Kyoto Protocol

This article is about the international treaty. For the rock

band, see Kyoto Protocol (band).
The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty, which

Overview map of states committed to greenhouse gas (GHG) limitations in the rst Kyoto Protocol period (200812):[6]
Black = Annex I Parties who have agreed to reduce their GHG
emissions below their individual base year levels (see denition
in this article)
Grey = Annex I Parties who have agreed to cap their GHG emissions at their base year levels
Pale grey = 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
ratied the Kyoto Protocol
For specic emission reduction commitments of Annex I Parties,
see the section of the article on 2012 emission targets and exible mechanisms.
The European Union as a whole has in accordance with the Kyoto Protocol committed itself to an 8% reduction. 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).[7]

Kyoto Parties with rst period (200812) greenhouse gas emissions limitations targets, and the percentage change in their carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990 and
2009. For more detailed country/region information, see Kyoto
Protocol and government action.

extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) that commits State
Parties to reduce greenhouse gases emissions, based on
the premise that (a) global warming exists and (b) manmade CO2 emissions have caused it. The Kyoto Protocol
was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and
entered into force on 16 February 2005. There are currently 192 Parties (Canada withdrew eective December 2012)[4] to the Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol implemented the objective of the UNFCCC to ght 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
dierentiated 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.

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 Kyotos rst-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 ratied the Protocol). As of July 2015, 36 states have accepted the Doha Amendment, while entry into force requires the acceptances of 144 states.
Negotiations were held in Lima in 2014 to agree on a
post-Kyoto legal framework that would obligate all major
polluters to pay for CO2 emissions. China, India, and the
United States have all signaled that they will not ratify
any treaty that will commit them legally to reduce CO2
emissions.

The Protocols rst 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
1

2 OBJECTIVES

Background

2012 On 31 December 2012, the rst commitment period

under the Protocol expired.

Main article: Global warming

See also: global climate model Projections of future
climate change and Scientic 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 reection of current scientic thinking.[9][10]
Human-induced warming of the climate is expected to 1.2
continue throughout the 21st century and beyond.[10]
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.[11]
The IPCCs projections are baseline projections, meaning that they assume no future eorts 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.[11][12] The likely range
(as assessed to have a greater than 66% probability of being correct, based on the IPCCs expert judgement) is a
projected increased in global mean temperature over the
21st century of between 1.1 and 6.4 C.[11]
The range in temperature projections partly reects dierent projections of future greenhouse gas
emissions.[13]:2224 Dierent projections contain different assumptions of future social and economic
development (e.g., economic growth, population level,
energy policies), which in turn aects projections of
future greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[13]:2224 The
range also reects uncertainty in the response of the
climate system to past and future GHG emissions
(measured by the climate sensitivity).[13]:2224

1.1

Article 2 of the UNFCCC

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).[15]
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.[16] 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.[16] However, the IPCC has also concluded that the decision of what constitutes dangerous
interference requires value judgements, which will vary
between dierent regions of the world.[16] Factors that
might aect 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).[16]

Chronology

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.

2 Objectives

1995 Parties to the UNFCCC meet in Berlin (the 1st Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC) to outline specic 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 eect on 16 February
2005.
2011 Canada became the rst signatory to announce its Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse
gases.
withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.[14]

3
2) is the most important anthropogenic GHG.[24] Stabilizing the concentration of CO
2 in the atmosphere would ultimately require the eective elimination of anthropogenic CO
2 emissions.[23]
Some of the principal concepts of the Kyoto Protocol are:
Binding commitments for the Annex I Parties. The
main feature of the Protocol[25] 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.[26][27]:290

In order to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of

CO
2, emissions worldwide would need to be dramatically
reduced from their present level.[17]
The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol is to contain emissions of the main anthropogenic (i.e., human-emitted)
greenhouse gases (GHGs) in ways that reect underlying
national dierences in GHG emissions, wealth, and capacity to make the reductions.[18] The treaty follows the
main principles agreed in the original 1992 UN Framework Convention.[18] According to the treaty, in 2012,
Annex I Parties who have ratied the treaty must have fullled their obligations of greenhouse gas emissions limitations established for the Kyoto Protocols rst commitment period (20082012). These emissions limitation
commitments are listed in Annex B of the Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocols rst round commitments are the
rst detailed step taken within the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (Gupta et al., 2007).[19] 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).[20] The rst period
emission reduction commitments expired on 31 December 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.[21] Even if Annex I Parties succeed in meeting their rst-round commitments,
much greater emission reductions will be required in future to stabilize atmospheric GHG concentrations.[20][22]

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.

3 First commitment period: 2008

12
Under the Kyoto Protocol, 37 industrialized countries
and the European Community (the European Union15,
made up of 15 states at the time of the Kyoto negotiations) commit themselves to binding targets for GHG
emissions.[25] The targets apply to the four greenhouse
gases carbon dioxide (CO
2), methane (CH
4), nitrous oxide (N
2O), sulphur hexauoride (SF
6), and two groups of gases, hydrouorocarbons (HFCs)
and peruorocarbons (PFCs).[28] The six GHG are translated into CO2 equivalents in determining reductions in
emissions.[29] These reduction targets are in addition to
the industrial gases, chlorouorocarbons, or CFCs, which
are dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

For each of the dierent anthropogenic GHGs, dierent 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 concentra- Under the Protocol, only the Annex I Parties have comtions).[23] Carbon dioxide (CO
mitted themselves to national or joint reduction targets

FLEXIBILITY MECHANISMS

(formally called quantied emission limitation and reduction objectives (QELRO) Article 4.1).[30] Parties
to the Kyoto Protocol not listed in Annex I of the Convention (the non-Annex I Parties) are mostly low-income
developing countries,[31]:4 and may participate in the Kyoto Protocol through the Clean Development Mechanism
(explained below).[20]

The Protocol denes three "exibility mechanisms" that

can be used by Annex I Parties in meeting their emission limitation commitments.[37]:402 The exibility 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 al[38]
The emissions limitations of Annex I Parties varies be- lowances for short).
tween dierent Parties.[32] Some Parties have emissions The economic basis for providing this exibility is that the
limitations reduce below the base year level, some have marginal cost of reducing (or abating) emissions diers
limitations at the base year level (i.e., no permitted in- among countries.[39]:660[40] Marginal cost is the cost of
crease above the base year level), while others have limi- abating the last tonne of CO
tations above the base year level.
2-eq for an Annex I/non-Annex I Party. At the time of
Emission limits do not include emissions by international the original Kyoto targets, studies suggested that the exthe overall (aggregate)
aviation and shipping.[33] Although Belarus and Turkey ibility mechanisms could reduce
[41]
cost
of
meeting
the
targets.
Studies
also showed that
are listed in the Conventions Annex I, they do not have
national
losses
in
Annex
I
gross
domestic
product (GDP)
emissions targets as they were not Annex I Parties when
[41]
could
be
reduced
by
use
of
the
exibility
mechanisms.
[32]
the Protocol was adopted. Kazakhstan does not have a
target, but has declared that it wishes to become an Annex The CDM and JI are called project-based mechanisms,
I Party to the Convention.[32]
in that they generate emission reductions from projects.
Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their The dierence between IET and the project-based mechanisms is that IET is based on the setting of a quantitative
2008-2012 commitments (% of base year) and 1990
restriction of emissions, while the CDM and JI are based
emission levels (% of all Annex I countries)[34][35]
on the idea of production of emission reductions.[39]
The CDM is designed to encourage production of emisFor most Parties, 1990 is the base year for the na- sion reductions in non-Annex I Parties, while JI encourtional GHG inventory and the calculation of the assigned ages production of emission reductions in Annex I Paramount.[36] However, ve Parties have an alternative base ties.
year:[36]
The production of emission reductions generated by the
CDM and JI can be used by Annex I Parties in meet Bulgaria: 1988;
ing their emission limitation commitments.[42] The emission reductions produced by the CDM and JI are both
Hungary: the average of the years 198587;
measured against a hypothetical baseline of emissions
that would have occurred in the absence of a partic Poland: 1988;
ular emission reduction project. The emission reductions produced by the CDM are called Certied Emis Romania: 1989;
sion Reductions (CERs); reductions produced by JI are
called Emission Reduction Units (ERUs). The reductions
Slovenia: 1986.
are called "credits" because they are emission reductions
credited against a hypothetical baseline of emissions.
Annex I Parties can use a range of sophisticated exibility 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 osetting 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.

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, specically the CDM process. This determines which GHG projects they wish to propose for
accreditation by the CDM Executive Board.

Flexibility mechanisms
4.1 International Emissions Trading

See also: Economics of climate change mitigation

Kyoto Protocol

Main articles: Emissions trading and Carbon emission

trading

4.1

International Emissions Trading

5
4.1.4 Oceania

A number of emissions trading schemes (ETS) have been,

or are planned to be, implemented.[43]:1926
4.1.1

Asia

Japan: emissions trading in Tokyo started in 2010.

This scheme is run by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.[43]:24
4.1.2

Europe

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).[43]:19
New Zealand: the New Zealand Emissions Trading
Scheme, which started in 2008.[43]:23
4.1.5 Intergovernmental Emissions Trading

The design of the European Union Emissions Trading

European Union: the European Union Emission Scheme (EU ETS) implicitly allows for trade of national
Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which started in 2005. Kyoto obligations to occur between participating counThis is run by the European Commission.[43]:20
tries (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 24).[44] Carbon Trust (2009,
pp. 2425) found that other than the trading that occurs
Norway: domestic emissions trading in Norway
as part of the EU ETS, no intergovernmental emissions
started in 2005.[43]:21 This was run by the Norwetrading had taken place.[44]
gian Government, which is now a participant in the
One of the environmental problems with IET is the
EU ETS.
large surplus of allowances that are available. Russia,
Switzerland: the Swiss ETS, which runs from 2008 Ukraine, and the new EU-12 member states (the Kyto 2012, to coincide with the Kyoto Protocols rst oto Parties Annex I Economies-in-Transition, abbrevicommitment period.[43]:22
ated EIT": Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Roma United Kingdom:
nia, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine)[45]:59 have
while many OECD countries
the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, which ran a surplus of allowances,
[44]:24
have
a
decit.
Some
of the EITs with a surplus refrom 200206. This was a scheme run by the
gard
it
as
potential
compensation
for the trauma of their
UK Government, which is now a participant in
[44]:25
[43]:19
economic
restructuring.
When
the Kyoto treaty was
the EU ETS.
negotiated, it was recognized that emissions targets for
the UK CRC Energy Eciency Scheme, the EITs might lead to them having an excess number
which started in 2010, and is run by the UK of allowances.[46] This excess of allowances were viewed
Government.[43]:25
by the EITs as headroom to grow their economies.[47]
The surplus has, however, also been referred to by some
as hot air, a term which Russia (a country with an es4.1.3 North America
timated surplus of 3.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide
[48]
Canada: emissions trading in Alberta, Canada, equivalent allowances) views as quite oensive.
which started in 2007.
This is run by the OECD countries with a decit could meet their Kyoto
Government of Alberta.[43]:22
commitments by buying allowances from transition countries with a surplus. Unless other commitments were
United States:
made to reduce the total surplus in allowances, such trade
would not actually result in emissions being reduced[44]:25
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(see also the section below on the Green Investment
(RGGI), which started in 2009. This scheme
Scheme).
caps emissions from power generation in
ten north-eastern U.S. states (Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 4.1.6 Green Investment Scheme
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
Rhode Island and Vermont).[43]:24
A Green Investment Scheme (GIS) refers to a plan for
emissions trading in California, which started achieving environmental benets from trading surplus
allowances (AAUs) under the Kyoto Protocol.[49] The
in 2013.[43]:26
Green Investment Scheme (GIS), a mechanism in the
the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which is framework of International Emissions Trading (IET), is
planned to start in 2012. This is a collective designed to achieve greater exibility in reaching the tarETS agreed between 11 U.S. states and Canadian gets of the Kyoto Protocol while preserving environmenprovinces.[43]:25
tal integrity of IET. However, using the GIS is not re-

