Editing Kyoto Protocol (section)

==Problem areas==

=== Views and criticism of the Protocol ===
{{Main|Views on the Kyoto Protocol|Criticism of the Kyoto Protocol}}
{{Update section|date=June 2021}}
Gupta ''et al.'' (2007) assessed the literature on climate change policy. They found that no authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these agreements had, or will, succeed in solving the climate problem.<ref name=gupta>{{cite book
 |year            = 2007
 |contribution    = 13.3.1 Evaluations of existing climate change agreements. In (book chapter): Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements.
 |title           = Climate Change 2007: Mitigation.
 |series          = Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
 |editor          = B. Metz
 |display-editors = etal
 |publisher       = Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, N.Y., U.S.A.. This version: IPCC website
 |last1           = Gupta
 |first1          = S.
 |url             = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-1.html
 |access-date      = 2 April 2010
 |display-authors = etal
 |archive-url     = https://web.archive.org/web/20100503040428/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-1.html
 |archive-date    = 3 May 2010
 |url-status        = dead
 |df              = dmy-all
}}</ref> In these assessments, it was assumed that the UNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. The Framework Convention and its Protocol include provisions for future policy actions to be taken.

Gupta ''et al.'' (2007)<ref name="gupta kyoto assessment">{{citation
 |last1           = Gupta
 |first1          = S.
 |chapter         = Chapter 13: Policies, instruments, and co-operative arrangements
 |chapter-url             = http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-es.html
 |title           = Executive Summary
 |display-authors = etal
 |access-date     = 31 August 2012
 |archive-url     = https://web.archive.org/web/20120515123900/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-es.html
 |archive-date    = 15 May 2012
 |url-status        = dead
 |df              = dmy-all
}}
, in {{harvnb|IPCC AR4 WG3|2007}}</ref> described the Kyoto first-round commitments as "modest", stating that they acted as a constraint on the treaty's effectiveness. It was suggested that subsequent Kyoto commitments could be made more effective with measures aimed at achieving deeper cuts in emissions, as well as having policies applied to a larger share of global emissions.<ref name="gupta kyoto assessment"/> In 2008, countries with a Kyoto cap made up less than one-third of annual global carbon dioxide emissions from fuel [[combustion]].<ref>{{cite book
 | title=CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions from Fuel Combustion - 2011 Highlights
 | author=International Energy Agency (IEA)
 | url=http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/CO2highlights.pdf
 | publisher=IEA
 | location=Paris, France
 | page=12
 | access-date=31 August 2012
 | archive-date=2 February 2012
 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120202035728/http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf
 | url-status=dead
 }}</ref>

World Bank (2010)<ref name="world bank kyoto comments">{{citation
 | title=5. Integrating development into a global climate regime
 | url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf
 | access-date=31 August 2012
 | archive-date=12 June 2013
 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130612091346/http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf
 | url-status=live
 }}, in {{harvnb|World Bank|2010|p=233}}</ref> commented on how the Kyoto Protocol had only had a slight effect on curbing global emissions growth. The treaty was negotiated in 1997, but in 2006, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions had grown by 24%.<ref>{{citation
 | title=5. Integrating development into a global climate regime
 | url=http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf
 | access-date=31 August 2012
 | archive-date=12 June 2013
 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130612091346/http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.pdf
 | url-status=live
 }}, in {{harvnb|World Bank|2010|p=248}}</ref> World Bank (2010) also stated that the treaty had provided only limited financial support to developing countries to assist them in reducing their emissions and adapting to climate change.<ref name="world bank kyoto comments"/>

