   #copyright

Kyoto Protocol

2007 Schools Wikipedia Selection. Related subjects: Environment


        The Kyoto Protocol is an amendment to the United Nations Framework
        Convention on Climate Change

                                                            Kyoto Protocol
                    Opened for signature December 11, 1997 in Kyoto, Japan
                                     Entered into force February 16, 2005.
    Conditions for entry into force 55 parties and at least 55% CO[2] 1990
                                      emissions by UNFCCC Annex I parties.
      Parties 166 countries and other governmental entities (as of October
                                                                     2006)

   The Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on
   Climate Change is an amendment to the international treaty on climate
   change, assigning mandatory targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas
   emissions to signatory nations.

Description

   The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations
   Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify
   this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and
   five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they
   maintain or increase emissions of these gases.

   The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 160 countries globally and over
   55% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

   At its heart, Kyoto establishes the following principles:
     * Kyoto is underwritten by governments and is governed by global
       legislation enacted under the UN’s aegis
     * Governments are separated into two general categories: developed
       countries, referred to as Annex 1 countries (who have accepted GHG
       emission reduction obligations); and developing countries, referred
       to as Non-Annex 1 countries (who have no GHG emission reduction
       obligations).
     * Any Annex 1 country that fails to meet its Kyoto target will be
       penalized by having its reduction targets decreased by 30% in the
       next period.
     * By 2008-2012, Annex 1 countries have to reduce their GHG emissions
       by around 5% below their 1990 levels (for many countries, such as
       the EU member states, this corresponds to some 15% below their
       expected GHG emissions in 2008). Reduction targets expire in 2013.
     * Kyoto includes "flexible mechanisms" which allow Annex 1 economies
       to meet their GHG targets by purchasing GHG emission reductions
       from elsewhere. These can be bought either from financial exchanges
       (such as the new EU Emissions Trading Scheme) or from projects
       which reduce emissions in non-Annex 1 economies under the Clean
       Development Mechanism (CDM), or in other Annex-1 countries under
       the JI.
     * Only CDM Executive Board-accredited Certified Emission Reductions
       (CER) can be bought and sold in this manner. Under the aegis of the
       UN, Kyoto established this Bonn-based Clean Development Mechanism
       Executive Board to assess and approve projects (“CDM Projects”) in
       Non-Annex 1 economies prior to awarding CERs. (A similar scheme
       called “Joint Implementation” or “JI” applies in transitional
       economies mainly covering the former Soviet Union and Eastern
       Europe).

   What this means in practice is that Non-Annex 1 economies have no GHG
   emission restrictions, but when a GHG emission reduction project (a
   “GHG Project”) is implemented in these countries, that GHG Project will
   receive Carbon Credits which can be sold to Annex 1 buyers.

   The Kyoto linking mechanisms are in place for two main reasons:
     * the cost of complying with Kyoto is prohibitive for many Annex 1
       countries (especially those countries, such as Japan or the
       Netherlands for example, with highly efficient, low GHG polluting
       industries, and high prevailing environmental standards). Kyoto
       therefore allows these countries to purchase Carbon Credits instead
       of reducing GHG emissions domestically; and,
     * this is seen as a means of encouraging Non-Annex 1 developing
       economies to reduce GHG emissions since doing so is now
       economically viable because of the sale of Carbon Credits.

   All the Annex 1 economies have established Designated National
   Authorities to manage their GHG portfolios under Kyoto. Countries
   including Japan, Canada, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, France, Spain
   and many more, are actively promoting government carbon funds and
   supporting multilateral carbon funds intent on purchasing Carbon
   Credits from Non-Annex 1 countries. These government organizations are
   working closely with their major utility, energy, oil & gas and
   chemicals conglomerates to try to acquire as many GHG Certificates as
   cheaply as possible.

   Virtually all of the Non-Annex 1 countries have also set up their own
   Designated National Authorities to manage the Kyoto process (and
   specifically the “CDM process” whereby these host government entities
   decide which GHG Projects they do or do not wish to support for
   accreditation by the CDM Executive Board).

   The objectives of these opposing groups are quite different. Annex 1
   entities want Carbon Credits as cheaply as possible, whilst Non-Annex 1
   entities want to maximise the value of Carbon Credits generated from
   their domestic GHG Projects.

Objectives

   Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.
   Enlarge
   Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.

   The objective is the "stabilization of greenhouse gas concentrations in
   the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
   interference with the climate system."