STABILIZATION OF GHG CONCENTRATIONS

quired under the Kyoto Protocol, and there is no ocial about two-thirds of these savings, with the remainder didenition of the term.[49]
vided up roughly equally between the Ukraine and the
Under the GIS a Party to the Protocol expecting that EUs New Member States. Emission savings include cuts
the development of its economy will not exhaust its Ky- in methane, HFC, and N2 O emissions.
oto 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 develop- 5 Stabilization of GHG concentrament and implementation of the projects either acquiring
tions
the greenhouse gases emission reductions (hard greening)
or building up the necessary framework for this process
As noted earlier on, the rst-round Kyoto emissions lim(soft greening).[44]:25
itation commitments are not sucient to stabilize the atmospheric concentration of GHGs. Stabilization of atmospheric GHG concentrations will require further emis4.1.7 Trade in AAUs
sions reductions after the end of the rst-round Kyoto
[20][22]
Latvia was one of the front-runners of GISs. World Bank commitment period in 2012.
(2011)[50]:53 reported that Latvia has stopped oering
AAU sales because of low AAU prices. In 2010, Estonia
5.1
was the preferred source for AAU buyers, followed by the
Czech Republic and Poland.[50]:53

Background

Japans national policy to meet their Kyoto target includes

the purchase of AAUs sold under GISs.[51] In 2010, Japan
and Japanese rms were the main buyers of AAUs.[50]:53
In terms of the international carbon market, trade in
AAUs are a small proportion of overall market value.[50]:9
In 2010, 97% of trade in the international carbon market was driven by the European Union Emission Trading
Scheme (EU ETS).[50]:9 However, rms regulated under
the EU ETS are unable to use AAUs in meeting their Indicative probabilities of exceeding various increases in
emissions caps.[52]
global mean temperature for dierent stabilization levels
of atmospheric GHG concentrations.[54]
4.1.8

Clean Development Mechanism

Between 2001, which was the rst year Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects could be registered,
and 2012, the end of the rst Kyoto commitment period, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2 e) in emission reductions.[53] Most of these reductions are through
renewable energy commercialisation, energy eciency,
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%).
4.1.9

Joint Implementation

The formal crediting period for Joint Implementation (JI)

was aligned with the rst commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and did not start until January 2008 (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 20).[44] In November 2008, only 22
JI projects had been ocially approved and registered.
The total projected emission savings from JI by 2012 are
about one tenth that of the CDM. Russia accounts for

Dierent targets for stabilization require dierent levels

of cuts in emissions over time.[55] Lower stabilization
targets require global emissions to be reduced more
sharply in the near-term.[55]
Analysts have developed scenarios of future changes in
GHG emissions that lead to a stabilization in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs.[56] 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 gure opposite).[54]
To achieve stabilization, global GHG emissions must
peak, then decline.[57] The lower the desired stabilization
level, the sooner this peak and decline must occur (see
gure opposite).[57] For a given stabilization level, larger
emissions reductions in the near term allow for less stringent emissions reductions later on.[58] On the other hand,
less stringent near term emissions reductions would, for a

6.1

Negotiations

given stabilization level, require more stringent emissions land use can have an eect on the climate,[66] and indeed
reductions later on.[58]
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes Special
The rst period Kyoto emissions limitations can be Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry estiof global warming has been
viewed as a rst-step towards achieving atmospheric sta- mates that since 1750 a third
[67]
caused
by
land
use
change.
Particular criteria apply to
[19]
bilization of GHGs. In this sense, the rst period Kythe
denition
of
forestry
under
the Kyoto Protocol.
oto commitments may aect what future atmospheric stabilization level can be achieved.[59]

5.2

Relation to temperature targets

At the 16th Conference of the Parties held in 2010, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that future global warming
should be limited below 2C relative to the pre-industrial
temperature level.[60] 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.[61] Stabilization at 450 ppm could be associated
with a 26 to 78% risk of exceeding the 2 C target.[62]

Forest management, cropland management, grazing land

management, and revegetation are all eligible LULUCF
activities under the Protocol.[68] Annex I Parties use of
forest management in meeting their targets is capped.[68]

6.1 Negotiations
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.[69]
The initial aim was for industrialized countries to stabilize
their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.[69] The
failure of key industrialized countries to move in this direction was a principal reason why Kyoto moved to binding commitments.[69]

Scenarios assessed by Gupta et al. (2007)[63] 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 At the rst UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Berlin,
levels by 2020) and Norway (30-40% below 1990 levels the G77 was able to push for a mandate (the Berlin manby 2020).[64]
date) where it was recognized that:[70]
Gupta et al. (2007)[63] also looked at what 450 ppm scenarios projected for non-Annex I Parties. Projections in developed nations had contributed most to the
dicated that by 2020, non-Annex I emissions in several
then-current concentrations of GHGs in the atmoregions (Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia, and
sphere (see Greenhouse gas#Cumulative and historcentrally planned Asia) would need to be substantially reical emissions).
duced below business-as-usual.[63] Business-as-usual
developing country emissions per-capita (i.e., averare projected non-Annex I emissions in the absence of
age emissions per head of population)[71] were still
any new policies to control emissions. Projections indirelatively low.
cated that by 2050, emissions in all non-Annex I regions
would need to be substantially reduced below business and that the share of global emissions from developas-usual.[63]
ing countries would grow to meet their development
needs.

Details of the agreement

During negotiations, the G-77 represented 133 developing countries. China was not a member of the group but
The agreement is a protocol to the United Nations an associate.[72] It has since become a member.[73]
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) The Berlin mandate was recognized in the Kyoto Protocol
adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, in that developing countries were not subject to emission
which did not set any legally binding limitations on emis- reduction commitments in the rst Kyoto commitment
sions or enforcement mechanisms. Only Parties to the period.[70] However, the large potential for growth in deUNFCCC can become Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The veloping country emissions made negotiations on this isKyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the sue tense.[74] In the nal agreement, the Clean DevelConference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 3) in 1997 opment Mechanism was designed to limit emissions in
in Kyoto, Japan.
developing countries, but in such a way that developing
National emission targets specied 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.[65] LULUCF activities are also called sink activities. Changes in sinks and

countries do not bear the costs for limiting emissions.[74]

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 rst round commitments.[74]

8
6.1.1

6 DETAILS OF THE AGREEMENT

Emissions cuts

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.[75] The U.S. originally
proposed for the second round of negotiations on Kyoto
commitments to follow the negotiations of the rst.[76]
In the end, negotiations on the second period were set to
open no later than 2005.[76] Countries over-achieving in
their rst period commitments can bank their unused
allowances for use in the subsequent period.[76]
The EU initially argued for only three GHGs to be included {{CO2 }}, CH
4, and N
2O with other gases such as HFCs regulated
separately.[75] 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.[75]
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.[75] Countries that
had supported dierentiation of targets had dierent
ideas as to how it should be calculated, and many dierent indicators were proposed.[77] Two examples include
dierentiation of targets based on gross domestic product (GDP), and dierentiation based on energy intensity
(energy use per unit of economic output).[77]

to the Kyoto Protocol.

6.3 Implementational provisions

The protocol left several issues open to be decided later by
the sixth Conference of Parties COP6 of the UNFCCC,
which attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in
the Hague in late 2000, but it was unable to reach an
agreement due to disputes between the European Union
(who favoured a tougher implementation) and the United
States, Canada, Japan and Australia (who wanted the
agreement to be less demanding and more exible).
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 nal details of the
protocol.
The rst 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 C.G. countries (plus

the EU as a party in the European Union) agreed to a
10% emissions increase for Iceland; but, since the EUs
[82]
The nal targets negotiated in the Protocol are the re- member states each have individual obligations, much
larger
increases
(up
to
27%)
are
allowed
for
some of
sult of last minute political compromises.[75] The tarthe
less
developed
EU
countries
(see
below
Kyoto
Protogets closely match those decided by Argentinian Raul
[83]
col#Increase
in
greenhouse
gas
emission
since
1990).
Estrada, the diplomat who chaired the negotiations.[78]
Reduction
limitations
expire
in
2013.
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 6.4 Mechanism of compliance
outcome.[79] The nal targets are weaker than those proposed by some Parties, e.g., the Alliance of Small Is- The protocol denes a mechanism of compliance as
land States and the G-77 and China, but stronger than the a monitoring compliance with the commitments and
targets proposed by others, e.g., Canada and the United penalties for non-compliance.[84] According to Grubb
(2003),[85] the explicit consequences of non-compliance
States.[80]
of the treaty are weak compared to domestic law.[85] Yet,
the compliance section of the treaty was highly contested
in the Marrakesh Accords.[85]
6.2 Financial commitments
The Protocol also rearms 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"[81] ", that has been established by the Parties to
the Kyoto Protocol of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change to nance concrete adaptation projects
and programmes in developing countries that are Parties

6.5 Enforcement
If the enforcement branch determines that an Annex I
country is not in compliance with its emissions limitation,
then that country is required to make up the dierence
during the second commitment period plus an additional
30%. In addition, that country will be suspended from
making transfers under an emissions trading program.[86]

7.2

Withdrawal of Canada

Ratication process

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. Ratication (which is
required to become a party to the Protocol) started on 17
September with ratication of Fiji. Countries that did not
sign acceded to the convention, which has the same legal
eect.[1]
Article 25 of the Protocol species 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 ratication, acceptance, approval or
accession.[87]
The EU and its Member States ratied the Protocol in
May 2002.[88] Of the two conditions, the 55 parties
clause was reached on 23 May 2002 when Iceland ratied
the Protocol.[1] The ratication by Russia on 18 November 2004 satised the 55%" clause and brought the treaty
into force, eective 16 February 2005, after the required
lapse of 90 days.[89]

9
China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy.[95] The Tyndall Centre for
Climate Change Research reported in 2001 that, 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, Pacic Islands, etc.) expressed their disappointment at Bushs decision. Bushs response that, I
was responding to reality, and reality is the nation has got
a real problem when it comes to energy was, it said, 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.[96]
The US accounted for 36% of emissions in
1990, and without U.S. ratication, only an
EU+Russia+Japan+small party coalition could place the
treaty into legal eect. A deal was reached in the Bonn
climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.[97]

7.2 Withdrawal of Canada

Main article: Kyoto Protocol and government action
Withdrawal of Canada
See also: Canada and the Kyoto Protocol

As of May 2013, 191 countries and one regional economic organization (the EC) have ratied the agreement,
representing over 61.6% of the 1990 emissions from
Annex I countries.[90] One of the 191 ratifying states
Canadahas denounced the protocol.

In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia stated that they

would not take on further Kyoto targets.[98] The Canadian government announced its withdrawalpossible at
any time three years after raticationfrom the Kyoto
Protocol on 12 December 2011, eective 15 December 2012.[99] Canada was committed to cutting its greenConvention Parties
house emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but
in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. Environment minister Peter Kent cited Canadas liability
to enormous nancial penalties under the treaty un7.1 US position
less it withdrew.[98][100] He also suggested that the recently signed Durban agreement may provide an alternaThe US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998,[91]
tive way forward.[101] Canadas decision received a generduring the Clinton presidency. To become binding in the
ally negative response from representatives of other ratiUS, however, the treaty had to be ratied by the Senate,
fying countries.<ref name="bbc canada withdrawal"/
which had already passed the 1997 non-binding ByrdHagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries 7.3 Other states and territories where the
to make emission reductions and would seriously harm
treaty is not applicable
the economy of the United States. The resolution passed
95-0.[92] Therefore, even though the Clinton administra- Andorra, South Sudan, the United States and, following
tion signed the treaty,[93] it was never submitted to the their withdrawal on 15 December 2012, Canada are the
Senate for ratication.
only UNFCCC Parties that are not party to the ProtoWhen George W. Bush was elected US president in 2000,
he was asked by US Senator Hagel what his administrations position was on climate change. Bush replied
that he took climate change very seriously,[94] but that
he opposed the Kyoto treaty, because it exempts 80%
of the world, including major population centers such as

col. Furthermore, the Protocol is not applied to UNFCCC observers Palestine and the Holy See. Although
the Kingdom of the Netherlands approved the protocol
for the whole Kingdom, it did not deposit an instrument of ratication for Aruba, Curaao, Sint Maarten or
the Caribbean Netherlands.[102] The United Kingdom did

10

GOVERNMENT ACTION AND EMISSIONS

not extend its ratication to Anguilla, British Virgin Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, Turks and Caicos Islands or
the Sovereign Base Areas of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, while
Denmark excluded application to the Faroe Islands[103]

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.[104]:3 Several factors have contributed to this
decline.[104]:14 The rst is due to the economic restructuring in the Annex I Economies in Transition[104]:14 (the
see Intergovernmental Emissions Trading for the
8 Government action and emis- EITs
list of EITs). Over the period 1990-1999, emissions fell
sions
by 40% in the EITs following the collapse of central
planning in the former Soviet Union and east European
countries.[105]:25 This led to a massive contraction of
Main article: Kyoto Protocol and government action
See also: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions their heavy industry-based economies, with associper capita, List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions ated reductions in their fossil fuel consumption and
[44]:24
and List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions.
emissions
Emissions growth in Annex I Parties have also been limited due to policies and measures (PaMs).[104]:14 In particular, PaMs were strengthened after 2000, helping to
enhance energy eciency and develop renewable energy
8.1 Annex I countries
sources.[104]:14 Energy use also decreased during the economic crisis in 2007-2008.[104]:14

8.1.1 Projections

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

UNFCCC (2011)[104]:14 made projections of changes in

emissions of the Annex I Parties and the eectiveness of
their PaMs. It was noted that their projections should
be interpreted with caution.[104]: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.[104]: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.[104]:14
UNFCCC (2011)[104]: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.[104]: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.[104]:14 Scenarios reviewed by
UNFCCC (2011)[104]:14 still suggested that total Annex
I annual emissions would increase out to 2020 (see the
preceding paragraph).

8.2
8.1.2

Non-Annex I

11

Annex I Parties with targets

result in total emissions being reduced. An alternative

would be the purchase of CDM credits or the use of the
Data given in the table above may not be fully reective voluntary Green Investment Scheme.
of a countrys progress towards meeting its rst-round Ky- In December 2011, Canadas environment minister,
oto target. The summary below contains more up-to-date Peter Kent, formally announced that Canada would withinformation on how close countries are to meeting their draw from the Kyoto accord a day after the end of the
rst-round targets.
2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference (see
the section on the withdrawal of Canada).[117]

8.1.3 Annex I Parties without Kyoto 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.

Belarus, Malta, and Turkey are Annex I Parties but do not

have rst-round Kyoto targets.[118] The US has a Kyoto
target of a 6% reduction relative to the 1990 level, but
has not ratied the treaty.[105]:25 Emissions in the US have
increased 11% since 1990, and according to Olivier et al.
(2011),[105]:25 it will be unable to meet its original Kyoto
target.
If the US had ratied 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.[105]:26 Including the US in their calculation, Olivier et al. (2011)[105]: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.[105]:26

Collectively the group of industrialized countries committed to a Kyoto target, i.e., the Annex I countries excluding the USA, have a target of reducing their GHG
emissions by 4.2% on average for the period 20082012 relative to the base year, which in most cases is
1990.[105]:24 According to Olivier et al. (2011),[105]: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 8.2
credits generated by the Clean Development Mechanism
(CDM).[105]:24
As noted in the preceding section, between 19901999,
there was a large reduction in the emissions of the
EITs.[105]: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 USA.[105]: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.[105]: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.[105]:25

Non-Annex I

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.

Almost all European countries are on track to achieve

their rst-round Kyoto targets.[116] Spain plans to meet
its target by purchasing a large quantity of Kyoto units
through the exibility mechanisms.[116] Australia,[105]:25
Canada[105]:25 (Canada withdrew from the Kyoto treaty
in 2012),[117] and Italy[116] are not on course to meet their
rst-round Kyoto targets. In order to meet their targets,
these countries would need to purchase emissions credits Annual carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion
from other Kyoto countries.[105]:25 As noted in the sec- between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and nontion on Intergovernmental Emissions Trading, purchasing Annex I Parties.
surplus credits from the EIT countries would not actually

12
UNFCCC (2005) compiled and synthesized information
reported to it by non-Annex I Parties.[31] Most nonAnnex I Parties belonged in the low-income group, with
very few classied as middle-income.[31]: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.[31]:6
Many non-Annex I Parties are making eorts to amend
and update their environmental legislation to include
global concerns such as climate change.[31]:7

10

VIEWS ON THE PROTOCOL

2009).[119] 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 ecient
coal-red power plants.

A few Parties, e.g., South Africa and Iran, stated their

concern over how eorts to reduce emissions by Annex 9 Cost estimates
I Parties could adversely aect their economies.[31]:7 The
economies of these countries are highly dependent on in- Barker et al. (2007, p. 79) assessed the literature on cost
come generated from the production, processing, and ex- estimates for the Kyoto Protocol.[120] Due to non-US parport of fossil fuels.
ticipation in the Kyoto treaty, costs estimates were found
to be much lower than those estimated in the previous
Emissions
IPCC Third Assessment Report. Without US participaGHG emissions, excluding land use change and forestry tion, and with full use of the Kyoto exible mechanisms,
(LUCF), reported by 122 non-Annex I Parties for the year costs were estimated at less than 0.05% of Annex B GDP.
1994 or the closest year reported, totalled 11.7 billion This compared to earlier estimates of 0.11.1%. Without
tonnes (billion = 1,000,000,000) of CO2 -eq. CO2 was use of the exible mechanisms, costs without US particithe largest proportion of emissions (63%), followed by pation were estimated at less than 0.1%. This compared
methane (26%) and nitrous oxide (N2 O) (11%).
to earlier estimates of 0.22%. These cost estimates were
The energy sector was the largest source of emissions for viewed as being based on much evidence and high agree70 Parties, whereas for 45 Parties the agriculture sector ment in the literature.
was the largest. Per capita emissions (in tonnes of CO2 eq, excluding LUCF) averaged 2.8 tonnes for the 122
non-Annex I Parties.
10 Views on the Protocol
The Africa regions aggregate emissions were 1.6
billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 2.4
tonnes.

Main article: Views on the Kyoto Protocol

Gupta et al. (2007) assessed the literature on climate

The Asia and Pacic regions aggregate emissions change policy. They found that no authoritative assesswere 7.9 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of ments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these
2.6 tonnes.
agreements had, or will, succeed in solving the climate
[19]
The Latin America and Caribbean regions aggre- problem. In these assessments, it was assumed that the
gate emissions were 2 billion tonnes, with per capita UNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. The
Framework Convention and its Protocol include proviemissions of 4.6 tonnes.
sions for future policy actions to be taken.
The other region includes Albania, ArmeGupta et al. (2007)[121] described the Kyoto rst-round
nia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Malta, Moldova, and
commitments as modest, stating that they acted as a
Macedonia. Their aggregate emissions were 0.1
constraint on the treatys eectiveness. It was suggested
billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 5.1
that subsequent Kyoto commitments could be made more
tonnes.
eective with measures aimed at achieving deeper cuts
in emissions, as well as having policies applied to a larger
Parties reported a high level of uncertainty in LUCF emis- share of global emissions.[121] In 2008, countries with a
sions, but in aggregate, there appeared to only be a small Kyoto cap made up less than one-third of annual global
dierence of 1.7% with and without LUCF. With LUCF, carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion.[122]
emissions were 11.9 billion tonnes, without LUCF, total
World Bank (2010)[123] commented on how the Kyoto
aggregate emissions were 11.7 billion tonnes.
Protocol had only had a slight eect on curbing global
Trends
emissions growth. The treaty was negotiated in 1997,
In several large developing countries and fast growing but in 2006, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions had
economies (China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, grown by 24%.[124] World Bank (2010) also stated that
and Iran) GHG emissions have increased rapidly (PBL, the treaty had provided only limited nancial support

13
to developing countries to assist them in reducing their ing countries.[138]
emissions and adapting to climate change.[123]
Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based on
the idea of climate justice (Liverman, 2008, p. 14).[27] 11 Conference of the Parties
This has particularly centred on the balance between the
low emissions and high vulnerability of the developing
Further information: United Nations Climate Change
world to climate change, compared to high emissions in
conference
the developed world.
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).[125] In 2001, seventeen national science academies stated that ratication of
the Protocol represented a small but essential rst step
towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.[126] Some environmentalists and scientists
have criticized the existing commitments for being too
weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).[127]

The ocial 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 rst Meetings of Parties of the Kyoto Protocol (MOP) was held in 2005 in conjunction with the
eleventh Conferences of parties to UNFCCC. Also parties to the Convention that are not parties to the Protocol
can participate in Protocol-related meetings as observers.
The rst conference was held in 1995 in Berlin, while the
2013 conference was held in Warsaw. Future COPs will
The United States (under former President George W. be held in Lima, Peru in 2014 and in Paris, France in
Bush) and Australia (initially, under former Prime Min- 2015.
ister John Howard) did not ratify the Kyoto treaty.[128]
According to Stern (2006),[128] their decision was based
on the lack of quantitative emission commitments for
emerging economies (see also the 2000 onwards sec- 12 Amendment and possible suction). Australia, under former Prime Minister Kevin
cessors
Rudd, has since ratied the treaty,[129][130] which took effect in March 2008.[131]
Main article: PostKyoto Protocol negotiations on
greenhouse gas emissions

10.1

Views on the exibility mechanisms

In the non-binding 'Washington Declaration' agreed on

Further information: Flexible Mechanisms Views on 16 February 2007, heads of governments from Canada,
the exibility mechanisms
France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and
Another area which has been commented on is the South Africa agreed in principle on the outline of a sucrole of the Kyoto exibility mechanisms emissions cessor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisaged a global
trading, Joint Implementation, and the Clean De- cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialand initially hoped
velopment Mechanism (CDM).[132][133] The exibility ized nations and developing countries,
[139][140]
that
it
would
be
in
place
by
2009.
mechanisms have attracted both positive and negative
comments.[134][135][136]

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.[141][142]

As mentioned earlier, a number of Annex I Parties have

implemented emissions trading schemes (ETSs) as part
of eorts 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 Emis- The 2010 Cancn agreements include voluntary pledges
sions Trading for a list of ETSs).
made by 76 developed and developing countries to con[143]
In 2010,
One of the arguments made in favour of the exibility trol their emissions of greenhouse gases.
these
76
countries
were
collectively
responsible
for 85%
mechanisms is that they can reduce the costs incurred by
[143][144]
of
annual
global
emissions.
[132]
Annex I Parties in meeting their Kyoto commitments.
Criticisms of exibility have, for example, included the
ineectiveness of emissions trading in promoting investment in non-fossil energy sources,[137] and adverse impacts of CDM projects on local communities in develop-

By May 2012, the USA, Japan, Russia, and Canada had

indicated they would not sign up to a second Kyoto commitment period.[145] In November 2012, Australia conrmed it would participate in a second commitment pe-

14

14 NOTES

riod under the Kyoto Protocol and New Zealand conrmed that it would not.[146]
New Zealands climate minister Tim Groser said the 15year-old Kyoto Protocol was outdated, and that New
Zealand was ahead of the curve in looking for a replacement that would include developing nations.[147] Nonprot environmental organisations such as the World
Wildlife Fund criticised New Zealands decision to pull
out.[148]
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).[149] 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 15% 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.[150] At the Doha meeting of
the parties to the UNFCCCC on 8 December 2012, the
European Union chief climate negotiator, Artur RungeMetzger, pledged to extend the treaty, binding on the 27
European Member States, up to the year 2020 pending
an internal ratication 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[151] on 23 September 2014 in New
York. UN member states have been negotiating a future
climate deal over the last ve years. A preliminary calendar was adopted to conrm national contributions to
the reduction of CO2 emissions by 2015 before the UN
climate summit which will be held in Paris 2015 United
Nations Climate Change Conference.