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.&nbsp;9).<ref name="aldy">{{cite journal
|title=Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Policy Architectures
|date=9 September 2003
|last1=Aldy
|first1=J. E.
|journal=Climate Policy
|volume=3
|issue=4
|pages=373–397
|url=https://www.feem.it/m/publications_pages/NDL2003-064.pdf
|access-date=2 April 2010
|doi=10.1016/j.clipol.2003.09.004
|bibcode=2003CliPo...3..373A
|display-authors=etal
|hdl=10419/118092
|s2cid=219598167
|archive-date=6 May 2020
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200506213826/https://www.feem.it/m/publications_pages/NDL2003-064.pdf
|url-status=live
}}</ref> In 2001, seventeen national science academies stated that ratification of the Protocol represented a "small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."<ref>The joint-statement was made by the [[Australian Academy of Science]], the [[Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts]], the [[Brazilian Academy of Sciences]], the [[Royal Society of Canada]], the Caribbean Academy of Sciences, the [[Chinese Academy of Sciences]], the [[French Academy of Sciences]], the [[German Academy of Sciences Leopoldina|German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina]], the [[Indian National Science Academy]], the Indonesian Academy of Sciences, the [[Royal Irish Academy]], [[Accademia dei Lincei|Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei]] (Italy), the Academy of Sciences Malaysia, the [[Royal Society of New Zealand|Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand]], the [[Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences]], and the [[Royal Society]] (UK). {{citation |author= |title=The Science of Climate Change (Joint statement by 17 National Science Academies) |date=17 May 2001 |url=http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf |location=London, UK |publisher=Royal Society |isbn=978-0854035588 |access-date=14 April 2013 |archive-date=19 April 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150419074652/https://royalsociety.org/~/media/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publications/2001/10029.pdf |url-status=live }}. Statement [http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2001/science-climate-change/ website] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130513024522/http://royalsociety.org/policy/publications/2001/science-climate-change/ |date=13 May 2013 }} at the UK Royal Society. Also published as: {{citation |title=Joint statement: The Science of Climate Change (editorial) |date=18 May 2001 |journal=Science |volume=292 |issue=5520 |page=1261 |doi=10.1126/science.292.5520.1261 |pmid=11360966 |s2cid=129309907|author1=Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences the Arts |author2=Royal Society of Canada |author3=German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina |author4=Indian National Science Academy |author5=Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy) |author6=Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand |author7=Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences |author8=Royal Society (UK) }}</ref> Some environmentalists and scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too weak (Grubb, 2000, p.&nbsp;5).<ref>{{cite journal
|date=April 2000
| last = Grubb | first = M.
|title=The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Appraisal. FEEM Working Paper No. 30 2000
|publisher=SSRN
|ssrn=229280
|doi=10.2139/ssrn.229280
|hdl=10419/155084
| s2cid = 54779393 |hdl-access=free
}}</ref>

The United States (under former President [[George W. Bush]]) and Australia (initially, under former Prime Minister [[John Howard]]) did not ratify the Kyoto treaty.<ref name="stern us and australia">
{{citation
 |title       = 22. Creating a global price for carbon
 |url         = http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_22_Creating_a_Global_Price_for_Carbon.pdf
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20120818155729/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_22_Creating_a_Global_Price_for_Carbon.pdf
 |archive-date = 18 August 2012
 |df          = dmy-all
}}, in {{harvnb|Stern|2006|p=478}}
</ref> According to Stern (2006),<ref name="stern us and australia"/> their decision was based on the lack of quantitative emission commitments for emerging economies (see also the [[Kyoto Protocol#2000 onwards|2000 onwards]] section). Australia, under former Prime Minister [[Kevin Rudd]], has since ratified the treaty,<ref>{{cite news
 |url         = http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1772952.htm
 |title       = Govt still not serious about climate change: Labor
 |work        = ABC News Online
 |date        = 26 October 2006
 |access-date  = 30 October 2006
 |url-status     = dead
 |archive-url  = https://web.archive.org/web/20071011163324/http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1772952.htm
 |archive-date = 11 October 2007
 |df          = dmy-all
}}</ref><ref name="australia signing">{{cite news
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7124236.stm
|title=Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto
|work=BBC News
|date=3 December 2007
|access-date=5 December 2007
|archive-date=10 September 2008
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080910120527/http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7124236.stm
|url-status=live
}}</ref> which took effect in March 2008.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7124236.stm
|title=Australia's Rudd sworn in as PM
|work=BBC News
|publisher=BBC
|date=3 December 2007
|access-date=3 December 2007
|archive-date=3 December 2007
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071203201241/http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7124236.stm
|url-status=live
}}</ref>

=== Compliance ===
38 developed countries committed to limiting their greenhouse gas emissions. Because the United States did not ratify and Canada withdrew, the emission limits remained in force for 36 countries. All of them complied with the Protocol. However, nine countries (Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Switzerland) had to resort to the flexibility mechanisms because their national emissions were slightly greater than their targets.<ref name="Shislov" />