   The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has predicted an
   average global rise in temperature of 1.4° C (2.5° F) to 5.8 °C (10.4°
   F) between 1990 and 2100). Current estimates indicate that even if
   successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will reduce
   that increase by somewhere between 0.02 °C and 0.28 °C by the year 2050
   (source: Nature, October 2003).

   Proponents also note that Kyoto is a first step as requirements to meet
   the UNFCCC will be modified until the objective is met, as required by
   UNFCCC Article 4.2(d).

Status of the agreement

   Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where dark green indicates
   countries that have signed and ratified the treaty and yellow indicates
   states that have signed and hope to ratify the treaty. Notably,
   Australia and the United States have signed but, currently, refuse to
   ratify it.
   Enlarge
   Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, where dark green indicates
   countries that have signed and ratified the treaty and yellow indicates
   states that have signed and hope to ratify the treaty. Notably,
   Australia and the United States have signed but, currently, refuse to
   ratify it.

   The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for
   signature on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The
   agreement came into force on February 16, 2005 following ratification
   by Russia on November 18, 2004. As of October 2006, a total of 166
   countries and other governmental entities have ratified the agreement
   (representing over 61.6% of emissions from Annex I countries). Notable
   exceptions include the United States and Australia. Other countries,
   like India and China, which have ratified the protocol, are not
   required to reduce carbon emissions under the present agreement despite
   their relatively large populations.

   According to article 25 of the protocol, it 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 Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their
   instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession." Of the
   two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached on May 23, 2002
   when Iceland ratified. The ratification by Russia on 18 November 2004
   satisfied the "55%" clause and brought the treaty into force, effective
   February 16, 2005.

Details of the agreement

   According to a press release from the United Nations Environment
   Programme:

          "The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement under which industrialised
          countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse
          gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared
          to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without
          the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to
          lower overall emissions of six greenhouse gases - carbon
          dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and
          PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of
          2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the
          European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan,
          0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and
          10% for Iceland."

   It is an agreement negotiated as an amendment to the United Nations
   Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, which was adopted at
   the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992). All parties to the UNFCCC
   can sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to the UNFCCC
   cannot. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the
   Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan.

   Most provisions of the Kyoto Protocol apply to developed countries,
   listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC.

Common but differentiated responsibility

   The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change agreed to a
   set of a "common but differentiated responsibilities." The parties
   agreed that
    1. The largest share of historical and current global emissions of
       greenhouse gases has originated in developed countries;
    2. Per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively
       low;
    3. The share of global emissions originating in developing countries
       will grow to meet their social and development needs.

   In other words, China, India, and other developing countries were
   exempt from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol because they were
   not the main contributors to the greenhouse gas emissions during the
   industrialization period that is believed to be causing today's climate
   change.

   However, critics of Kyoto argue that China, India, and other developing
   countries will soon be the top contributors to greenhouse gases. Also,
   without Kyoto restrictions on these countries, industries in developed
   countries will be driven towards these non-restricted countries, thus
   there is no net reduction in carbon.

Financial commitments

   The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have
   to pay, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related
   studies and projects. This was originally agreed in the UNFCCC.

Emissions trading

   Kyoto is a ‘cap and trade’ system that imposes national caps on the
   emissions of Annex I countries. On average, this cap requires countries
   to reduce their emissions 5.2% below their 1990 baseline over the 2008
   to 2012 period. Although these caps are national-level commitments, in
   practice most countries will devolve their emissions targets to
   individual industrial entities, such as a power plant or paper factory.
   This is the case today in the EU, and other countries may follow suit
   in time.

   This means that the ultimate buyers of Credits are often individual
   companies that expect their emissions to exceed their quota (their
   Assigned Amount Units, Allowances for short). Typically, they will
   purchase Credits directly from another party with excess allowances,
   from a broker, from a JI/CDM developer, or on an exchange.

   National governments, some of whom may not have devolved responsibility
   for meeting Kyoto targets to industry, and that have a net deficit of
   Allowances, will buy credits for their own account, mainly from JI/CDM
   developers. These deals are occasionally done directly through a
   national fund or agency, as in the case of the Dutch government’s ERUPT
   programme, or via collective funds such as the World Bank’s Prototype
   Carbon Fund (PCF). The PCF, for example, represents a consortium of six
   governments and 17 major utility and energy companies on whose behalf
   it purchases Credits.

   Since Carbon Credits are tradeable instruments with a transparent
   price, financial investors have started buying them for pure trading
   purposes. This market is expected to grow substantially, with banks,
   brokers, funds, arbitrageurs and private traders eventually
   participating. Emissions Trading PLC, for example, was floated on the
   London Stock Exchange's AiM market in 2005 with the specific remit of
   investing in emissions instruments.

