Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol (Japanese: 京都議定書,

Hepburn: Kyōto Giteisho) was an international
treaty which extended the 1992 United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) that commits state parties
to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based
on the scientific consensus that global
warming is occurring and that human-made
CO2 emissions are driving it. The Kyoto
Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11
December 1997 and entered into force on 16
February 2005. There were 192 parties
(Canada withdrew from the protocol,
effective December 2012)[5] to the Protocol in
2020.

The Kyoto Protocol implemented the

objective of the UNFCCC to reduce the onset
of global warming by reducing greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere to "a
level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate
system" (Article 2). The Kyoto Protocol
applied to the seven greenhouse gases listed
in Annex A: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons
(PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), nitrogen
trifluoride (NF3).[8]
Kyoto Protocol
Nitrogen trifluoride
Kyoto Protocol to
was added for the
the UNFCCC
second compliance
period during the Doha
Round.[9]

The Protocol was Annex B

parties with
based on the principle binding targets in
of common but the second period
Annex B
differentiated
parties with
responsibilities: it binding targets in
acknowledged that the first period but
not the second
individual countries Non-Annex B
have different parties without
binding targets
capabilities in Annex B
combating climate parties with
change, owing to binding targets in
the first period but
economic which withdrew
development, and from the Protocol
Signatories to
therefore placed the
the Protocol that
obligation to reduce have not ratified
Other UN
current emissions on
member states
developed countries and observers that
on the basis that they are not party to the
Protocol
are historically
Signed 11 December
responsible for the
current levels of Location Kyoto,
Japan
greenhouse gases in
the atmosphere. Effective 16
February
The Protocol's first 2005[1]
commitment period Condition Ratificatio
started in 2008 and by at least
ended in 2012. All 36 55 states
countries that fully to the

participated in the first Convention

commitment period Expiration 31

complied with the December

2012 (first
Protocol. However,
commitme
nine countries had to
period)[2]
resort to the flexibility
31
mechanisms by December
funding emission 2020
reductions in other (second
countries because commitme
their national period)[3]

emissions were Signatories 84[1]

slightly greater than (1998–
their targets. The 1999
financial crisis of signing
2007–08 helped period)

reduce the emissions. Parties 192[4][5]

The greatest emission (the

reductions were seen European

Union,
in the former Eastern
Cook
Bloc countries
Islands,
because the
Niue, and
dissolution of the all UN
Soviet Union reduced member
their emissions in the states
early 1990s.[10] Even except
though the 36 Andorra,

developed countries Canada,

South
reduced their
Sudan,
emissions, the global
and the
emissions increased United
by 32% from 1990 to States as

2010.[11] of 2022)

Depositary Secretary
A second commitment General
period was agreed to of the
in 2012 to extend the United
agreement to 2020, Nations

known as the Doha Languages Arabic,

Amendment to the Mandarin
Kyoto Protocol, in English,

which 37 countries had French,

Russian,
binding targets:
and
Australia, the European
Spanish
Union (and its then 28
Full text
member states, now
27), Belarus, Iceland,
Kazakhstan, Kyoto Protocol at
Liechtenstein, Norway, Wikisource
Switzerland, and
Ukraine. Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine
stated that they may withdraw from the Kyoto
Protocol or not put into legal force the
Amendment with second round targets.[12]
Japan, New Zealand, and Russia had
participated in Kyoto's first-round but did not
take on new targets in the second
commitment period. Other developed
countries without second-round targets were
Canada (which withdrew from the Kyoto
Protocol in 2012) and the United States
(which did not ratify). Canada's decision to
withdraw was to the dismay of Environment
minister, Peter Kent. If
Kyoto Protocol
they were to remain as
Extension
a part of the protocol,
Canada would be hit (2012–2020)
with a $14 billion fine, Doha Amendment to

which would be the Kyoto Protocol

devastating to their
economy, hence the
reluctant decision to
Acceptance of the
exit.[13] As of October
Doha Amendment
2020, 147[6][14] states States that
had accepted the Doha ratified
Kyoto protocol
Amendment. It entered parties that did not
into force on 31 ratify
Non-parties to
December 2020,
the Kyoto Protocol
following its
acceptance by the Type Amendment
mandated minimum of to
at least 144 states, international

although the second agreement

commitment period Drafted 8

ended on the same December

2012
day. Of the 37 parties
with binding Location Doha,

commitments, 34 had Qatar

ratified. Effective 31
December
Negotiations were held 2020[6]
in the framework of the Condition Ratificatio
yearly UNFCCC by 144
Climate Change state
Conferences on parties
measures to be taken required
after the second Expiration 31
commitment period December
ended in 2020. This 2020[7]

resulted in the 2015 Ratifiers 147[6]

adoption of the Paris Full text
Agreement, which is a
Doha Amendment
separate instrument to the Kyoto
under the UNFCCC Protocol at
rather than an Wikisource
amendment of the
Kyoto Protocol.
Background

Kyoto Parties with first period (2008–12) 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.
 Overview map of states committed to greenhouse gas (GHG)
limitations in the first Kyoto Protocol period (2008–12):[15]
Annex I Parties who have agreed to reduce their GHG emissions
below their individual base year levels (see definition in this article)
Annex I Parties who have agreed to cap their GHG emissions at
their base year levels
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 ratified the
Kyoto Protocol

For specific emission reduction commitments of Annex I Parties, see

the section of the article on 2012 emission targets and "flexible
mechanisms".

The European Union as a whole has, in accordance with this treaty,

committed itself to a reduction of 8%. 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).[16]

The view that human activities are likely

responsible for most of the observed
increase in global mean temperature ("global
warming") since the mid-20th century is an
accurate reflection of current scientific
thinking.[17][18] Human-induced warming of
the climate is expected to continue
throughout the 21st century and beyond.[18]

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.[19] The
IPCC's projections are "baseline" projections,
meaning that they assume no future efforts
are made to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. The IPCC projections cover the
time period from the beginning of the 21st
century to the end of the 21st century.[19][20]
The "likely" range (as assessed to have a
greater than 66% probability of being correct,
based on the IPCC's expert judgment) is a
projected increase in global mean
temperature over the 21st century of
between 1.1 and 6.4 °C.[19]

The range in temperature projections partly

reflects different projections of future
greenhouse gas emissions.[21]: 22–24 Different
projections contain different assumptions of
future social and economic development
(economic growth, population level, energy
policies), which in turn affects projections of
future greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions.[21]: 22–24 The range also reflects
uncertainty in the response of the climate
system to past and future GHG emissions
(measured by the climate
sensitivity).[21]: 22–24
Chronology

1992 – The UN Conference on the

Environment and Development is held in Rio
de Janeiro. It results in the Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
among other agreements.

1995 – Parties to the UNFCCC meet in Berlin

(the 1st Conference of Parties (COP) to the
UNFCCC) to outline specific targets on
emissions.

1997 – In December the parties conclude the

Kyoto Protocol in Kyoto, Japan, in which they
agree to the broad outlines of emissions
targets.
2004 – Russia and Canada ratify the Kyoto
Protocol to the UNFCCC bringing the treaty
into effect on 16 February 2005.

2011 – Canada became the first signatory to

announce its withdrawal from the Kyoto
Protocol.[22]

2012 – On 31 December 2012, the first

commitment period under the Protocol
expired.

Article 2 of the UNFCCC

Most countries are Parties to the UNFCCC.[23]

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 (human)
interference with the climate system."[24]

The natural, technical and social sciences

can provide information on decisions relating
to this objective including the possible
magnitude and rate of future climate
changes.[24] However, the IPCC has also
concluded that the decision of what
constitutes "dangerous" interference requires
value judgements, which will vary between
different regions of the world.[24] Factors that
might affect this decision include the local
consequences of climate change impacts,
the ability of a particular region to adapt to
climate change (adaptive capacity), and the
ability of a region to reduce its GHG
emissions (mitigative capacity).[24]

Objectives

Kyoto is intended to cut global

emissions of greenhouse gases.

In order to stabilize the atmospheric

concentration of CO2, emissions
worldwide would need to be
dramatically reduced from their
present level.[25]
The main goal of the Kyoto Protocol was to
control emissions of the main anthropogenic
(human-emitted) greenhouse gases (GHGs)
in ways that reflect underlying national
differences in GHG emissions, wealth, and
capacity to make the reductions.[26] The
treaty follows the main principles agreed in
the original 1992 UN Framework
Convention.[26] According to the treaty, in
2012, Annex I Parties who have ratified the
treaty must have fulfilled their obligations of
greenhouse gas emissions limitations
established for the Kyoto Protocol's first
commitment period (2008–2012). These
emissions limitation commitments are listed
in Annex B of the Protocol.
The Kyoto Protocol's first round
commitments are the first detailed step taken
within the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change.[27] 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.[28] The first
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."[29]
Even if Annex I Parties succeed in meeting
their first-round commitments, much greater
emission reductions will be required in future
to stabilize atmospheric GHG
concentrations.[28][30]

For each of the different anthropogenic

GHGs, different levels of emissions
reductions would be required to meet the
objective of stabilizing atmospheric
concentrations.[31] Carbon dioxide (CO2) is
the most important anthropogenic GHG.[32]
Stabilizing the concentration of CO2 in the
atmosphere would ultimately require the
effective elimination of anthropogenic CO2
emissions.[31]
Some of the principal concepts of the Kyoto
Protocol are:

Binding commitments for the Annex I

Parties. The main feature of the
Protocol[33] 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.[34][35]: 290
Implementation. In order to meet the
objectives of the Protocol, Annex I Parties
are required to prepare policies and
measures for the reduction of greenhouse
gases in their respective countries. In
addition, they are required to increase the
absorption of these gases and utilize all
mechanisms available, such as joint
implementation, the clean development
mechanism and emissions trading, in order
to be rewarded with credits that would
allow more greenhouse gas emissions at
home.
Minimizing Impacts on Developing
Countries by establishing an adaptation
fund for climate change.
Accounting, Reporting and Review in order
to ensure the integrity of the Protocol.
Compliance. Establishing a Compliance
Committee to enforce compliance with the
commitments under the Protocol.
First commitment period:
2008–2012
Under the Kyoto Protocol, 37 industrialized
countries and the European Community (the
European Union-15, made up of 15 states at
the time of the Kyoto negotiations) commit
themselves to binding targets for GHG
emissions.[33] The targets apply to the four
greenhouse gases carbon dioxide (CO2),
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), sulphur
hexafluoride (SF6), and two groups of gases,
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and
perfluorocarbons (PFCs).[36] The six GHG are
translated into CO2 equivalents in
determining reductions in emissions.[37]
These reduction targets are in addition to the
industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or
CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987
Montreal Protocol on Substances that
Deplete the Ozone Layer.

Under the Protocol, only the Annex I Parties

have committed themselves to national or
joint reduction targets (formally called
"quantified emission limitation and reduction
objectives" (QELRO) – Article 4.1).[38] Parties
to the Kyoto Protocol not listed in Annex I of
the convention (the non-Annex I Parties) are
mostly low-income developing countries,[39]: 4
and may participate in the Kyoto Protocol
through the Clean Development Mechanism
(explained below).[28]
The emissions limitations of Annex I Parties
varies between different Parties.[40] Some
Parties have emissions limitations reduce
below the base year level, some have
limitations at the base year level (no
permitted increase above the base year
level), while others have limitations above the
base year level.

Emission limits do not include emissions by

international aviation and shipping.[41]
Although Belarus and Turkey are listed in the
convention's Annex I, they do not have
emissions targets as they were not Annex I
Parties when the Protocol was adopted.[40]
Kazakhstan does not have a target, but has
declared that it wishes to become an Annex I
Party to the convention.[42]

Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol,

their 2008–2012 commitments as % of base
year, and 1990 emission levels (% of all Annex
I countries)[40][43]
Australia – Finland – Liechtenstein Russian
108% (2.1% 100% – 92% Federation
of 1990 France – (0.0015%) – 100%
emissions) 100% Lithuania – (17.4%)
Austria – Germany 92% Slovakia –
87% – 79% Luxembourg 92%
Belarus – Greece – – 72% (0.42%)
95% 125% Netherlands Slovenia –
(subject to Hungary – 94% 92%
acceptance – 94% New Zealand Spain –
by other (0.52%) – 100% 115%
parties) Iceland – (0.19%) Sweden –
Belgium – 110% Norway – 104%
92.5% (0.02%) 101% Switzerland
Bulgaria – Ireland – (0.26%) – 92%
92% (0.6%) 113% Poland – (0.32%)
Canada – Italy – 94% (3.02%) Ukraine –
94% 93.5% Portugal – 100%
(3.33%) Japan – 92% United
(withdrew) 94% Romania – Kingdom –
Croatia – (8.55%) 92% (1.24%) 87.5%
95% () Latvia – United
Czech 92% States of
Republic – (0.17%) America –
92% 93%
(1.24%) (36.1%)
Denmark – (non-party)
79%
Estonia –
92%
(0.28%)

For most state parties, 1990 is the base year

for the national GHG inventory and the
calculation of the assigned amount.[44]
However, five state parties have an
alternative base year:[44]

Bulgaria: 1988;
Hungary: the average of the years 1985–
1987;
Poland: 1988;
Romania: 1989;
Slovenia: 1986.

Annex I Parties can use a range of

sophisticated "flexibility" mechanisms (see
below) to meet their targets. Annex I Parties
can achieve their targets by allocating
reduced annual allowances to major
operators within their borders, or by allowing
these operators to exceed their allocations by
offsetting any excess through a mechanism
that is agreed by all the parties to the
UNFCCC, such as by buying emission
allowances from other operators which have
excess emissions credits.

Flexibility mechanisms
The Protocol defines three "flexibility
mechanisms" that can be used by Annex I
Parties in meeting their emission limitation
commitments.[45]: 402 The flexibility
mechanisms are International Emissions
Trading (IET), the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation
(JI). IET allows Annex I Parties to "trade" their
emissions (Assigned Amount Units, AAUs, or
"allowances" for short).[46]

The economic basis for providing this

flexibility is that the marginal cost of reducing
(or abating) emissions differs among
countries.[47]: 660 [48] "Marginal cost" is the
cost of abating the last tonne of CO2-eq for
an Annex I/non-Annex I Party. At the time of
the original Kyoto targets, studies suggested
that the flexibility mechanisms could reduce
the overall (aggregate) cost of meeting the
targets.[49] Studies also showed that national
losses in Annex I gross domestic product
(GDP) could be reduced by the use of the
flexibility mechanisms.[49]
The CDM and JI are called "project-based
mechanisms", in that they generate emission
reductions from projects. The difference
between IET and the project-based
mechanisms is that IET is based on the
setting of a quantitative restriction of
emissions, while the CDM and JI are based
on the idea of "production" of emission
reductions.[47] The CDM is designed to
encourage production of emission reductions
in non-Annex I Parties, while JI encourages
production of emission reductions in Annex I
Parties.