In total, the 36 countries that fully participated in the Protocol were committed to reducing their aggregate emissions by 4% from the 1990 base year. Their average annual emissions in 2008–2012 were 24.2% below the 1990 level. Hence, they surpassed their aggregate commitment by a large margin. If the United States and Canada are included, the emissions decreased by 11.8%. The large reductions were mainly thanks to the [[dissolution of the Soviet Union]], which reduced the emissions of the [[Eastern Bloc]] by tens of percents in the early 1990s. In addition, the [[2008 financial crisis]] significantly reduced emissions during the first Kyoto commitment period.<ref name="Shislov" />

The 36 countries that were committed to emission reductions only accounted for 24% of the global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010.<ref name="Shislov" /> Even though these countries significantly reduced their emissions during the Kyoto commitment period, other countries increased their emissions so much that the global emissions increased by 32% from 1990 to 2010.<ref name="GapReport" />

=== Emission trends in developing countries ===
In several large developing countries and fast growing economies (China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, and Iran) GHG emissions have increased rapidly (PBL, 2009).<ref>{{cite web |author=PBL |date=16 October 2009 |title=Industrialised countries will collectively meet 2010 Kyoto target |url=http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/COP13Bali/moreinfo/Industrialised-countries-will-collectively-meet-2010-Kyoto-target.html |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100409000327/http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/COP13Bali/moreinfo/Industrialised-countries-will-collectively-meet-2010-Kyoto-target.html |archive-date=9 April 2010 |access-date=3 April 2010 |publisher=Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) website}}</ref> For example, emissions in China have risen strongly over the 1990–2005 period, often by more than 10% year. Emissions per-capita in non-Annex I countries are still, for the most part, much lower than in industrialized countries. Non-Annex I countries do not have quantitative emission reduction commitments, but they are committed to mitigation actions. China, for example, has had a national policy programme to reduce emissions growth, which included the closure of old, less efficient coal-fired power plants.

===Views on the flexibility mechanisms===

{{Further|Flexible Mechanisms#Views on the flexibility mechanisms|carbon emission trading}}

Another area which has been commented on is the role of the Kyoto [[flexibility mechanisms]] – [[carbon emission trading]], [[Joint Implementation]], and the [[Clean Development Mechanism]] (CDM).<ref name="toth flexibility mechanisms">
Toth ''et al.'' summarize the arguments for and against flexibility: {{citation
 |chapter-url             = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.htm
 |title           = Sec 10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of International Mechanisms
 |chapter         = Ch 10: Decision-making Frameworks
 |last1           = Toth
 |first1          = F. L.
 |display-authors = etal
 |url-status         = dead
 |archive-url      = https://web.archive.org/web/20120117032405/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.htm
 |archive-date     = 17 January 2012
 |df              = dmy-all
}}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}}
</ref><ref>
{{citation
 |chapter-url             = http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/059.htm
 |title           = Sec 1.3.3 How Has Global Climate Policy Treated Equity?
 |chapter         = Ch 1: Setting the Stage: Climate Change and Sustainable Development
 |last1           = Banuri
 |first1          = T.
 |display-authors = etal
 |url-status         = dead
 |archive-url      = https://web.archive.org/web/20121030113019/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/059.htm
 |archive-date     = 30 October 2012
 |df              = dmy-all
}}, in {{harvnb|IPCC TAR WG3|2001}}
</ref> The flexibility mechanisms have attracted both positive and negative comments.<ref>
{{citation
 | title=Part III: How good (or bad) are the Mechanisms?
}}, in {{harvnb|Carbon Trust|2009|pp=53–79}}
</ref><ref>
{{Citation
 |date      = 5 November 2007
 |last      = Schneider
 |first     = L.
 |title     = Is the CDM fulfilling its environmental and sustainable development objectives? An evaluation of the CDM and options for improvement. A report prepared for the WWF
 |chapter   = Ch 5: Overall conclusions
 |pages     = 72–73
 |publisher = Institute for Applied Ecology
 |location  = Berlin, Germany
 |chapter-url       = http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/resources/?118000/An-evaluation-of-the-CDM-and-options-for-improvement
|archive-url = https://archive.today/20130415150840/http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutions/resources/?118000/An-evaluation-of-the-CDM-and-options-for-improvement
|url-status  = dead
|archive-date = 15 April 2013
}}
</ref><ref>
{{harvnb|Spash|2010}}
</ref>