13

See also

Alternatives to the Kyoto Protocol and successor

Asia Pacic Partnership on Clean Development and
Climate
Business action on climate change
Carbon emission trading
Carbon nance
Clean Development Mechanism
Climate legislation
Environmental agreements
Environmental impact of aviation
Environmental tari

List of climate change initiatives

List of international environmental agreements
Low-carbon economy
Montreal Protocol
Politics of global warming
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest
Degradation or REDD
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change or UNFCCC
World Peoples Conference on Climate Change

14 Notes
[1] Status of ratication. UNFCC Homepage. Retrieved 5
June 2012.
[2] http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf
[3] http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/
items/2613.php
[4] 7 .a Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. UN Treaty Database.
Retrieved 27 November 2014.
[5] 7 .c Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol. UN
Treaty Database. Retrieved 19 April 2015.
[6] Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Annex B. United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change. n.d. Retrieved 8 October 2011.
[7] KOM(2007) nal edition page 2
[8] Figueres, C. (15 December 2012), Environmental issues:
Time to abandon blame-games and become proactive Economic Times, The Economic Times / Indiatimes.com
(Times Internet), retrieved 2012-12-18
[9] US National Research Council (2001). Summary.
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions. Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: National Academy
Press. p. 3.
[10] US National Research Council (2008). Understanding
and Responding to Climate Change (PDF). Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, US National Academy
of Sciences. p. 2.
[11] IPCC (2007). 3. Projected climate change and its impacts. In Core Writing Team et al. (eds.). Summary
for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the
Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press.
[12] Temperatures are measured relative to the average global
temperature averaged over the years 1980-1999, with the
projected change averaged over 20902099.

15

[13] Karl, T.R. et al., eds. (2009). Global climate change.

Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States. 32
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473,
USA: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-52114407-0.
[14] http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.
asp?lang=En&n=EE4F06AE-1&xml=
EE4F06AE-13EF-453B-B633-FCB3BAECEB4F&
offset=3&toc=show Canadian government ocial
archives

agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol , p.122, in IPCC TAR SYR

2001
[23] Meehl, G. A. et al. (2007). FAQ 10.3 If Emissions of Greenhouse Gases are Reduced, How Quickly
do Their Concentrations in the Atmosphere Decrease?".
In Solomon, S., et al., (eds.). Global Climate Projections. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change. Cambridge University Press.

[15] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) (2011a), Status of Ratication of
the Convention, UNFCCC Secretariat: Bonn, Germany:
UNFCCC. Most countries in the world are Parties to
the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), which has adopted the 2 C target.
There are currently (as of 25 November 2011) 195 Parties
(194 states and 1 regional economic integration organization (the European Union)) to the UNFCCC.

[24] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

(2007).
Human and Natural Drivers of Climate
Change. In Solomon, S., et al., (eds.). Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth
Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University
Press.

[16] IPCC (2001d). Question 1. In Watson, R.T. and the

Core Writing Team. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the
Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC). Cambridge University Press.

[26] Depledge, J. (August 1999 August 2000), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Technical paper: Tracing the Origins of the Kyoto Protocol: An Article-by-Article Textual History (PDF),
UNFCCC, p. 6

[17] Granger Morgan *, M.; Dowlatabadi, H.; Henrion,

M.; Keith, D.; Lempert, R.; McBride, S.; Small, M.;
Wilbanks, T. (2009). BOX NT.1 Summary of Climate
Change Basics. Non-Technical Summary. Synthesis and
Assessment Product 5.2: Best practice approaches for
characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientic uncertainty in decision making. A Report by the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee
on Global Change Research. Washington D.C., USA.:
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. p.
11. (* is Lead Author)

[27] Liverman, D. M. (2008). Conventions of climate change:

constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere (PDF). Journal of Historical Geography 35 (2):
279296. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008. Retrieved 10
May 2011.

[18] Grubb, M. (2004). Kyoto and the Future of International Climate Change Responses: From Here to Where?"
(PDF). International Review for Environmental Strategies
5 (1): 2 (PDF version).
[19] Gupta, S. et al. (2007). 13.3.1 Evaluations of existing
climate change agreements. In (book chapter): Policies,
instruments, and co-operative arrangements.. In B. Metz
et al. Eds. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC
website. Retrieved 2 April 2010.
[20] Grubb & Depledge 2001, p. 269
[21] Article 2. The United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. Retrieved 15 November 2005. Such
a level should be achieved within a time-frame sucient to
allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to
ensure that food production is not threatened and to enable
economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner
[22] 7.32 Question 7, Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations
would depend upon emissions reductions beyond those

[25] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC

[28] Grubb 2003, p. 147

[29] The benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by the
Conference of the parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3)
were the values of "global warming potential" calculated
for the IPCC Second Assessment Report. These gures
are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable carbon dioxide equivalents (CO2 eq) when computing overall sources and sinks. Source:
Methodological issues related to the Kyoto protocol
(PDF). Report of the Conference of the Parties on its
third session, held at Kyoto from 1 to 11 December
1997, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. 25 March 1998. Retrieved 13 February 2010.
[30] Industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions
by 5.2%" (Press release). United Nations Environment
Programme. 11 December 1997. Retrieved 6 August
2007.
[31] UNFCCC (25 October 2005), Sixth compilation and
synthesis of initial national communications from Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention. Note
by the secretariat. Executive summary. Document code
FCCC/SBI/2005/18, United Nations Oce at Geneva,
Switzerland, retrieved 20 May 2010
[32] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol, UNFCCC
[33] Adam, David (2 December 2007), UK to seek pact
on shipping and aviation pollution at climate talks, The
Guardian

16

[34] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, UNFCCC
[35] European Environment Agency (EEA) (15 November
2005), Kyoto burden-sharing targets for EU-15 countries
- EEA, EEA
[36] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) (2008), Kyoto Protocol Reference
Manual On Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount
(PDF), Bonn, Germany: Climate Change Secretariat
(UNFCCC), p. 55, ISBN 92-9219-055-5
[37] Bashmakov, I. et al., 6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments, Executive summary, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
[38] Cliord Chance LLP (2012).
Clean Development Mechanism:
CDM and the UNFCC
http://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/CDM%
26UNFCCCcorrected.pdf .
Advocates for International Development. Retrieved: 19 September 2013.
[39] Toth, F. L. et al., 10. Decision-making Frameworks,
10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of International Mechanisms, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
[40] Bashmakov, I. et al., 6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments, 6.3 International Policies, Measures, and Instruments, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
[41] Hourcade, J.-C. et al., 8. Global, Regional, and National
Costs and Ancillary Benets of Mitigation, 8.3.1 International Emissions Quota Trading Regimes, in IPCC TAR
WG3 2001
[42] Bashmakov, I. et al., 6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments, 6.3.2 Project-based Mechanisms (Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism), in IPCC
TAR WG3 2001
[43] Hood, C. (November 2010). 5. Current and proposed
emissions trading systems (PDF). Review Existing and
Proposed Emissions Trading Systems: Information paper. Head of Publications Service, 9 rue de la Fdration, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France: International Energy
Agency (IEA). Retrieved 7 July 2011.
[44] Carbon Trust (March 2009). Global Carbon Mechanisms: Emerging lessons and implications (CTC748)".
Carbon Trust website. Retrieved 31 March 2010.
[45] World Bank (2008), Development and Climate Change: A
Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group: Technical
Report, Washington, DC, USA: The International Bank
for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank.
[46] Hourcade, J.-C. et al. (2001). 8.3.1.1 Where Flexibility"". In B. Metz et al. 8. Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benets of Mitigation. Climate
Change 2001: Mitigation. A Contribution of Working
Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. p. 538.

14 NOTES

[47] Blyth, W.; Baron, R. (2003), Green Investment Schemes:

Options and Issues (PDF), Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD) Environment Directorate and International
Energy Agency (IEA), p.
11 OECD reference:
COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)9
[48] Chiavari, J.; Pallemaerts, M. (30 June 2008), Energy and
Climate Change in Russia (note requested by the European
Parliaments temporary committee on Climate Change, Policy Department Economy and Science, DG Internal Policies, European Parliament) (PDF), Brussels, Belgium: Institute for European Environmental Policy, p. 11
[49] Carbon Finance at the World Bank (2011), Carbon Finance - Glossary of Terms: Denition of Green Investment Scheme (GIS), Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: World
Bank Carbon Finance Unit (CFU), retrieved 15 December 2011
[50] World Bank (2011), State and Trends of the Carbon Market Report 2011 (PDF), Washington, DC, USA: World
Bank Environment Department, Carbon Finance Unit
[51] Government of Japan (28 March 2008), Kyoto Protocol
Target Achievement Plan (Provisional Translation) (PDF),
Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of the Environment, Government
of Japan, pp. 8182
[52] Ramming, I. et al. (September 2008). 34. AAU Trading and the Impact on Kyoto and EU Emissions Trading. Before the Flood or Storm in a Tea-cup?". In Carnahan, K. Greenhouse Gas Market Report 2008. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Emissions Trading Association
(IETA). p. 141. This document can also be downloaded
as a PDF le
[53] World Bank (2010). World Development Report 2010:
Development and Climate Change. The International
Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World
Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433. Retrieved 6 April 2010.
[54] Chapter 8 The challenge of stabilisation, Box 8.1 Likelihood of exceeding a temperature increase at equilibrium
(PDF), p. 195, in Stern 2006
[55] Fisher, B. et al., Chapter 3: Issues related to mitigation
in the long-term context, 3.3.5.1 Emission reductions and
timing , in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
[56] Fisher, B. et al., Chapter 3: Issues related to mitigation in
the long-term context, 3.3.2 Denition of a stabilization
target , in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
[57] Synthesis report, 5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation , in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
[58] Chapter 8 The challenge of stabilisation, Sec 8.5 Pathways to stabilisation (PDF), in Stern 2006, p. 199
[59] Hhne, N., Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on Stabilization of
Carbon Dioxide Concentration (PDF), Cologne, Germany:
ECOFYS energy & environment

17

[60] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate

Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Conference of the Parties Sixteenth Session: Decision 1/CP.16: The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group
on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention
(English): Paragraph 4 (PDF), Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC Secretariat, p. 3
[61] International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010), 13. Energy
and the ultimate climate change target (PDF), World Energy Outlook 2010, Paris, France: IEA, p. 380, ISBN 97892-64-08624-1
[62] Levin, K.; Bradley, R. (February 2010), Working Paper: Comparability of Annex I Emission Reduction Pledges
(PDF), Washington DC, USA: World Resources Institute,
p. 16

[80] Depledge 2000, p. 45

[81] http://www.adaptation-fund.org/
[82] The Kyoto protocol A brief summary. European Commission. Retrieved 19 April 2007.
[83] Kyoto Protocol. UNFCCC. 14 May 2008. Retrieved
21 May 2009.
[84] Maljean-Dubois,, S. Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change. Synthse, n 01, 2007. Institute
for Sustainable Development and International Relations.
[85] Grubb 2003, p. 157
[86] An Introduction to the Kyoto Protocol Compliance
Mechanism. UNFCC. Retrieved 30 October 2006.