The production of emission reductions

generated by the CDM and JI can be used by
Annex I Parties in meeting their emission
limitation commitments.[50] The emission
reductions produced by the CDM and JI are
both measured against a hypothetical
baseline of emissions that would have
occurred in the absence of a particular
emission reduction project. The emission
reductions produced by the CDM are called
Certified Emission Reductions (CERs);
reductions produced by JI are called
Emission Reduction Units (ERUs). The
reductions are called "credits" because they
are emission reductions credited against a
hypothetical baseline of emissions.[51][52]

Only emission reduction projects that do not

involve using nuclear energy are eligible for
accreditation under the CDM, in order to
prevent nuclear technology exports from
becoming the default route for obtaining
credits under the CDM.

Each Annex I country is required to submit an

annual report of inventories of all
anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions
from sources and removals from sinks under
UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. These
countries nominate a person (called a
"designated national authority") to create and
manage its greenhouse gas inventory.
Virtually all of the non-Annex I countries have
also established a designated national
authority to manage their Kyoto obligations,
specifically the "CDM process". This
determines which GHG projects they wish to
propose for accreditation by the CDM
Executive Board.

International emissions trading

A number of emissions trading schemes

(ETS) have been, or are planned to be,
implemented.[53]: 19–26

Asia

Japan: emissions trading in Tokyo started

in 2010. This scheme is run by the Tokyo
Metropolitan Government.[53]: 24
Europe

European Union: the European Union

Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which
started in 2005. This is run by the European
Commission.[53]: 20
Norway: domestic emissions trading in
Norway started in 2005.[53]: 21 This was run
by the Norwegian Government, which is
now a participant in the EU ETS.
Switzerland: the Swiss ETS, which runs
from 2008 to 2012, to coincide with the
Kyoto Protocol's first commitment
period.[53]: 22
United Kingdom:
the UK Emissions Trading Scheme,
which ran from 2002 to 2006. This
was a scheme run by the UK
Government, which is now a
participant in the EU ETS.[53]: 19
 the UK CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme,
which started in 2010, and is run by
the UK Government.[53]: 25
North America

Canada: emissions trading in Alberta,

Canada, which started in 2007. This is run
by the Government of Alberta.[53]: 22
United States:
the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative
(RGGI), which started in 2009. This
scheme caps emissions from power
generation in eleven north-eastern US
states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine,
Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, New Jersey, New York,
 Rhode Island, Vermont, and
Virginia).[53]: 24
emissions trading in California, which
started in 2013.[53]: 26
the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which
began in 2012. This is a collective ETS
agreed between 11 US states and
Canadian provinces.[53]: 25
Oceania

Australia: the New South Wales

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme
(NSW), which was started in 2003. This
scheme was run by the Australian State of
New South Wales, and joined the Alfa
Climate Stabilization (ACS) but has since
been closed in 2012 to avoid duplication
 with the Commonwealth's carbon
price.[53]: 19
New Zealand: the New Zealand Emissions
Trading Scheme, which started in
2008.[53]: 23
Intergovernmental emissions trading

The design of the European Union Emissions

Trading Scheme (EU ETS) implicitly allows
for trade of national Kyoto obligations to
occur between participating countries.[54] The
Carbon Trust found that other than the
trading that occurs as part of the EU ETS, no
intergovernmental emissions trading had
taken place.[55]
One of the environmental problems with IET
is the large surplus of allowances that are
available. Russia, Ukraine, and the new EU-12
member states (the Kyoto Parties Annex I
Economies-in-Transition, abbreviated "EIT":
Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic,
Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and
Ukraine)[56]: 59 have a surplus of allowances,
while many OECD countries have a deficit.[54]
Some of the EITs with a surplus regard it as
potential compensation for the trauma of
their economic restructuring.[57] When the
Kyoto treaty was negotiated, it was
recognized that emissions targets for the
EITs might lead to them having an excess
number of allowances.[58] This excess of
allowances were viewed by the EITs as
"headroom" to grow their economies.[59] The
surplus has, however, also been referred to by
some as "hot air", a term which Russia (a
country with an estimated surplus of 3.1
billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent
allowances) views as "quite offensive".[60]

OECD countries with a deficit could meet

their Kyoto commitments by buying
allowances from transition countries with a
surplus. Unless other commitments were
made to reduce the total surplus in
allowances, such trade would not actually
result in emissions being reduced[57] (see
also the section below on the Green
Investment Scheme).

"Green Investment Schemes"

The "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS) is a

plan for achieving environmental benefits
from trading surplus allowances (AAUs)
under the Kyoto Protocol.[61] The Green
Investment Scheme (GIS), a mechanism in
the framework of International Emissions
Trading (IET), is designed to achieve greater
flexibility in reaching the targets of the Kyoto
Protocol while preserving environmental
integrity of IET. However, using the GIS is not
required under the Kyoto Protocol, and there
is no official definition of the term.[61]
Under the GIS a party to the protocol
expecting that the development of its
economy will not exhaust its Kyoto quota,
can sell the excess of its Kyoto quota units
(AAUs) to another party. The proceeds from
the AAU sales should be "greened", i.e.
channelled to the development and
implementation of the projects either
acquiring the greenhouse gases emission
reductions (hard greening) or building up the
necessary framework for this process (soft
greening).[57]

Trade in AAUs

Latvia was one of the front-runners of GISs.

World Bank (2011)[62]: 53 reported that Latvia
has stopped offering AAU sales because of
low AAU prices. In 2010, Estonia was the
preferred source for AAU buyers, followed by
the Czech Republic and Poland.[62]: 53

Japan's national policy to meet their Kyoto

target includes the purchase of AAUs sold
under GISs.[63] In 2010, Japan and Japanese
firms were the main buyers of AAUs.[62]: 53 In
terms of the international carbon market,
trade in AAUs are a small proportion of
overall market value.[62]: 9 In 2010, 97% of
trade in the international carbon market was
driven by the European Union Emission
Trading Scheme (EU ETS).[62]: 9
Clean Development Mechanism

Between 2001, which was the first year Clean

Development Mechanism (CDM) projects
could be registered, and 2012, the end of the
first Kyoto commitment period, the CDM is
expected to produce some 1.5 billion tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in emission
reductions.[64] Most of these reductions are
through renewable energy commercialisation,
energy efficiency, and fuel switching (World
Bank, 2010, p. 262). By 2012, the largest
potential for production of CERs are
estimated in China (52% of total CERs) and
India (16%). CERs produced in Latin America
and the Caribbean make up 15% of the
potential total, with Brazil as the largest
producer in the region (7%).

Joint Implementation

The formal crediting period for Joint

Implementation (JI) was aligned with the first
commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol,
and did not start until January 2008 (Carbon
Trust, 2009, p. 20).[65] In November 2008, only
22 JI projects had been officially approved
and registered. The total projected emission
savings from JI by 2012 are about one tenth
that of the CDM. Russia accounts for about
two-thirds of these savings, with the
remainder divided up roughly equally
between Ukraine and the EU's New Member
States. Emission savings include cuts in
methane, HFC, and N2O emissions.

Stabilization of GHG
concentrations
As noted earlier on, the first-round Kyoto
emissions limitation commitments are not
sufficient to stabilize the atmospheric
concentration of GHGs. Stabilization of
atmospheric GHG concentrations will require
further emissions reductions after the end of
the first-round Kyoto commitment period in
2012.[28][30]

Background
Indicative probabilities of exceeding
various increases in global mean
temperature for different
stabilization levels of atmospheric
GHG concentrations[66]

Different targets for stabilization

require different levels of cuts in
emissions over time.[67] Lower
stabilization targets require global
emissions to be reduced more
sharply in the near-term.[67]

Analysts have developed scenarios of future

changes in GHG emissions that lead to a
stabilization in the atmospheric
concentrations of GHGs.[68] Climate models
suggest that lower stabilization levels are
associated with lower magnitudes of future
global warming, while higher stabilization
levels are associated with higher magnitudes
of future global warming (see figure
opposite).[66]

To achieve stabilization, global GHG

emissions must peak, then decline.[69] The
lower the desired stabilization level, the
sooner this peak and decline must occur (see
figure opposite).[69] For a given stabilization
level, larger emissions reductions in the near
term allow for less stringent emissions
reductions later.[70] On the other hand, less
stringent near term emissions reductions
would, for a given stabilization level, require
more stringent emissions reductions later
on.[70]
The first period Kyoto emissions limitations
can be viewed as a first-step towards
achieving atmospheric stabilization of
GHGs.[27] In this sense, the first period Kyoto
commitments may affect what future
atmospheric stabilization level can be
achieved.[71]

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 2°C relative to the pre-industrial
temperature level.[72] 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) CO2- eq.[73] Stabilization at
450 ppm could be associated with a 26 to
78% risk of exceeding the 2 °C target.[74]

Scenarios assessed by Gupta et al. (2007)[75]

suggest that Annex I emissions would need
to be 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020,
and 80% to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050.
The only Annex I Parties to have made
voluntary pledges in line with this are Japan
(25% below 1990 levels by 2020) and Norway
(30–40% below 1990 levels by 2020).[76]

Gupta et al. (2007)[75] also looked at what

450 ppm scenarios projected for non-Annex I
Parties. Projections indicated that by 2020,
non-Annex I emissions in several regions
(Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia,
and centrally planned Asia) would need to be
substantially reduced below "business-as-
usual".[75] "Business-as-usual" are projected
non-Annex I emissions in the absence of any
new policies to control emissions.
Projections indicated that by 2050, emissions
in all non-Annex I regions would need to be
substantially reduced below "business-as-
usual".[75]

Details of the agreement

The agreement is a protocol to the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC) adopted at the Earth
Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which did
not set any legally binding limitations on
emissions or enforcement mechanisms. Only
Parties to the UNFCCC can become Parties
to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol
was adopted at the third session of the
Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC in 1997
in Kyoto, Japan.

National emission targets specified in the

Kyoto Protocol exclude international aviation
and shipping. Kyoto Parties can use land use,
land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) in
meeting their targets.[77] LULUCF activities
are also called "sink" activities. Changes in
sinks and land use can have an effect on the
climate,[78] and indeed the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change's Special Report on
Land use, land-use change, and forestry
estimates that since 1750 a third of global
warming has been caused by land use
change.[79] Particular criteria apply to the
definition of forestry under the Kyoto
Protocol.

Forest management, cropland management,

grazing land management, and revegetation
are all eligible LULUCF activities under the
Protocol.[80] Annex I Parties use of forest
management in meeting their targets is
capped.[80]
Negotiations

Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC commits

industrialized countries to "[take] the lead" in
reducing emissions.[81] The initial aim was
for industrialized countries to stabilize their
emissions at 1990 levels by 2000.[81] The
failure of key industrialized countries to move
in this direction was a principal reason why
Kyoto moved to binding commitments.[81]

At the first UNFCCC Conference of the

Parties in Berlin, the G77 was able to push for
a mandate (the "Berlin mandate") where it
was recognized that:[82]
 developed nations had contributed most to
the then-current concentrations of GHGs in
the atmosphere (see Greenhouse
gas#Cumulative and historical emissions).
developing country emissions per-capita
(i.e., average emissions per head of
population)[83] were still relatively low.
and that the share of global emissions
from developing countries would grow to
meet their development needs.

During negotiations, the G-77 represented

133 developing countries. China was not a
member of the group but an associate.[84] It
has since become a member.[85]
The Berlin mandate was recognized in the
Kyoto Protocol in that developing countries
were not subject to emission reduction
commitments in the first Kyoto commitment
period.[82] However, the large potential for
growth in developing country emissions
made negotiations on this issue tense.[86] In
the final agreement, the Clean Development
Mechanism was designed to limit emissions
in developing countries, but in such a way
that developing countries do not bear the
costs for limiting emissions.[86] The general
assumption was that developing countries
would face quantitative commitments in later
commitment periods, and at the same time,
developed countries would meet their first
round commitments.[86]

Emissions cuts

There were multiple emissions cuts proposed

by UNFCCC parties during negotiations. The
G77 and China were in favour of strong
uniform emission cuts across the developed
world.[87] The US originally proposed for the
second round of negotiations on Kyoto
commitments to follow the negotiations of
the first.[88] In the end, negotiations on the
second period were set to open no later than
2005.[88] Countries over-achieving in their
first period commitments can "bank" their
unused allowances for use in the subsequent
period.[88]

The EU initially argued for only three GHGs to

be included – CO2, CH4, and N2O – with other
gases such as HFCs regulated separately.[87]
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.[87]

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.[87] Countries that
had supported differentiation of targets had
different ideas as to how it should be
calculated, and many different indicators
were proposed.[89] Two examples include
differentiation of targets based on gross
domestic product (GDP), and differentiation
based on energy intensity (energy use per
unit of economic output).[89]

The final targets negotiated in the Protocol

are the result of last minute political
compromises.[87] The targets closely match
those decided by Argentinian Raul Estrada,
the diplomat who chaired the negotiations.[90]
The numbers given to each Party by
Chairman Estrada were based on targets
already pledged by Parties, information
received on latest negotiating positions, and
the goal of achieving the strongest possible
environmental outcome.[91] The final targets
are weaker than those proposed by some
Parties, e.g., the Alliance of Small Island
States and the G-77 and China, but stronger
than the targets proposed by others, e.g.,
Canada and the United States.[92]

Financial commitments

The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that

developed countries have to pay billions of
dollars, and supply technology to other
countries for climate-related studies and
projects. The principle was originally agreed
in UNFCCC. One such project is The
Adaptation Fund,[93] which has been
established by the Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol of the UN Framework Convention on
Climate Change to finance concrete
adaptation projects and programmes in
developing countries that are Parties to the
Kyoto Protocol.

Implementation 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 flexible).

In 2001, a continuation of the previous

meeting (COP6-bis) was held in Bonn,[94]
where the required decisions were adopted.
After some concessions, the supporters of
the protocol (led by the European Union)
managed to secure the agreement of Japan
and Russia by allowing more use of carbon
dioxide sinks.

