Transcript Kyoto Protocol Pt III

Kyoto Protocol to the United
Nations Framework
Convention on Climate
Change
Peter E. Farrell
Honors Seminar: Energy, Society &
Climate Change
Advanced Presentation
A Brief History of the Events
Leading to the Kyoto Protocol
 COP 1, in March of
1995, saw the passage
of the Berlin Mandate,
which called for new
negotiations on more
detailed commitments
for industrialized
countries under the
UNFCCC.
 On December 11,
1997 the Kyoto
Protocol was officially
adopted at COP 3 in
Kyoto Japan.
 In 1998 a new round
of negotiations on
Kyoto were launched
at COP 4 in Buenos
Aires.
History (cont.)
 Negotiations on the
rules of implementing
the Kyoto Protocol
resumed during COP 6
in Bonn, Germany,
July 2001.
 Building on the Bonn
Agreements
negotiators at COP 7
(Marrakech, Morocco,
October 2001) adopted
a comprehensive
package of decisions
known as the
Marrakech Accords.
What is the Kyoto Protocol?
 In general, a protocol is an international agreement
that stands on its own but is linked to an existing
treaty.
 More specifically, the Kyoto Protocol can be seen
as an agreement, which supplements and
strengthens the Framework Convention. Indeed,
the Kyoto Protocol reaffirms the concerns and
principles set out in the Convention and then
builds on these by adding tougher, more specific
commitments.
What is the Kyoto Protocol: 4
Main Elements
 The Kyoto Protocol and its rulebook, set out
in the Marrakech Accords, consist of five
main elements:
 1. Commitments
A. Specific emissions commitments
B. General commitments
 2. Implementation
A. Domestic policies and measures
B. Land use, land-use change and forestry sector
C. Joint implementation
D. Clean development mechanism
E. Emissions trading
What is the Kyoto Protocol: 4
Main Elements
 3. Compliance
A. Facilitative Branch
B. Enforcement Branch
 4. Minimizing impacts on developing countries
A. Adaptation Fund
Commitments: General
 All Parties to the Protocol are subject to a set of
general commitments that mirror those of the
Framework Convention.
 These include:
 Taking steps to improve the quality of emissions
data.
 Promoting environmentally-friendly technology
transfer.
 Supporting climate change education, training and
public awareness.
 Cooperating on international climate observation.
1. Commitments: Specific
 At the real heart of the Kyoto Protocol lies
its set of legally-binding emissions targets
for industrialized countries. These
emissions targets amount to a total cut,
among all Annex I Parties, of at least 5%
from 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
Commitments: Specific
 The collective 5% reduction is shared out so
that each Annex I Party has its own
individual emissions target.
 However, all individual emissions targets
must be achieved by the same commitment
period of 2008-2012.
 *All individual targets are listed in Annex B
of the Protocol.
1. Commitments: Annex B
Country
EU-15
US**
Canada
Japan
Russian Federation
Norway
Australia
Iceland
Target – 1990*
-8%
-7%
-6%
-6%
0
+1%
+8%
+10%
*Some EITs have baseline year other than 1990.
Commitments: 6 Main GHGs
 The Protocol’s emissions targets cover the
six main greenhouse gases:
 1. Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
 2. Methane (CH4)
 3. Nitrous Oxide (N20)
 4. Hydroflourocarbons (HFCs)
 5. Perfluorocarbons (PFCs) &
 6. Sulphur hexaflouride (SF6)
Commitments: GWPs
 Global warming potential (GWPs), as
defined by the IPCC, are “a measure of the
relative effect of a substance in warming the
atmosphere over a given time period
compared against a value of one for carbon
dioxide”.1
Commitments: GWPs Chart
Commitments: Specific
 If a Party achieves more substantial cuts in its
emissions than is required by its target it may
carry over the difference to the next commitment
period
 In addition, Parties may offset their emissions by
increasing the amount of greenhouse gases
removed from the atmosphere by carbon sinks in
the Land-Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry
sector (LULUCF).
Commitments: Conclusion
 Ultimately, the Kyoto Protocol’s targets
may appear relatively modest. However,
given the fact that the emissions of many
industrialized countries – except for EITs –
have continued to rise since 1990 the task of
achieving the Protocol’s collective 5%
reduction target becomes much more
difficult than it sounds.
Commitments: United States
Implementation: Policies and
Measures
 To achieve the Protocol’s targets, Annex I Parties
will need to implement domestic climate change
policies and measures.
 Possible policies/measures include:
 1. Enhancing energy efficiency
 2. Protecting/enhancing GHG sinks
 3. Promoting sustainable agriculture
 4. Promoting renewable energy and
environmentally friendly technologies
 5. Tackling transport sector emissions
Implementation: LULUCF Sector
 The LULUCF sector can provide national
governments with relatively low cost
opportunities to combat climate change,
either by:
 1. Increasing the removal of greenhouse
gases from the atmosphere through carbon
sinks, or by
 2. Reducing emissions from the LULUCF
sector itself.
Implementation: Mechanisms
 The Kyoto Protocol broke new ground with its
three innovative mechanisms: joint
implementation, the clean development
mechanism (CDM) and emissions trading.
 All three mechanisms aim to “maximize the costeffectiveness of climate change mitigation by
allowing Parties to pursue opportunities to cut
emissions, or enhance carbon sinks, more cheaply
abroad than at home”.2
Implementation: Mechanisms
 All three mechanisms operate on the basis
of accounting units.
 Joint implementation projects result in
emission reduction units (ERUs)
 CDM projects generate certified emission
reductions (CERs) and,
 Under emissions trading, Annex I Parties
may exchange assigned amount units
(AAUs).
