 | This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points.(September 2016) |
Although it is a worldwide treaty, the Kyoto Protocol has received criticism.
| | This article's lead section may be too short to adequately summarize the key points.(September 2016) |
Although it is a worldwide treaty, the Kyoto Protocol has received criticism.
Some also argue the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions and avoid dangerous climate change [1] (Niue, The Cook Islands, and Nauru added notes to this effect when signing the protocol). [2]
Some environmental economists have been critical of the Kyoto Protocol. [3] [4] [5] Many see the costs of the Kyoto Protocol as outweighing the benefits, some believing the standards which Kyoto sets to be too optimistic, others seeing a highly inequitable and inefficient agreement which would do little to curb greenhouse gas emissions. [6] There are also economists who believe that an entirely different approach needs to be followed than the approach suggested by the Kyoto Protocol. [7]
In Russia, Andrey Illarionov, who was an economic policy advisor to the President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, expressed the opinion that since human civilization is based on the consumption of hydrocarbons, the adoption of the Kyoto agreements could have a negative impact on Russian economy. He regarded the Kyoto agreement as discriminatory and not universal, since the main sources of carbon dioxide emissions like the US, China, India, Brazil, Mexico and Korea, as well as a number of developing countries, did not impose any restrictions on themselves. Andrei Illarionov also referred to a large number of works that cast doubt on the very idea of a "greenhouse" effect caused by the accumulation of carbon dioxide. [8]
Further, there is controversy surrounding the use of 1990 as a base year [9] [ citation needed ], as well as not using per capita emissions as a basis. Countries had different achievements in energy efficiency in 1990. For example, the former Soviet Union and eastern European countries did little to tackle the problem and their energy efficiency was at its worst level in 1990, the year just before their communist regimes fell. On the other hand, Japan, as a big importer of natural resources, had to improve its efficiency after the 1973 oil crisis and its emissions level in 1990 was better than most developed countries. However, such efforts were set aside, and the inactivity of the former Soviet Union was overlooked and could even generate big income due to the emission trade. There is an argument that the use of per capita emissions as a basis in the following Kyoto-type treaties can reduce the sense of inequality among developed and developing countries alike, as it can reveal in activities and responsibilities among countries.
James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and eminent climate scientist, has claimed that the United Nations Climate Change Conference taking place at the Bella Center in Copenhagen, Denmark, between December 7–18, 2009 (which includes the 15th Conference of the Parties (COP 15) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the 5th Meeting of the Parties (COP/MOP 5) to the Kyoto Protocol) is a 'farce' and planned to boycott it because it was seeking a counter-productive agreement to limit emissions through an inefficient and indulgent "cap and trade" system. "They are selling indulgences there" Hansen states. "The developed nations want to continue basically business as usual so they are expected to purchase indulgences to give some small amount of money to developing countries. They do that in the form of offsets and adaptation funds." Hansen prefers a progressive "carbon tax", not the Kyoto Protocol "cap and trade" system; this tax would begin at the equivalent of about $1 per gallon of petrol and revenues would all be returned directly to members of the public as a dividend inversely proportional[ improper synthesis? ] to their carbon footprint. [10]
"So, for example, in the Kyoto Protocol, that was very ineffective. Even the countries that took on supposedly the strongest requirements, like Japan for example—if you look at its actual emissions, its actual fossil fuel use, you see that their CO2 emissions actually increased even though they were supposed to decrease. Because their coal use increased and they used offsets to meet their objective. Offsets don't help significantly. That's why the approach that Copenhagen is using to specify goals for emission reductions and then to allow offsets to accomplish much of that reduction is really a fake. And that has to be exposed. Otherwise, just like in the Kyoto Protocol, we'll realize 10 years later, oops, it really didn't do much." [11]
Rising Tide North America claims: "Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and shipping, but 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. The benchmark 1990 emission levels were accepted by the Conference of the Parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3)"
There has been criticism (especially from the United States) over the exemption of developing countries, such as China and India, from having to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions under the Kyoto Protocol. [12] The Bush Administration has criticized the Kyoto Protocol on the basis that 80 percent of the world is exempt from emissions reduction standards as well as the potential of economic harm to the United States. [13] Further argument is that developing countries at the time of the creation of the treaty and now have been large emitters of greenhouse gases. [14] Greenhouse gases do not remain in the area in which they are emitted, but rather move throughout the atmosphere of Earth. Therefore, some say that even if the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter tackled the issue of climate change, there will be minimal impact in the atmosphere if other countries around the world didn't work on reducing their emission levels as well. [15] There is also criticism over the true impact of the Kyoto Protocol in the long run on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions because it is questioned how much developed countries can offset their emissions while developing countries continue to emit these greenhouse gases. [16]
There is criticism that the Kyoto Protocol does not do enough to address the issue of climate change and pollution in the long run. One criticism is that climate change is a unique environmental issue, but the Kyoto Protocol followed the format of the other international treaties (not necessarily useful for environmental issues) instead of promoting innovation in approaching the issue of global warming. [17] Another criticism is that the Kyoto Protocol focuses too much on carbon emissions and doesn't address other pollutants, such as sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, which either do direct harm to human health and/or can be addressed using technology. [18] Some also claim that the Kyoto Protocol does not promote long-term solutions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but rather short-term solutions in having countries try to meet emission reduction standards (either by lowering emissions or find ways to obtain trading credits). [19] In the same way, there has been criticism that the Kyoto Protocol does not address the concentration of atmospheric greenhouse gases, but rather greenhouse gas emissions, focusing on the short-term over the long-term. [9]
The Global Warming Petition Project, also known as the Oregon Petition, is a petition urging the United States government to reject the global warming Kyoto Protocol of 1997 and similar policies. The petition's website states, "The current list of 31,487 petition signers includes 9,029 PhD; 7,157 MS; 2,586 MD and DVM; and 12,715 BS or equivalent academic degrees.
The text of the Global Warming Petition Project reads:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997...The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind...There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. [20]
There are a large number of critics of carbon trading as a control mechanism. Critics include environmental justice nongovernmental organizations, [21] economists, labor organizations and those concerned about energy supply and excessive taxation. Some see carbon trading as a government takeover of the free market. [22] They argue that trading pollution allowances should be avoided because they result in failures in accounting, dubious science and the destructive impacts of projects upon local peoples and environments. [23] Instead, they advocate making reductions at the source of pollution and energy policies that are justice-based and community-driven. [24] Many argue that emissions trading schemes based upon cap and trade will necessarily reduce jobs and incomes. [25] Most of the criticisms have focused on the carbon market created through investment in Kyoto Mechanisms. Criticism of cap-and-trade emissions trading has generally been more limited to lack of credibility in the first phase of the EU ETS. [26]
Critics argue that emissions trading does little to solve pollution problems overall, since groups that do not pollute sell their conservation to the highest bidder. Overall reductions would need to come from a sufficient reduction of allowances available in the system.
Regulatory agencies run the risk of issuing too many emission credits, diluting the effectiveness of regulation, and practically removing the cap. In this case, instead of a net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, beneficiaries of emissions trading simply pollute more. [27] The National Allocation Plans by member governments of the European Union Emission Trading Scheme were criticised for this when it became apparent that actual emissions would be less than the government-issued carbon allowances at the end of Phase I of the scheme. Certain emissions trading schemes have been criticised for the practice of grandfathering, where polluters are given free allowances by governments, instead of being made to pay for them. [28] Critics instead advocate for auctioning the credits. The proceeds could be used for research and development of sustainable technology. [29]
Critics of carbon trading, such as Carbon Trade Watch, argue that it places disproportionate emphasis on individual lifestyles and carbon footprints, distracting attention from the wider, systemic changes and collective political action that needs to be taken to tackle climate change resulting from global warming. [22] Groups such as the Corner House have argued that the market will choose the easiest means to save a given quantity of carbon in the short term, which may be different from the pathway required to obtain sustained and sizable reductions over a longer period, and so a market-led approach is likely to reinforce technological lock-in. For instance, small cuts may often be achieved cheaply through investment in making a technology more efficient, where larger cuts would require scrapping the technology and using a different one. They also argue that emissions trading is undermining alternative approaches to pollution control with which it does not combine well, and so the overall effect it is having is to actually stall significant change to less polluting technologies.
The corresponding uncertainty under a tax is the level of emissions reductions achieved.[ citation needed ]
The Financial Times published an article about cap-and-trade systems which argued that "Carbon markets create a muddle" and "...leave much room for unverifiable manipulation". [30]
More recent criticism of emissions trading regarding implementation is that old growth forests, which have slow carbon absorption rates, are being cleared and replaced with fast-growing vegetation, to the detriment of the local communities. [31]
Recent proposals for alternative schemes to avoid the problems of cap-and-trade schemes include Cap and Share, which was being actively considered by the Irish Parliament in May 2008, and the Sky Trust schemes. [21] These schemes state that cap-and-trade or cap-and-tax schemes inherently impact the poor and those in rural areas, who have less choice in energy consumption options.
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) to the Protocol in 2020.
Environmental finance is a field within finance that employs market-based environmental policy instruments to improve the ecological impact of investment strategies. The primary objective of environmental finance is to regress the negative impacts of climate change through pricing and trading schemes. The field of environmental finance was established in response to the poor management of economic crises by government bodies globally. Environmental finance aims to reallocate a businesses resources to improve the sustainability of investments whilst also retaining profit margins.
The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a United Nations-run carbon offset scheme allowing countries to fund greenhouse gas emissions-reducing projects in other countries and claim the saved emissions as part of their own efforts to meet international emissions targets. It is one of the three Flexible Mechanisms defined in the Kyoto Protocol. The CDM, defined in Article 12 of the Protocol, was intended to meet two objectives: (1) to assist non-Annex I countries achieve sustainable development and reduce their carbon footprints; and (2) to assist Annex I countries in achieving compliance with their emissions reduction commitments.
A carbon footprint (or greenhouse gas footprint) is a calculated value or index that makes it possible to compare the total amount of greenhouse gases that an activity, product, company or country adds to the atmosphere. Carbon footprints are usually reported in tonnes of emissions (CO2-equivalent) per unit of comparison. Such units can be for example tonnes CO2-eq per year, per kilogram of protein for consumption, per kilometer travelled, per piece of clothing and so forth. A product's carbon footprint includes the emissions for the entire life cycle. These run from the production along the supply chain to its final consumption and disposal. Similarly an organization's carbon footprint includes the direct as well as the indirect emissions that it causes. The Greenhouse Gas Protocol that is used for carbon accounting of organizations calls these Scope 1, 2 and 3 emissions. There are several methodologies and online tools to calculate the carbon footprint. They depend on whether the focus is on a country, organization, product or individual person. For example, the carbon footprint of a product could help consumers decide which product to buy if they want to be climate aware. For climate change mitigation activities, the carbon footprint can help distinguish those economic activities with a high footprint from those with a low footprint. So the carbon footprint concept allows everyone to make comparisons between the climate impacts of individuals, products, companies and countries. It also helps people devise strategies and priorities for reducing the carbon footprint.
Carbon offsetting is a trading mechanism that allows entities such as governments, individuals, or businesses to compensate for (i.e. “offset”) their greenhouse gas emissions by supporting projects that reduce, avoid, or remove emissions elsewhere. A carbon credit or offset credit is a transferable financial instrument, that is a derivative of an underlying commodity. It can be bought or sold after certification by a government or independent certification body. When an entity invests in a carbon offsetting program, it receives carbon credits, i.e "tokens" used to account for net climate benefits from one entity to another. One carbon offset or credit represents a reduction, avoidance or removal of one tonne of carbon dioxide or its carbon dioxide-equivalent (CO2e). Offset projects that take place in the future can be considered to be a type of promissory note: The purchaser of the offset credit pays carbon market rates for the credits and in turn receives a promise that the purchaser's greenhouse emissions generated in the present (e.g. a roundtrip flight to London) will be offset by elimination of an equal amount at some point in the future (e.g. 10 to 20 years for planting 110 seedlings). Offsets that were generated in the past are credible only if they were in addition to reductions that would have happened anyway.
Business action on climate change includes a range of activities relating to climate change, and to influencing political decisions on climate change-related regulation, such as the Kyoto Protocol. Major multinationals have played and to some extent continue to play a significant role in the politics of climate change, especially in the United States, through lobbying of government and funding of climate change deniers. Business also plays a key role in the mitigation of climate change, through decisions to invest in researching and implementing new energy technologies and energy efficiency measures.