COP7 was held from 29 October 2001

through 9 November 2001 in Marrakech to
establish the final details of the protocol.
The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol (MOP1) was held in Montreal from
28 November to 9 December 2005, along
with the 11th conference of the Parties to the
UNFCCC (COP11). See United Nations
Climate Change Conference.

During COP13 in Bali, 36 developed Contact

Group countries (plus the EU as a party in the
European Union) agreed to a 10% emissions
increase for Iceland; but, since the EU's
member states each have individual
obligations,[95] much larger increases (up to
27%) are allowed for some of the less
developed EU countries (see below
§ Increase in greenhouse gas emission since
1990).[96] Reduction limitations expired in
2013.

Mechanism of compliance

The protocol defines a mechanism of

"compliance" as a "monitoring compliance
with the commitments and penalties for non-
compliance."[97] According to Grubb
(2003),[98] the explicit consequences of non-
compliance of the treaty are weak compared
to domestic law.[98] Yet, the compliance
section of the treaty was highly contested in
the Marrakesh Accords.[98]
Monitoring Emissions

Monitoring emissions in international

agreements is tough as in international law,
there is no police power, creating the
incentive for states to find 'ways around'
monitoring. The Kyoto Protocol regulated 6
sinks and sources of Gases. Carbon dioxide,
Methane, Nirous oxide, Hydroflurocarbons,
Sulfur hexafluouride and Perfluorocarbons.
Monitoring these gases can become quite a
challenge. Methane can be monitored and
measured from irrigated rice fields and can
be measured by the seedling growing up to
harvest. Future implications state that this
can be affected by more cost effective ways
to control emissions as changes in types of
fertilizer can reduce emissions by 50%. In
addition to this, many countries are unable to
monitor certain ways of carbon absorption
through trees and soils to an accurate
level.[99]

Enforcing Emission Cuts

If the enforcement branch determines that an

Annex I country is not in compliance with its
emissions limitation, then that country is
required to make up the difference during the
second commitment period plus an
additional 30%. In addition, that country will
be suspended from making transfers under
an emissions trading program.[100]
Ratification 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.
Ratification (which is required to become a
party to the Protocol) started on 17
September with ratification by Fiji. Countries
that did not sign acceded to the convention,
which has the same legal effect.[1]
Article 25 of the Protocol specifies that the
Protocol enters into force "on the ninetieth
day after the date on which not less than 55
Parties to the Convention, incorporating
Parties included in Annex I which accounted
in total for at least 55% of the total carbon
dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Annex I
countries, have deposited their instruments
of ratification, acceptance, approval or
accession."[101]

The EU and its Member States ratified the

Protocol in May 2002.[102] Of the two
conditions, the "55 parties" clause was
reached on 23 May 2002 when Iceland
ratified the Protocol.[1] The ratification by
Russia on 18 November 2004 satisfied the
"55%" clause and brought the treaty into
force, effective 16 February 2005, after the
required lapse of 90 days.[103]

As of May 2013, 191 countries and one

regional economic organization (the EC) have
ratified the agreement, representing over
61.6% of the 1990 emissions from Annex I
countries.[104] One of the 191 ratifying states
—Canada—has renounced the protocol.

Convention Parties
Afghanistan Dominican Liechtenstein São Tomé
Albania Republic Lithuania and Príncipe
Algeria Ecuador Luxembourg Saudi Arabia
Angola East Timor Madagascar Senegal
Antigua and Egypt Malawi Serbia
Barbuda El Salvador Malaysia Seychelles
Argentina Equatorial Maldives Sierra Leone
Armenia Guinea Mali Singapore
Australia Eritrea Malta Slovakia
Austria Estonia Marshall Slovenia
Azerbaijan Eswatini Islands Solomon
Bahamas Ethiopia Mauritania Islands
Bahrain European Mauritius Somalia
Bangladesh Union Mexico (non-party to
Barbados Fiji Federated Kyoto)
Belarus Finland States of South Africa
Belgium France Micronesia Spain
Belize Gabon Moldova Sri Lanka
Benin Gambia Monaco Sudan
Bhutan Georgia Mongolia Suriname
Bolivia Germany Montenegro Sweden
Bosnia and Ghana Morocco Switzerland
Herzegovina Greece Mozambique Syria
Botswana Grenada Namibia Tajikistan
Brazil Guatemala Nauru Tanzania
Brunei Guinea Nepal Thailand
Bulgaria Guinea- Netherlands Togo
Burkina Bissau New Zealand Tonga
Faso Guyana Nicaragua Trinidad and
Myanmar Haiti Niger Tobago
Burundi Honduras Nigeria Tunisia
Cambodia Hungary Niue Turkey
Cameroon Iceland North Turkmenistan
Canada India Macedonia Tuvalu
Cape Verde Indonesia Norway Uganda
Central Iran Oman Ukraine
African Iraq Pakistan United Arab
Republic Ireland Palau Emirates
Chad Israel Panama United
Chile Italy Papua New Kingdom
China Jamaica Guinea United States
Colombia Japan Paraguay (non-party to
Comoros Jordan Peru Kyoto)
Democratic Kazakhstan Philippines Uruguay
Republic of Kenya Poland Uzbekistan
the Congo Kiribati Portugal Vanuatu
Republic of North Qatar Venezuela
the Congo Korea Romania Vietnam
Cook South Russia Yemen
Islands Korea Rwanda Zambia
Costa Rica Kuwait Saint Kitts Zimbabwe
Ivory Coast Kyrgyzstan and Nevis Observers:
Croatia Laos Saint Lucia
Andorra (non-
Cuba Latvia Saint Vincent party to
Cyprus Lebanon and the Kyoto)
Czech Lesotho Grenadines Holy See
Republic Liberia Samoa (non-party to
Denmark Libya San Marino Kyoto)
Djibouti
Dominica

Non-ratification by the US

The US signed the Protocol on 12 November

1998,[105] during the Clinton presidency. To
become binding in the US, however, the treaty
had to be ratified by the Senate, which had
already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-
Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of
any international agreement that did not
require developing countries to make
emission reductions and "would seriously
harm the economy of the United States". The
resolution passed 95–0.[106] Therefore, even
though the Clinton administration signed the
treaty,[107] it was never submitted to the
Senate for ratification.

At the outset of the Bush administration,

Senators Chuck Hagel, Jesse Helms, Larry
Craig, and Pat Roberts wrote a letter to
President George W. Bush seeking to identify
his position on the Kyoto Protocol and
climate change policy.[108] In a letter dated
March 13, 2001, President Bush responded
that his "Administration takes the issue of
global climate change very seriously", but
that "I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it
exempts 80 percent of the world, including
major population centers such as China and
India, from compliance, and would cause
serious harm to the U.S. economy. The
Senate's vote, 95-0, shows that there is a
clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an
unfair and ineffective means of addressing
global climate change concerns."[109] The
administration also questioned the scientific
certainty around climate change and cited
potential harms of emissions reduction to the
US economy.[110]
The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change
Research reported in 2001:

This policy reversal received a

massive wave of criticism that was
quickly picked up by the
international media.
Environmental groups blasted the
White House, while Europeans and
Japanese alike expressed deep
concern and regret. ... Almost all
world leaders (e.g. China, Japan,
South Africa, Pacific Islands, etc.)
expressed their disappointment at
Bush's decision.[111]
In response to this criticism, Bush stated: "I
was responding to reality, and reality is the
nation has got a real problem when it comes
to energy". The Tyndall Centre called this "an
overstatement used to cover up the big
benefactors of this policy reversal, i.e., the US
oil and coal industry, which has a powerful
lobby with the administration and
conservative Republican congressmen."[111]

As of 2023, the US is the only signatory that

has not ratified the Protocol.[112] The US
accounted for 36.1% of emissions in
1990.[113] As such, for the treaty to go into
legal effect without US ratification, it would
require a coalition including the EU, Russia,
Japan, and small parties. A deal, without the
US Administration, was reached in the Bonn
climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.[114]

Withdrawal of Canada

In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia stated

that they would not take on further Kyoto
targets.[115] The Canadian government
announced its withdrawal—possible at any
time three years after ratification—from the
Kyoto Protocol on 12 December 2011,
effective 15 December 2012.[116] Canada was
committed to cutting its greenhouse
emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012,
but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than
in 1990. The Harper government prioritized
oil sands development in Alberta, and
deprioritized the reduction of greenhouse
emissions. Environment minister Peter Kent
cited Canada's liability to "enormous financial
penalties" under the treaty unless it
withdrew.[115][117] He also suggested that the
recently signed Durban agreement may
provide an alternative way forward.[118] The
Harper government claimed it would find a
"Made in Canada" solution. Canada's decision
received a generally negative response from
representatives of other ratifying
countries.[118]
Other states and territories where the
treaty was not applicable

Andorra, Palestine, South Sudan, the United

States and, following their withdrawal on 15
December 2012, Canada are the only
UNFCCC Parties that are not party to the
Protocol. Furthermore, the Protocol is not
applied to UNFCCC observer the Holy See.
Although the Kingdom of the Netherlands
approved the protocol for the whole
Kingdom, it did not deposit an instrument of
ratification for Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten
or the Caribbean Netherlands.[119]
Government action and
emissions

Annex I countries

Anthropogenic emissions of CO2-

equivalents per year by the 10 largest
emitters (the European Union is
lumped as a single area, because of
their integrated carbon trading
scheme). Data sorted based on 2010
contributions.
China (party, no binding targets)
United States (non-party)
European Union (party, binding
targets)
India (party, no binding targets)
Russia (party, binding targets
2008–2012)
Indonesia (party, no binding
targets)
Brazil (party, no binding targets)
Japan (party, no binding targets)
Congo (DR) (party, no binding
targets)
Canada (former party, binding
targets 2008–2012)
Other countries
Total aggregate GHG emissions excluding
emissions/removals from land use, land use
change and forestry (LULUCF, i.e., carbon
storage in forests and soils) for all Annex I
Parties (see list below) including the United
States taken together decreased from 19.0 to
17.8 thousand teragrams (Tg, which is equal
to 109 kg) CO2 equivalent, a decline of 6.0%
during the 1990–2008 period.[120]: 3 Several
factors have contributed to this
decline.[120]: 14 The first is due to the
economic restructuring in the Annex I
Economies in Transition[120]: 14 (the EITs –
see Intergovernmental Emissions Trading for
the list of EITs). Over the period 1990–1999,
emissions fell by 40% in the EITs following
the collapse of central planning in the former
Soviet Union and east European
countries.[121]: 25 This led to a massive
contraction of their heavy industry-based
economies, with associated reductions in
their fossil fuel consumption and
emissions.[54]

Emissions growth in Annex I Parties have

also been limited due to policies and
measures (PaMs).[120]: 14 In particular, PaMs
were strengthened after 2000, helping to
enhance energy efficiency and develop
renewable energy sources.[120]: 14 Energy use
also decreased during the economic crisis in
2007–2008.[120]: 14
Annex I parties with targets

Percentage changes in emissions from the base year (1990 for most countries) for Annex I
Parties with Kyoto targets

GHG GHG
Kyoto Kyoto emissions emissions
Country target target 2008–2012 2008–2012
2008–2012[10] 2013–2020[122] including excluding
LULUCF[10] LULUCF[10]

Australia +8 −0.5 +3.2 +30.3

Austria −13 −20 +3.2 +4.9

Belgium −8 −20 −13.9 −14.0

Bulgaria −8 −20 −53.4 −52.8

Canada (withdrew) −6 N/A +18.5 +18.5

Croatia −5 −20 −10.8 −7.5

Czech Republic −8 −20 −30.6 −30.0

Denmark −21 −20 −17.3 −14.8

Estonia −8 −20 −54.2 −55.3

Finland 0 −20 −5.5 −4.7

France 0 −20 −10.5 −10.0

Germany −21 −20 −24.3 −23.6

Greece +25 −20 +11.5 +11.9

Hungary −6 −20 −43.7 −41.8

Iceland +10 −20 +10.2 +19.4

Ireland +13 −20 +11.0 +5.1

Italy −6 −20 −7.0 −4.0

Japan −6 N/A −2.5 +1.4

Latvia −8 −20 −61.2 −56.4

Liechtenstein −8 −16 +4.1 +2.4

Lithuania −8 −20 −57.9 −55.6

 GHG GHG
Kyoto Kyoto emissions emissions
Country target target 2008–2012 2008–2012
2008–2012[10] 2013–2020[122] including excluding
[10]
LULUCF LULUCF[10]

Luxembourg −28 −20 −9.3 −8.7

Monaco −8 −22 −12.5 −12.5

Netherlands −6 −20 −6.2 −6.4

New Zealand 0 N/A −2.7 +20.4

Norway +1 −16 +4.6 +7.5

Poland −6 −20 −29.7 −28.8

Portugal +27 −20 +5.5 +22.4

Romania −8 −20 −57.0 −55.7

Russia 0 N/A −36.3 −32.7

Slovakia −8 −20 −37.2 −36.8

Slovenia −8 −20 −9.7 −3.2

Spain +15 −20 +20.0 +23.7

Sweden +4 −20 −18.2 −15.3

Switzerland −8 −15.8 −3.9 −0.8

Ukraine 0 −24 −57.1 −56.6

United Kingdom −13 −20 −23.0 −22.6

United States (did not ratify) −7 N/A +9.5 +9.5

CO2 emissions from fuel combustion

of Annex I Kyoto Protocol (KP)
Parties, 1990–2009. Total Annex I KP
emissions are shown, along with
emissions of Annex II KP and Annex I
EITs.
Collectively the group of industrialized
countries committed to a Kyoto target, i.e.,
the Annex I countries excluding the US, had a
target of reducing their GHG emissions by
4.2% on average for the period 2008–2012
relative to the base year, which in most cases
is 1990.[121]: 24

As noted in the preceding section, between

1990 and 1999, there was a large reduction in
the emissions of the EITs.[121]: 25 The
reduction in the EITs is largely responsible for
the total (aggregate) reduction (excluding
LULUCF) in emissions of the Annex I
countries, excluding the US.[121]: 25 Emissions
of the Annex II countries (Annex I minus the
EIT countries) have experienced a limited
increase in emissions from 1990 to 2006,
followed by stabilization and a more marked
decrease from 2007 onwards.[121]: 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.[121]: 25

In December 2011, Canada's environment

minister, Peter Kent, formally announced that
Canada would withdraw from the Kyoto
accord a day after the end of the 2011 United
Nations Climate Change Conference (see the
section on the withdrawal of Canada).[123]
Annex I parties without Kyoto targets

Belarus, Malta, and Turkey are Annex I Parties

but did not have first-round Kyoto targets.[124]
The US had a Kyoto target of a 7% reduction
relative to the 1990 level, but has not ratified
the treaty.[10] If the US had ratified the Kyoto
Protocol, the average percentage reduction in
total GHG emissions for the Annex I group
would have been a 5.2% reduction relative to
the base year.[121]: 26

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.[10]

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 financial crisis of 2007–08
significantly reduced emissions during the
first Kyoto commitment period.[10]

The 36 countries that were committed to

emission reductions only accounted for 24%
of the global greenhouse gas emissions in
2010.[10] 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.[11]

Non-Annex I

Annual per capita carbon dioxide

emissions (i.e., average emissions
per person) from fuel combustion
between 1990 and 2009 for the
Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I
Parties

Annual carbon dioxide emissions

from fuel combustion between
1990 and 2009 for the Kyoto Annex
I and non-Annex I Parties
UNFCCC (2005) compiled and synthesized
information reported to it by non-Annex I
Parties.[39] Most non-Annex I Parties
belonged in the low-income group, with very
few classified as middle-income.[39]: 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.[39]: 6 Many non-
Annex I Parties are making efforts to amend
and update their environmental legislation to
include global concerns such as climate
change.[39]: 7
A few Parties, e.g., South Africa and Iran,
stated their concern over how efforts to
reduce emissions by Annex I Parties could
adversely affect their economies.[39]: 7 The
economies of these countries are highly
dependent on income generated from the
production, processing, and export of fossil
fuels.