   Although Kyoto created a framework and a set of rules for a global
   carbon market, there are in practice several distinct schemes or
   markets in operation today, with varying degrees of linkages among
   them.

   Kyoto enables a group of several Annex I countries to join together to
   create a so-called ‘bubble’, or a cluster of countries that is given an
   overall emissions cap and is treated as a single entity for compliance
   purposes. The EU elected to be treated as such a group, and created the
   EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) as a market-within-a-market. The
   ETS’s currency is an EUA (EU Allowance). The scheme went into operation
   on 1 January 2005, although a forward market has existed since 2003.

   The UK established its own learning-by-doing voluntary scheme, the UK
   ETS, which runs from 2002 through 2006. This market will exist
   alongside the EU’s scheme, and participants in the UK scheme have the
   option of applying to opt out of the first phase of the EU ETS, which
   lasts through 2007.

   Canada and Japan will establish their own internal markets in 2008, and
   it is very likely that they will link directly into the EU ETS.
   Canada’s scheme will probably include a trading system for large point
   sources of emissions and for the purchase of large amounts of outside
   credits. The Japanese plan will probably not include mandatory targets
   for companies, but will also rely on large-scale purchases of external
   credits.

   Next to the EU ETS, the most important sources of credits are the Clean
   Development Mechanism (CDM) and the Joint Implementation (JI)
   mechanism. The CDM allows the creation of new Carbon Credits by
   developing emission reduction projects in Non-Annex I countries, while
   JI allows project-specific credits to be converted from existing
   credits in Annex I countries. CDM projects produce Certified Emission
   Reductions (CERs), and JI projects produce Emission Reduction Units
   (ERUs). CERs are valid for meeting EU ETS obligations as of now, and
   ERUs will become similarly valid from 2008 (although individual
   countries may choose to limit the number and source of CER/JIs they
   will allow for compliance purposes starting from 2008). CERs/ERUs are
   overwhelmingly bought from project developers by funds or individual
   entities, rather than being exchange-traded like EUAs.

   Since the creation of these instruments is subject to a lengthy process
   of registration and certification by the UN, and the projects
   themselves require several years to develop, this market is at this
   point almost completely a forward market where purchases are made at a
   deep discount to their equivalent currency, the EUA, and are almost
   always subject to certification and delivery (although up-front
   payments are sometimes made). According to IETA, the market value of
   CDM/JI credits transacted in 2004 was EUR 245m; it is estimated that
   more than EUR 620m worth of credits were transacted in 2005.

   Several non-Kyoto carbon markets are already in existence as well, and
   these are likely to grow in importance and numbers in the coming years.
   These include the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Abatement Scheme, the
   Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) in the United States, the
   Chicago Climate Exchange, the State of California’s recent initiative
   to reduce emissions, the commitment of 131 US mayors to adopt Kyoto
   targets for their cities, and the State of Oregon’s emissions abatement
   program.

   Taken together, these initiatives point to a series of linked markets,
   rather than a single carbon market. The common theme across most of
   them is the adoption of market-based mechanisms centered on Carbon
   Credits that represent a reduction of CO[2] emissions. The fact that
   most of these initiatives have similar approaches to certifying their
   credits makes it conceivable that Carbon Credits in one market may in
   the long run be tradeable in most other schemes. This would broaden the
   current carbon market far more than the current focus on the CDM/JI and
   EU ETS domains. An obvious precondition, however, is a realignment of
   penalties and fines to similar levels, since these create an effective
   ceiling for each market.

Revisions

   The protocol left several issues open to be decided later by the
   Conference of Parties (COP). COP6 attempted to resolve these issues at
   its meeting in the Hague in late 2000, but was unable to reach an
   agreement due to disputes between the European Union on the one hand
   (which favoured a tougher agreement) and the United States, Canada,
   Japan and Australia on the other (which wanted the agreement to be less
   demanding and more flexible).

   In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting (COP6bis) was held in
   Bonn where the required decisions were adopted. After some concessions,
   the supporters of the protocol (led by the European Union) managed to
   get Japan and Russia in as well by allowing more use of carbon dioxide
   sinks.

   COP7 was held from 29 October 2001 – 9 November 2001 in Marrakech to
   establish the final details of the protocol.

   The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP1) was held
   in Montreal from November 28 to December 9, 2005, along with the 11th
   conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP11). See United Nations
   Climate Change Conference.

Enforcement

   If the Enforcement Branch determines that an Annex I country is not in
   compliance with its emissions targets, then that country is required to
   make up the difference plus an additional 30 percent. In addition, that
   country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions
   trading program.

Current positions of governments

   Carbon emissions from various global regions during the period
   1800-2000 AD
   Enlarge
   Carbon emissions from various global regions during the period
   1800-2000 AD

Position of Australia

   Pollution and emissions are not the constitutional responsibility of
   the Federal Government of Australia. Section 52 of the Constitution
   leaves these matters in the hands of the States. Despite the fact that
   Australia was at the time of the negotiation already one of the biggest
   emitters on a per capita basis (albeit the lowest on a per square
   kilometre basis due to low overall population density), the country was
   granted a target of 8% increase. This is because Australia used its
   relative smallness as a negotiation tool while other big players were
   negotiating. The result of the negotiation was reported in the
   Australian media as being to Australia's advantage .

   Nonetheless, the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has refused to
   ratify the Agreement and has argued that the protocol would cost
   Australians jobs, due to countries with booming economies and massive
   populations such as China and India not having any reduction
   obligations. By way of example, if Australia were to shut down all of
   its coal fired power stations, within 12 months China would have
   produced so much extra pollution because of its industrial growth that
   it would have negated the shutting down of those Australian power
   stations . Further, the Government takes the view that Australia is
   already doing enough to cut emissions; the Australian government has
   recently pledged $300 million over the next three years to reduce
   Greenhouse gas emissions. The Federal Opposition, the Australian Labor
   Party, is in full support of the protocol and it is currently a heavily
   debated issue within the political establishment. The opposition claims
   ratifying the protocol is a "risk free" prospect as they claim
   Australia would already be meeting the obligations the protocol would
   impose . This claim relies heavily on changes to land clearing policies
   that can only occur once, while ongoing emission sources have all
   increased substantially. As of 2005, Australia was the world's largest
   emitter per capita of greenhouse gases.

   The Australian government, along with the United States, agreed to sign
   the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate at the
   ASEAN regional forum on 28 July 2005. Furthermore, the Australian state
   of New South Wales (NSW) commenced The NSW Greenhouse Gas Abatement
   Scheme (GGAS). This mandatory greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme
   commenced on 1 January 2003 and is currently being trialed by the state
   government in NSW alone. Uniquely this scheme allows Accredited
   Certificate Providers (ACP) to trade emissions from householders in the
   state. As of 2006 the scheme is still in place despite Prime Minister
   John Howard's clear dismissal of emissions trading as a credible
   solution to climate change. Following the example of NSW, the National
   Emissions Trading Scheme (NETS) has been established as an initiative
   of State and Territory Governments of Australia, all of which have
   Labor Party governments. The focus of NETS is to bring into existence
   an intra-Australian carbon trading scheme and to coordinate policy
   developments to this end. According to the Constitution of Australia,
   environmental matters are under the jurisdiction of the States, and the
   NETS is intended to facilitate ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by
   the Labor Party if they are elected to government in the 2007 Federal
   Elections.

Position of Canada

   On December 17, 2002, Canada ratified the treaty. While numerous polls
   have shown support for the Kyoto protocol at around 70%, there is still
   some opposition, particularly by some business groups, non-governmental
   climate scientists and energy concerns, using arguments similar to
   those being used in the US. There is also a fear that since US
   companies will not be affected by the Kyoto Protocol that Canadian
   companies will be at a disadvantage in terms of trade. In 2005, the
   result was limited to an ongoing "war of words", primarily between the
   government of Alberta (Canada's primary oil and gas producer) and the
   federal government. There were even fears that Kyoto could threaten
   national unity, specifically with regard to Alberta.

   After January 2006, the Liberal government was replaced by a
   Conservative minority government under Stephen Harper, who previously
   has expressed opposition to Kyoto. During the election campaign, Harper
   stated he wanted to move beyond the Kyoto debate by establishing
   different environmental controls. Rona Ambrose, who considers the
   emission trading concept to be flawed, replaced Stéphane Dion as the
   environment minister. Dion even admitted that a future Liberal
   government would not be able to meet its Kyoto commitment of reducing
   greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels, though he has more recently
   stated that his plan as a contender for the leadership of the Liberal
   Party of Canada, would be able to meet Canada's Kyoto commitments.

   The biggest challenge facing the new Conservative government was
   inheriting the ineffective policies of the previous government. As of
   2003, the Liberal federal government had spent 3.7 billion dollars on
   Kyoto programmes, resulting in CO[2] emissions 35 per cent above 1990
   levels. And so on April 25, 2006, Ambrose announced that Canada would
   have no chance of meeting its targets under Kyoto, and would look to
   participate in U.S. sponsored Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean
   Development and Climate. "We've been looking at the Asia-Pacific
   Partnership for a number of months now because the key principles
   around [it] are very much in line with where our government wants to
   go," Ambrose told reporters . On May 2, 2006, it was reported that
   environmental funding designed to meet the Kyoto standards has been
   cut, while the Harper government develops a new plan to take its place.

   A private member's bill, has been put forth by Pablo Rodriguez, Liberal
   Member of Parliament for the riding of Honoré—Mercier. The bill aims to
   force the minority government of Stephen Harper to "ensure that Canada
   meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol."
   With the support of the Liberals, the New Democratic Party and the Bloc
   Québécois, and with the current minority situation, this bill has a
   fair chance of being passed - despite the fact that private member's
   bills rarely succeed in becoming law. If passed, the bill would force
   Harper's government to form a Climate Change Plan within 6 months of
   the bill receiving royal assent.

Position of China

   China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a
   multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. Because
   China has emplaced population control measures while maintaining low
   emissions per capita, it claims it should therefore in both the above
   aspects be considered a contributor to the world environment. China
   considers the criticism of its energy policy unjust.

Position of the European Union

   On May 31, 2002, all fifteen then-members of the European Union
   deposited the relevant ratification paperwork at the UN. The EU
   produces around 22% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and has agreed
   to a cut, on average, by 8% from 1990 emission levels. The EU has
   consistently been one of the major supporters of the Kyoto Protocol,
   negotiating hard to get wavering countries on board.

   In December, 2002, the EU created a emissions trading system in an
   effort to meet these tough targets. Quotas were introduced in six key
   industries: energy, steel, cement, glass, brick making, and
   paper/cardboard. There are also fines for member nations that fail to
   meet their obligations, starting at €40/ton of carbon dioxide in 2005,
   and rising to €100/ton in 2008. Current EU projections suggest that by
   2008 the EU will be at 4.7% below 1990 levels.

   The position of the EU is not without controversy in Protocol
   negotiations, however. One criticism is that, rather than reducing 8%,
   all the EU member countries should cut 15% as the EU insisted a uniform
   target of 15% for other developed countries during the negotiation
   while allowing itself to share a big reduction in the former East
   Germany to meet the 15% goal for the entire EU. Also, emission levels
   of former Warsaw Pact countries who now are members of the EU have
   already been reduced as a result of their economic restructuring. This
   may mean that the region's 1990 baseline level is inflated compared to
   that of other developed countries, thus giving European economies a
   potential competitive advantage over the U.S.

   Both the EU (as the European Community) and its member states are
   signatories to the Kyoto treaty.

Position of Germany

   On June 28, 2006, the German government announced it would exempt its
   coal industry from requirements under the Kyoto agreement. Claudia
   Kemfert, an energy professor at the German Institute for Economic
   Research in Berlin said, "For all its support for a clean environment
   and the Kyoto Protocol, the cabinet decision is very disappointing. The
   energy lobbies have played a big role in this decision."

Position of the United Kingdom

   The energy policy of the United Kingdom fully endorses goals for carbon
   dioxide emissions reduction and has committed to proportionate
   reduction in national emissions on a phased basis. The United Kingdom
   is a signatory to the Kyoto Protocol.

   To date (October 2006), there is no legislative framework in place
   within the UK to guarantee year-on-year reductions in emissions of
   carbon dioxide and other greenhouses gases. To date, some 413 Members
   of Parliament, or around two-thirds of the total, have signed Early Day
   Motion 178 calling for the introduction of a Climate Change Bill that
   will address this issue, making a proposed 3% annual cut in carbon
   dioxide emissions legally binding. Despite a strong lobby from
   environmental organisations, such as Friends of the Earth's Big Ask
   Climate Campaign and wide cross-party support, the Bill failed to pass
   its second reading. However, the Government looks set to include a
   Climate Change Bill in the Queen's opening speech to Parliament in
   November, but is expected to ignore intense pressure from its own and
   opposition parties, and from environmental groups to include the annual
   3% reduction commitment in the Bill.

   The UK currently appears on course to meet its Kyoto target for the
   basket of greenhouse gases, assuming the Government is able to curb
   rising carbon dioxide emissions between now (2006) and the period
   2008-2012. However, annual net carbon dioxide emission levels in the UK
   have actually risen by around 2 per cent since Tony Blair's Labour
   Party came to power in 1997 . Furthermore, it now seems highly unlikely
   that the Government will be able to honour its manifesto pledge to cut
   carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent from 1990 levels by the year
   2010, unless a Climate Change Act is passed in 2006-7 and the
   Government takes immediate and drastic action to curb emissions over
   the next few years.

Position of India

   India signed and ratified the Protocol in August, 2002. Since India is
   exempted from the framework of the treaty, it is expected to gain from
   the protocol in terms of transfer of technology and related foreign
   investments. At the G-8 meeting in June 2005, Indian Prime Minister
   Manmohan Singh pointed out that the per-capita emission rates of the
   developing countries are a tiny fraction of those in the developed
   world. Following the principle of common but differentiated
   responsibility, India maintains that the major responsibility of
   curbing emission rests with the developed countries, which have
   accumulated emissions over a long period of time.

Position of Russia

   Vladimir Putin approved the treaty on November 4, 2004 and Russia
   officially notified the United Nations of its ratification on November
   18, 2004. The issue of Russian ratification was particularly closely
   watched in the international community, as the accord was brought into
   force 90 days after Russian ratification ( February 16, 2005).

   President Putin had earlier decided in favour of the protocol in
   September 2004, along with the Russian cabinet, against the opinion of
   the Russian Academy of Sciences, of the Ministry for Industry and
   Energy and of the then president's economic advisor, Andrey Illarionov,
   and in exchange to EU's support for the Russia's admission in the WTO.
   As anticipated after this, ratification by the lower ( 22 October 2004)
   and upper house of parliament did not encounter any obstacles.

   The Kyoto Protocol limits emissions to a percentage increase or
   decrease from their 1990 levels. Since 1990 the economies of most
   countries in the former Soviet Union have collapsed, as have their
   greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this, Russia should have no
   problem meeting its commitments under Kyoto, as its current emission
   levels are substantially below its targets.

   It is debatable whether Russia will benefit from selling emissions
   credits to other countries in the Kyoto Protocol.

Position of the United States

   The United States (U.S.), although a signatory to the protocol, has
   neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The signature alone
   is symbolic, as the protocol is non-binding over the United States
   unless ratified. The United States is as of 2005 the largest single
   emitter of carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

   On July 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized (although it
   had been fully negotiated, and a penultimate draft was finished), the
   U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95–0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution
   (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United
   States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include
   binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized
   nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United
   States". On November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically
   signed the protocol. Both Gore and Senator Joseph Lieberman indicated
   that the protocol would not be acted upon in the Senate until there was
   participation by the developing nations. The Clinton Administration
   never submitted the protocol to the Senate for ratification.

   The Clinton Administration released an economic analysis in July 1998,
   prepared by the Council of Economic Advisors, which concluded that with
   emissions trading among the Annex B/Annex I countries, and
   participation of key developing countries in the " Clean Development
   Mechanism" — which grants the latter business-as-usual emissions rates
   through 2012 — the costs of implementing the Kyoto Protocol could be
   reduced as much as 60% from many estimates. Other economic analyses,
   however, prepared by the Congressional Budget Office and the Department
   of Energy Energy Information Administration (EIA), and others,
   demonstrated a potentially large decline in GDP from implementing the
   Protocol.

   The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not
   intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not
   support the Kyoto principles, but because of the exemption granted to
   China (the world's second largest emitter of carbon dioxide ). Bush
   also opposes the treaty because of the strain he believes the treaty
   would put on the economy; he emphasizes the uncertainties which he
   asserts are present in the climate change issue. Furthermore, the U.S.
   is concerned with broader exemptions of the treaty. For example, the
   U.S. does not support the split between Annex I countries and others.
   Bush said of the treaty:

     This is a challenge that requires a 100% effort; ours, and the rest
     of the world's. The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse
     gases is the People's Republic of China. Yet, China was entirely
     exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. India and
     Germany are among the top emitters. Yet, India was also exempt from
     Kyoto … America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should
     not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of
     responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a
     leadership role on the issue of climate change … Our approach must
     be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas
     concentrations in the atmosphere."

   Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for
   ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards
   mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the American Environmental
   Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some
   observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the
   protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the
   protocol. At the G-8 meeting in June 2005 administration officials
   expressed a desire for "practical commitments industrialized countries
   can meet without damaging their economies". According to those same
   officials, the United States is on track to fulfill its pledge to
   reduce its carbon intensity 18% by 2012. The United States has signed
   the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, a pact
   that allows those countries to set their goals for reducing greenhouse
   gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement mechanism.
   Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto Protocol while
   being more flexible, but critics have said the pact will be ineffective
   without any enforcement measures.