The emission reduction unit (ERU) was an emissions unit issued under a Joint Implementation project in terms of the Kyoto Protocol. An ERU represented a reduction of greenhouse gases under the Joint Implementation mechanism, where it represented one tonne of CO2 equivalent reduced.
Flexible mechanisms, also sometimes known as Flexibility Mechanisms or Kyoto Mechanisms, refers to emissions trading, the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation. These are mechanisms defined under the Kyoto Protocol intended to lower the overall costs of achieving its emissions targets. These mechanisms enable Parties to achieve emission reductions or to remove carbon from the atmosphere cost-effectively in other countries. While the cost of limiting emissions varies considerably from region to region, the benefit for the atmosphere is in principle the same, wherever the action is taken.
Carbon pricing is a method for nations to address climate change. The cost is applied to greenhouse gas emissions in order to encourage polluters to reduce the combustion of coal, oil and gas – the main driver of climate change. The method is widely agreed and considered to be efficient. Carbon pricing seeks to address the economic problem that emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases (GHG) are a negative externality – a detrimental product that is not charged for by any market.
Carbon emission trading (also called emission trading scheme (ETS) or cap and trade) is a type of emission trading scheme designed for carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHG). It is a form of carbon pricing. Its purpose is to limit climate change by creating a market with limited allowances for emissions. This can lower competitiveness of fossil fuels and accelerate investments into low carbon sources of energy such as wind power and photovoltaics. Fossil fuels are the main driver for climate change. They account for 89% of all CO2 emissions and 68% of all GHG emissions.
Climate change in New Zealand involves historical, current and future changes in the climate of New Zealand; and New Zealand's contribution and response to global climate change. Summers are becoming longer and hotter, and some glaciers have melted completely and others have shrunk. In 2021, the Ministry for the Environment estimated that New Zealand's gross emissions were 0.17% of the world's total gross greenhouse gas emissions. However, on a per capita basis, New Zealand is a significant emitter, the sixth highest within the Annex I countries, whereas on absolute gross emissions New Zealand is ranked as the 24th highest emitter.
The 2008 United Nations Climate Change Conference took place at PIF Congress Centre, Poznań International Fair (PIF), in Poznań, Poland, between December 1 and December 12, 2008. Representatives from over 180 countries attended along with observers from intergovernmental and nongovernmental organizations.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) was an energy bill in the 111th United States Congress that would have established a variant of an emissions trading plan similar to the European Union Emission Trading Scheme. The bill was approved by the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219–212. With no prospect of overcoming a threatened Republican filibuster, the bill was never brought to the floor of the Senate for discussion or a vote. The House passage of the bill was the "first time either house of Congress had approved a bill meant to curb the heat-trapping gases scientists have linked to climate change."
The Asia-Pacific Emissions Trading Forum (AETF) was an information service and business network dealing with domestic and international developments in emissions trading policy in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region. The AETF was originally called the Australasian Emissions Trading Forum, and was founded in 1998 under the auspices of the Sydney Futures Exchange following a proposal from Beck Consulting Services. From 2001 until 2011 the AETF published the AETF Review, held regular member meetings and convened numerous events and conferences. The AETF Review was published six times per year and included original articles on emissions trading developments and related topics.
The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A number of governments across the world took a variety of actions.
The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Climate Change Response Amendment Act 2008 was a statute enacted in September 2008 by the Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand that established the first version of the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, a national all-sectors all-greenhouse gases uncapped and highly internationally linked emissions trading scheme.
A carbon budget is a concept used in climate policy to help set emissions reduction targets in a fair and effective way. It looks at "the maximum amount of cumulative net global anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions that would result in limiting global warming to a given level". When expressed relative to the pre-industrial period it is referred to as the total carbon budget, and when expressed from a recent specified date it is referred to as the remaining carbon budget.
A climate target, climate goal or climate pledge is a measurable long-term commitment for climate policy and energy policy with the aim of limiting the climate change. Researchers within, among others, the UN climate panel have identified probable consequences of global warming for people and nature at different levels of warming. Based on this, politicians in a large number of countries have agreed on temperature targets for warming, which is the basis for scientifically calculated carbon budgets and ways to achieve these targets. This in turn forms the basis for politically decided global and national emission targets for greenhouse gases, targets for fossil-free energy production and efficient energy use, and for the extent of planned measures for climate change mitigation and adaptation.
{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)