Emissions

GHG emissions, excluding land use change

and forestry (LUCF), reported by 122 non-
Annex I Parties for the year 1994 or the
closest year reported, totalled 11.7 billion
tonnes (billion = 1,000,000,000) of CO2-eq.
CO2 was the largest proportion of emissions
(63%), followed by methane (26%) and
nitrous oxide (N2O) (11%).

The energy sector was the largest source of

emissions for 70 Parties, whereas for 45
Parties the agriculture sector was the largest.
Per capita emissions (in tonnes of CO2-eq,
excluding LUCF) averaged 2.8 tonnes for the
122 non-Annex I Parties.

The Africa region's aggregate emissions

were 1.6 billion tonnes, with per capita
emissions of 2.4 tonnes.
The Asia and Pacific region's aggregate
emissions were 7.9 billion tonnes, with per
capita emissions of 2.6 tonnes.
 The Latin America and Caribbean region's
aggregate emissions were 2 billion tonnes,
with per capita emissions of 4.6 tonnes.
The "other" region includes Albania,
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Malta,
Moldova, and North Macedonia. Their
aggregate emissions were
0.1 billion tonnes, with per capita
emissions of 5.1 tonnes.

Parties reported a high level of uncertainty in

LUCF emissions, but in aggregate, there
appeared to only be a small difference of
1.7% with and without LUCF. With LUCF,
emissions were 11.9 billion tonnes, without
LUCF, total aggregate emissions were
11.7 billion tonnes.
Trends

In several large developing countries and fast

growing economies (China, India, Thailand,
Indonesia, Egypt, and Iran) GHG emissions
have increased rapidly (PBL, 2009).[125] 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.

Cost estimates
Barker et al. (2007, p. 79) assessed the
literature on cost estimates for the Kyoto
Protocol.[126] Due to US non-participation in
the Kyoto treaty, costs estimates were found
to be much lower than those estimated in the
previous IPCC Third Assessment Report.
Without the US participation, and with full use
of the Kyoto flexible mechanisms, costs were
estimated at less than 0.05% of Annex B GDP.
This compared to earlier estimates of 0.1–
1.1%. Without use of the flexible
mechanisms, costs without the US
participation were estimated at less than
0.1%. This compared to earlier estimates of
0.2–2%. These cost estimates were viewed
as being based on much evidence and high
agreement in the literature.

Views on the Protocol

Gupta et al. (2007) assessed the literature on
climate change policy. They found that no
authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or
its Protocol asserted that these agreements
had, or will, succeed in solving the climate
problem.[27] 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)[127] 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.[127] In 2008, countries with
a Kyoto cap made up less than one-third of
annual global carbon dioxide emissions from
fuel combustion.[128]

World Bank (2010)[129] 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%.[130] 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.[129]

Some of the criticism of the Protocol has

been based on the idea of climate justice
(Liverman, 2008, p. 14).[35]

This has particularly centered on the balance

between the low emissions and high
vulnerability of the developing world to
climate change, compared to high emissions
in the developed world. Another criticism of
the Kyoto Protocol and other international
conventions, is the right of indigenous
peoples right to participate. Quoted here
from The Declaration of the First
International Forum of Indigenous Peoples
on Climate Change, it says "Despite the
recognition of our role in preventing global
warming, when it comes time to sign
international conventions like the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change, once again, our right to participate in
national and international discussions that
directly affect our Peoples and territories is
denied."[131] Additionally, later in the
declaration, it reads:[131]
We denounce the fact that neither
the [United Nations] nor the Kyoto
Protocol recognizes the existence
or the contributions of Indigenous
Peoples. Furthermore, the debates
under these instruments have not
considered the suggestions and
proposals of the Indigenous
Peoples nor have the appropriate
mechanisms to guarantee our
participation in all the debates
that directly concern the
Indigenous Peoples has been
established.
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).[132] 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."[133]
Some environmentalists and scientists have
criticized the existing commitments for being
too weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).[134]

The United States (under former President

George W. Bush) and Australia (initially, under
former Prime Minister John Howard) did not
ratify the Kyoto treaty.[135] According to Stern
(2006),[135] their decision was based on the
lack of quantitative emission commitments
for emerging economies (see also the 2000
onwards section). Australia, under former
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has since ratified
the treaty,[136][137] which took effect in March
2008.[138]

Views on the flexibility mechanisms

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).[139][140] The flexibility
mechanisms have attracted both positive
and negative comments.[141][142][143]

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.[139]
Criticisms of flexibility have, for example,
included the ineffectiveness of emissions
trading in promoting investment in non-fossil
energy sources,[144] and adverse impacts of
CDM projects on local communities in
developing countries.[145]
Philosophy

As the Kyoto Protocol seeks to reduce

environmental pollutants while at the same
time altering the freedoms of some citizens.

As discussed by Milton Friedman, one can

achieve both economic and political freedom
through capitalism; nonetheless, it is never
guaranteed that one is going to have equality
of wealth of those on top of the "food chain"
of this capitalistic world. All these alterations
come to what the leaders of the citizens
choose to impose in means of improving
ones lifestyle. In the case of the Kyoto
Protocol, it seeks to impose regulations that
will reduce production of pollutants towards
the environment. Furthermore, seeking to
compromise the freedoms of both private
and public citizens. In one side it imposes
bigger regulations towards companies and
reducing their profits as they need to fulfil
such regulations with, which are oftentimes
more expensive, alternatives for production.
On the other hand, it seeks to reduce the
emissions that cause the rapid environmental
change called climate change.

The conditions of the Kyoto Protocol consist

of mandatory targets on greenhouse gas
emissions for the world's leading economies.
As provided by the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change,
"These targets range from −8 per cent to +10
per cent of the countries' individual 1990
emissions levels with a view to reducing their
overall emissions of such gases by at least 5
per cent below existing 1990 levels in the
commitment period 2008 to 2012."[146]

China, India, Indonesia and Brazil were not

required to reduce their CO2 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.[147] 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.[147]

The Kyoto Protocol's goals are challenged,

however, by climate change deniers, who
condemn strong scientific evidence of the
human impact on climate change. One
prominent scholar opines that these climate
change deniers "arguably" breach Rousseau's
notion of the social contract, which is an
implicit agreement among the members of a
society to coordinate efforts in the name of
overall social benefit. The climate change
denial movement hinders efforts at coming
to agreements as a collective global society
on climate change.[148]
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.[149] 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.[149]

Conference of the Parties

DF3 Session Kyoto Protocol Panelists

The official meeting of all states party to the

Kyoto Protocol is the Conference of the
Parties (COP) to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). It is held every year; it serves as
the formal meeting of UNFCCC. Parties to the
Convention may participate in Protocol-
related meetings either as parties to the
Protocol or as observers.

The first conference was held in 1995 in

Berlin. The first Meeting of Parties of the
Kyoto Protocol (CMP) was held in 2005 in
conjunction with COP 11. The 2013
conference was held in Warsaw. Later COPs
were held in Lima, Peru, in 2014 and in Paris,
France, in 2015. The 2015 event, COP 21,
aimed to hold the global average rise in
temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.[150]
COP 22 was planned for Marrakesh, Morocco
and COP 23 for Bonn, Germany.
Amendment and successor
In the non-binding "Washington Declaration"
agreed on 16 February 2007, heads of
governments from Canada, France, Germany,
Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the
United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and
South Africa agreed in principle on the outline
of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They
envisaged a global cap-and-trade system that
would apply to both industrialized nations
and developing countries, and initially hoped
that it would be in place by 2009.[151][152]

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.[153][154]

The 2010 Cancún agreements include

voluntary pledges made by 76 developed and
developing countries to control their
emissions of greenhouse gases.[155] In 2010,
these 76 countries were collectively
responsible for 85% of annual global
emissions.[155][156]
By May 2012, the US, Japan, Russia, and
Canada had indicated they would not sign up
to a second Kyoto commitment period.[157] In
November 2012, Australia confirmed it would
participate in a second commitment period
under the Kyoto Protocol and New Zealand
confirmed that it would not.[158]

New Zealand's climate minister Tim Groser

said the 15-year-old Kyoto Protocol was
outdated, and that New Zealand was "ahead
of the curve" in looking for a replacement
that would include developing nations.[159]
Non-profit environmental organisations such
as the World Wildlife Fund criticised New
Zealand's decision to pull out.[160]
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).[161] The
outcome of the Doha talks has received a
mixed response, with small island states
critical of the overall package. The Kyoto
second commitment period applies to about
11% of annual global emissions of
greenhouse gases. Other results of the
conference include a timetable for a global
agreement to be adopted by 2015 which
includes all countries.[162] At the Doha
meeting of the parties to the UNFCCC on 8
December 2012, the European Union chief
climate negotiator, Artur Runge-Metzger,
pledged to extend the treaty, binding on the
27 European Member States, up to the year
2020 pending an internal ratification
procedure.

Ban Ki Moon, Secretary General of the United

Nations, called on world leaders to come to
an agreement on halting global warming
during the 69th Session of the UN General
Assembly[163] on 23 September 2014 in New
York. The next climate summit was held in
Paris in 2015, out of which emerged the Paris
Agreement, the successor to the Kyoto
Protocol.
See also
Action for Climate Global
warming
Empowerment portal
Alternatives to the Kyoto Ecology
portal
Protocol and successor Energy
portal
Asia Pacific Partnership on
Environment
Clean Development and portal

Climate World portal

Business action on climate

change
Carbon emission trading
Carbon footprint
Clean Development
Mechanism
Climate change mitigation
Copenhagen Accord
Environmental agreements
Environmental impact of aviation
Environmental law
Environmental tariff
List of climate change initiatives
List of international environmental
agreements
Low-carbon economy
Montreal Protocol
Net Capacity Factor
Paris Agreement
Politics of global warming
 Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation or REDD
Supplementarity
Sustainability
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change or UNFCCC
World People's Conference on Climate
Change

Notes
1. "Status of ratification" (http://unfccc.int/kyoto_
protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.ph
p) . UNFCC Homepage. Retrieved 5 June
2012.
2. "Kyoto Protocol on the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change" (ht
tp://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.p
df) (PDF). United Nations.

3. "What is the Kyoto Protocol?" (https://unfccc.in

t/kyoto_protocol) . UNFCCC.

4. "Status of Ratification" (https://unfccc.int/proc

ess/the-kyoto-protocol/status-of-ratification) .
unfccc.int. United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
5. "7 .a Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change" (ht
tps://web.archive.org/web/20181008095709/
https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.asp
x?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-a&chapter=
27&lang=en) . UN Treaty Database. Archived
from the original (https://treaties.un.org/page
s/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=X
XVII-7-a&chapter=27&lang=en) on 8 October
2018. Retrieved 27 November 2014.

6. "7 .c Doha Amendment to the Kyoto Protocol"

(https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.asp
x?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-c&chapter=
27&clang=_en) . UN Treaty Database.
Retrieved 19 April 2015.
7. "Nigeria, Jamaica bring closure to the Kyoto
Protocol era, in last-minute dash" (https://ww
w.climatechangenews.com/2020/10/02/nigeri
a-jamaica-bring-closure-kyoto-protocol-era-last
-minute-dash/) . Climate Change News. 2
October 2020.

8. "Overview of greenhouse gases - Defra, UK" (ht

tps://naei.beis.gov.uk/overview/ghg-overview.
php) . Naei.beis.gov.uk. Retrieved 2 March
2022.

9. "Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol" (http

s://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/applicatio
n/pdf/kp_doha_amendment_english.pdf)
(PDF). Unfcc.int. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
10. Shishlov, Igor; Morel, Romain; Bellassen,
Valentin (2016). "Compliance of the Parties to
the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment
period" (https://hal-enpc.archives-ouvertes.fr/h
al-01425106/file/2016%20-%20Shishlov%20e
t%20al%20-%20Climate%20Policy%20-%20Co
mpliance%20of%20the%20Parties%20to%20th
e%20Kyoto%20Protocol%20in%20the%20first%
20commitment%20period_preprint.pdf) (PDF).
Climate Policy. 16 (6): 768–782.
doi:10.1080/14693062.2016.1164658 (https://
doi.org/10.1080%2F14693062.2016.116465
8) . S2CID 156120010 (https://api.semanticsc
holar.org/CorpusID:156120010) .
11. "The Emissions Gap Report 2012" (http://wedo
cs.unep.org/bitstream/handle/20.500.11822/
8526/-The%20emissions%20gap%20report%2
02012_%20a%20UNEP%20synthesis%20report
emissionGapReport2012.pdf?sequence=3&isA
llowed=y) (PDF). United Nations Environment
Programme. 2012. p. 2. Retrieved 7 December
2019.