One of the arguments made in favour of the flexibility mechanisms is that they can reduce the costs incurred by Annex I Parties in meeting their Kyoto commitments.<ref name="toth flexibility mechanisms"/> Criticisms of flexibility have, for example, included the ineffectiveness of emissions trading in promoting investment in non-fossil energy sources,<ref>{{citation
 | author=United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
 | title=World Economic and Social Survey 2009: Promoting Development, Saving the Planet
 | chapter=VI. Financing the development response to climate change
 | year=2009
 | page=162
 | chapter-url=https://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wess2009files/wess09/wess2009.pdf
 | publisher=United Nations
 | location=New York, USA
 | isbn=978-92-1-109159-5
 | access-date=28 June 2017
 | archive-date=17 June 2013
 | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130617053100/http://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wess2009files/wess09/wess2009.pdf
 | url-status=live
 }}</ref> and adverse impacts of CDM projects on local communities in developing countries.<ref>
{{harvnb|Spash|2010|p=185}}
</ref>

China, India, Indonesia and Brazil were not required to reduce their CO<sub>2</sub> emissions. The remaining signatory countries were not obliged to implement a common framework nor specific measures, but to reach an emission reduction target for which they can benefit of a [[secondary market]] for carbon credits multilaterally exchanged from each other.<ref name="OCLC 1027999644" /> The [[Emissions-trading]] Scheme (ETS) allowed countries to host polluting industries and to buy from other countries the property of their environmental merits and virtuous patterns.<ref name="OCLC 1027999644">{{cite book | author =Geoffrey Wells| author2 = Janet Ratnanunga | chapter-url = https://books.google.com/books?id=V9K5XphOdukC&pg=PA89 | title = Sustainable Business: Theory and Practice of Business Under Sustainability Principles | page = 89 | publisher = Edward Elgar Publishing | date = January 1, 2013 | isbn = 9781781001868 | oclc =  1027999644 | chapter = 5 - Carbon accounting and carbon auditing for business}}</ref>

A 2021 review considers both the institutional design and the political strategies that have affected the adoption of the Kyoto protocol. It concludes that the Kyoto protocol's relatively small impact on global carbon dioxide emissions reflects a number of factors, including "deliberate political strategy, unequal power, and the absence of leadership" among and within nations.<ref name="Stoddard"/> The efforts of fossil fuel interests and conservative think tanks to spread [[disinformation]] and [[climate change denial]] have influenced public opinion and political action both within the United States and beyond it. The direct lobbying of fossil fuel companies and their funding of political actors have slowed political action to address climate change at regional, national, and international levels.<ref name="Stoddard">{{cite journal |last1=Stoddard |first1=Isak |display-authors=etal |last2=Anderson |first2=Kevin |last3=Capstick |first3=Stuart |last4=Carton |first4=Wim |last5=Depledge |first5=Joanna |last6=Facer |first6=Keri |last7=Gough |first7=Clair |last8=Hache |first8=Frederic |last9=Hoolohan |first9=Claire |last10=Hultman |first10=Martin |last11=Hällström |first11=Niclas |last12=Kartha |first12=Sivan |last13=Klinsky |first13=Sonja |last14=Kuchler |first14=Magdalena |last15=Lövbrand |first15=Eva |last16=Nasiritousi |first16=Naghmeh |last17=Newell |first17=Peter |last18=Peters |first18=Glen P. |last19=Sokona |first19=Youba |last20=Stirling |first20=Andy |last21=Stilwell |first21=Matthew |last22=Spash |first22=Clive L. |last23=Williams |first23=Mariama |title=Three Decades of Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the Global Emissions Curve? |journal=Annual Review of Environment and Resources |date=18 October 2021 |volume=46 |issue=1 |pages=653–689 |doi=10.1146/annurev-environ-012220-011104 |hdl=1983/93c742bc-4895-42ac-be81-535f36c5039d |s2cid=233815004 |url=https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/files/305689845/Full_text_PDF_final_published_version_.pdf |access-date=31 August 2022 |language=en |issn=1543-5938 }}{{Dead link|date=June 2024 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref>