Kyoto Summit: Effective Accountability For Pollution?

The Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty adopted in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997, aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and curb global warming. It extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and committed industrialized nations to cut emissions. The Protocol established a monitoring and compliance system to ensure transparency and hold parties accountable for their emission reduction targets. However, its effectiveness has been questioned, and it was replaced by the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015. This raises the question: Did the Kyoto Summit on pollution achieve its accountability goals, and if not, what were the shortcomings that led to its replacement?

Did the Kyoto Protocol lead to reduced emissions?

The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty extending the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997, and became international law on 16 February 2005. The protocol recognised that developed countries are principally responsible for high GHG emissions and placed a heavier burden on them compared to less-developed nations. It mandated that 37 industrialised nations and the EU cut their GHG emissions.

The 36 countries that fully participated in the Protocol 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, surpassing their commitment. If the United States and Canada are included, the emissions decreased by 11.8%. However, the large reductions were mainly due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which reduced Eastern Bloc emissions by tens of per cent in the early 1990s. Additionally, the 2008 financial crisis significantly reduced emissions during the first Kyoto commitment period.

Despite the reductions achieved by the 36 countries, global emissions increased by 32% from 1990 to 2010. This was because other countries increased their emissions during the same period. The protocol's small impact on global emissions has been attributed to factors such as deliberate political strategy, unequal power, and the absence of leadership among and within nations.

The Kyoto Protocol was replaced by the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, which included commitments from all major GHG-emitting countries to reduce their climate-altering pollution.

Which countries were exempt from the agreement?

The Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty, extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It committed state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions based on the understanding that global warming is occurring due to human-made CO2 emissions. The protocol separated countries into two groups: Annex I, comprising developed nations, and Non-Annex I, referring to developing countries.

The Kyoto Protocol placed emission limitations on Annex I countries only, with developing nations asked to comply voluntarily. More than 100 developing countries, including China and India, were exempted from the Kyoto agreement. This exemption was based on the UNFCCC's common but differentiated responsibility principle, which recognised that developed countries are principally responsible for high GHG emissions due to over 150 years of industrial activity.

The 36 countries that fully participated in the first commitment period complied with the Protocol. However, nine countries had to resort to flexibility mechanisms by funding emission reductions in other countries because their national emissions were slightly above their targets. These 36 countries were committed to reducing their aggregate emissions by 4% from the 1990 base year, and they surpassed this goal, with their average annual emissions in 2008-2012 being 24.2% below the 1990 level.

The United States and Canada did not ratify the treaty, and Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol in 2012. The US accounted for 36.1% of emissions in 1990, and its absence significantly impacted the treaty's effectiveness. In 2011, Canada, Japan, and Russia stated they would not take on further Kyoto targets, and Canada officially withdrew in 2012.

The Doha Amendment, a second commitment period, was agreed to in 2012, extending the agreement to 2020. 37 countries had binding targets, including Australia, the European Union, Belarus, Iceland, Kazakhstan, and more. However, the Kyoto Protocol was replaced by the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015, which included commitments from all major GHG-emitting countries to reduce their climate-altering pollution.

What were the mechanisms for accountability?

The Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty adopted in 1997, extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It committed state parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, acknowledging the scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and that human-made CO2 emissions are the primary drivers.

The Protocol established a monitoring, review, and verification system, along with a compliance system, to ensure transparency and hold parties accountable for their emission reduction commitments. This included precise record-keeping of emissions and trades through registry systems.

The Kyoto Protocol outlined three "Flexibility Mechanisms" or market mechanisms to enable countries to meet their targeted emissions limits:

• International Emissions Trading (IET): Countries could trade their emissions (Assigned Amount Units, AAUs, or "allowances") with other countries.
• Clean Development Mechanism (CDM): Countries with emission reduction commitments could implement reduction projects in developing countries to earn certified credits.
• Joint Implementation (JI): Countries with emission reduction commitments could collaborate with another party on a project to earn emission-reducing units.

These mechanisms encouraged cost-effective GHG mitigation, particularly in the developing world, by stimulating green investments and incentivizing the development of cleaner infrastructure and technology.

While the Kyoto Protocol represented a significant moment in addressing global warming, it faced challenges in ensuring comprehensive accountability. Notably, developing countries, including China and India, were exempted from the agreement, and the emissions reduction commitments fell primarily on industrialized nations. This dynamic, based on the UNFCCC's common but differentiated responsibility principle, reflected the recognition that developed countries have historically contributed most to high GHG emissions due to their prolonged industrial activity.

How did the protocol define compliance?

The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty that extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It was signed in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, and came into force in 2005. The protocol recognised that developed countries are largely responsible for high levels of GHG emissions due to over 150 years of industrial activity. Thus, it placed a heavier burden on developed nations to reduce their emissions.

The protocol defined compliance by setting out several mechanisms to enable countries to meet their targeted emissions limits. These included the International Emissions Trading Mechanism, the Clean Development Mechanism, and the Joint Implementation Mechanism. The International Emissions Trading Mechanism allowed countries with excess emission units to sell them to countries that were over their target. The Clean Development Mechanism allowed countries with emissions reduction commitments to implement reduction projects in developing countries to earn credits. The Joint Implementation Mechanism allowed countries with emissions reduction commitments to earn emission-reducing units from projects implemented in conjunction with another party. These mechanisms encouraged GHG mitigation in cost-effective ways, particularly in the developing world.

The protocol also established a monitoring, review, and verification system, as well as a compliance system to ensure transparency and hold parties accountable. All countries' emissions had to be monitored, and precise records of trades kept through registry systems. Countries that ratified the protocol were assigned maximum carbon emission levels for specific periods. If a country exceeded its assigned limit, it would receive a lower emissions limit in the following period.

In addition to these mechanisms, the protocol provided flexibility for Annex I Parties (developed nations) to meet their emission limitation commitments through three "Flexibility Mechanisms": International Emissions Trading (IET), the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI). IET allowed Annex I Parties to trade their emissions (Assigned Amount Units, AAUs, or "allowances"). The economic basis for providing this flexibility is that the marginal cost of reducing emissions differs among countries.

Despite these measures, the Kyoto Protocol faced challenges in terms of scope and effectiveness. By 2012, global emissions had risen 44% from 1997 levels, driven mainly by emissions growth in developing nations. Some countries viewed mitigation measures as costly and refused to ratify the protocol, including the US, which was the world's largest emitter at the time the protocol was signed. As a result, the protocol had limited success in reducing global emissions.

What were the economic implications of the protocol?

The Kyoto Protocol, an international treaty extending the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997, and became international law on 16 February 2005. The protocol recognised that developed countries, with over 150 years of industrial activity, were primarily responsible for high GHG emissions levels. As such, the protocol placed a heavier burden on these countries compared to less-developed nations.

The economic implications of the protocol were significant. The protocol mandated that industrialised nations cut their GHG emissions. Developing nations were asked to comply voluntarily, and more than 100 developing countries, including China and India, were exempted from the agreement. The protocol separated countries into two groups: Annex I, consisting of developed nations, and Non-Annex I, referring to developing countries. Only Annex I countries had emission limitations placed on them, while Non-Annex I nations participated by investing in projects designed to lower emissions in their countries.

The protocol defined three "Flexibility Mechanisms" that could be used by Annex I Parties to meet their emission limitation commitments. These mechanisms were International Emissions Trading (IET), the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI). IET allowed Annex I Parties to "trade" their emissions (Assigned Amount Units, AAUs, or "allowances"). The economic basis for providing this flexibility was that the marginal cost of reducing emissions differed among countries. "Marginal cost" refers to the cost of abating the last tonne of CO2-eq for an Annex I/non-Annex I Party. Studies at the time suggested that these flexibility mechanisms could reduce the overall cost of meeting the targets.

The protocol's impact on individual countries varied. For example, Canada, which was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, saw its emissions increase by 17% in 2009 due to the Harper government's prioritisation of oil sands development in Alberta over emission reduction. On the other hand, the dissolution of the Soviet Union significantly reduced emissions in Eastern Bloc countries, contributing to the overall success of the protocol.

Criticism of the protocol centred around its potential negative impact on economies, particularly in the US. The US Senate refused to ratify the protocol, citing potential damage to the US economy. This set a precedent for other countries, such as Canada and Japan, to withdraw from the agreement. Additionally, the protocol was criticised for failing to equate emissions reductions with economic opportunities, with some countries viewing mitigation as a costly punishment.

In 2015, the Paris Climate Agreement replaced the Kyoto Protocol, with commitments from all major GHG-emitting countries to reduce their climate-altering pollution. The US initially withdrew from the Paris Agreement in 2020, citing concerns about the economy, but rejoined in 2021, only to leave again in 2025.

Frequently asked questions