[63] Gupta, S. et al., Chapter 13: Policies, instruments, and

co-operative arrangements, Box 13.7 The range of the
dierence between emissions in 1990 and emission allowances in 2020/2050 for various GHG concentration
levels for Annex I and non-Annex I countries as a group
, in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007

[87] The Kyoto Protocol full text (PDF)" (PDF). UNFCC

Homepage.

[64] King, D. et al. (July 2011), Copenhagen and Cancun,

International climate change negotiations: Key lessons
and next steps, Oxford, UK: Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, p.
14, doi:10.4210/ssee.pbs.2011.0003 PDF version is also
available

[89] West, Larry. What is the Kyoto Protocol. About.com

(Part of NYT). Retrieved 5 June 2012.

[65] Dessai 2001, p. 3

[91] Congressional Research Service Reports #98-349:

Global Climate Change: Selected Legal Questions About
the Kyoto Protocol.

[66] Baede, A.P.M. (ed.), Annex II, Glossary: Land use and
Land-use change, in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
[67] Robert T. Watson, Ian R. Noble, Bert Bolin, N. H. Ravindranath, David J. Verardo and David J. Dokken (editors),
2000, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Special Report on Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry,
Cambridge University Press, UK

[88] European Union raties the Kyoto Protocol (Press release). European Union. 31 May 2002. Retrieved 13
February 2010.

[90] Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratication (PDF). United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. 14
January 2009. Retrieved 6 May 2009.

[92] Byrd-Hagel Resolution (http://www.nationalcenter.org/

KyotoSenate.html)
[93] Clinton Hails Global Warming Pact. All Politics
(CNN). 11 December 1997. Retrieved 5 November 2006.

[68] Dessai 2001, p. 9

[94] http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_
Energy_+_Oil.htm#56

[69] Grubb 2003, p. 144

[95] Dessai 2001, p. 5

[70] Liverman 2009, p. 290

[96] Dessai 2001, pp. 56

[71] Part II: Selected Development Indicators (PDF), Table

A1: Energy-related emissions: Indicator: per capita (metric tons), in World Bank 2010, p. 370

[97] Dessai 2001, pp. 510

[72] Dessai 2001, p. 4

[73] G-77 2011
[74] Grubb 2003, pp. 145146
[75] Liverman 2009, p. 291
[76] Grubb 2003, p. 148
[77] Grubb 2003, p. 151
[78] Depledge 2000, p. 46
[79] Depledge 2000, p. 44

[98] Canada pulls out of Kyoto protocol. The Guardian. 13

December 2011. Retrieved 13 December 2011.
[99] Canada withdrawing from Kyoto. The Toronto Star. 12
December 2011. Retrieved 12 December 2011.
[100] Ljunggren, David; Palmer, Randall (13 December 2011).
Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol. Reuters. Financial
Post. Retrieved 9 January 2012.
[101] Canada under re over Kyoto protocol exit. BBC News.
13 December 2011.
[102] Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Ministry of Foreign Aairs
(Netherlands). Retrieved 30 December 2012.

18

14 NOTES

[103] Status of Ratication of the Kyoto Protocol. United [118] International Energy Agency (IEA) (2011), CO2 EmisNations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Resions from Fuel Combustion 2011 - Highlights (PDF),
trieved 15 August 2011.
Paris, France: IEA, p. 13
[104] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate [119] PBL (16 October 2009). Industrialised countries will
Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Compilation and synthesis of
collectively meet 2010 Kyoto target. Netherlands Envifth national communications. Executive summary. Note
ronmental Assessment Agency (PBL) website. Retrieved
by the secretariat. (PDF), Geneva (Switzerland): United
3 April 2010.
Nations Oce at Geneva
[120] Barker, T. et al. (2007). Mitigation costs across sectors
[105] Olivier, J. G. J. et al. (21 September 2011), Long-term
and macro-economic costs. In Metz, B.; Davidson, O.
trend in global CO
R.; Bosch, P. R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L. A. Technical sum2 emissions; 2011 report (PDF), The Hague, Nethermary. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation. Contribution
lands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment
of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report
Agency; Institute for Environment and Sustainability
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print
(IES) of the European Commissions Joint Research
version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United
Centre (JRC), ISBN 978-90-78645-68-9 PBL publicaKingdom and New York, NY, USA. This version: IPCC
tion number 500253004. JRC Technical Note number
website. ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. Retrieved 16 April
JRC65918.
2011.
[106] Emissions data given in this table may not fully reect [121] Gupta, S. et al., Chapter 13: Policies, instruments,
progress towards the rst-round Kyoto targets. This is beand co-operative arrangements, Executive Summary , in
cause of the implicit trading of targets under the EU ETS
IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
(see Kyoto Protocol#Intergovernmental Emissions Trading), possible eects of trade in AAUs (see Kyoto Proto- [122] International Energy Agency (IEA). CO2 Emissions from
Fuel Combustion - 2011 Highlights (PDF). Paris, France:
col#Trade in AAUs), and the use of dierent emissions
IEA. p. 12.
base years for some Parties (see Kyoto Protocol#2012
emission targets and exible mechanisms).
[123] 5. Integrating development into a global climate regime
(PDF), in World Bank 2010, p. 233
[107] UNFCCC 2011, p. 7
[108] Aggregate emissions of the Kyoto basket of GHGs [124] 5. Integrating development into a global climate regime
(PDF), in World Bank 2010, p. 248
(see Kyoto Protocol#2012 emission targets and exible
mechanisms), measured in carbon dioxide equivalent,
and including changes in emissions due to carbon sinks [125] Aldy, J. E. et al. (9 September 2003). Thirteen
Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Pol(land use, land use change, and forestry)
icy Architectures. Climate Policy 3 (3): 373397.
doi:10.1016/j.clipol.2003.09.004. Retrieved 2 April
[109] Aggregate emissions of the Kyoto basket of GHGs
2010.
(see Kyoto Protocol#2012 emission targets and exible
mechanisms), measured in carbon dioxide equivalent,
and excluding changes in emissions due to carbon sinks [126] The joint-statement was made by the Australian Academy
of Science, the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium
(land use, land use change, and forestry)
for Science and the Arts, the Brazilian Academy of
Sciences, the Royal Society of Canada, the Caribbean
[110] IEA 2011, p. 13
Academy of Sciences, the Chinese Academy of Sci[111] {{CO2 }} emissions from fuel combustion only. Estimates
ences, the French Academy of Sciences, the German
applying the Kyoto targets to International Energy Agency
Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, the Indian Na(IEA) data suggest the overall Kyoto target is equivalent to
tional Science Academy, the Indonesian Academy of Sciabout 4.7% on an aggregate basis for {{CO2 }} emissions
ences, the Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale
from fuel combustion
dei Lincei (Italy), the Academy of Sciences Malaysia,
the Academy Council of the Royal Society of New
[112] StarTribune - Canada formally pulls out of Kyoto Protocol
Zealand, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and
on climate change Retrieved 4 May 2012.
the Royal Society (UK). Joint statement by 17 national
science academies (17 May 2001), The Science of Cli[113] In 2011, Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol
mate Change (PDF), London, UK: Royal Society, ISBN
0854035583. Statement website at the UK Royal Soci[114] For the region encompassing the European Union, Croatia
ety. Also published as: The Science of Climate Change
and Iceland
(editorial)", Science 292 (5520), 18 May 2001: 1261,
doi:10.1126/science.292.5520.1261
[115] Monacos CO2 emissions from fuel combustion are included with Frances.
[127] Grubb, M. (April 2000). The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Appraisal. FEEM Working Paper No. 30 2000.
[116] EEA 2012, p. 7
SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.229280. SSRN 229280.
[117] Vaughan, A (13 December 2011). What does Canadas
withdrawal from Kyoto protocol mean?". The Guardian. [128] 22. Creating a global price for carbon (PDF), in Stern
Retrieved 17 December 2011.
2006, p. 478

19

[129] Govt still not serious about climate change: Labor. ABC [144] United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)
News Online. 26 October 2006. Retrieved 30 October
(November 2012), The Emissions Gap Report 2012
2006.
(PDF), Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP, pp. 1418 Executive
summary in other languages
[130] Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto. BBC News. 3 De[145] Murray, James (16 May 2012). Bonn climate talks: EU
cember 2007. Retrieved 5 December 2007.
plays down talk of Kyoto protocol rift. The Guardian.
[131] Australias Rudd sworn in as PM. BBC News (BBC). 3
Retrieved 21 November 2012. A number of large emitDecember 2007. Retrieved 3 December 2007.
ters, including the US, Japan, Russia, and Canada, have
signalled they will not sign up to Kyoto or to a sec[132] Toth et al. summarize the arguments for and against exiond commitment period of Kyoto, while large emerging
bility: Toth, F. L. et al., Ch 10: Decision-making Frameeconomies will only sign up to an agreement that does not
works, Sec 10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take
impose binding emission reduction targets on them.
Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and
the Use of International Mechanisms, in IPCC TAR WG3 [146] Harvey, Fiona (9 November 2012). Kyoto protocol:
Australia signs up to second phase. The Guardian. Re2001
trieved 21 November 2012.
[133] Banuri, T. et al., Ch 1: Setting the Stage: Climate Change
and Sustainable Development, Sec 1.3.3 How Has Global [147] Groser defends quitting Kyoto Protocol. 3 News NZ. 3
December 2012.
Climate Policy Treated Equity?, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
[134] Part III: How good (or bad) are the Mechanisms?, in [148] NZs climate reputation 'nosedive'". 3 News NZ. 10 December 2012.
Carbon Trust 2009, pp. 5379
[149] UN climate talks extend Kyoto Protocol, promise com[135] Schneider, L. (5 November 2007), Ch 5: Overall conclupensation. BBC News. 8 December 2012.
sions, Is the CDM fullling its environmental and sustainable development objectives? An evaluation of the CDM [150] UN Climate Change Secretariat (8 December 2012),
and options for improvement. A report prepared for the
Doha climate conference opens gateway to greater ambiWWF, Berlin, Germany: Institute for Applied Ecology,
tion and action on climate change (press release) (PDF),
pp. 7273
Bonn, Germany: UN Climate Change Secretariat, p.2.
[136] Spash 2010
[137] United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, VI. Financing the development response to climate
change, World Economic and Social Survey 2009: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet (PDF), New York,
USA: United Nations, p. 162, ISBN 978-92-1-109159-5
[138] Spash 2010, p. 185
[139] Politicians sign new climate pact. BBC. 16 February
2007. Retrieved 28 May 2007.
[140] Global leaders reach climate change agreement. The
Guardian. UK. 16 February 2007. Retrieved 28 May
2007.
[141] Adam, David (25 March 2009). Why the Copenhagen
climate change clihanger could drag on a little longer.
The Guardian. Retrieved 14 April 2009.
[142] Adam, David (14 April 2009). World will not meet
2C warming target, climate change experts agree. The
Guardian. Retrieved 14 April 2009. The poll comes as
UN negotiations to agree a new global treaty to regulate
carbon pollution gather pace in advance of a key meeting
in Copenhagen in December. Ocials will try to agree a
successor to the Kyoto protocol, the rst phase of which
expires in 2012.
[143] King, D. et al. (July 2011), Copenhagen and Cancun,
International climate change negotiations: Key lessons
and next steps, Oxford, UK: Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment, University of Oxford, p.
12, doi:10.4210/ssee.pbs.2011.0003 PDF version is also
available

[151] http://sd.iisd.org/events/
69th-session-of-the-un-general-assembly-unga-69

15 References
Carbon Trust (March 2009), Global Carbon Mechanisms: Emerging lessons and implications (CTC748),
Carbon Trust
Depledge, J. (25 November 2000), United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Technical paper: Tracing the Origins of the
Kyoto Protocol: An Article-by-Article Textual History
(PDF), UNFCCC
Dessai, S. (December 2001), Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12: The climate regime from The Hague to
Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?,
Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre
EEA (2012), Greenhouse gas emission trends and
projections in Europe 2012 - Tracking progress
towards Kyoto and 2020 targets. A report by
the European Environment Agency (EEA), Luxembourg: Publications Oce of the European
Union, doi:10.2800/56770, ISBN 978-92-9213331-3, ISSN 1725-9177. Report No 6/2012. Report website.
G-77 (22 November 2011), The Group of 77 - Member States, The Group of 77, retrieved 22 October
2012

20

16 FURTHER READING

Grubb, M. (JulySeptember 2003), The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol, World Economics 4
(3), CiteSeerX: 10.1.1.163.1719

United Nations (9 May 1992), United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change, New
York

Grubb, M.; Depledge, J. (2001), The Seven Myths

of Kyoto (PDF), Climate Policy 1 (2)

United Nations (1998), Kyoto Protocol to the United

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Also available in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish, French
and Russian.

