A Climate Change Plan for the Purposes of the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act -- May
Kyoto 1st commitment period (–12) Climate strategies & targets As the Protocol allowed groups of countries to meet their targets jointly, the EU's overall . The Kyoto protocol was the first agreement between nations to mandate were on track by to meet or exceed their Kyoto goals, but other. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty which extends the United Nations Framework country/region information, see Kyoto Protocol and government action. Parties to the UNFCCC meet in Berlin (the 1st Conference of Parties The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to control emissions of the main.
At the time of the original Kyoto targets, studies suggested that the flexibility mechanisms could reduce the overall aggregate cost of meeting the targets. The difference between IET and the project-based mechanisms is that IET is based on the setting of a quantitative restriction of emissions, while the CDM and JI are based on the idea of "production" of emission reductions.
The reductions are called " credits " because they are emission reductions credited against a hypothetical baseline of emissions.
Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol, Bali “Action Plan,” and International Actions
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".
International Emissions Trading A number of emissions trading schemes ETS have been, or are planned to be, implemented. This scheme is run by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. This is run by the European Commission. This is run by the Government of Alberta.
Has the Kyoto protocol made any difference to carbon emissions?
Unless other commitments were made to reduce the total surplus in allowances, such trade would not actually result in emissions being reduced : However, using the GIS is not required under the Kyoto Protocol, and there is no official definition of the term.
The proceeds from the AAU sales should be "greened", i. World Bank : Joint Implementation The formal crediting period for Joint Implementation JI was aligned with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and did not start until January Carbon Trust,p. 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. President Bush announced on May 31,that the United States would convene a meeting of major economies to begin a series of meetings in Washington, D.
Australia announced its ratification at the December meeting in Bali. Annual meetings of the parties are to continue, using the Bali "roadmap" agreed on in December Major challenges involve finding agreement on the nature of legally binding commitments, if any, that would prove acceptable to all major players: The Kyoto Protocol, Bali "Action Plan," and International Actions Introduction and Overview 1 Responding to concerns that human activities are increasing concentrations of "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere and causing potentially damaging climate change and global warming, nearly all nations of the world joined together in to sign the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC.
Has the Kyoto protocol made any difference to carbon emissions? | Environment | The Guardian
The United States was one of the first nations to ratify this treaty. The parties to the UNFCCC hold annual meetings called Conferences of the Parties COPsat which unresolved issues are negotiated, rules of procedure are established or amended, and reviews of progress are considered. As scientific consensus grew that human activities are having a discernible impact on global climate systems, contributing to a warming of the Earth that could result in major impacts such as sea level rise, changes in weather patterns, and health effects—and as it became apparent that many major nations such as the United States and Japan would not be able to reduce their emissions to levels by —parties to the treaty decided in that it would be necessary to move beyond voluntary measures and to enter into legally binding commitments.
Negotiations began on a protocol to establish legally binding limitations or reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Because developed countries have emitted the largest share of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere carbon dioxide releases remain in the atmosphere for many decadesand because they are wealthier and more able to incur costs of any necessary changes in their economies, it was agreed by negotiators of the UNFCCC, and subsequently the Kyoto Protocol, that this principle would be a basic tenet of climate negotiations.
The Kyoto Protocol negotiations were completed in late The protocol establishes legally binding, mandatory emissions reductions for the six major greenhouse gases 2. Each country was assigned individually negotiated targets which differed according to their situations. The United States signed the Protocol in However, no country is subject to the provisions of a treaty until it has been ratified, which in the United States requires the consent of the U.
Because the Senate was on record in mid in S. Then in Marchsoon after President George W.
Bush took office, he rejected the Kyoto Protocol, and the United States declined further participation in Kyoto Protocol negotiations. After several years, the required number of Annex I countries had ratified, and the Protocol entered into force in February Since the United States has not ratified the Protocol, it is not subject to its terms. Negotiations continued after the treaty was finalized in order to put in place the detailed rules for how the Kyoto Protocol would operate and to establish procedures for how its provisions would be carried out.
The United States continues to participate in the discussions and negotiations of the COPs, but as it is not a party to the Kyoto Protocol, it does not participate in Kyoto-related MOP negotiations, attending those as an observer. As summarized below in the section on the Bali Action Plan, the negotiations at this meeting were closely watched for signs that the process agreed on would produce an outcome that would be sufficient to the challenge of mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Final decisions on what the commitments of developing and developed countries would be were not expected at Bali, but the considerations to be included in negotiations toward these decisions are outlined in the "Bali Action Plan.