12. Figueres, C. (15 December 2012),

"Environmental issues: Time to abandon
blame-games and become proactive -
Economic Times" (http://articles.economictim
es.indiatimes.com/2012-12-15/news/3583663
3_1_emission-reduction-targets-global-greenh
ouse-gas-emissions-climate-change) , The
Economic Times / Indiatimes.com, Times
Internet, retrieved 18 December 2012
13. "Canada pulls out of Kyoto Protocol" (https://w
ww.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-pulls-out-of-
kyoto-protocol-1.999072) . CBC News. 12
December 2011. Retrieved 11 January 2023.

14. "United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change" (http://unfccc.int/kyoto_proto
col/doha_amendment/items/7362.php) .
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change. Retrieved 23 July 2016.

15. "Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations

Framework Convention on Climate Change:
Annex B" (http://unfccc.int/essential_backgrou
nd/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php) . United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change. n.d. Retrieved 8 October 2011.
16. "Kyoto 1st commitment period (2008–12)" (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20161221064248/h
ttps://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/strategies/
progress/kyoto_1_en) . European
Commission. Archived from the original on 21
December 2016. Retrieved 15 March 2020.

17. US National Research Council (2001).

"Summary" (http://www.nap.edu/openbook.ph
p?record_id=10139&page=3) . Climate Change
Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions.
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.: National Academy
Press. p. 3. Bibcode:2001ccsa.book.....N (http
s://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ccsa.boo
k.....N) . doi:10.17226/10139 (https://doi.org/1
0.17226%2F10139) . ISBN 978-0-309-07574-9.
18. US National Research Council (2008).
Understanding and Responding to Climate
Change (https://web.archive.org/web/201112
13210836/http://americasclimatechoices.org/
climate_change_2008_final.pdf) (PDF). Board
on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, US
National Academy of Sciences. p. 2. Archived
from the original (http://americasclimatechoic
es.org/climate_change_2008_final.pdf) (PDF)
on 13 December 2011.
19. IPCC (2007). "3. Projected climate change and
its impacts". In Core Writing Team; et al. (eds.).
Summary for Policymakers (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20171120232817/http://www.ipcc.
ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.h
tml) . 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. Archived
from the original (http://www.ipcc.ch/publicati
ons_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html) on 20
November 2017. Retrieved 25 March 2010.

20. Temperatures are measured relative to the

average global temperature averaged over the
years 1980–1999, with the projected change
averaged over 2090–2099.
21. Karl, T.R.; et al., eds. (2009). "Global climate
change". Global Climate Change Impacts in
the United States (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20120915115254/http://www.globalchange.
gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessme
nts/us-impacts/full-report/global-climate-chan
ge) . New York: Cambridge University Press.
ISBN 978-0-521-14407-0. Archived from the
original (http://www.globalchange.gov/publica
tions/reports/scientific-assessments/us-impa
cts/full-report/global-climate-change) on 15
September 2012.
22. "A Climate Change Plan for the Purposes of
the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act 2012:
Canada's Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol"
(https://web.archive.org/web/2015021114250
8/http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/default.as
p?lang=En&n=EE4F06AE-1&xml=EE4F06AE-13
EF-453B-B633-FCB3BAECEB4F&offset=3&toc=
show) . 11 February 2015. Archived from the
original (http://www.ec.gc.ca/Publications/def
ault.asp?lang=En&n=EE4F06AE-1&xml=EE4F0
6AE-13EF-453B-B633-FCB3BAECEB4F&offset=
3&toc=show) on 11 February 2015. Retrieved
2 March 2022.
23. United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011a), Status of
Ratification of the Convention (http://unfccc.in
t/essential_background/convention/status_of_
ratification/items/2631.php) , 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. IPCC (2001d). "Question 1". In Watson, R.T.;
the Core Writing Team (eds.). 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) (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20160304204439/http://www.
grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/017.ht
m) . Cambridge University Press. Archived
from the original (http://www.grida.no/climat
e/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/017.htm) on 4 March
2016. Retrieved 25 December 2011.
25. 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 (https://web.archive.org/w
eb/20100527134225/http://www.globalchang
e.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessm
ents/saps/311) . Synthesis and Assessment
Product 5.2: Best practice approaches for
characterizing, communicating, and
incorporating scientific 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. Archived from the
original (http://www.globalchange.gov/publica
 tions/reports/scientific-assessments/saps/31
1) on 27 May 2010. "(* is Lead Author)"

26. Grubb, M. (2004). "Kyoto and the Future of

International Climate Change Responses:
From Here to Where?" (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20120111215457/http://www.econ.ca
m.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/J37.pdf)
(PDF). International Review for Environmental
Strategies. 5 (1): 2 (PDF version). Archived
from the original (http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/
rstaff/grubb/publications/J37.pdf) (PDF) on
11 January 2012.
27. 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 (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20100503040428/htt
p://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/w
g3/en/ch13s13-3-1.html) . 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.
Archived from the original (http://www.ipcc.c
h/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s1
3-3-1.html) on 3 May 2010. Retrieved 2 April
2010.

28. Grubb & Depledge 2001, p. 269

29. "Article 2" (https://web.archive.org/web/20051
028023600/http://unfccc.int/essential_backgr
ound/convention/background/items/1353.ph
p) . The United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Archived from
the original (http://unfccc.int/essential_backgr
ound/convention/background/items/1353.ph
p) on 28 October 2005. Retrieved
15 November 2005. "Such a level should be
achieved within a time-frame sufficient 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"
30. "Question 7" (https://web.archive.org/web/201
21030105841/http://www.grida.no/climate/ip
cc_tar/vol4/english/058.htm) , Stabilizing
atmospheric concentrations would depend
upon emissions reductions beyond those
agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol, archived from
the original (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_
tar/vol4/english/058.htm) on 30 October
2012 , p.122, in IPCC TAR SYR 2001
31. 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 (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20111224051815/http://w
ww.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/e
n/faq-10-3.html) . 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.
Archived from the original (http://www.ipcc.c
h/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-
3.html) on 24 December 2011. Retrieved
26 December 2011.
32. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC) (2007). "Human and Natural Drivers of
Climate Change". In Solomon, S.; et al. (eds.).
Summary for Policymakers (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20181102212113/http://www.ipcc.
ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmss
pm-human-and.html) . Climate Change 2007:
The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University
Press. Archived from the original (http://www.i
pcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/sp
msspm-human-and.html) on 2 November
2018. Retrieved 26 December 2011.

33. United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto
Protocol (http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/ite
ms/2830.php) , UNFCCC
34. Depledge 2000, p. 6.
35. Liverman, D. M. (2008). "Conventions of
climate change: constructions of danger and
the dispossession of the atmosphere" (https://
web.archive.org/web/20140912161138/http://
www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profil
es/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf) (PDF).
Journal of Historical Geography. 35 (2): 279–
296. doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008 (https://do
i.org/10.1016%2Fj.jhg.2008.08.008) . Archived
from the original (http://www.environment.ariz
ona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2
009-jhg.pdf) (PDF) on 12 September 2014.
Retrieved 10 May 2011.

36. Grubb 2003, p. 147

37. 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
figures 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" (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop
3/07a01.pdf#page=31) (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.
38. "Industrialized countries to cut greenhouse
gas emissions by 5.2%" (http://unfccc.int/cop
3/fccc/info/indust.htm) (Press release).
United Nations Environment Programme. 11
December 1997. Retrieved 6 August 2007.

39. 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 (http://unfccc.int/do
cumentation/documents/advanced_search/ite
ms/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600003578#beg) ,
United Nations Office at Geneva, Switzerland,
retrieved 20 May 2010
40. "Kyoto Protocol - Targets for the first
commitment period" (https://unfccc.int/proces
s-and-meetings/the-kyoto-protocol/what-is-the
-kyoto-protocol/kyoto-protocol-targets-for-the-f
irst-commitment-period) . United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Retrieved 28 January 2019.

41. Adam, David (2 December 2007), "UK to seek

pact on shipping and aviation pollution at
climate talks" (https://www.theguardian.com/e
nvironment/2007/dec/03/climatechange.gree
npolitics) , The Guardian
42. "Proposal to amend Annexes I and II to remove
the name of Turkey and to amend Annex I to
add the name of Kazakhstan" (https://unfccc.i
nt/process-and-meetings/the-convention/histo
ry-of-the-convention/proposal-to-amend-annex
es-i-and-ii-to-remove-the-name-of-turkey-and-to
-amend-annex-i-to-add-the-name) . unfccc.int.
Retrieved 22 April 2020.

43. "Kyoto burden-sharing targets for EU-15

countries" (https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-a
nd-maps/figures/kyoto-burden-sharing-targets
-for-eu-15-countries) . European Environment
Agency (EEA). 12 November 2009. Retrieved
28 January 2019.
44. United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2008), Kyoto
Protocol Reference Manual On Accounting of
Emissions and Assigned Amount (http://unfcc
c.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_k
p_ref_manual.pdf) (PDF), Bonn, Germany:
Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC), p. 55,
ISBN 978-92-9219-055-2

45. Bashmakov, I.; et al., "Measures, and

Instruments" (https://web.archive.org/web/20
120117023130/http://www.grida.no/climate/i
pcc_tar/wg3/225.htm) , Executive summary,
archived from the original (http://www.grida.n
o/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/225.htm) on 17
January 2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
46. Clifford Chance LLP (2012). "Clean
Development Mechanism: CDM and the
UNFCC" "Archived copy" (https://web.archive.o
rg/web/20130921060112/http://a4id.org/site
s/default/files/user/CDM%26UNFCCCcorrecte
d.pdf) (PDF). Archived from the original (htt
p://a4id.org/sites/default/files/user/CDM%26
UNFCCCcorrected.pdf) (PDF) on 21
September 2013. Retrieved 19 September
2013.. Advocates for International
Development. Retrieved: 19 September 2013.
47. Toth, F. L.; et al., "10. Decision-making
Frameworks" (https://web.archive.org/web/20
120117032405/http://www.grida.no/climate/i
pcc_tar/wg3/441.htm) , 10.4.4. Where Should
the Response Take Place? The Relationship
between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of
International Mechanisms, archived from the
original (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/
wg3/441.htm) on 17 January 2012, in IPCC
TAR WG3 2001

48. Bashmakov, I.; et al., "6. Policies, Measures,

and Instruments" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20090805204450/http://www.grida.no/clim
ate/ipcc_tar///wg3/246.htm) , 6.3 International
Policies, Measures, and Instruments, archived
from the original (http://www.grida.no/climat
e/ipcc_tar/wg3/246.htm) on 5 August 2009,
in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
49. Hourcade, J.-C.; et al., "8. Global, Regional, and
National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of
Mitigation" (https://web.archive.org/web/2012
0111150919/http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc
_tar/wg3/341.htm) , 8.3.1 International
Emissions Quota Trading Regimes, archived
from the original (http://www.grida.no/climat
e/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm) on 11 January
2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001

50. Bashmakov, I.; et al., "6. Policies, Measures,

and Instruments" (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20120113181950/http://www.grida.no/clim
ate/ipcc_tar/wg3/247.htm) , 6.3.2 Project-
based Mechanisms (Joint Implementation and
the Clean Development Mechanism), archived
from the original (http://www.grida.no/climat
e/ipcc_tar/wg3/247.htm) on 13 January
2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
51. Fernandez Quesada, Nicolas (2013). Kyoto
Protocol, Emissions Trading and Reduction
Technologies for Climate Change Mitigation.
Munich: GRIN Verlag GmbH. ISBN 978-3-656-
47173-8. OCLC 862560217 (https://www.world
cat.org/oclc/862560217) .

52. International Conventions on Atmosphere

Handbook (https://books.google.com/books?i
d=2lqtDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA14) . International
Business Publications, USA. 3 March 2008.
p. 14. ISBN 9781433066290.
53. Hood, Christina (November 2010). "5. Current
and proposed emissions trading systems".
Reviewing Existing and Proposed Emissions
Trading Systems: Information paper (https://w
ww.oecd-ilibrary.org/energy/reviewing-existing
-and-proposed-emissions-trading-systems_5k
m4hv3mlg5c-en) . IEA Energy Papers. Head of
Publications Service, 9 rue de la Fédération,
75739 Paris Cedex 15, France: International
Energy Agency (IEA).
doi:10.1787/5km4hv3mlg5c-en (https://doi.or
g/10.1787%2F5km4hv3mlg5c-en) . Retrieved
15 April 2020.

54. Carbon Trust 2009, p. 24.

55. Carbon Trust 2009, pp. 24–25.
56. World Bank (2008), Development and Climate
Change: A Strategic Framework for the World
Bank Group: Technical Report (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20091224213652/http://beta.wo
rldbank.org/overview/strategic-framework-dev
elopment-and-climate-change) , Washington,
DC, USA: The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development / The World
Bank., archived from the original (http://beta.w
orldbank.org/overview/strategic-framework-de
velopment-and-climate-change) on 24
December 2009, retrieved 3 April 2010

57. Carbon Trust 2009, p. 25.

58. Hourcade, J.-C.; et al. (2001). "8.3.1.1 "Where
Flexibility" ". In B. Metz; et al. (eds.). 8. Global,
Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary
Benefits of Mitigation (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20120111150919/http://www.grida.no/
climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm) . 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. Archived from the original (http://www.
grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm) on
11 January 2012.
59. Blyth, W.; Baron, R. (2003), Green Investment
Schemes: Options and Issues (http://www.oec
d.org/dataoecd/48/54/19842798.pdf) (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
60. Chiavari, J.; Pallemaerts, M. (30 June 2008),
Energy and Climate Change in Russia (note
requested by the European Parliament's
temporary committee on Climate Change,
Policy Department Economy and Science, DG
Internal Policies, European Parliament) (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20111222054254/htt
p://www.ieep.eu/assets/433/ecc_russia.pdf)
(PDF), Brussels, Belgium: Institute for
European Environmental Policy, p. 11, archived
from the original (http://www.ieep.eu/assets/4
33/ecc_russia.pdf) (PDF) on 22 December
2011
61. Carbon Finance at the World Bank (2011),
Carbon Finance - Glossary of Terms: Definition
of "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS) (http://we
barchive.loc.gov/all/20100817010146/http://g
o.worldbank.org/HZGVW3QN20) ,
Washington, DC, US: World Bank Carbon
Finance Unit (CFU), archived from the original
(http://go.worldbank.org/HZGVW3QN20) on
17 August 2010, retrieved 15 December 2011

62. World Bank (2011), State and Trends of the

Carbon Market Report 2011 (http://siteresourc
es.worldbank.org/INTCARBONFINANCE/Reso
urces/State_and_Trends_Updated_June_2011.
pdf) (PDF), Washington, DC, USA: World Bank
Environment Department, Carbon Finance Unit
63. Government of Japan (28 March 2008), Kyoto
Protocol Target Achievement Plan (Provisional
Translation) (http://www.env.go.jp/en/earth/c
c/kptap.pdf) (PDF), Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of
the Environment, Government of Japan,
pp. 81–82

64. World Bank 2010.

65. Carbon Trust 2009.
66. "Chapter 8 The challenge of stabilisation" (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20121006161506/htt
p://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_8_The
_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pdf) (PDF), Box
8.1 Likelihood of exceeding a temperature
increase at equilibrium, p. 195, archived from
the original (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/
Chapter_8_The_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pd
f) (PDF) on 6 October 2012, in Stern 2006
67. Fisher, B.; et al., "Chapter 3: Issues related to
mitigation in the long-term context" (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20121210151803/http://w
ww.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/e
n/ch3s3-3-5-1.html) , 3.3.5.1 Emission
reductions and timing, archived from the
original (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_
data/ar4/wg3/en/ch3s3-3-5-1.html) on 10
December 2012, retrieved 17 July 2012 , in
IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
68. Fisher, B.; et al., "Chapter 3: Issues related to
mitigation in the long-term context" (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20120605115921/http://w
ww.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/e
n/ch3s3-3-2.html) , 3.3.2 Definition of a
stabilization target, archived from the original
(http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar
4/wg3/en/ch3s3-3-2.html) on 5 June 2012,
retrieved 17 July 2012 , in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007

69. "Synthesis report" (https://web.archive.org/we

b/20141127224337/http://www.ipcc.ch/public
ations_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-4.html) ,
5.4 Emission trajectories for stabilisation,
archived from the original (http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains5-4.ht
ml) on 27 November 2014, retrieved 17 July
2012 , in IPCC AR4 SYR 2007
70. "Chapter 8 The challenge of stabilisation" (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20121006161506/htt
p://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_8_The
_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pdf) (PDF), Sec
8.5 Pathways to stabilisation, archived from
the original (http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/
Chapter_8_The_Challenge_of_Stabilisation.pd
f) (PDF) on 6 October 2012, in Stern 2006,
p. 199

71. Höhne, N., Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on

Stabilization of Carbon Dioxide Concentration
(http://stabilisation.metoffice.com/posters/Ho
hne_Niklas.pdf) (PDF), Cologne, Germany:
ECOFYS energy & environment
72. 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 (http://unfc
cc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.
pdf#page=2) (PDF), Bonn, Germany: UNFCCC
Secretariat, p. 3
73. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2010), "13.
Energy and the ultimate climate change target"
(https://web.archive.org/web/2012071523440
6/http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/
weo2010.pdf) (PDF), World Energy Outlook
2010, Paris, France: IEA, p. 380, ISBN 978-92-
64-08624-1, archived from the original (http://
www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weo201
0.pdf) (PDF) on 15 July 2012, retrieved 17 July
2012

74. Levin, K.; Bradley, R. (February 2010), Working

Paper: Comparability of Annex I Emission
Reduction Pledges (http://pdf.wri.org/working_
papers/comparability_of_annex1_emission_re
duction_pledges_2010-02-01.pdf) (PDF),
Washington DC, USA: World Resources
Institute, p. 16
75. Gupta, S.; et al., "Chapter 13: Policies,
instruments, and co-operative arrangements"
(https://web.archive.org/web/2012121015165
4/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/a
r4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-3-3.html) , Box 13.7 The
range of the difference 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,
archived from the original (http://www.ipcc.ch/
publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3
-3-3.html) on 10 December 2012, retrieved
17 July 2012 , in IPCC AR4 WG3 2007
76. King, D.; et al. (July 2011), "Copenhagen and
Cancun", International climate change
negotiations: Key lessons and next steps (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20120113033748/htt
p://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/upl
oads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Fi
nal.pdf) (PDF), Oxford, UK: Smith School of
Enterprise and the Environment, University of
Oxford, p. 12, archived from the original (http://
www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/upload
s/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.
pdf) (PDF) on 13 January 2012

77. Dessai 2001, p. 3

78. Baede, A.P.M. (ed.), "Annex II" (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20100501184723/http://www.ip
cc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/anne
xessglossary-j-p.html) , Glossary: Land use
and Land-use change, archived from the
original (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_
data/ar4/syr/en/annexessglossary-j-p.html)
on 1 May 2010, retrieved 28 May 2010, in IPCC
AR4 SYR 2007

79. 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

80. Dessai 2001, p. 9

81. Grubb 2003, p. 144
82. Liverman 2009, p. 290
83. "Part II: Selected Development Indicators" (htt
p://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTWDRS/Re
sources/477365-1327504426766/8389626-13
27510418796/Statistical-Annex.pdf) (PDF),
Table A1: Energy-related emissions: Indicator:
per capita (metric tons), in World Bank 2010,
p. 370

84. Dessai 2001, p. 4

85. G-77 2011
86. Grubb 2003, pp. 145–146
87. Liverman 2009, p. 291
88. Grubb 2003, p. 148
89. Grubb 2003, p. 151
90. Depledge 2000, p. 46
91. Depledge 2000, p. 44
92. Depledge 2000, p. 45
93. "AF - Adaptation Fund" (http://www.adaptation-
fund.org/) . www.adaptation-fund.org.

94. International Institute for Sustainable

Development, Sixth Conference of the Parties
to the UN Framework Convention on Climate
Change: Resumed Session (https://enb.iisd.or
g/climate/cop6bis/) , accessed 27 May 2020

95. "The Kyoto protocol – A brief summary" (http

s://web.archive.org/web/20090810105055/htt
p://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.ht
m) . European Commission. Archived from the
original (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/clim
at/kyoto.htm) on 10 August 2009. Retrieved
19 April 2007.

96. "Kyoto Protocol" (http://unfccc.int/kyoto_proto

col/background/items/3145.php) . UNFCCC.
14 May 2008. Retrieved 21 May 2009.
97. Maljean-Dubois, S. "Compliance with the Kyoto
Protocol on Climate Change" (https://web.arch
ive.org/web/20091110071921/http://www.iddr
i.org/Publications/Collections/Syntheses/Com
pliance-with-the-Kyoto-Protocol-on-Climate-Ch
ange) . Synthèse, n° 01, 2007. Institute for
Sustainable Development and International
Relations. Archived from the original (http://w
ww.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Synthes
es/Compliance-with-the-Kyoto-Protocol-on-Cli
mate-Change) on 10 November 2009.
Retrieved 11 July 2008.

98. Grubb 2003, p. 157

99. Victor, David G. The Collapse of the Kyoto
Protocol and the Struggle to Slow Global
Warming. Princeton, N.J., Princeton University
Press, 2004.
100. "An Introduction to the Kyoto Protocol
Compliance Mechanism" (http://unfccc.int/kyo
to_mechanisms/compliance/introduction/item
s/3024.php) . UNFCC. Retrieved 30 October
2006.

101. "The Kyoto Protocol full text (PDF)" (http://unfc

cc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf)
(PDF). UNFCC Homepage.

102. "European Union ratifies the Kyoto Protocol" (h

ttp://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.d
o?reference=IP/02/794&format=HTML&aged=
0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en) (Press
release). European Union. 31 May 2002.
Retrieved 13 February 2010.
103. West, Larry. "What is the Kyoto Protocol" (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20120302123655/htt
p://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/
i/kyotoprotocol.htm) . About.com (Part of
NYT). Archived from the original (http://environ
ment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprot
ocol.htm) on 2 March 2012. Retrieved 5 June
2012.

104. "Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification" (http://

unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratifi
cation/application/pdf/kp_ratification.pdf)
(PDF). United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. 14 January 2009.
Retrieved 6 May 2009.
105. "Congressional Research Service Reports #98-
349: Global Climate Change: Selected Legal
Questions About the Kyoto Protocol" (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20140506234653/http://w
ww.csa.com/discoveryguides/ern/01jul/98-34
9.php) . Archived from the original (http://ww
w.csa.com/discoveryguides/ern/01jul/98-349.
php) on 6 May 2014. Retrieved 22 April 2014.

106. Byrd-Hagel Resolution ("Byrd-Hagel Resolution

(S. Res. 98) Expressing the Sense of the
Senate Regarding Conditions for the U.S.
Signing the Global Climate Change Treaty" (htt
ps://web.archive.org/web/20100626110143/h
ttp://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.htm
l) . Archived from the original (http://www.nati
onalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html) on 26 June
2010. Retrieved 14 December 2014.)
107. "Clinton Hails Global Warming Pact" (http://ww
w.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1997/12/11/kyot
o/) . All Politics (CNN). 11 December 1997.
Retrieved 5 November 2006.

108. "ParlInfo - GRIEVANCE DEBATE: Environment:

Greenhouse Policy" (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.a
u/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=I
d:%22chamber/hansardr/2001-03-26/0103%2
2) . parlinfo.aph.gov.au. Retrieved 24 August
2020.

109. "Text of a Letter From The President" (https://g

eorgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/re
leases/2001/03/20010314.html) .
georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov.
Retrieved 24 August 2020.
110. Dessler, Andrew E. (2021). Introduction to
Modern Climate Change (https://books.googl
e.com/books?id=Ivw7EAAAQBAJ) .
Cambridge University Press. p. 234. ISBN 978-
1-108-84018-7.

111. Dessai 2001, pp. 5–6

112. "United Nations Treaty Collection" (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20181008095709/https://tr
eaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TR
EATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-a&chapter=27&lang=
en) . treaties.un.org. Archived from the original
(https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.asp
x?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-a&chapter=
27&lang=en) on 8 October 2018. Retrieved
27 December 2014.
113. Weiner, John Barlow; Bankobeza, Gilbert;
Block, Kitty; Fraenkel, Amy; Hobgood, Teresa;
Mattice, Alice; Wagner, David W. (2003).
"International Environmental Law" (https://ww
w.jstor.org/stable/40707857) . The
International Lawyer. 37 (2): 575–587.
ISSN 0020-7810 (https://www.worldcat.org/iss
n/0020-7810) . JSTOR 40707857 (https://ww
w.jstor.org/stable/40707857) .

114. Dessai 2001, pp. 5–10

115. "Canada pulls out of Kyoto protocol" (https://w
ww.theguardian.com/environment/2011/dec/
13/canada-pulls-out-kyoto-protocol) . The
Guardian. 13 December 2011. Retrieved
13 December 2011.
116. "Canada withdrawing from Kyoto" (https://ww
w.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/1
100802--canada-withdrawing-from-kyoto?bn=1
#article) . The Toronto Star. 12 December
2011. Retrieved 12 December 2011.

117. Ljunggren, David; Palmer, Randall (13

December 2011). "Canada to pull out of Kyoto
protocol" (http://business.financialpost.com/2
011/12/13/canada-to-pull-out-of-kyoto-protoc
ol/) . Financial Post. Reuters. Retrieved
9 January 2012.

118. "Canada under fire over Kyoto protocol exit" (ht

tps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-1
6165033) . BBC News. 13 December 2011.
119. "Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change" (ht
tps://web.archive.org/web/20140203014400/
http://www.minbuza.nl/en/key-topics/treaties/
search-the-treaty-database/1997/12/008415.h
tml) . Ministry of Foreign Affairs
(Netherlands). Archived from the original (htt
p://www.minbuza.nl/en/key-topics/treaties/se
arch-the-treaty-database/1997/12/008415.ht
ml) on 3 February 2014. Retrieved
30 December 2012.

120. United Nations Framework Convention on

Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011),
Compilation and synthesis of fifth national
communications. Executive summary. Note by
the secretariat. (http://unfccc.int/resource/doc
s/2011/sbi/eng/inf01.pdf) (PDF), Geneva
(Switzerland): United Nations Office at Geneva
121. Olivier, J. G. J.; et al. (21 September 2011),
Long-term trend in global CO2 emissions; 2011
report (https://web.archive.org/web/20111221
123511/http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/c
ms/publicaties/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef
_19sept.pdf) (PDF), The Hague, Netherlands:
PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency; Institute for Environment and
Sustainability (IES) of the European
Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC),
ISBN 978-90-78645-68-9, archived from the
original (http://www.pbl.nl/sites/default/files/c
ms/publicaties/C02%20Mondiaal_%20webdef
_19sept.pdf) (PDF) on 21 December 2011,
retrieved 9 December 2011 PBL publication
number 500253004. JRC Technical Note
number JRC65918.
122. "Doha amendment to the Kyoto Protocol" (http
s://unfccc.int/files/kyoto_protocol/applicatio
n/pdf/kp_doha_amendment_english.pdf)
(PDF). United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change. 2012. Retrieved
13 December 2019.