IEA (2011), CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion:

Highlights (2011 edition) (PDF), Paris, France: International Energy Agency (IEA)
IEA (2012), CO2 Emissions From Fuel Combustion:
Highlights (2012 edition) (PDF), Paris, France: International Energy Agency (IEA). Report website.
Data as an Excel spreadsheet.
IPCC TAR WG3 (2001), Metz, B.; Davidson, O.;
Swart, R. et al., eds., Climate Change 2001: Mitigation, Contribution of Working Group III to the
Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press, ISBN 0-521-80769-7 Missing |last4= in Editors list (help); (pb: 0-521-01502-2).
IPCC TAR SYR (2001), Watson, R. T.; Core Writing Team, eds., Climate Change 2001: Synthesis
Report (SYR), Contribution of Working Groups I,
II, and III to the Third Assessment Report (TAR)
of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0-52180770-0 (pb: 0-521-01507-3).
IPCC AR4 WG3 (2007), Metz, B.; Davidson, O. R.;
Bosch, P. R.; Dave, R.; Meyer, L. A., eds., Climate
Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change, Contribution of Working Group III (WG3) to the Fourth
Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University Press, ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4 (pb: 9780-521-70598-1).
IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), Core Writing Team;
Pachauri, R.K.; Reisinger, A., eds., Climate Change
2007: Synthesis Report (SYR), Contribution of
Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva, Switzerland:
IPCC, ISBN 92-9169-122-4.
Liverman, D.M. (2009), Conventions of climate
change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere (PDF), Journal of Historical
Geography 35 (2), doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008
Spash, C.L. (2010), The Brave New World of Carbon Trading (PDF), New Political Economy 15 (2):
169195, doi:10.1080/13563460903556049
Stern, N. (2006), Stern Review Report on the Economics of Climate Change (pre-publication edition),
London, UK: HM Treasury

UNEP (November 2012), The Emissions Gap Report 2012 (PDF), Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive summary in other languages
UNFCCC (6 June 1995), FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1:
Report of the Conference of the Parties on its rst session, held at Berlin from 28 March to 7 April 1995.
Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its rst session (PDF), Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations Oce. Available as a
PDF in the ocial UN languages.
UNFCCC (25 October 2005), Sixth compilation and
synthesis of initial national communications from
Parties not included in Annex I to the Convention.
Note by the secretariat. Executive summary. Document code FCCC/SBI/2005/18, Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations Oce
UNFCCC (2011), Compilation and synthesis of fth
national communications. Executive summary. Note
by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) secretariat (PDF), Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations Oce
UNFCCC (28 March 2012), Annex I national communications (NC5), UNFCCC
UNFCCC (2 October 2012), Reports on in-depth reviews of national communications of Annex I Parties,
UNFCCC
UNFCCC (22 January 2013), Non-Annex I national
communications, UNFCCC
World Bank (2010), World Development Report
2010: Development and Climate Change, Washington DC, USA: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank

16 Further reading
Ekardt, F./von Hvel, A.: Distributive Justice, Competitiveness, and Transnational Climate Protection.
In: Carbon & Climate Law Review, Vol. 3., 2009,
p. 102114.
Katy Longden, Roshni Pabari, Munir Hassan, and
Dalia Majumder-Russel, "Climate Change: Mitigation and Adaptation (A Legal Guide). Advocates
for International Development (June 2012)

21
Romain Morel, and Igor Shishlov, "Ex-post evaluation of the Kyoto Protocol : Four key lessons for
the 2015 Paris Agreement. CDC Climat Research
(May 2014)
Economics
Weyant, J. P., ed. (May 1999). The Costs of the
Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model Evaluation. Energy Journal (Special issue). Retrieved 8 August
2009. From this issue:
Manne, A. S.; Richels, R. The Kyoto Protocol: A Cost-Eective Strategy for Meeting Environmental Objectives?" (PDF). Retrieved 8
August 2009.
Nordhaus, W. D.; Boyer, J. G. Requiem for
Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of the Kyoto
Protocol (PDF). Retrieved 8 August 2009.

17

External links

Protocol text (HTML and PDF), 2007 and 2012

amendment
List of countries who have ratied, accepted, approved, or accessed the Kyoto Protocol, its rst
amendment (Targets for Belarus) and its second
amendment (extension period 2012-2020)
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change at Law-Ref.org
fully indexed and crosslinked with other documents
The laymans guide to the Kyoto Protocol
Kyoto: On Target? Google Docs
Introductory note by Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, procedural history note and audiovisual
material on the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in
the Historic Archives of the United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law