   The U.S. government has attempted to suppress reports by experts that
   find dangerous effects of global warming. A government official blocked
   release of a fact sheet by a panel of seven scientists at the National
   Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that finds that global warming
   is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes.

   The Administration's position is not uniformly accepted in the U.S. For
   example, Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon
   intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. The White
   House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link
   human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that
   a White House official and former oil industry advocate, Philip Cooney,
   watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been
   approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies.
   Critics point to the administration's close ties to the oil and gas
   industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the
   administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active
   involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including
   the U.S. stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global
   Climate Coalition was also a factor.

   Furthermore, supporters of Kyoto have undertaken some actions outside
   the auspices of the Bush Administration. In 2002, Congressional
   researchers who examined the legal status of the Protocol advised that
   signature of the UNFCCC imposes an obligation to refrain from
   undermining the Protocol's object and purpose, and that while the
   President probably cannot implement the Protocol alone, Congress can
   create compatible laws on its own initiative. Nine north-eastern states
   and 194 mayors from US towns and cities, have pledged to adopt
   Kyoto-style legal limits on greenhouse gas emissions. On August 31
   2006, the California Legislature reached an agreement with Governor
   Arnold Schwarzenegger to reduce the state's greenhouse-gas emissions,
   which rank at 12th-largest in the world, by 25 percent by the year
   2020. This resulted in the Global Warming Solutions Act which
   effectively puts California in line with the Kyoto initiative.

Support for Kyoto

   Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that reducing these emissions is
   crucially important; carbon dioxide, they believe, is causing the
   earth's atmosphere to heat up. This is supported by attribution
   analysis.

   The governments of all of the countries whose parliaments have ratified
   the Protocol are supporting it. Most prominent among advocates of Kyoto
   have been the European Union and many environmentalist organizations.
   The United Nations and some individual nations' scientific advisory
   bodies (including the G8 national science academies) have also issued
   reports favoring the Kyoto Protocol.

   An international day of action was planned for 3 December 2005, to
   coincide with the Meeting of the Parties in Montreal. The planned
   demonstrations were endorsed by the Assembly of Movements of the World
   Social Forum.

   A group of major Canadian corporations also called for urgent action
   regarding climate change, and have suggested that Kyoto is only a first
   step.

   In Australia, there is significant support for the protocol, with over
   22,500 signatures on the Greenpeace petitions.

   On 3 January 2006, after the Montreal accords a group of people
   assembled a petition with the goal to reach 50 million signatures
   supporting Kyoto Protocol and its goal by January 2008 - the starting
   date set by the Kyoto Protocol to show average 5% reduction in
   emissions. This petition was set out to give civil support and
   ratification to the international fight against Global Warming on a
   base of world wide active cooperation. Many US and Australian citizens
   are signing the petition and thus criticise their leaders' choices on
   this matter.

Grassroots support in the US

   In the US, there is at least one student group Kyoto Now! which aims to
   use student interest to support pressure towards reducing emissions as
   targeted by the Kyoto Protocol compliance.

   As of June 20, 2006, seven Northeastern US states are involved in the
   Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is a state level
   emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the
   state-level program will indirectly apply pressure on the federal
   government by demonstrating that reductions can be achieved without
   being a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol.
     * Participating states: Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut,
       New York, New Jersey, Delaware.
     * Observer states and regions: Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of
       Columbia, Eastern Canadian Provinces.
     * Formerly participating states that have dropped out: Massachusetts,
       Rhode Island

   As of October 19, 2006, 320 US cities in 46 states, representing more
   than 50 million Americans support Kyoto after Mayor Greg Nickels of
   Seattle started a nationwide effort to get cities to agree to the
   protocol.
     * Large participating cities: Seattle, New York City, Los Angeles,
       Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Denver, New Orleans, Minneapolis,
       Austin, Portland, Providence, Tacoma, San Jose, Salt Lake City,
       Little Rock, West Palm Beach, Annapolis, Madison, Wisconsin
     * Full list of cities and mayors:

Opposition to Kyoto

   The two major countries currently opposed to the treaty are the United
   States and Australia. Some public policy experts who are skeptical of
   global warming see Kyoto as a scheme to either slow the growth of the
   world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world
   in what they claim is a global socialism initiative. Others argue the
   protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions (Niue, The
   Cook Islands, and Nauru added notes to this effect when signing the
   protocol).