123. Vaughan, A (13 December 2011). "What does

Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto protocol
mean?" (https://www.theguardian.com/environ
ment/2011/dec/13/canada-withdrawal-kyoto-
protocol?intcmp=239) . The Guardian.
Retrieved 17 December 2011.
124. International Energy Agency (IEA) (2011), CO2
Emissions from Fuel Combustion 2011 -
Highlights (https://web.archive.org/web/2012
0202035728/http://www.iea.org/co2highlight
s/co2highlights.pdf) (PDF), Paris, France: IEA,
p. 13, archived from the original (http://www.ie
a.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf) (PDF)
on 2 February 2012, retrieved 9 December
2011
125. PBL (16 October 2009). "Industrialised
countries will collectively meet 2010 Kyoto
target" (https://web.archive.org/web/2010040
9000327/http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/COP1
3Bali/moreinfo/Industrialised-countries-will-co
llectively-meet-2010-Kyoto-target.html) .
Netherlands Environmental Assessment
Agency (PBL) website. Archived from the
original (http://www.pbl.nl/en/dossiers/COP13
Bali/moreinfo/Industrialised-countries-will-coll
ectively-meet-2010-Kyoto-target.html) on 9
April 2010. Retrieved 3 April 2010.
126. Barker, T.; et al. (2007). "Mitigation costs
across sectors and macro-economic costs". In
Metz, B.; Davidson, O. R.; Bosch, P. R.; Dave, R.;
Meyer, L. A. (eds.). Technical summary (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20101220020450/htt
p://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/e
n/tssts-ts-11-2-mitigation-costs.html) .
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, United Kingdom
and New York, US. This version: IPCC website.
ISBN 978-0-521-88011-4. Archived from the
original (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_
data/ar4/wg3/en/tssts-ts-11-2-mitigation-cost
s.html) on 20 December 2010. Retrieved
16 April 2011.
127. Gupta, S.; et al., "Chapter 13: Policies,
instruments, and co-operative arrangements"
(https://web.archive.org/web/2012051512390
0/http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/a
r4/wg3/en/ch13s13-es.html) , Executive
Summary, archived from the original (http://w
ww.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/e
n/ch13s13-es.html) on 15 May 2012,
retrieved 31 August 2012 , in IPCC AR4 WG3
2007

128. International Energy Agency (IEA). CO2

Emissions from Fuel Combustion - 2011
Highlights (https://web.archive.org/web/2012
0202035728/http://www.iea.org/co2highlight
s/co2highlights.pdf) (PDF). Paris, France: IEA.
p. 12. Archived from the original (http://www.ie
a.org/co2highlights/CO2highlights.pdf) (PDF)
on 2 February 2012. Retrieved 31 August 2012.
129. 5. Integrating development into a global
climate regime (http://siteresources.worldban
k.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-13275044
26766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.p
df) (PDF), in World Bank 2010, p. 233

130. 5. Integrating development into a global

climate regime (http://siteresources.worldban
k.org/INTWDRS/Resources/477365-13275044
26766/8389626-1327510418796/Chapter-5.p
df) (PDF), in World Bank 2010, p. 248
131. Johansen, Bruce E. (1 January 2003).
Indigenous peoples and environmental issues:
an encyclopedia (https://archive.org/details/in
digenouspeople0000joha/page/115) .
Greenwood Press. pp. 115–116 (https://archiv
e.org/details/indigenouspeople0000joha/pag
e/115) . ISBN 9780313323980.
OCLC 51559162 (https://www.worldcat.org/oc
lc/51559162) .
132. Aldy, J. E.; et al. (9 September 2003). "Thirteen
Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate
Policy Architectures" (https://web.archive.org/
web/20111027163217/http://belfercenter.ksg.
harvard.edu/publication/17261/thirteen_plus_
one.html) . Climate Policy. 3 (4): 373–397.
Bibcode:2003CliPo...3..373A (https://ui.adsab
s.harvard.edu/abs/2003CliPo...3..373A) .
doi:10.1016/j.clipol.2003.09.004 (https://doi.or
g/10.1016%2Fj.clipol.2003.09.004) .
hdl:10419/118092 (https://hdl.handle.net/104
19%2F118092) . S2CID 219598167 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:219598167) .
Archived from the original (http://belfercenter.
ksg.harvard.edu/publication/17261/thirteen_pl
us_one.html) on 27 October 2011. Retrieved
2 April 2010.
133. 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 Natural Scientists
Leopoldina, the Indian National Science
Academy, the Indonesian Academy of
Sciences, the Royal Irish Academy, Accademia
Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), the Academy of
Sciences Malaysia, the Academy Council of
the Royal Society of New Zealand, the Royal
Swedish Academy of Sciences, and the Royal
Society (UK). The Science of Climate Change
(Joint statement by 17 National Science
Academies) (http://royalsociety.org/uploadedF
iles/Royal_Society_Content/policy/publication
s/2001/10029.pdf) (PDF), London, UK: Royal
Society, 17 May 2001, ISBN 978-0854035588.
Statement website (http://royalsociety.org/poli
cy/publications/2001/science-climate-chang
e/) at the UK Royal Society. Also published as:
Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for
Sciences the Arts; Royal Society of Canada;
German Academy of Natural Scientists
Leopoldina; Indian National Science Academy;
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy);
Academy Council of the Royal Society of New
Zealand; Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences;
Royal Society (UK) (18 May 2001), "Joint
statement: The Science of Climate Change
(editorial)", Science, 292 (5520): 1261,
doi:10.1126/science.292.5520.1261 (https://d
oi.org/10.1126%2Fscience.292.5520.1261) ,
 PMID 11360966 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.
gov/11360966) , S2CID 129309907 (https://ap
i.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:129309907)

134. Grubb, M. (April 2000). "The Kyoto Protocol: An

Economic Appraisal. FEEM Working Paper No.
30 2000". SSRN. doi:10.2139/ssrn.229280 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.2139%2Fssrn.229280) .
hdl:10419/155084 (https://hdl.handle.net/104
19%2F155084) . S2CID 54779393 (https://api.
semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:54779393) .
SSRN 229280 (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/p
apers.cfm?abstract_id=229280) .
135. 22. Creating a global price for carbon (https://
web.archive.org/web/20120818155729/http://
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_22_Creati
ng_a_Global_Price_for_Carbon.pdf) (PDF),
archived from the original (http://www.hm-trea
sury.gov.uk/d/Chapter_22_Creating_a_Global_
Price_for_Carbon.pdf) (PDF) on 18 August
2012, in Stern 2006, p. 478

136. "Govt still not serious about climate change:

Labor" (https://web.archive.org/web/2007101
1163324/http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/2
00610/s1772952.htm) . ABC News Online. 26
October 2006. Archived from the original (htt
p://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s177
2952.htm) on 11 October 2007. Retrieved
30 October 2006.
137. "Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto" (http://new
s.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7124236.s
tm) . BBC News. 3 December 2007. Retrieved
5 December 2007.

138. "Australia's Rudd sworn in as PM" (http://news.

bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7124236.stm) .
BBC News. BBC. 3 December 2007. Retrieved
3 December 2007.
139. Toth et al. summarize the arguments for and
against flexibility: Toth, F. L.; et al., "Ch 10:
Decision-making Frameworks" (https://web.arc
hive.org/web/20120117032405/http://www.gri
da.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.htm) , Sec
10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take
Place? The Relationship between Domestic
Mitigation and the Use of International
Mechanisms, archived from the original (htt
p://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/441.ht
m) on 17 January 2012, in IPCC TAR WG3
2001
140. Banuri, T.; et al., "Ch 1: Setting the Stage:
Climate Change and Sustainable
Development" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0121030113019/http://www.grida.no/climate/
ipcc_tar/wg3/059.htm) , Sec 1.3.3 How Has
Global Climate Policy Treated Equity?, archived
from the original (http://www.grida.no/climat
e/ipcc_tar/wg3/059.htm) on 30 October
2012, in IPCC TAR WG3 2001

141. Part III: How good (or bad) are the

Mechanisms?, in Carbon Trust 2009, pp. 53–
79
142. Schneider, L. (5 November 2007), "Ch 5: Overall
conclusions" (https://archive.today/20130415
150840/http://www.panda.org/what_we_do/fo
otprint/climate_carbon_energy/energy_solutio
ns/resources/?118000/An-evaluation-of-the-C
DM-and-options-for-improvement) , 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,
Berlin, Germany: Institute for Applied Ecology,
pp. 72–73, archived from the original (http://w
ww.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_
carbon_energy/energy_solutions/resources/?1
18000/An-evaluation-of-the-CDM-and-options-f
or-improvement) on 15 April 2013

143. Spash 2010

144. United Nations Department of Economic and
Social Affairs (2009), "VI. Financing the
development response to climate change" (htt
ps://www.un.org/esa/policy/wess/wess2009fi
les/wess09/wess2009.pdf) (PDF), World
Economic and Social Survey 2009: Promoting
Development, Saving the Planet, New York,
USA: United Nations, p. 162, ISBN 978-92-1-
109159-5

145. Spash 2010, p. 185

146. "A Summary of the Kyoto Protocol" (http://unfc
cc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/287
9.php) . United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change. Retrieved
3 March 2017.
147. Geoffrey Wells; Janet Ratnanunga (1 January
2013). "5 - Carbon accounting and carbon
auditing for business" (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=V9K5XphOdukC&pg=PA89) .
Sustainable Business: Theory and Practice of
Business Under Sustainability Principles.
Edward Elgar Publishing. p. 89.
ISBN 9781781001868. OCLC 1027999644 (htt
ps://www.worldcat.org/oclc/1027999644) .

148. Pagano, Michael A. (30 August 2016).

Remaking the Urban Social Contract: Health,
Energy, and the Environment (https://books.go
ogle.com/books?id=OFcdDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT9
3) . University of Illinois Press.
ISBN 9780252099137.
149. Stoddard, Isak; Anderson, Kevin; Capstick,
Stuart; Carton, Wim; Depledge, Joanna; Facer,
Keri; Gough, Clair; Hache, Frederic; Hoolohan,
Claire; Hultman, Martin; Hällström, Niclas;
Kartha, Sivan; Klinsky, Sonja; Kuchler,
Magdalena; Lövbrand, Eva; Nasiritousi,
Naghmeh; Newell, Peter; Peters, Glen P.;
Sokona, Youba; Stirling, Andy; Stilwell,
Matthew; Spash, Clive L.; Williams, Mariama;
et al. (18 October 2021). "Three Decades of
Climate Mitigation: Why Haven't We Bent the
Global Emissions Curve?" (https://doi.org/10.1
146/annurev-environ-012220-011104) .
Annual Review of Environment and Resources.
46 (1): 653–689. doi:10.1146/annurev-environ-
012220-011104 (https://doi.org/10.1146%2Fa
nnurev-environ-012220-011104) .
hdl:1983/93c742bc-4895-42ac-be81-
 535f36c5039d (https://hdl.handle.net/1983%2
F93c742bc-4895-42ac-be81-535f36c5039d) .
ISSN 1543-5938 (https://www.worldcat.org/iss
n/1543-5938) . S2CID 233815004 (https://api.
semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:233815004) .
Retrieved 31 August 2022.

150. "21st Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC

and 11th meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto
Protocol (COP 21/CMP 11) |
PreventionWeb.net" (https://www.preventionw
eb.net/events/view/30512?id=30512) .
www.preventionweb.net. Retrieved 28 July
2020.

151. "Politicians sign new climate pact" (http://new

s.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6364663.stm) .
BBC. 16 February 2007. Retrieved 28 May
2007.
152. "Global leaders reach climate change
agreement" (http://environment.guardian.co.u
k/climatechange/story/0,,2014683,00.html) .
The Guardian. UK. 16 February 2007. Retrieved
28 May 2007.

153. Adam, David (25 March 2009). "Why the

Copenhagen climate change cliffhanger could
drag on a little longer" (https://www.theguardia
n.com/environment/2009/mar/25/copenhage
n-climate-change-summit) . The Guardian.
Retrieved 14 April 2009.
154. Adam, David (14 April 2009). "World will not
meet 2C warming target, climate change
experts agree" (https://www.theguardian.com/
environment/2009/apr/14/global-warming-tar
get-2c) . 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. Officials
will try to agree a successor to the Kyoto
protocol, the first phase of which expires in
2012."
155. King, D.; et al. (July 2011), "Copenhagen and
Cancun", International climate change
negotiations: Key lessons and next steps (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20120113033748/htt
p://www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/upl
oads/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Fi
nal.pdf) (PDF), Oxford, UK: Smith School of
Enterprise and the Environment, University of
Oxford, p. 12, archived from the original (http://
www.smithschool.ox.ac.uk/wp-content/upload
s/2011/03/Climate-Negotiations-report_Final.
pdf) (PDF) on 13 January 2012
156. United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP) (November 2012), The Emissions Gap
Report 2012 (http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160
513232928/http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gap
report.pdf) (PDF), Nairobi, Kenya: UNEP,
pp. 14–18, archived from the original (http://w
ww.unep.org/pdf/2012gapreport.pdf) (PDF)
on 13 May 2016, retrieved 10 December 2012
Executive summary in other languages (http://
www.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emission
sgap2012/) Archived (http://arquivo.pt/wayba
ck/20160513232948/http://www.unep.org/pu
blications/ebooks/emissionsgap2012/) 13
May 2016 at the Portuguese Web Archive
157. Murray, James (16 May 2012). "Bonn climate
talks: EU plays down talk of Kyoto protocol rift"
(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2
012/may/16/bonn-climate-talks-eu-kyoto) .
The Guardian. Retrieved 21 November 2012. "A
number of large emitters, including the US,
Japan, Russia, and Canada, have signalled
they will not sign up to Kyoto or to a second
commitment period of Kyoto, while large
emerging economies will only sign up to an
agreement that does not impose binding
emission reduction targets on them."

158. Harvey, Fiona (9 November 2012). "Kyoto

protocol: Australia signs up to second phase"
(https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2
012/nov/09/australia-kyoto-protocol-second-p
hase) . The Guardian. Retrieved 21 November
2012.
159. "Groser defends quitting Kyoto Protocol" (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20140701131342/htt
p://www.3news.co.nz/Groser-NZ-ahead-of-the-
curve-in-quitting-Kyoto-Protocol/tabid/1160/ar
ticleID/278937/Default.aspx) . 3 News NZ. 3
December 2012. Archived from the original (ht
tp://www.3news.co.nz/Groser-NZ-ahead-of-the
-curve-in-quitting-Kyoto-Protocol/tabid/1160/a
rticleID/278937/Default.aspx) on 1 July 2014.
Retrieved 7 December 2018.
160. "NZ's climate reputation 'nosedive' " (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20140701140314/http://w
ww.3news.co.nz/NZs-environmental-reputatio
n-nosedive/tabid/1160/articleID/279779/Defa
ult.aspx) . 3 News NZ. 10 December 2012.
Archived from the original (http://www.3news.
co.nz/NZs-environmental-reputation-nosedive/
tabid/1160/articleID/279779/Default.aspx)
on 1 July 2014. Retrieved 7 December 2018.

161. "UN climate talks extend Kyoto Protocol,

promise compensation" (https://www.bbc.co.u
k/news/science-environment-20653018) .
BBC News. 8 December 2012.
162. UN Climate Change Secretariat (8 December
2012), Doha climate conference opens
gateway to greater ambition and action on
climate change (press release) (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20130330051943/http://unfcc
c.int/files/press/news_room/press_releases_a
nd_advisories/application/pdf/121208_final_pr
_cop18_cf.pdf) (PDF), Bonn, Germany: UN
Climate Change Secretariat, archived from the
original (http://unfccc.int/files/press/news_ro
om/press_releases_and_advisories/applicatio
n/pdf/121208_final_pr_cop18_cf.pdf) (PDF)
on 30 March 2013, p.2.

