parties.[33] Some Parties have
emissions limitations reduce below the base year level, some have limitations at the base year level
(i.e., 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.[34] 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.[33]Kazakhstan does not have a target, but has
declared that it wishes to become an Annex I Party to the Convention.[33]

Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their 2008-2012 commitments (% of base year) and
1990 emission levels (% of all Annex I countries) [35][36] [show]
For most Parties, 1990 is the base year for the national GHG inventory and the calculation of the
assigned amount.[37] However, five Parties have an alternative base year:[37]

Bulgaria: 1988;
Hungary: the average of the years 198587;
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.

Flexibility mechanisms[edit]
See also: Economics of climate change mitigation Kyoto Protocol
The Protocol defines three "flexibility mechanisms" that can be used by Annex I Parties in meeting
their emission limitation commitments.[38]:402 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).[39]
The economic basis for providing this flexibility is that the marginal cost of reducing (or abating)
emissions differs among countries.[40]:660[41] "Marginal cost" is the cost of abating the last tonne of CO
2-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.[42] Studies also showed that national losses in Annex I gross domestic product (GDP) could
be reduced by use of the flexibility mechanisms.[42]
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.[40] 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.[43] 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.[citation needed]
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[edit]

Main articles: Emissions trading and Carbon emission trading
A number of emissions trading schemes (ETS) have been, or are planned to be, implemented.[44]:1926
Asia[edit]

Japan: emissions trading in Tokyo started in 2010. This scheme is run by the Tokyo
Metropolitan Government.[44]:24
Europe[edit]

European Union: the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which started in
2005. This is run by the European Commission.[44]:20
Norway: domestic emissions trading in Norway started in 2005.[44]:21 This was run by the
Norwegian Government, which is now a participant in the EU ETS.
Switzerland: the Swiss ETS, which runs from 2008 to 2012, to coincide with the Kyoto Protocol's
first commitment period.[44]:22
United Kingdom:
the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, which ran from 200206. This was a scheme run by the
UK Government, which is now a participant in the EU ETS.[44]:19
the UK CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, which started in 2010, and is run by the UK
Government.[44]:25
North America[edit]

Canada: emissions trading in Alberta, Canada, which started in 2007. This is run by
the Government of Alberta.[44]:22
United States:
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which started in 2009. This scheme caps
emissions from power generation in ten north-eastern US states (Connecticut, Delaware,
Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island
and Vermont).[44]:24
emissions trading in California, which started in 2013.[44]:26
the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which is planned to start in 2012. This is a collective ETS
agreed between 11 US states and Canadian provinces.[44]:25
Oceania[edit]

Australia: the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme (NSW), which started in
2003. This scheme is run by the Australian State of New South Wales, and has now joined the
Alfa Climate Stabilization (ACS).[44]:19
New Zealand: the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, which started in 2008.[44]:23
Intergovernmental Emissions Trading[edit]
The design of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) implicitly allows for trade of
national Kyoto obligations to occur between participating countries (Carbon Trust, 2009,
p. 24).[45] Carbon Trust (2009, pp. 2425) found that other than the trading that occurs as part of the
EU ETS, no intergovernmental emissions trading had taken place.[45]
One of the environmental problems with IET is the large surplus of allowances that are available.
Russia, Ukraine, and the new EU-12 member states (the Kyoto Parties Annex I Economies-in-
Transition, abbreviated "IET": Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine)[46]:59 have a surplus of
allowances, while many OECD countries have a deficit.[45]:24 Some of the EITs with a surplus regard it
as potential compensation for the trauma of their economic restructuring.[45]: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.[47] This excess of allowances were viewed by the EITs as "headroom"
to grow their economies.[48] 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."[49]
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[45]:25 (see also the
section below on the Green Investment Scheme).
Green Investment Scheme[edit]
A Green Investment Scheme (GIS) refers to a plan for achieving environmental benefits from trading
surplus allowances (AAUs) under the Kyoto Protocol.[50] 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.[50]
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. channeled 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).[45]:25
Trade in AAUs[edit]
Latvia was one of the front-runners of GISs. World Bank (2011)[51]:53 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.[51]:53
Japan's national policy to meet their Kyoto target includes the purchase of AAUs sold under
GISs.[52] In 2010, Japan and Japanese firms were the main buyers of AAUs.[51]:53 In terms of the
international carbon market, trade in AAUs are a small proportion of overall market value.[51]:9 In
2010, 97% of trade in the international carbon market was driven by the European Union Emission
Trading Scheme (EU ETS).[51]:9 However, firms regulated under the EU ETS are unable to use AAUs
in meeting their emissions caps.[53]
Clean Development Mechanism[edit]
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.[54] 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[edit]
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).[45] In
November 2008, only 22 JI projects had been officially approved and registered. The total projected
emission savings from JI by 2012 are about one tenth that of the CDM. Russia accounts for about
two-thirds of these savings, with the remainder divided up roughly equally between the Ukraine and
the EU's New Member States. Emission savings include cuts in methane, HFC, and N2O emissions.