22

18

18
18.1

TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

Text and image sources, contributors, and licenses

Text

Kyoto Protocol Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol?oldid=670585335 Contributors: General Wesc, Jimbo Wales, The
Cunctator, Sodium, Eloquence, Mav, Wesley, Bryan Derksen, Zundark, Tarquin, Ed Poor, Verloren, Andre Engels, Scipius, Rmhermen, Aldie, Miguel~enwiki, Axon, Maury Markowitz, Ellmist, Graft, Fonzy, Mintguy, Montrealais, Tzartzam, Elian, Frecklefoot, Edward, Bdesham, Ken Arromdee, Earth, Voidvector, Lexor, MartinHarper, Gabbe, Ixfd64, Sannse, Delirium, Greenman, Looxix~enwiki,
Ams80, Ahoerstemeier, Mac, William M. Connolley, Susan Mason, Angela, Julesd, Marco Krohn, Jiang, Jeandr du Toit, Michael T.
Richter, Ralf Schmelter, Mulad, Paul Weaver, Guaka, Timwi, Viajero, Pwd~enwiki, IceKarma, Tpbradbury, Dragons ight, Morwen,
Saltine, Taxman, SEWilco, Populus, Topbanana, Indefatigable, Fvw, Cmbant, Oaktree b, Carbuncle, Mjmcb1, PuzzletChung, The lorax,
Phil Boswell, Donarreiskoer, Catskul, Nufy8, Robbot, DavidA, Ke4roh, Astronautics~enwiki, Earl Andrew, ChrisO~enwiki, KeithH,
Fredrik, Chris 73, Stephan Schulz, Romanm, Naddy, Kokiri, Lowellian, Pillsbur, Russellkanning, Phil webster, Mirv, Chopchopwhitey,
Postdlf, Dead, Academic Challenger, TimR, Premeditated Chaos, Meelar, Acegikmo1, Hadal, JackofOz, MikeCapone, AmericanCentury21, DarkHorizon, Radagast, Alan Liefting, Decrypt3, Centrx, Giftlite, Dbenbenn, JamesMLane, Bob Burton, CorpDan, Christopher
Parham, MPF, Fudoreaper, Tom harrison, Hagedis, Zigger, Marcika, Paul Pogonyshev, Dimi juve, Peruvianllama, Wwoods, Everyking,
Bkonrad, Curps, Henry Flower, FeloniousMonk, Niteowlneils, Zoney, Siroxo, Apoivre, Gugilymugily, Rjtrick, Bosniak, Bobblewik, Tagishsimon, JRR Trollkien, Peter Ellis, MSTCrow, Neilc, Pinnecco, Thewikipedian, 159753, Uranographer, Nova77, Toytoy, Geni, Slowking
Man, Antandrus, Beland, GD~enwiki, Estel~enwiki, Gunnar Larsson, Mamizou, Ot, HistoryBA, Plasma east, Rdsmith4, Satori, Icairns,
Lumidek, Sillydragon, WpZurp, Dj245, Neutrality, Joyous!, Jp347, Shadowlink1014, Aknorals, Robin klein, Deglr6328, DMG413, GreenReaper, Fanghong~enwiki, Adashiel, Grunt, Eisnel, Mike Rosoft, Ta bu shi da yu, Spiy sperry, Indosauros, JoshG, Mark Zinthefer, Agiau, RossPatterson, Discospinster, Solitude, Rich Farmbrough, Guanabot, Fungus Guy, Pak21, Jonpin, Cnwb, Vsmith, Rupertslander,
Tristan Schmelcher, FWBOarticle, Ovvldc, Smyth, David Schaich, Ponder, Martpol, Paul August, MDCore, Bender235, Pembertond,
Kaisershatner, Helldjinn~enwiki, Violetriga, Wolfman, Brian0918, DS1953, Kwamikagami, Hayabusa future, Aude, Shanes, Bookofjude,
Lyght, Pablo X, Adambro, Semper discens, Guettarda, Bobo192, Nigelj, JonGwynne, NetBot, Vortexrealm, Dusko, Xtra, Klo~enwiki, The
Ephialtist, Townmouse, Adjoas, Pschemp, Gael, Silverback, Nsaa, Jjron, Wonglijie, ADM, Jumbuck, Storm Rider, Alansohn, JYolkowski,
Arcenciel, Ghostalker, GenkiNeko, Arthena, Rd232, Andrewpmk, Mda621~enwiki, Andrew Gray, Sade, AzaToth, Great Scott, Pebbens,
Songthen, Robweiller~enwiki, PoptartKing, Water Bottle, Mailer diablo, Cdc, Mysdaao, Alinor, Bart133, Yossiea~enwiki, Cortonin, Ashlux, Sobolewski, Wtmitchell, Kgashok, NerfHerder, Binabik80, Dionisiofranca, Wildstar2501, Helixblue, Colin Kimbrell, Fourthords,
Marc A. Dubois, Tony Sidaway, Sciurin, Bryancoe, Zxcvbnm, LFaraone, Lebite, Alai, IMpbt, Dan100, Kardrak, TShilo12, Brookie,
Dejvid, Stemonitis, Woohookitty, Camw, Velvetsmog, Mpj17, JeremyA, MONGO, Username314, Kgrr, Varco, Ltfhenry, Bbatsell, Terence, GregorB, Aaronantrim, Male1979, Tkessler, Junes, Wayward,
, Prashanthns, Tokek, Palica, PeregrineAY, A3r0, Dysepsion,
Mandarax, BobG, Matilda, Graham87, Mony~enwiki, Marcg106, Magister Mathematicae, Skidlix, KlausH, BD2412, Kbdank71, Eteq,
Mendaliv, Josh Parris, Canderson7, Sjakkalle, Rjwilmsi, Koavf, Allenc28, Jake Wartenberg, Wikibofh, Bill37212, Seraphimblade, Captain Disdain, Tawker, YAZASHI, Equinox137, Ligulem, ElKevbo, Bhadani, DoubleBlue, Neuron, Aerotheque, Nandesuka, Je Bowman,
Yamamoto Ichiro, SNIyer12, Saksham, Titoxd, ColinJF, Wragge, Sky Harbor, DDerby, SchuminWeb, Ground Zero, Old Moonraker,
AdnanSa, Ysangkok, Nihiltres, Trekkie4christ, RexNL, Gurch, Nicmila, Ayla, Brendan Moody, Fosnez, Drumguy8800, TeaDrinker,
Scroteau96, Smithbrenon, Butros, King of Hearts, Chobot, Theo Pardilla, DVdm, JesseGarrett, Bgwhite, Chwyatt, Hall Monitor, Gwernol, E Pluribus Anthony, AlexL~enwiki, Flcelloguy, Elfguy, Ravenswing, The Rambling Man, YurikBot, Wavelength, RussBot, Red
Slash, Sillybilly, Postglock, The Storm Surfer, Hede2000, Splash, Pigman, Devahn58, Matt Fitzpatrick, Chensiyuan, Gaius Cornelius,
Wimt, SamJohnston, Shanel, CydeSwype, SEWilcoBot, Wiki alf, Robertvan1, Joel7687, Ashwinr, Thiseye, Irishguy, Renata3, Shinmawa, Brandon, Xdenizen, Hcholm, Moe Epsilon, Mikeblas, Ezeu, Danlaycock, Mozart2005, Tony1, Deucalionite, DeadEyeArrow, Psy
guy, Derek.cashman, Hamiltonian, Asbl, Jpeob, Deepak~enwiki, Hrvoje Simic, Wknight94, Pevos, Frogman333, FF2010, Light current,
2over0, PTSE, Malekhanif, Likwidshoe, Jwissick, Arthur Rubin, E Wing, NHSavage, Jezuit~enwiki, DGaw, Alasdair, Chrishmt0423,
Naught101, Peter, Ordinary Person, Andjam, Emc2, JLaTondre, Spliy, ArielGold, Kaicarver, Bluezy, Kungfuadam, Clt510, Teryx,
Auroranorth, Payneos, DVD R W, Wizofaus, Gardevior, Snalwibma, Sarah, SmackBot, FocalPoint, Mira, Feedyourfeet, Smitz, Brothermad, 1dragon, Camcom, Malkinann, Reedy, Werd~enwiki, Tarret, KnowledgeOfSelf, Olorin28, Hydrogen Iodide, Bjelleklang, Pgk,
CyclePat, Leki, Jfg284, KocjoBot~enwiki, WookieInHeat, Alksub, KVDP, Alan McBeth, Agentbla, Frymaster, Puglet, Edgar181, HalfShadow, Alsandro, Gilliam, Hmains, Skizzik, Squiddy, Armeria, Chewy m, Chris the speller, Master Jay, Kurykh, Ottawakismet, Jcc1,
NCurse, Mobius27, Master of Puppets, Jayanta Sen, Miquonranger03, Jkmccrann, RayAYang, Sloane, PureRED, Dlohcierekims sock,
Robth, Wisden17, Jdthood, Rlevse, Mikenosilly, Peter Campbell, Can't sleep, clown will eat me, Jahiegel, Ytrewqt, Ender3057, Rogpyvbc,
Gnuosphere, MBlume, SpinyNorman, TheKMan, Xiner, Rrburke, BarryTheUnicorn, VMS Mosaic, Alexxandros, Kcordina, Mr.Z-man,
Rarelibra, Dharmabum420, Krich, Emre D., Khukri, Savidan, TedE, Nils Simon, Dreadstar, Palecitrus, Aewheeless, Aniras, IE, Fitzhugh,
Jon Awbrey, Wisco, Wizardman, KeithB, DavidJ710, Shushruth, Ligulembot, Bejnar, Saippuakauppias, Pilotguy, Ohconfucius, Bouncingmolar, Rory096, Tanuki-Dori, Cold Light, Anlace, Xerocs, Admn404, CorvetteZ51, Darkildor, ZenSaohu, The great grape ape is straight
out of the know, J 1982, Gobonobo, Jaganath, Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington, Tktktk, Agentscott00, JoshuaZ, Michael Bednarek,
Evan Robidoux, NYCJosh, Green Giant, Kransky, Mwgillenwater, Patau, PseudoSudo, Jackson744, Anand Karia, Ckatz, A. Parrot, Senseitaco, Stwalkerster, Bendzh, Fedallah, SandyGeorgia, Tboger, Ryulong, Zorxd, Big Smooth, P199, Jose77, Dacium, Travia21, Zepheus,
Dl2000, Jodie44, Hu12, MLeamy, Levineps, Iridescent, Michaelbusch, Lathrop1885, Missionary, Joseph Solis in Australia, Walton One,
Cph3992, J Di, Lucid-dream, Ribbit~enwiki, Aperiodic, Color probe, Courcelles, Nkayesmith, BrOnXbOmBr21, Chovain, Tawkerbot2,
Binks, GerryWol, Joostvandeputte~enwiki, Mralph72, JForget, CmdrObot, Angst72, Porterjoh, CO2Neutral, Mattbr, Insanephantom,
Dycedarg, Capefeather, 0zymandias, DaveDixon, Mika1h, GHe, Outriggr, Zinjixmaggir, Godardesque, Keithh, No1lakersfan, J. Matthew
Bailey, Rotiro, Cydebot, Cahk, Mousy~enwiki, Future Perfect at Sunrise, Eternalsexy, Reywas92, Sinolonghai, Grahamec, Steel, Gogo
Dodo, TicketMan, Tono-bungay, Llort, Asplode, Tkynerd, Diuoroethene, Odie5533, Quibik, DumbBOT, Optimist on the run, Kozuch,
Dukakis, The machine512, Rider kabuto, Epbr123, Sarichkaa, Jameycob, Livedevilslivedevil, Dubc0724, Blah42, Pajz, KimDabelsteinPetersen, Daniel, Ucanlookitup, Urdna, Andyjsmith, Gralo, Headbomb, RevolverOcelotX, Trevor Bekolay, Java13690, Assaadrazzouk,
Merbabu, Tellyaddict, Ideogram, EdJohnston, CharlotteWebb, Luohan, FERN EU, Kingandpharoh, Niohe, Haha169, Adballer30, SvenAERTS, Ben1220, Sbandrews, Oreo Priest, Hmrox, AntiVandalBot, BokicaK, Yonatan, Luna Santin, Opelio, Threlicus, Hectard, Fic-in,
Jj137, Enitime, Drewk, Wing Nut, Gdo01, Alphachimpbot, Spartaz, Tempest115, Nightlight, Eric kennedy, Asskikr1001, AubreyEllenShomo, OGGVOB, Jayfr, Gkhan, Sluzzelin, Husond, Harryzilber, Sirfrankomac, MER-C, Dr. JJ, Nicholas Tan, Roleplayer, Hut 8.5,
H.al-shawaf, Smith Jones, PhilKnight, MSBOT, AOL account, LittleOldMe, Waitsian, Kilrothi, Podex, MaxPont, Magioladitis, Skyemoor,
DougRWms, Bongwarrior, VoABot II, Weser, Drfreid, Yandman, Frip1000, Cn3909, Harelx, Einzelheit, Brusegadi, Tompettyfan, Seamar31, Catgut, Giggy, Aldeby, Animum, Nat, MoxRox, Prester John, Enquire, DerHexer, JaGa, Movabletype, Dan Pangburn, Custodiet