163. "Event: 69th Session of the UN General

Assembly (UNGA 69) | SDG Knowledge Hub" (h
ttp://sd.iisd.org/events/69th-session-of-the-un-
general-assembly-unga-69) . Sd.iisd.org.
References
Carbon Trust (March 2009), Global Carbon
Mechanisms: Emerging lessons and implications
(CTC748) (https://web.archive.org/web/201305
04022256/http://www.carbontrust.com/resourc
es/reports/advice/global-carbon-mechanisms) ,
Carbon Trust, archived from the original (http://
www.carbontrust.com/resources/reports/advic
e/global-carbon-mechanisms) on 4 May 2013,
retrieved 24 July 2012
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 (http://unfccc.int/resource/doc
s/tp/tp0200.pdf) (PDF), United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change
Dessai, S. (December 2001), Tyndall Centre
Working Paper 12: The climate regime from The
Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto
Protocol? (https://web.archive.org/web/201210
31094826/http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/content/cli
mate-regime-hague-marrakech-saving-or-sinkin
g-kyoto-protocol) , Norwich, UK: Tyndall Centre,
archived from the original (http://www.tyndall.a
c.uk/content/climate-regime-hague-marrakech-
saving-or-sinking-kyoto-protocol) on 31
October 2012
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)" (http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/
ghg-trends-and-projections-2012/at_download/f
ile) , European Bathing Water Quality,
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the
European Union, doi:10.2800/56770 (https://doi.
org/10.2800%2F56770) , ISBN 978-92-9213-
331-3, ISSN 1725-9177 (https://www.worldcat.o
rg/issn/1725-9177) . Report No 6/2012. Report
website (https://web.archive.org/web/2012102
8074757/http://www.eea.europa.eu/pressroo
m/publications/ghg-trends-and-projections-201
2/) .
G-77 (22 November 2011), The Group of 77 -
Member States (https://web.archive.org/web/20
121102220933/http://www.g77.org/doc/memb
ers.html) , The Group of 77, archived from the
original (http://g77.org/doc/members.html) on
2 November 2012, retrieved 22 October 2012
Grubb, M. (July–September 2003), "The
Economics of the Kyoto Protocol", World
Economics, 4 (3), CiteSeerX 10.1.1.163.1719 (htt
ps://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?d
oi=10.1.1.163.1719)
Grubb, M.; Depledge, J. (2001), "The Seven
Myths of Kyoto" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0111203132721/http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rs
taff/grubb/publications/JR09.pdf) (PDF),
Climate Policy, 1 (2): 269–272,
doi:10.3763/cpol.2001.0126 (https://doi.org/10.
3763%2Fcpol.2001.0126) , S2CID 219597384 (h
ttps://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:21959
7384) , archived from the original (http://www.e
con.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/JR09.
pdf) (PDF) on 3 December 2011
IEA (2011), CO2 Emissions From Fuel
Combustion: Highlights (2011 edition) (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20120202035728/http://w
ww.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf)
(PDF), Paris, France: International Energy
Agency (IEA), archived from the original (http://
www.iea.org/co2highlights/CO2highlights.pdf)
(PDF) on 2 February 2012, retrieved 31 August
2012
IEA (2012), CO2 Emissions From Fuel
Combustion: Highlights (2012 edition) (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20130309141127/http://w
ww.iea.org/publications/freepublications/public
ation/CO2emissionfromfuelcombustionHIGHLI
GHTS.pdf) (PDF), Paris, France: International
Energy Agency (IEA), archived from the original
(http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublicatio
ns/publication/CO2emissionfromfuelcombustio
nHIGHLIGHTS.pdf) (PDF) on 9 March 2013,
retrieved 7 March 2013. Report website. (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20140909144427/htt
p://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/p
ublication/name,32870,en.html) Data as an
Excel spreadsheet. (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20170909043633/http://www.iea.org/media/f
reepublications/2012/CO2Highlights2012.xls)
IPCC TAR WG3 (2001), Metz, B.; Davidson, O.;
Swart, R.; Pan, J.; et al. (eds.), Climate Change
2001: Mitigation (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0170227094845/http://www.grida.no/publicatio
ns/other/ipcc_tar/?src=%2Fclimate%2Fipcc_ta
r%2Fwg3%2Findex.htm) , Contribution of
Working Group III to the Third Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change, Cambridge University Press,
ISBN 978-0-521-80769-2, archived from the
original (http://www.grida.no/publications/othe
r/ipcc%5Ftar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/index.
htm) on 27 February 2017 (pb: 0-521-01502-2).
IPCC TAR SYR (2001), Watson, R. T.; Core
Writing Team (eds.), Climate Change 2001:
Synthesis Report (SYR) (https://web.archive.org/
web/20181103153646/http://www.ipcc.ch/ipcc
reports/tar/vol4/english/index.htm) ,
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 978-0-
521-80770-8, archived from the original (http://
www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/vol4/english/inde
x.htm) on 3 November 2018, retrieved 17 July
2012 (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 (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20141012170817/htt
p://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg
3/en/contents.html) , 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, archived from
the original (http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_an
d_data/ar4/wg3/en/contents.html) on 12
October 2014, retrieved 17 July 2012 (pb: 978-0-
521-70598-1).
IPCC AR4 SYR (2007), Core Writing Team;
Pachauri, R.K.; Reisinger, A. (eds.), Climate
Change 2007: Synthesis Report (SYR) (http://ww
w.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/co
ntents.html) , 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 978-92-9169-122-7.
Liverman, D.M. (2009), "Conventions of climate
change: constructions of danger and the
dispossession of the atmosphere" (https://web.
archive.org/web/20140912161138/http://www.
environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liver
man/liverman-2009-jhg.pdf) (PDF), Journal of
Historical Geography, 35 (2): 279–296,
doi:10.1016/j.jhg.2008.08.008 (https://doi.org/1
0.1016%2Fj.jhg.2008.08.008) , archived from
the original (http://www.environment.arizona.ed
u/files/env/profiles/liverman/liverman-2009-jhg.
pdf) (PDF) on 12 September 2014
Spash, C.L. (2010), "The Brave New World of
Carbon Trading" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0130510185658/http://clivespash.org/2010_Sp
ash_Brave_New_World_NPE.pdf) (PDF), New
Political Economy, 15 (2): 169–195,
doi:10.1080/13563460903556049 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1080%2F13563460903556049) ,
S2CID 44071002 (https://api.semanticscholar.or
g/CorpusID:44071002) , archived from the
original (http://clivespash.org/2010_Spash_Brav
e_New_World_NPE.pdf) (PDF) on 10 May 2013
Stern, N. (2006), Stern Review Report on the
Economics of Climate Change (pre-publication
edition) (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.
uk/20100407172811/http://www.hm-treasury.g
ov.uk/stern_review_report.htm) , London, UK:
HM Treasury, archived from the original (http://
www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/stern_review_report.ht
m) on 7 April 2010
United Nations (9 May 1992), United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (http
s://web.archive.org/web/20050404103328/htt
p://unfccc.int/not_assigned/b/items/1417.ph
p) , New York, archived from the original (http://
unfccc.int/not_assigned/b/items/1417.php) on
4 April 2005
United Nations (1998), Kyoto Protocol to the
United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (http://unfccc.int/essential_bac
kground/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php) . Also
available (http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/item
s/2830.php) in Arabic, Chinese, Spanish,
French and Russian.
UNEP (November 2012), The Emissions Gap
Report 2012 (http://arquivo.pt/wayback/201605
13232928/http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapre
port.pdf) (PDF), Nairobi, Kenya: United Nations
Environment Programme (UNEP), archived from
the original (http://www.unep.org/pdf/2012gapr
eport.pdf) (PDF) on 13 May 2016, retrieved
10 December 2012 Executive summary in other
languages (http://www.unep.org/publications/e
books/emissionsgap2012/) Archived (http://ar
quivo.pt/wayback/20160513232948/http://ww
w.unep.org/publications/ebooks/emissionsgap
2012/) 13 May 2016 at the Portuguese Web
Archive
UNFCCC (6 June 1995),
FCCC/CP/1995/7/Add.1: Report of the
Conference of the Parties on its first session, held
at Berlin from 28 March to 7 April 1995.
Addendum. Part two: Action taken by the
Conference of the Parties at its first session (htt
p://maindb.unfccc.int/library/view_pdf.pl?url=htt
p://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop1/07a01.pdf)
(PDF), Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations
Office. Available as a PDF (http://unfccc.int/doc
umentation/documents/advanced_search/item
s/6911.php?priref=600000318) in the official
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 (ht
tp://unfccc.int/documentation/documents/adva
nced_search/items/3594.php?rec=j&priref=600
003578#beg) , Geneva, Switzerland: United
Nations Office
UNFCCC (2011), Compilation and synthesis of
fifth national communications. Executive
summary. Note by the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
secretariat (http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/201
1/sbi/eng/inf01.pdf) (PDF), Geneva,
Switzerland: United Nations Office
UNFCCC (28 March 2012), Annex I national
communications (NC5) (http://unfccc.int/nation
al_reports/annex_i_natcom/submitted_natcom/
items/4903.php) , UNFCCC
UNFCCC (2 October 2012), Reports on in-depth
reviews of national communications of Annex I
Parties (http://unfccc.int/national_reports/anne
x_i_natcom/idr_reports/items/4056.php) ,
UNFCCC
UNFCCC (22 January 2013), Non-Annex I
national communications (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20140913171139/http://unfccc.int/natio
nal_reports/non-annex_i_natcom/items/2979.p
hp) , UNFCCC, archived from the original (http://
unfccc.int/national_reports/non-annex_i_natco
m/items/2979.php) on 13 September 2014
 World Bank (2010), World Development Report
2010: Development and Climate Change (http://w
ebarchive.loc.gov/all/20120309211226/http://g
o.worldbank.org/UVZ0HYFGG0) , Washington
DC, USA: The International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development / The World
Bank, archived from the original (http://go.world
bank.org/UVZ0HYFGG0) on 9 March 2012,
retrieved 10 April 2012

Further reading
Ekardt, F./von Hövel, A.: Distributive Justice,
Competitiveness, and Transnational Climate
Protection. In: Carbon & Climate Law
Review, Vol. 3., 2009, p. 102–114.
Katy Longden, Roshni Pabari, Munir
Hassan, and Dalia Majumder-Russel,
"Climate Change: Mitigation and
Adaptation (A Legal Guide) (https://web.ar
chive.org/web/20131029203938/http://a4i
d.org/sites/default/files/files/%5BA4ID%5
D%20Climate%20change%20Mitigation%2
0and%20Adaptation.pdf) ". Advocates for
International Development (June 2012)
Romain Morel, and Igor Shishlov, "Ex-post
evaluation of the Kyoto Protocol: Four key
lessons for the 2015 Paris Agreement (http
s://web.archive.org/web/2015041900280
6/http://www.cdcclimat.com/Climate-Repo
rt-no44-Ex-post-1704.html) ". CDC Climat
Research (May 2014)
Sebastian Oberthür, Hermann E. Ott:
International Climate Policy for the 21st
Century (https://link.springer.com/book/1
0.1007/978-3-662-03925-0) , 1999,
Springer.
Economics

Weyant, J. P., ed. (May 1999). "The Costs of

the Kyoto Protocol: A Multi-Model
Evaluation" (https://web.archive.org/web/2
0100709075041/http://emf.stanford.edu/p
ublications/the_costs_of_the_kyoto_protoc
ol_a_multimodel_evaluation/) . Energy
Journal (Special issue). Archived from the
original (http://emf.stanford.edu/publicatio
ns/the_costs_of_the_kyoto_protocol_a_mul
timodel_evaluation/) on 9 July 2010.
Retrieved 8 August 2009. From this issue:
Manne, A. S.; Richels, R. "The Kyoto
Protocol: A Cost-Effective Strategy for
Meeting Environmental Objectives?" (h
ttp://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/38/53/1
923159.pdf) (PDF). Retrieved
8 August 2009.
Nordhaus, W. D.; Boyer, J. G. "Requiem
for Kyoto: An Economic Analysis of
the Kyoto Protocol" (https://web.archiv
e.org/web/20001006234806/http://w
ww.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepa
ge/Kyoto.pdf) (PDF). Archived from
the original (http://www.econ.yale.ed
u/~nordhaus/homepage/Kyoto.pdf)
(PDF) on 6 October 2000. Retrieved
8 August 2009.
External links
Protocol text (HTML (htt Wikisource
has
p://unfccc.int/resource/d
original
ocs/convkp/kpeng.html) text
related to
and PDF (http://unfccc.in
this article:
t/resource/docs/convkp/ Kyoto
Protocol
kpeng.pdf) ), 2007 (http://
treaties.un.org/doc/Public Wikimedia
Commons
ation/CTC/Ch_XXVII-7-b.p has media
df) and 2012 amendment related to
Kyoto
(http://treaties.un.org/do Protocol.
c/Publication/CTC/Ch_XX
VII-7-c.pdf)
List of countries who have ratified,
accepted, approved, or accessed the Kyoto
Protocol (https://treaties.un.org/Pages/Vie
wDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7
-a&chapter=27&clang=_en) , its first
amendment (https://treaties.un.org/Page
s/ViewDetails.aspx?src=IND&mtdsg_no=X
XVII-7-b&chapter=27&clang=_en) (Targets
for Belarus) and its second amendment (ht
tps://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.as
px?src=IND&mtdsg_no=XXVII-7-c&chapter
=27&clang=_en) (extension period 2012–
2020)
Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change
at Law-Ref.org (https://web.archive.org/we
b/20150313033837/http://www.zvon.org/l
aw/r/kyoto.html) – fully indexed and
crosslinked with other documents
The layman's guide to the Kyoto Protocol (h
ttps://mindprod.com/environment/kyoto.ht
ml)
Kyoto: On Target? – Google Docs (https://d
ocs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13n2a4d-
k-qyiBM9ajPo5ugXxOkQWLdEPygRVLdkko
I0/edit?hl=en%3Cbr+%3E%3C/a%3E&hl=e
n%3Cbr+%3E%3C/a%3E#gid=0)
Introductory note by Laurence Boisson de
Chazournes, procedural history note and
audiovisual material (http://legal.un.org/av
l/ha/kpccc/kpccc.html) 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 (ht
tp://legal.un.org/avl/historicarchives.html)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?

title=Kyoto_Protocol&oldid=1180519260"

This page was last edited on 17 October 2023, at

04:06 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless
otherwise noted.