   Many environmental economists have been critical of the Kyoto Protocol.
   Many see the costs of the Kyoto Protocol as outweighing the benefits,
   some believing the standards which Kyoto sets to be too optimistic,
   others seeing a highly inequitable and inefficient agreement which
   would do little to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It should be noted,
   however, that this opposition is not unanimous, and that the inclusion
   of emissions trading has led some environmental economists to embrace
   the treaty.

   Further, there is a controversy to use 1990 as a base year, or not to
   use a per capita emission as a basis. Countries had different
   achievements in energy efficiency in 1990. For example, the former
   Soviet Union and eastern European countries did little to tackle the
   problem and their energy efficiency was at their worst level in 1990 as
   the year was just before their communist regimes fell, on the other
   hand Japan as a big importer of natural resources had to improve their
   efficiency after the 1973 oil crisis and their emission level in 1990
   was better than most developed countries. However, such efforts were
   set aside, and the inactivity of the former Soviet Union was overlooked
   and could even generate big income due to the emission trade. There is
   an argument that the use of per capita emission as a basis in the
   following Kyoto-type treaties can reduce the inequality feelings among
   the developed and developing countries alike as it can reveal
   inactivities and responsibilities among countries.

   In Australia, there is a strong and vocal anti-Kyoto lobby, with over
   20,000 counter signatures presented to the government.

Cost-benefit analysis

   Economists have been trying to analyse the overall net benefit of Kyoto
   Protocol through cost-benefit analysis. Just as in the case of
   climatology, there is disagreement due to large uncertainties in
   economic variables. Still, the estimates so far generally indicate
   either that observing the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than not
   observing the Kyoto Protocol or that the Kyoto Protocol has a marginal
   net benefit which exceeds the cost of simply adjusting to global
   warming. A study in Naturefound that "accounting only for local
   external costs, together with production costs, to identify energy
   strategies, compliance with the Kyoto Protocol would imply lower, not
   higher, overall costs."

   The recent Copenhagen consensus project found that the Kyoto Protocol
   would slow down the process of global warming, but have a superficial
   overall benefit. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue, however, that
   while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set
   the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the
   future. They also advocate commitment to the precautionary principle.
   Critics point out that additional higher curb on carbon emission is
   likely to cause significantly higher increase in cost, making such
   defence moot. Moreover, the precautionary principle could apply to any
   political, social, economic or environmental consequence, which might
   have equally devastating effect in terms of poverty and environment,
   making the precautionary argument irrelevant. The Stern Review (a UK
   government sponsored report into the economic impacts of climate
   change) concluded that one percent of global GDP is required to be
   invested in order to mitigate the effects of climate change, and that
   failure to do so could risk a recession worth up to twenty percent of
   global GDP.

Discount rates

   One problem in attempting to measure the "absolute" costs and benefits
   of different policies to global warming is choosing a proper discount
   rate. Over a long time horizon such as that in which benefits accrue
   under Kyoto, small changes in the discount rate create very large
   discrepancies between net benefits in various studies. However, this
   difficulty is generally not applicable to "relative" comparison of
   alternative policies under a long time horizon. This is because changes
   in discount rate tend to equally adjust the net cost/benefit of
   different policies unless there are significant discrepancies of cost
   and benefit over time horizon.

   While it has been difficult to arrive at a scenario under which the net
   benefits of Kyoto are positive using traditional discounting methods
   such as the Shadow Price of Capital approach, there is an argument that
   a much lower discount rate should be utilized; that high rates are
   biased toward the current generation. This may appear to be a
   philosophical value judgement, outside the realm of economics, but it
   could be equally argued that the study of the allocation of resources
   does include how those resources are allocated over time.

Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate

   The Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate is an
   agreement between six Asia-Pacific nations: Australia, China, India,
   Japan, South Korea, and the United States. It was introduced at the
   Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), regional forum on July
   28, 2005. The pact allows those countries to set their goals for
   reducing greenhouse gas emissions individually, but with no enforcement
   mechanism. Supporters of the pact see it as complementing the Kyoto
   Protocol whilst being more flexible while critics have said the pact
   will be ineffective without any enforcement measures and ultimately
   aims to void the negotiations leading to the Protocol called to replace
   the current Kyoto Protocol (negotiations started in Montreal in
   December 2005).

   Retrieved from " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol"
   This reference article is mainly selected from the English Wikipedia
   with only minor checks and changes (see www.wikipedia.org for details
   of authors and sources) and is available under the GNU Free
   Documentation License. See also our Disclaimer.