Implementation: Mechanisms:
Joint Implementation
 Joint implementation (JI) allows Annex I
Parties to implement projects that reduce
emissions, or increase removals by sinks, in
the territories of other Annex I Parties.
 ERUs generated by JI projects can then be
used by the investing Annex I Parties to
help meet their own emissions targets.
Implementation: Mechanisms:
Clean Development Mechanism
 The CDM allows Annex I Parties to implement
projects that reduce emissions in territories of nonAnnex I Parties.
 Like ERUs, CERs generated by CDM projects can
also be used by Annex I Parties to help meet their
emissions targets.
 Furthermore, CDM projects also help the nonAnnex I host Parties to achieve sustainable
development as well as contribute to the
fulfillment of the ultimate objective of the
Framework Convention.
Implementation: Mechanisms:
Clean Development Mechanism
 Finally, the CERs generated by CDM
projects will be subject to a levy, termed the
“share of the proceeds”. More specifically,
two percent of the CERs of each project
will be paid into a newly created Adaptation
Fund.
 The fund will help particularly vulnerable
developing countries adapt to the adverse
effects of climate change
Implementation: Mechanisms:
Emissions Trading
 Through emissions trading, Annex I Parties may
acquire assigned amount units (AAUs) from other
Annex I Parties that find it easier to meet their
emissions targets.
 An assigned amount refers to the “total emissions
that an Annex I Party may emit over the
commitment period and still meet its emissions
target”.3
 Every Party has its own individual assigned
amount based on their 1990 emissions levels in
relation to their respective targets under Annex B.
Implementation: Mechanisms:
Emissions Trading
 In addition, the emissions trading
mechanism allows Annex I Parties to
acquire CERs (from CDM projects), ERUs
(from JI projects), or RMUs (from sink
activities) from other Annex I Parties.
Implementation: Mechanisms:
Emissions Trading
 This minimum level is known as the
commitment period reserve and cannot be
traded.
 This level is calculated as “90% of the
Party’s assigned amount, or as the amount
of emissions reported in the Party’s most
recent emission inventory (multiplied by 5,
for the 5 years of the commitment period),
whichever is the lower figure”.3
Compliance:
 The compliance regime for the Kyoto
Protocol consists of a Compliance
Committee made up of two branches: a
facilitative branch and an enforcement
branch.
Compliance: Facilitative Branch
 The facilitative branch aims to “provide advice
and assistance to Parties in order to promote
compliance”.4
 The facilitative branch provides “early-warning”
of cases cases where a Party is in danger of noncompliance with its emission targets.
 Furthermore, the facilitative branch can mobilize
financial and technical resources to help Parties
comply.
Compliance: Enforcement
Branch
 The enforcement branch has the power to
apply certain consequences on Parties not
meeting their commitments.
 In cases of non-compliance with emission
targets, Annex I Parties are granted 100
days after the current commitment period to
make up any shortfall in compliance (e.g.
by acquiring AAUs, CERs, ERUs, etc.).
Minimizing the impacts on
developing countries:
 The Protocol commits Annex I Parties to
strive to implement their emissions targets
through policies that will minimize adverse
impacts on developing countries.
 Furthermore, the Marrakech Accords
require Annex I Parties to report (on an
annual basis) on the actions they are taking
to meet this commitment.
Minimizing the impacts on
developing countries:
 Lastly, the aforementioned Adaptation Fund
is to funded not only by the adaptation levy
on CDM projects, but also by additional
contributions from Annex I Parties.
 The Adaptation Fund will finance concrete
adaptation projects and programs in
developing countries; especially least
developed countries (LCDs).
Kyoto Ratification
 Under Article 25 it states, “This Protocol
shall enter 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 percent of
the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990
of the Parties included in Annex I, have
deposited their instruments of ratification”.5
Kyoto Protocol Thermometer
Kyoto Protocol?
 Ratification by Russia (17.4% of emissions), as
well as Poland (3%) or Canada (3.3%) would
bring the Protocol into force.
 Both Russia and Poland have pledged to ratify the
Protocol.
 Poland said it would ratify the Protocol at the
World Summit on Sustainable Development in
Johannesburg (September 2002). However, that
date has since passed and Poland has still not
ratified the treaty.
U.S. Response to the Kyoto
Protocol
 The U.S. is the world’s single-largest source of
CO2 emissions, accounting for 36% in 1990.
 As such, U.S. ratification would clearly push the
Kyoto thermometer above the 55% threshold and
thus, bring the Protocol into force.
 However, in March of 2001 President George W.
Bush steadfastly rejected the Kyoto Protocol citing
the “fact” that, “[T]he Kyoto treaty would severely
damage the United States’ economy…”6
U.S. Response: Clear Skies
Initiative
 On February 14th, 2002 President Bush held
a press conference in which he laid out his
Clear Skies Initiative.
 The main thrust of the initiative is a
seemingly impressive 18% reduction in the
United States’ “greenhouse gas intensity”
over the next 10 years.
U.S. Response: Clear Skies
Initiative
 “Greenhouse gas intensity” is really the
ratio of greenhouse gas emissions to
economic output.
 The specific goal of the Clear Skies
Initiative is to lower the rate of GHG
emissions from an estimated 183 mt per
million dollars of U.S. gross domestic
product (GDP) in 2002 to 151 mt in 2012.
COP 8 I New Delhi, India:
Statement of Eileen Claussen
 “Regrettably, one of the major impediments
to productive dialogue on next steps [in the
climate change process] is the United
States…At this critical juncture, it is
imperative that developed countries –
including the United States – move forward
with concrete measures to reduce their
emissions…”7
The End