Obligations of All Parties The Kyoto Protocol calls on all Parties—developed and developing—to take a number of steps outlined in Article 10 to contribute to scientific research and monitoring of the climate system and greenhouse gases in their countries. They are also committed to formulate national and regional programs to improve local emission factors; carry out steps to promote and transfer environmentally sound technologies; strengthen national capacity building activities; and conduct national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks that remove these gases from the atmosphere.
In keeping with the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities, the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol recognize the relatively low per capita greenhouse gas emissions in developing countries, and the need to take into account the development activities of these countries that will require increased energy use.
The Protocol does not impose any binding requirements on developing countries; the commitments in Article 10 are regarded as essentially voluntary. Obligations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by Annex I countries are the focus of most of the Kyoto Protocol, which outlines the legally binding emissions reductions that the Parties to the treaty are to undertake, and provides for development of procedures and rules that apply to Parties as they move toward meeting these binding obligations.
These are briefly summarized below. These commitments refer to averages that would be below each Party's levels for three major greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide, and below levels for the three other, man-made gasesaveraged over the "commitment period" to As noted above, only nations that ratify the Protocol are subject to its terms; the United States later rejected participation, and thus is not bound by it.
These are discussed below.
If a country determined that it would exceed its emissions limit during the compliance period, emissions trading would permit it to purchase emissions reductions "credits" 5 from another country that determined it would achieve more emissions reductions than necessary to comply. With emissions trading, countries that can make relatively inexpensive emissions reductions have an incentive to reduce emissions below the level required by the Kyoto Protocol, and sell the extra credits to other countries whose emissions control costs are more expensive.
Thus, both the seller and the buyer would have lower costs by virtue of the seller's profit and the buyer's savings.
This type of implementation scheme is commonly called a "cap-and-trade" program. First, emissions trading is restricted to countries that have legally binding greenhouse gas emission limitations—the Annex 1 parties, which as noted above includes only developed, industrialized countries that have ratified the Protocol. The EU-ETS is a cornerstone of the EU's efforts to meet its obligation under the Kyoto Protocol, and it currently covers more than 11, energy-intensive facilities across the now 27 EU Member countries, including oil refineries, powerplants over 20 megawatts in capacity, coke ovens, and iron and steel plants, along with cement, glass, lime, brick, ceramics, and pulp and paper installations.
The first trading period began January 1, A second trading period is scheduled to begin incovering the period of the Kyoto Protocol, with a third period planned for Under its provisions, industrialized countries can receive Certified Emissions Reduction credits CERs for reductions achieved from a greenhouse gas reduction project in a "host" non-Annex 1 country.
CERs can then be used by the industrialized country to meet its compliance requirements. The process is overseen by a CDM Executive Board that registers and validates projects, issues CERs, and manages a series of panels and working groups.
A critical component of the process is the requirement that CERs issued under the CDM represent only reductions in excess of those that would have occurred in the absence of the project. CERs can be issued from appropriate projects initiated after There are two tracks under JI called Track 1 and Track 2. Track 2 mirrors the process used by the CDM but involves different institutions. Track 1 is a simplified process that puts more of the responsibility on the host country.
Romania has been the most active host JI country. Issues include how to allocate credit for existing forest cover of which some nations, like the United States, have a great deal and others have very little and what actions in relation to LULUCF would constitute legitimate carbon reductions. Only increased sequestration above levels, achieved by specific sequestration activities, would be counted.
The final decisions were that only certain activities would be eligible for use as offsets against Protocol obligations: The rules of the Protocol do not put an overall cap on sinks for countries, but instead incorporated country-specific limits on each of the categories of sinks activities, listed in an Appendix Z.
Exactly how carbon absorbed in sinks will count toward a nation's obligations is still the subject of on-going discussion and refinement. Compliance Mechanism Achieving agreement among Kyoto Protocol negotiators on compliance—in particular, penalties for non-compliance by Annex B Protocol parties—was difficult, and took several years after the Protocol was finalized in This was one of several controversial issues that was resolved as part of the Marrakech accords at the COP-7 meeting in Such a party will lose its eligibility for emissions trading, and must develop a "compliance action plan.
The Facilitative Branch is intended to provide advice and assistance to Parties, and to provide an "early warning" to Parties that may be in danger of not complying; the Enforcement Branch would have the responsibility of applying consequences for Parties that do not meet their commitments. A Protocol rulebook provides procedures for considering cases of non-compliance or possible non-compliance, and a procedure for reviewing the cases regarding eligibility to participate in the Protocol's financial and other mechanisms.
Compliance involves not only meeting emissions reductions commitments, but also preparation of adequate GHG inventories and several other procedural requirements; there are no penalties for failures of compliance in these areas. However, the mechanism's penalties for failure to meet emissions reductions targets would come into play only when the commitment period is well underway; there remain a number of uncertainties as to how it will function.
It does appear, as discussed below, that many parties to the Protocol may find that achieving their emissions reductions obligations will prove to be difficult or impossible within the commitment period.
By the end of that meeting a compromise was reached in which two processes were set in motion to consider next steps: An "Ad hoc Working Group" AWG was established under the Protocol to begin consideration of next steps for developed country parties in the Post-Kyoto period; since the United States is not a party to the Protocol, it does not play a role in this process except, of course, as an observer—from which vantage point its position has generally been made known and generally taken into account by the parties.
Kyoto Protocol - Wikipedia
The decision on establishing the dialogue specifically ruled out including any negotiations leading to new commitments. Its goals are to support implementation of existing commitments under the Convention, support voluntary actions by developing countries, and to support development of national and international responses to climate change.
The areas of focus for these discussions are: Neither involves any deadlines for completion of the discussions or negotiations. The Nairobi meeting also included the beginning of a review of the Protocol's effectiveness—a somewhat controversial issue because of the implications the review process is thought to have for future commitments. Issues related to adaptation to climate change focused primarily on administration of an Adaptation Fund established to assist adaptation efforts in developing countries.
Outcome of the Bali Negotiations: A Framework for Negotiating Post-Kyoto Commitments Duringclimate change gained widespread attention as a critical issue facing the nations of the world, and the negotiations held in Bali, Indonesia, December, were widely regarded as a key next step in continuing to chart an international course to mitigate global warming and deal with its impacts.
The Kyoto Protocol was always intended to be a first step in moving toward reducing global accumulations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Negotiators recognized that the goals of the Protocol, even if met by all the parties, would not produce the stabilization of atmospheric greenhouse gases posited as the goal of the UNFCCC.
The Protocol set forth a timetable for reviewing progress of actions undertaken to meet the Protocol's goals and to consider "next steps. Throughout the process preceding the Bali meeting, developing countries had been unwilling to make binding commitments on greenhouse gas limitations or management. The Kyoto Protocol commitment period begins in and runs through ; it was widely expected when the Protocol was negotiated that bynext steps for the post period would be either decided or under active negotiation.
It was agreed by all parties that negotiations need to be completed by the end of Some observers have noted that this is a very tight time frame, in that many parties are aware that the current U. Further, it appears unlikely that major developing—and developed—countries will be willing to make legally binding commitments in the absence of such a commitment by the United States.
While future negotiations will likely grapple with the effort to obtain some form of legally binding, mandatory commitments from all parties, the recognition of differing national circumstances and differing abilities of nations to take on various types of commitments, will continue to be major elements in the discussions.
With this context, it was no surprise that negotiations in Bali, Indonesia, in December were highly contentious, and extended a day beyond the original ending date of December 14 in order to reach consensus on what is termed the "Bali Action Plan.
Key elements and issues of the Bali Action Plan 13 concerning mitigation include: Some developed countries, notably EU members, had argued that specific goals should be articulated in terms of atmospheric concentrations of GHG that should not be exceeded, but this was opposed by others, including the United States, and as a compromise, the limits discussed by the IPCC were referenced in general, with a footnote citation to the specific numbers.
A two-track negotiating process was launched: This was regarded as a breakthrough because it established negotiations not just, as previously, "dialogue" that would include developing countries and would address mitigation measures, as well as the other items listed for consideration; and 2 the Ad hoc Working Group under the Protocol will continue to consider action by developed countries to succeed the conclusion of the Kyoto Protocol no explicit reference to this AWG was made in the Bali decision document, thus it simply continues.
A shared vision for cooperative action was agreed on, "including a long-term global goal for emission reductions, to achieve the ultimate objective of the Convention, in accordance with the provisions and principles of the Convention, in particular the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, and taking into account social and economic conditions and other relevant factors.
The document outlining the Plan contains two separate paragraphs for mitigation considerations— i for developed country considerations, and ii for developing countries.
Some developing countries objected that this language was not what had been agreed to, and a reversal of clauses in the language of paragraph ii regarding actions by developing countries was proposed by India. This was opposed by the United States, nearly causing the breakdown in negotiations. As the language was debated in the final plenary session, some of the developing countries reassured participants that they had made a commitment to consider mitigation actions in the negotiations that would follow.
However, the United States was concerned that "measurable, reportable and verifiable" in the adopted language appears to apply mainly or only to the financing, technology and related actions, and its applicability to mitigation actions by developing countries is unclear.
The language as adopted does appear ambiguous on this point. However, this language, like the entire decision document, applies only to the framework for future negotiations, and those negotiations can themselves deal with any ambiguities and with concerns that arise as the negotiations proceed.
The decision to include reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation among the considerations in the negotiations to follow Bali is widely regarded as a major positive step by many participants in the process, opening the door to discussions of incentives for developing countries to reduce and avoid deforestation.