18.2

Images

23

ipsos custodes, Patstuart, Thompson.matthew, Seba5618, Kornfan71, Vc100, MartinBot, The Lord Of The Dance, Abhinav777, Ugajin,
Aladdin Sane, Sm8900, Jw94, Jonathan Hall, R'n'B, Xosmileback, AlexiusHoratius, Nono64, Alaexis, Galahaad, Ssolbergj, J.delanoy,
Pharaoh of the Wizards, Trusilver, Xue hanyu, Favian44, Bogey97, UBeR, Rrloomis1, Maurice Carbonaro, Nigholith, Ginsengbomb,
Edward gurry, Andrewcalvin, Darth Mike, Lowerarchy, Icseaturtles, Sssuuuzzzaaannn, Andareed, EsperantoStand, Dispenser, Enuja,
LordAnubisBOT, McSly, Interscan, Coreypieper, Walkeradam, Ephebi, Oceanynn, Gurchzilla, Jason Cherniak, Uch01, Rossenglish,
Plasticup, Dalizandii, Dmhaglund, Jorfer, JosephKing, Tirralirra, Bicester, MetsFan76, Vulgarurbanism, Juliancolton, Woood, Haljackey,
Cometstyles, STBotD, WJBscribe, Uhai, Chapiown, Andy Marchbanks, JavierMC, Million Moments, Wikipedian1234, Random Passerby, TheNewPhobia, SoCalSuperEagle, Enescot, Pahool, Sinmiedoanada, CardinalDan, Idioma-bot, IWhisky, That-Vela-Fella, Johnfos,
ABF, CSumit, Enjoisk8ingac, MenasimBot, Soliloquial, Commandant101, LeilaniLad, Philip Trueman, PNG crusade bot, DJDonegal,
Nateland, TXiKiBoT, Mercy, Asabbagh, Cosmic Latte, Bizhaoqi, Saleems, Tams Kdr, NPrice, Rei-bot, Bobw15, Bezthespaniard,
Qxz, Lonelydodger, Naohiro19 revertvandal, Dorkdork777, Wiki-bob2, Gekritzl, CreateSomeNoise, Donniewan75, Martin451, JhsBot,
Don4of4, Dlae, Raymondwinn, Jsklad, Pishogue, Fraxinus Croat, Rhinokitty, Plazak, Epktsang, Aston09mv, Altermike, Amwyll Rwden,
Enviroboy, Insanity Incarnate, Monty845, Mary quite contrary, AlleborgoBot, Eskovitz, HybridBoy, Lejman, Brainsphere, GirasoleDE,
Jwc58, Rtol, SieBot, Jdt2858, YonaBot, Caulde, VVVBot, ToughLuckMeadow, Nextmemory16, Benjgibbs, Legend, Mikebar, Caltas,
Matthew Yeager, Ravensre, Knipper, Maple546, Ojjy27, LeadSongDog, Jellyandjam, Grundle2600, Novastorm, Bistromathic, Hilosoph,
Keilana, Tiptoety, Kshofu, LibStar, Carbonconsultant, Hxhbot, Acastanares, Nopetro, Jc-S0CO, Oxymoron83, Lightmouse, Goutham91,
Int21h, Alex.muller, Correogsk, Gtadoc, Torchwoodwho, StaticGull, Tcrow777, Alokprasad84, Dust Filter, Pinkadelica, Struway2, Sjoffutt, Mrfebruary, TFCforever, Jacob.vankley, Tanvir Ahmmed, ClueBot, Mariordo, Binksternet, Snigbrook, Kennvido, Foxj, The Thing
That Should Not Be, IceUnshattered, Ewawer, Arakunem, Grouf, Der Golem, Vinny Burgoo, AnnuitSophia, Shinpah1, Watti Renew, Uncle Milty, SuperHamster, CounterVandalismBot, Koannansrevenge, Niceguyedc, JJIG, Harland1, LizardJr8, Dr. B. R. Lang, Excirial,
Karlhendrikse, Monobi, Gtstricky, Estirabot, Sun Creator, Acu8509, Tyler, L.tak, Puissant001, Promethean, JamieS93, Etip, Andyp114,
Tnxman307, Borateen, Singhalawap, Morel, Maikeda, Redthoreau, Ablative, The Red, Backalleyscrapper, Nukeless, Thehelpfulone, Robgregory2302, Jehandz, Chaddesch, Rds865, Thingg, V i s n a v a, Aitias, DerBorg, Ludalutka, Blow of Light, MelonBot, Nasion, SoxBot
III, Nafsadh, Hanzo2050, DumZiBoT, Anewpester, Life of Riley, Fpaudon, Helixweb, Jones McAnthony, Aemurphy, Nathan Johnson, Hasan en, Nat000, Jovianeye, Feinoha, Chanakal, Avoided, SilvonenBot, The Aviv, Acterbahnmeister, Leondoneit, Madsdk~enwiki,
Freeky89, WikiDao, Inkjet360, Hsuiahfsahfuihauif, Jaked122, Good Olfactory, Lemmey, Antonio10neopia, Stonewhite, Thatguyint, Kbdankbot, Jadeoshi, Drkdawg, CurtisSwain, Adamatkin, DavidMSA, DOI bot, Landon1980, Catholic Met, Nath1991, CanadianLinuxUser,
Cmhuong, Darkverse, Jordan Timmins, Polemarchus, Cst17, Download, Ridinlow333, Tripple^C^, Chzz, AnnaFrance, West.andrew.g,
Tomtom1540, Cobus.w, Thewonderidiot, Kylstoman~enwiki, CleanGreen, Tassedethe, Numbo3-bot, Dr Enviro, Bguras puppy, Lightbot, Gail, Ias2008, Jarble, Bartledan, Luckas-bot, Dpaulat, Yobot, Fraggle81, Iddri~enwiki, House1630, Troyeebarua, Mmxx, THEN
WHO WAS PHONE?, Brougham96, Aichilee, 101090ABC, Mdw0, AnomieBOT, The clean r, Ciphers, 1exec1, GoAway0000, Killiondude, IRP, Chuckiesdad, Kingpin13, Ulric1313, Mks86, Flewis, Ayden is cool, Citation bot, Kasaalan, Maxis ftw, Raven1977, Neurolysis,
ArthurBot, LilHelpa, Digital paintball, Xqbot, DrPhweebleschnepter, Alexpidgeon, Addihockey10, Bihco, Khajidha, Myleftbigtoe, Jerey
Mall, Emsherm, Hullo exclamation mark, Gilo1969, XZeroBot, Phakedacdc, Jmundo, NFD9001, The Original Juggernautical, The Evil
IP address, Maddie!, NOrbeck, Diegusjaimes, Ruy Pugliesi, GrouchoBot, Snailtree, Ubreth, S0458241, RibotBOT, Invest in knowledge,
Emturan, Pierre.Savignac, MerlLinkBot, Shadowjams, Politicslvr, Astatine-210, Hor-he george, Paradise coyote, Bckb08, Mkevlar, FrescoBot, Baseballnum5, NSH002, Ericminikel, Nepomuk 3, Lothar von Richthofen, DelphinidaeZeta, Gyndanya, Jinwei1019, Citation bot
1, PigFlu Oink, Mansoor.siddiqi, Iupolisci, Redrose64, AstaBOTh15, Bgerrits, Jonesey95, ColinSimpson15, Bejinhan, A8UDI, Jaybird
vt, FormerIP, BlackHades, Bgpaulus, Reconsider the static, NimbusWeb, Enemenemu, Abc518, Elekhh, FoxBot, TehPiGuy, TobeBot,
Trappist the monk, Yunshui, Wixiedoodle, Kunstsalon-wittenberg, Dinamik-bot, Raidon Kane, WaitingForConnection, The last username
left was taken, Matrobriva, Informed counsel, DARTH SIDIOUS 2, Onel5969, Mean as custard, Samuel Rosenbaum, Stj6, Nschne1,
RjwilmsiBot, Moontripper, Regancy42, Me6620, Jacob Birk, Pop don, Becritical, Robomura, Price to Pay, Salvio giuliano, Wrenelhai, Polysophia, Deagle AP, NCD09, EmausBot, Dolescum, Immunize, Ajraddatz, Mordgier, ScottyBerg, Deeksha einstien, Wanzaidi,
Dewritech, GoingBatty, Moehockey, Wrderijke, Blobby123456, Tommy2010, K6ka, Puceron89, Catalaalatac, Bryce Carmony, Battoe19,
H3llBot, Eusc, Brandmeister, L Kensington, Liamscollen, Gsarwa, Orange Suede Sofa, Vaibhav.dkm, DASHBotAV, Vinodtiwari2608,
Diamondland, ClueBot NG, Smtchahal, Emilyisawsumeees, Raghith, Flemmong, Vinodpotter, Coastwise, Lion prince is simba, Snotbot, Raymond Ellis, DanTrent, Kameou, O.Koslowski, Widr, Onen hag oll, Helpful Pixie Bot, TomJonesIII, Calabe1992, Daewoochong,
WNYY98, BG19bot, NewsAndEventsGuy, Northamerica1000, MusikAnimal, Gayane Hakobyan, Atoine85, Rowan Adams, Justanonymous, TBrandley, Nicholas.stern, , BattyBot, Aleccolin1891, Bobart11, Padenton, Khazar2, JesseAlanGordon, Ducknish,
JYBot, Solar Kermit, EncycloCritique, Dexbot, Cerabot~enwiki, UNAVL, Taxninja2012, Carbonaut, Anonymustard, Nicmrgn, Exenola,
Free ottoman, Epicgenius, Rohan ahlawat, Alkylightsword, Tentinator, SandryMM, Aho-hopc-ull, ArmbrustBot, Shonry21, Ugog Nizdast, Prokaryotes, Munchkin2013, Lette Sgo, Crazy131, Sandhya.mathur08, Christiavan, Monkbot, Lucyloo10, Fyddlestix, Aryan.for.you,
Lgkkitkat, Cyanoplex, Yewdiepie, Alexiriza, Favie~enwiki, Kdlxoxo, Strongjam, Stiggy McStig, 5ths geog wut, Herbiesucksdick, Tftcrccgctdtdrcc, KasparBot, Kteckca and Anonymous: 2100

18.2

Images

File:Aegopodium_podagraria1_ies.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Aegopodium_podagraria1_ies.

jpg License: CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Frank Vincentz
File:Annual_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990-2009_for_the_Kyoto_Annex_I_and_
non-Annex_I_Parties.png Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Annual_carbon_dioxide_emissions_
from_fuel_combustion_between_1990-2009_for_the_Kyoto_Annex_I_and_non-Annex_I_Parties.png License:
CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Own work Original artist: Enescot
File:Annual_per_capita_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990-2009_for_the_Kyoto_Annex_I_
and_non-Annex_I_Parties.png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/Annual_per_capita_carbon_dioxide_
emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990-2009_for_the_Kyoto_Annex_I_and_non-Annex_I_Parties.png License: CC BY-SA
3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Enescot
File:CO2emissions1.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/39/CO2emissions1.jpg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Own work Original artist: L.tak
File:Carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_of_Annex_I_Kyoto_Protocol_Parties_1990-2009.png
Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/94/Carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_of_Annex_I_Kyoto_
Protocol_Parties_1990-2009.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Enescot

24

18

TEXT AND IMAGE SOURCES, CONTRIBUTORS, AND LICENSES

File:Commons-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/Commons-logo.svg License: ? Contributors: ? Original

artist: ?
File:Crystal_energy.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/Crystal_energy.svg License: LGPL Contributors: Own work conversion of Image:Crystal_128_energy.png Original artist: Dhateld
File:Doha_Amendment_of_Kyoto.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/34/Doha_Amendment_of_Kyoto.
svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work, based on File:Kyoto protocol parties and 2012-2020 commitments.svg Original
artist: L.tak
File:Global_Warming_Map.jpg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Global_Warming_Map.jpg License:
CC-BY-SA-3.0 Contributors: ? Original artist: ?
File:Indicative_probabilities_of_exceeding_various_increases_in_global_mean_temperature_(relative_to_the_pre-industrial_
level)_for_stabilization_levels_of_400,_450,_500,_550,_650_and_750_ppmv_carbon_dioxide_equivalent.png
Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/Indicative_probabilities_of_exceeding_various_increases_in_global_mean_
temperature_%28relative_to_the_pre-industrial_level%29_for_stabilization_levels_of_400%2C_450%2C_500%2C_550%2C_650_
and_750_ppmv_carbon_dioxide_equivalent.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Enescot
File:Kyoto_Parties_with_first_period_(2008-2012)_greenhouse_gas_emissions_limitations_targets_and_the_percentage_
change_in_their_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990_and_2009.png
Source:
https:
//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Kyoto_Parties_with_first_period_%282008-2012%29_greenhouse_gas_emissions_
limitations_targets_and_the_percentage_change_in_their_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fuel_combustion_between_1990_and_
2009.png License: CC BY-SA 3.0 Contributors: Own work Original artist: Enescot
File:Kyoto_Protocol_parties.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6e/Kyoto_Protocol_parties.svg License:
Public domain Contributors: File:UNFCCC parties.svg Original artist: User:Canuckguy, User:Danlaycock
File:Major_greenhouse_gas_trends.png Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Major_greenhouse_gas_
trends.png License: Public domain Contributors: NOAA (http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/) Original artist: US Govt
File:Overview_map_of_states_committed_to_greenhouse_gas_limitations_in_the_first_Kyoto_Protocol_period_(years_
2008-2012)_(greyscale).png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f6/Overview_map_of_states_committed_to_
greenhouse_gas_limitations_in_the_first_Kyoto_Protocol_period_%28years_2008-2012%29_%28greyscale%29.png License: Public
domain Contributors:
Kyoto_Protocol_Committed_to_reduction_2008-2012_map.png
2012_map.png: Flemmong

Original

artist:

Kyoto_Protocol_Committed_to_reduction_2008-

File:Projected_global_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fossil_and_other_industrial_sources_between_2000-2100_using_
MiniCAM_emissions_scenarios_from_Clarke_et_al_2007.png Source:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/
Projected_global_carbon_dioxide_emissions_from_fossil_and_other_industrial_sources_between_2000-2100_using_MiniCAM_
emissions_scenarios_from_Clarke_et_al_2007.png License: Public domain Contributors: Clarke, L., et al., 2007: Scenarios of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Atmospheric Concentrations, p.20. Sub-report 2.1A of Synthesis and Assessment Product 2.1 by the U.S.
Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Department of Energy, Oce of Biological &
Environmental Research, Washington, DC., USA. Original artist: Clarke, L., J. Edmonds, H. Jacoby, H. Pitcher, J. Reilly, R. Richels
File:Stabilizing_the_atmospheric_concentration_of_carbon_dioxide_at_a_constant_level_would_require_emissions_to_be_
effectively_eliminated_(vertical).png Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/64/Stabilizing_the_atmospheric_
concentration_of_carbon_dioxide_at_a_constant_level_would_require_emissions_to_be_effectively_eliminated_%28vertical%29.png
License: Public domain Contributors: The image is taken from the report, Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2: Best practice approaches
for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientic uncertainty in decisionmaking, page 11. This report is freely available and
can be downloaded from http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/njlite_download.php?id=5805 Original artist: U.S. Climate Change Science Program
and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research (Granger Morgan, H. Dowlatabadi, M. Henrion, D. Keith, R. Lempert, S. McBride,
M. Small, T. Wilbanks (eds.)). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington D.C., USA.
File:Wikisource-logo.svg Source: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Wikisource-logo.svg License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Contributors: Rei-artur Original artist: Nicholas Moreau

18.3

Content license

Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0