Stabilization of GHG concentrations[edit]

As noted earlier on, the first-round Kyoto emissions limitation commitments are not sufficient to
stabilize the atmospheric concentration of GHGs. Stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations
will require further emissions reductions after the end of the first-round Kyoto commitment period in
2012.[21][23]

Background[edit]
Indicative probabilities of exceeding various increases in global mean temperature for different stabilization
levels of atmospheric GHG concentrations.[55]

Different targets for stabilization require different levels of cuts in emissions over time.[56] Lower stabilization
targets require global emissions to be reduced more sharply in the near-term.[56]

Analysts have developed scenarios of future changes in GHG emissions that lead to a stabilization
in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs.[57] Climate models suggest that lower stabilization levels
are associated with lower magnitudes of future global warming, while higher stabilization levels are
associated with higher magnitudes of future global warming (see figure opposite).[55]
To achieve stabilization, global GHG emissions must peak, then decline.[58] The lower the desired
stabilization level, the sooner this peak and decline must occur (see figure opposite).[58] For a given
stabilization level, larger emissions reductions in the near term allow for less stringent emissions
reductions later.[59] On the other hand, less stringent near term emissions reductions would, for a
given stabilization level, require more stringent emissions reductions later on.[59]
The first period Kyoto emissions limitations can be viewed as a first-step towards achieving
atmospheric stabilization of GHGs.[20] In this sense, the first period Kyoto commitments may affect
what future atmospheric stabilization level can be achieved.[60]
Relation to temperature targets[edit]
At the 16th Conference of the Parties held in 2010, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that future global
warming should be limited below 2C relative to the pre-industrial temperature level.[61] 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) CO
2- eq.[62] Stabilization at 450 ppm could be associated with a 26 to 78% risk of exceeding the 2 C
target.[63]
Scenarios assessed by Gupta et al. (2007)[64] 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).[65]
Gupta et al. (2007)[64] 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".[64] "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".[64]

Details of the agreement[edit]

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 (COP 3) in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan.
National emission targets specified in the Kyoto Protocol exclude international aviation and shipping.
Kyoto Parties can use land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) in meeting their
targets.[66] LULUCF activities are also called "sink" activities. Changes in sinks and land use can
have an effect on the climate,[67] 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.[68] 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.[69] Annex I Parties use of forest management in
meeting their targets is capped.[69]

Negotiations[edit]
See also: Views on the Kyoto Protocol Commentaries on negotiations
Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC commits industrialized countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing
emissions.[70] The initial aim was for industrialized countries to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels
by the year 2000.[70] The failure of key industrialized countries to move in this direction was a
principal reason why Kyoto moved to binding commitments.[70]
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:[71]

developed nations had contributed most to the then-current concentrations of GHGs in the
atmosphere (see Greenhouse gas#Cumulative and historical emissions).
developing country emissions per-capita (i.e., average emissions per head of population)[72] 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.[73] It has since become a member.[74]
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.[71] However, the
large potential for growth in developing country emissions made negotiations on this issue
tense.[75] 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.[75] 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.[75]
Emissions cuts[edit]
Views on the Kyoto Protocol#Commentaries on negotiations contains a list of the emissions cuts that
were proposed by UNFCCC Parties during negotiations. The G77 and China were in favour of
strong uniform emission cuts across the developed world.[76] The US originally proposed for the
second round of negotiations on Kyoto commitments to follow the negotiations of the first.[77] In the
end, negotiations on the second period were set to open no later than 2005.[77] Countries over-
achieving in their first period commitments can "bank" their unused allowances for use in the
subsequent period.[77]
The EU initially argued for only three GHGs to be included CO
2, CH
4, and N
2O with other gases such as HFCs regulated separately.[76] 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.[76]
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.[76] Countries that had supported differentiation of targets had different ideas as to
how it should be calculated, and many different indicators were proposed.[78] 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).[78]
The final targets negotiated in the Protocol are the result of last minute political compromises.[76] The
targets closely match those decided by Argentinian Raul Estrada, the diplomat who chaired the
negotiations.[79] 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.[80] 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.[81]

Financial commitments[edit]
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"[82]", that 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.

