The International Agreement Made In Kyoto To Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Posted on Posted in Uncategorized

The ultimate goal of the UNFCCC is to “stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would stop dangerous anthropogenic interventions in the climate system.” [25] Even if the Schedule I contracting parties meet their first-round commitments, much greater emission reductions will be needed in the future to stabilize ThG concentrations in the atmosphere. [24] [26] The protocol divided countries into two groups: Schedule I included developed countries and not Schedule I related to developing countries. The protocol has set emission restrictions only for Schedule I countries. Non-Schedule I countries have participated in projects to reduce emissions in their countries. The protocol left unresolved several issues that could be resolved later by the sixth UNFCCC Cop6 conference, which attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in The Hague at the end of 2000, but it was unable to reach an agreement, given that the European Union (which advocates stricter implementation) and the United States , Canada, Japan and Australia (who wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible) was unable to reach an agreement. Developed and developing countries play different roles under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. When the Kyoto Protocol was developed, it was recognized that most of the pollution in the atmosphere came from developed countries, and most of it came from a source – the United States (Figure 17.1). It was felt that it was not right that developing countries, which played a minor role in creating the problem, should be forced to reduce emissions and perhaps delay their economic growth. As a result, only developed countries have had to agree to emission reductions. Countries that were required to reduce emissions if they agreed to be part of the Kyoto Protocol were listed in Schedule 1 of the protocol and are therefore sometimes referred to as Schedule 1 countries. Starting in 2020, the United States is the only signatory that has not ratified the protocol. [104] In 1990, the United States accounted for 36% of emissions.

For the treaty to enter into force without ratification by the United States, it would require a coalition including the EU, Russia, Japan and smaller parties. During the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5) in 2001, an agreement was reached without the US government. [105] All binding decisions of the Convention are taken at the COP. For 195 parties, this means that decision-making can take years. Some COPs are more important than others, as important decisions develop and a COP, during which important decisions must be made, becomes a turning point. This was the case for COP15 held in Copenhagen in 2009. At the COP, emissions reduction commitments were expected to be made after the end of the second Kyoto Protocol commitment period in 2020. In the end, timid progress was made at this COP.

The CDM and the MOC are referred to as “project-based mechanisms” because they generate emission reductions from projects. The difference between the EIT and project-based mechanisms is that the EIT is based on the definition of a quantitative emission limitation, while the CDM and MOC are based on the idea of “production” of emission reductions. [43] The CDM aims to promote the production of emission reductions in non-contracting parts in Schedule I, while the MOC encourages the production of emission reductions in the annex I contracting parts.