Implementational provisions[edit]
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 (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 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,[83] much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of
the less developed EU countries (see below Kyoto Protocol#Increase in greenhouse gas emission
since 1990).[84]Reduction limitations expired in 2013.

Mechanism of compliance[edit]
The protocol defines a mechanism of "compliance" as a "monitoring compliance with the
commitments and penalties for non-compliance."[85] According to Grubb (2003),[86] the explicit
consequences of non-compliance of the treaty are weak compared to domestic law.[86] Yet, the
compliance section of the treaty was highly contested in the Marrakesh Accords.[86]

Enforcement[edit]
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.[87]

Ratification process[edit]
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 of Fiji.
Countries that did not sign acceded to the convention, which has the same legal effect.[1]
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."[88]
The EU and its Member States ratified the Protocol in May 2002.[89] Of the two conditions, the "55
parties" clause was reached on 23 May 2002 when Iceland ratified the Protocol.[1] 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.[90]
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.[91] One of the 191
ratifying statesCanadahas renounced the protocol.

Convention Parties [show]

Non-ratification by the US[edit]
The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998,[92] 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.[93] Therefore, even though the Clinton
administration signed the treaty,[94] it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.
When George W. Bush was elected US president in 2000, he was asked by US Senator Chuck
Hagel what his administration's position was on climate change. Bush replied that he took climate
change "very seriously",[95] but that he opposed the Kyoto treaty because "it exempts 80% of the
world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would
cause serious harm to the US economy."[96] 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."[97]
As of 2016, the US is the only signatory that has not ratified the Protocol.[98] The US accounted for
36% of emissions in 1990. As such, for the treaty to go into legal effect without US ratification, it
would require a coalition including the EU, Russia, Japan, and small parties. A deal, without the US
Administration, was reached in the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.[99]

Withdrawal of Canada[edit]
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.[100] The
Canadian government announced its withdrawalpossible at any time three years after
ratificationfrom the Kyoto Protocol on 12 December 2011, effective 15 December 2012.[101] 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 improving the environment. Environment minister Peter Kent cited
Canada's liability to "enormous financial penalties" under the treaty unless it withdrew.[100][102] He also
suggested that the recently signed Durban agreement may provide an alternative way
forward.[103] The Harper government claimed it would find a "Made in Canada" solution, but never
found any such solution. Canada's decision received a generally negative response from
representatives of other ratifying countries.[103]

Other states and territories where the treaty is not applicable[edit]

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, Curaao, Sint Maarten or the Caribbean Netherlands.[104]

Government action and emissions[edit]

Main article: Kyoto Protocol and government action
See also: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita, List of countries by carbon
dioxide emissions, and List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions

Annex I countries[edit]

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

Total aggregate GHG emissions excluding 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 109 kg) CO
2 equivalent, a decline of 6.0% during the 1990-2008 period.[105]:3 Several factors have contributed to
this decline.[105]:14 The first is due to the economic restructuring in the Annex I Economies in
Transition[105]:14 (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.[106]:25 This led to a massive contraction of their
heavy industry-based economies, with associated reductions in their fossil fuel consumption and
emissions.[45]:24
Emissions growth in Annex I Parties have also been limited due to policies and measures
(PaMs).[105]:14 In particular, PaMs were strengthened after 2000, helping to enhance energy efficiency
and develop renewable energy sources.[105]:14 Energy use also decreased during the economic crisis
in 2007-2008.[105]:14
Projections[edit]
UNFCCC (2011)[105]:14 made projections of changes in emissions of the Annex I Parties and the
effectiveness of their PaMs. It was noted that their projections should be interpreted with
caution.[105]:7 For the 39 Annex I Parties, UNFCCC (2011) projected that existing PaMs would lead to
annual emissions in 2010 of 17.5 thousand Tg CO
2 eq, excluding LULUCF, which is a decrease of 6.7% from the 1990 level.[105]:14 Annual emissions in
2020 excluding LULUCF were projected to reach 18.9 thousand Tg CO
2 eq, which is an increase of 0.6% on the 1990 level.[105]:14

UNFCCC (2011)[105]:14 made an estimate of the total effect of implemented and adopted PaMs.
Projected savings were estimated relative to a reference (baseline) scenario where PaMs are not
implemented. PaMs were projected to deliver emissions savings relative to baseline of about 1.5
thousand Tg CO
2 eq by 2010, and 2.8 thousand Tg CO
2 eq by 2020.[105]:14 In percentage terms, and using annual emissions in the year 1990 as a reference
point, PaMs were projected to deliver at least a 5.0% reduction relative to baseline by 2010, and a
10.0% reduction relative to baseline in 2020.[105]:14 Scenarios reviewed by UNFCCC (2011)[105]:14 still
suggested that total Annex I annual emissions would increase out to 2020 (see the preceding
paragraph).
Annex I Parties with targets[edit]

Percentage changes in emissions for Annex I Parties with Kyoto targets[107]

CO2
GHG emissions
GHG
Kyoto Kyoto emissions from fuel
emissions
Country/region target target 1990-2008 combustion
1990-2008
2008-2012 2013-2020 excluding only
including
LULUCF[108][110] 1990-2009
LULUCF[108][109] [111][112]

North America - - - - +20.4

Canada[113][114] -6 - +33.6 +24.1 +20.4

Europe -4.9
European Union -8 -20[115]

Austria -8 (-13) -20[115] +6.6 +10.8 +12.2

Belgium -8 (-7.5) -20[115] -6.2 -7.1 -6.7

Denmark -8 (-21) -20[115] -6.8 -6.8 -7.2

Finland -8 (0) -20[115] -35.9 -0.2 +1.1

France -8 (0) -20[115] -12.7 -5.9 +0.6[116]

Germany -8 (-21) -20[115] -17.6 -21.4 -21.1

Greece -8 (+25) -20[115] +22.9 +23.1 +28.6

Iceland +10 -20[115] +19.2 +42.9 +6.2

Ireland -8 (+13) -20[115] +19.9 +23.2 +32.4

Italy -8 (-6.5) -20[115] +0.4 +4.7 -2.0

Luxembourg -8 (-28) -20[115] -9.2 -4.8 -4.4

Netherlands -8 (-6) -20[115] -2.4 -2.4 +13.0

Norway +1 -16 -32.8 +9.4 +31.9

Portugal -8 (+27) -20[115] +18.3 +32.2 +35.3

Spain -8 (+15) -20[115] +44.0 +42.5 +37.7

Sweden -8 (+4) -20[115] +19.8 -11.3 -20.9

Switzerland -8 -15.8 +6.8 +0.4 +2.5

United Kingdom -8 (-12.5) -19.0 -18.5 -15.2

Asia and Oceania - - - +12.7

Australia +8 -0.5 +33.1 +31.4 +51.8

Japan -6 - -0.2 +1.0 +2.7

New Zealand 0 - +62.4 +22.7 +34.3

Economies in
- - - -36.2
Transition

Bulgaria -8 -20[115] -45.5 -42.8 -43.7

Croatia -5 -20[115] -13.7 -0.9 -8.4

Czech Republic -8 -20[115] -28.7 -27.5 -29.2

Estonia -8 -20[115] -69.9 -50.9 -59.4

Hungary -6 -20[115] -38.1 -36.2 -27.8

Latvia -8 -20[115] -307.9 -55.6 -63.8

 Lithuania -8 -20[115] -69.1 -51.8 -62.6

Poland -6 -20[115] -34.4 -29.6 -16.2

Romania -8 -20[115] -53.5 -45.9 -53.1

Russian
0 - -52.8 -32.8 -29.7
Federation

Slovak
-8 -20[115] -34.4 -33.7 -41.5
Republic

Slovenia -8 -20[115] +5.2 +5.2 +21.2

Ukraine 0 -24 -52.2 -53.9 -62.7

Data given in the table above may not be fully reflective of a country's progress towards meeting its
first-round Kyoto target. The summary below contains more up-to-date information on how close
countries are to meeting their first-round targets.

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, have 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.[106]:24 According to
Olivier et al. (2011),[106]:24 the Kyoto Parties will comfortably exceed their collective target, with a
projected average reduction of 16% for 2008-2012. This projection excludes both LULUCF and
credits generated by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).[106]:24
As noted in the preceding section, between 19901999, there was a large reduction in the emissions
of the EITs.[106]:25 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.[106]:25 Emissions of the
Annex II countries (Annex I minus the EIT countries) have experienced a limited increase in
emissions from 19902006, followed by stabilization and a more marked decrease from 2007
onwards.[106]: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.[106]:25
Almost all European countries are on track to achieve their first-round Kyoto targets.[117] Spain plans
to meet its target by purchasing a large quantity of Kyoto units through the flexibility
mechanisms.[117] Australia,[106]:25 Canada[106]:25 (Canada withdrew from the Kyoto treaty in 2012),[118] and
Italy[117] are not on course to meet their first-round Kyoto targets. In order to meet their targets, these
countries would need to purchase emissions credits from other Kyoto countries.[106]:25 As noted in the
section on Intergovernmental Emissions Trading, purchasing surplus credits from the EIT countries
would not actually result in total emissions being reduced. An alternative would be the purchase of
CDM credits or the use of the voluntary Green Investment Scheme.
In December 2011, Canada's environment minister, 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).[118]
Annex I Parties without Kyoto targets[edit]
Belarus, Malta, and Turkey are Annex I Parties but do not have first-round Kyoto targets.[119] The US
has a Kyoto target of a 6% reduction relative to the 1990 level, but has not ratified the
treaty.[106]:25 Emissions in the US have increased 11% since 1990, and according to Olivier et
al. (2011),[106]:25 it will be unable to meet its original Kyoto target.
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.[106]:26 Including the
US in their calculation, Olivier et al. (2011)[106]:26 projected that the Annex I countries would
collectively achieve a 7% reduction relative to the base year, which is lower than the original target
of a 5.2% reduction. This projection excludes expected purchases of emissions credits.[106]:26

Non-Annex I[edit]
Annual per capita carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., average emissions per person) from fuel combustion between
1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.
Annual carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-
Annex I Parties.

UNFCCC (2005) compiled and synthesized information reported to it by non-Annex I Parties.[32]Most

non-Annex I Parties belonged in the low-income group, with very few classified as middle-
income.[32]:4 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.[32]:6 Many non-Annex I Parties are making efforts to
amend and update their environmental legislation to include global concerns such as climate
change.[32]:7
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.[32]:7 The economies of these countries are
highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing, and export of fossil fuels.
Emissions
GHG emissions, excluding land use change and forestry (LUCF), reported by 122 non-Annex I
Parties for the year 1994 or the closest year reported, totalled 11.7 billion tonnes
(billion = 1,000,000,000) of 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 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.
Trends
In several large developing countries and fast growing economies (China, India, Thailand, Indonesia,
Egypt, and Iran) GHG emissions have increased rapidly (PBL, 2009).[120] For example, emissions in
China have risen strongly over the 19902005 period, often by more than 10% year. Emissions per-
capita in non-Annex I countries are still, for the most part, much lower than in industrialized
countries. Non-Annex I countries do not have quantitative emission reduction commitments, but they
are committed to mitigation actions. China, for example, has had a national policy programme to
reduce emissions growth, which included the closure of old, less efficient coal-fired power plants.

Cost estimates[edit]
Barker et al. (2007, p. 79) assessed the literature on cost estimates for the Kyoto Protocol.[121] Due to
non-US participation in the Kyoto treaty, costs estimates were found to be much lower than those
estimated in the previous IPCC Third Assessment Report. Without US participation, and with full use
of the Kyoto flexible mechanisms, costs were estimated at less than 0.05% of Annex B GDP. This
compared to earlier estimates of 0.11.1%. Without use of the flexible mechanisms, costs without
US participation were estimated at less than 0.1%. This compared to earlier estimates of 0.22%.
These cost estimates were viewed as being based on much evidence and high agreement in the
literature.

Views on the Protocol[edit]

Main article: Views on the Kyoto Protocol
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.[20] 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)[122] 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.[122] In 2008,
countries with a Kyoto cap made up less than one-third of annual global carbon dioxide emissions
from fuel combustion.[123]
World Bank (2010)[124] 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%.[125] 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.[124]
Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based on the idea of climate justice (Liverman, 2008,
p. 14).[28]
This has particularly centered on the balance between the low emissions and high vulnerability of
the developing world to climate change, compared to high emissions in the developed world.
Another criticism of the Kyoto Protocol and other international conventions, is the right of indigenous
peoples right to participate. Quoted here from The Declaration of the First International Forum of
Indigenous Peoples on Climate Change, it says "Despite the recognition of our role in preventing
global warming, when it comes time to sign international conventions like the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, once again, our right to participate in national and
international discussions that directly affect or Peoples and territories is denied."[126] Additionally, later
in the declaration, it reads
"We denounce the fact that neither the [United Nations] nor the Kyoto Protocol recognizes the
existence or the contributions of Indigenous Peoples. Furthermore, the debates under these
instruments have not considered the suggestions and proposals of the Indigenous Peoples nor have
the appropriate mechanisms to guarantee our participation in all the debates that directly concern
the Indigenous Peoples has been established."[126]
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).[127] 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."[128] Some environmentalists and
scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).[129]
The United States (under former President George W. Bush) and Australia (initially, under former
Prime Minister John Howard) did not ratify the Kyoto treaty.[130] According to Stern (2006),[130] 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,[131][132] which took effect in March 2008.[133]

Views on the flexibility mechanisms[edit]

Further information: Flexible Mechanisms Views on the flexibility mechanisms
Another area which has been commented on is the role of the Kyoto flexibility
mechanisms emissions trading, Joint Implementation, and the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM).[134][135] The flexibility mechanisms have attracted both positive and negative
comments.[136][137][138]
As mentioned earlier, a number of Annex I Parties have implemented emissions trading schemes
(ETSs) as part of efforts to meet their Kyoto commitments. General commentaries on emissions
trading are contained in emissions trading and carbon emission trading. Individual articles on the
ETSs contain commentaries on these schemes (see Kyoto Protocol#International Emissions
Trading for a list of ETSs).
One of the arguments made in favour of the flexibility mechanisms is that they can reduce the costs
incurred by Annex I Parties in meeting their Kyoto commitments.[134] Criticisms of flexibility have, for
example, included the ineffectiveness of emissions trading in promoting investment in non-fossil
energy sources,[139] and adverse impacts of CDM projects on local communities in developing
countries.[140]
Philosophy[edit]
As the Kyoto Protocol seeks to reduce environmental pollutants while at the same time altering the
freedoms of some citizens.
As discussed by Milton Friedman, one can achieve both economic and political freedom through
capitalism; nonetheless, it is never guaranteed that one is going to have equality of wealth of those
on top of the food chain of this capitalistic world.[141] All these alterations come to what the leaders
of the citizens choose to impose in means of improving ones lifestyle. In the case of the Kyoto
Protocol, it seeks to impose regulations that will reduce production of pollutants towards the
environment. Furthermore, seeking to compromise the freedoms of both private and public citizens.
In one side it imposes bigger regulations towards companies and reducing their profits as they need
to fulfill such regulations with, which are oftentimes more expensive, alternatives for production. On
the other hand, it seeks to reduce the emissions that potentially cause the rapid environmental
change called climate change.
The conditions of the Kyoto Protocol consist of mandatory targets on greenhouse gas emissions for
the world's leading economies. As provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change, "These targets range from -8 per cent to +10 per cent of the countries' individual
1990 emissions levels with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per
cent below existing 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012." [142]
These goals are challenged, however, by climate change deniers, who condemn strong scientific
evidence of the human impact on climate change. One prominent scholar opines that these climate
change deniers "arguably" breach Rousseau's notion of the social contract, which is an implicit
agreement among the members of a society to coordinate efforts in the name of overall social
benefit. The climate change denial movement hinders efforts at coming to agreements as a
collective global society on climate change.[143]

Conference of the Parties[edit]

Further information: United Nations Climate Change conference
The official meeting of all states party to the Kyoto Protocol is the Conference of the Parties. It is
held every year as part of the United Nations Climate Change conference, which also serves as the
formal meeting of UNFCCC. The first Meetings of Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (CMP) was held in
2005 in conjunction with the eleventh Conferences of parties to UNFCCC (COP). Also parties to the
Convention that are not parties to the Protocol can participate in Protocol-related meetings as
observers. The first conference was held in 1995 in Berlin, while the 2013 conference was held
in Warsaw. Later COPs were held in Lima, Peru in 2014 and in Paris, France in 2015.

Amendment and possible successors[edit]

Main article: PostKyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions

This section needs expansion with: Paris Agreement. You can help by adding to
it. (December 2015)

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.[144][145]
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.[146][147]
The 2010 Cancn agreements include voluntary pledges made by 76 developed and developing
countries to control their emissions of greenhouse gases.[148] In 2010, these 76 countries were
collectively responsible for 85% of annual global emissions.[148][149]
By May 2012, the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada had indicated they would not sign up to a second
Kyoto commitment period.[150] 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.[151]
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.[152] Non-profit environmental organisations such as the World Wildlife
Fund criticised New Zealand's decision to pull out.[153]
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).[154] 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.[155] 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[156] on 23
September 2014 in New York. UN member states have been negotiating a future climate deal over
the last five years. A preliminary calendar was adopted to confirm "national contributions" to the
reduction of CO2 emissions by 2015 before the UN climate summit which was held in Paris at
the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference.