Protocolo de Kyoto

De Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre
Saltar a navegación , búsqueda
Protocolo de Kyoto
Protocolo de Kyoto de la Convención Marco de Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático

Protocolo de Kyoto la participación mapa 2010.png
Protocolo de Kyoto la participación mapa a partir de febrero de 2012
El verde indica que los países que han ratificado el tratado
(Anexo I y II en los países en verde oscuro)
Marrón = No existe intención de ratificar [1]
Rojo = Países que se han retirado del Protocolo. [2]

Gris = no hay posición tomada o una posición desconocida
Firmado 11 de diciembre 1997
Ubicación Kyoto
Eficaz 16 de febrero 2005
Condición La ratificación por 55 Estados a la Convención, los Estados que incorporen incluidas en el anexo I, que representaron un total de al menos el 55 por ciento de las emisiones totales de dióxido de carbono para el año 1990 de las Partes incluidas en el anexo I
Signatarios 83
Ratificadores 191
Depositario Secretario General de las Naciones Unidas
Idiomas Árabe, chino, Inglés, Francés, Ruso y Español
Protocolo de Kyoto en Wikisource
Partes de Kioto con el primer período (2008-2012) las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero objetivos limitaciones, y el cambio porcentual en las emisiones de dióxido de carbono de la combustión de combustibles entre 1990 y 2009. Para información más detallada de país / región de información, vea Protocolo de Kyoto y la acción del gobierno .
Vista general del mapa de los estados comprometidos con el gas de efecto invernadero (GEI), las limitaciones en el primer periodo del Protocolo de Kyoto (2008-2012): [3] [ vaga ]
Gris oscuro = Partes del anexo I que han accedido a reducir sus emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero por debajo de sus niveles individuales del año base (véase la definición en este artículo)
Gris = Partes del anexo I que han accedido a limitar sus emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero a sus niveles del año base
Pale gris = no-Partes del anexo I que no están obligados por las tapas o Partes del anexo I con un límite máximo de emisiones que permite a sus emisiones de ampliar por encima de los niveles del año o los países que no han ratificado el Protocolo de Kyoto [ vaga ]

Para los compromisos específicos de reducción de emisiones de las Partes del anexo I, consulte la sección del artículo sobre los objetivos de emisión de 2012 y "mecanismos flexibles" .

La UE-región en su conjunto ha de conformidad con el Protocolo de Kyoto se comprometió a una reducción del 8%. Sin embargo, muchos Estados miembros (como Grecia, España, Irlanda y Suecia) no se han comprometido a una reducción, mientras que Francia se ha comprometido a no aumentar sus emisiones (0% de reducción). [4] En cuanto a Groenlandia: se debe en parte cometidos por medio de Dinamarca. Sin embargo nada dice de que Groenlandia se ha comprometido a una reducción hacia Dinamarca.

El Protocolo de Kyoto es un protocolo a la Convención Marco de Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC o UNFCCC), destinado a combatir el calentamiento global . La CMNUCC es una organización internacional del medio ambiente del Tratado con el objetivo de lograr la "estabilización de los gases de efecto invernadero las concentraciones en la atmósfera a un nivel que impida interferencias antropogénicas peligrosas en el sistema climático ". [5]

El Protocolo fue aprobado inicialmente el 11 de diciembre de 1997 en Kyoto , Japón, y entró en vigor el 16 de febrero de 2005. A partir de septiembre de 2011, 191 Estados han firmado y ratificado el protocolo. [6] El. único que queda signatario que no ha ratificado el protocolo son los Estados Unidos Otras de las Naciones Unidas los Estados Miembros que no han ratificado el protocolo son: Afganistán, Andorra y el sur de Sudán. En diciembre de 2011, Canadá renunció al Protocolo. [2]

Según el Protocolo, 37 países (" países del Anexo I ") se comprometen a una reducción de cuatro gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) ( dióxido de carbono , el metano , el óxido nitroso , hexafluoruro de azufre ) y dos grupos de gases ( hidrofluorocarbonos y perfluorocarbonos ) producido por ellos , y todos los países miembros se comprometen con carácter general. En las negociaciones, los países del Anexo I (incluidos los EE.UU.) en conjunto se comprometieron a reducir sus emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero en un 5,2% en promedio para el período 2008-2012. Esta reducción es en relación con sus emisiones anuales en un año base, por lo general de 1990. Dado que los EE.UU. no ha ratificado el tratado, la reducción de las emisiones colectivo de países del Anexo I de Kyoto cae del 5,2% al 4,2% por debajo del año base. [7] : 26

Los límites de emisiones no incluyen las emisiones de la aviación internacional y el transporte marítimo, sino que son además de los gases industriales, los clorofluorocarbonos , o CFC, que se abordan en el 1987 el Protocolo de Montreal sobre Sustancias que Agotan la Capa de Ozono . [ aclaración necesaria ]

El punto de referencia los niveles de 1990 aceptadas por la Conferencia de las Partes de la CMNUCC (decisión 2/CP.3) fueron los valores de " potencial de calentamiento global ", calculado para el Segundo Informe de Evaluación del IPCC . [8] Estas cifras se utilizan para la conversión de los diversos las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero comparables en equivalentes de CO 2 (CO 2-eq) al calcular las fuentes y los sumideros en general.

El Protocolo permite que varios " mecanismos flexibles ", tales como el comercio de emisiones , el mecanismo de desarrollo limpio (MDL) y de aplicación conjunta para permitir que países del Anexo I para cumplir con sus limitaciones de emisiones de GEI mediante la compra de reducciones de emisiones de GEI créditos de otros lugares, a través de los intercambios financieros, los proyectos que reduzcan las emisiones en países no Anexo I, de otros países del Anexo I, o bien del anexo I los países con exceso de derechos de emisión.

Cada país del Anexo I debe presentar un informe anual de los inventarios de todas las emisiones antropogénicas de gases de efecto invernadero procedentes de fuentes y la absorción por los sumideros bajo la CMNUCC y el Protocolo de Kyoto. Estos países designar a una persona (llamada una "autoridad nacional designada") para crear y gestionar su inventario de gases de efecto invernadero . Prácticamente la totalidad de los países no-Anexo I también han establecido una autoridad nacional designada para administrar sus obligaciones de Kyoto, en particular el "proceso del MDL", que determina que los proyectos de GEI que se desee proponer para la acreditación por la Junta Ejecutiva del MDL.

Contenido

[ editar ] Antecedentes

La idea de que las actividades humanas son probablemente responsables de la mayor parte del aumento observado en la temperatura media global ("calentamiento global"), ya que a mediados del siglo 20 es un fiel reflejo del pensamiento científico actual. [9] [10] inducida por el hombre el calentamiento de la el clima se espera que continúe durante todo el siglo 21 y más allá. [10]

El Grupo Intergubernamental de Expertos sobre el Cambio Climático (IPCC, 2007) han producido una serie de proyecciones de lo que el futuro aumento de la temperatura media global podría ser. [11] Las proyecciones del IPCC son "básicos" proyecciones , lo que significa que no asumen los esfuerzos futuros se hacen para reducir las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. Las proyecciones del IPCC cubrir el período de tiempo desde el comienzo del siglo 21 hasta el final del siglo 21. [11] [12] El "probable" (según la evaluación que tienen una probabilidad mayor del 66% de acierto, sobre la base de el juicio de expertos del IPCC) es una proyección de aumento de la temperatura media global durante el siglo 21 de entre 1,1 y 6,4 ° C [11]

El rango de proyecciones de la temperatura refleja en parte diferentes proyecciones de futuras emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. [13] :22-24 proyecciones diferentes contienen diferentes supuestos de desarrollo social y económico futuro (por ejemplo, el crecimiento económico y nivel de la población , las políticas de energía ), que a su vez afecta proyecciones de los futuros gases de efecto invernadero (GEI). [13] :22-24 La gama también refleja la incertidumbre en la respuesta del sistema climático a las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero pasadas y futuras, medidos por la sensibilidad del clima ). [13] :22-24

[ editar ] Artículo 2 de la CMNUCC

La mayoría de los países son Partes en la Convención Marco de Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC). [14] El artículo 2 de la Convención establece su objetivo final, que es estabilizar la concentración de gases de efecto invernadero en la atmósfera "a un nivel que impida peligrosas antropogénico (es decir, humana) peligrosas en el sistema climático ". [15] Los naturales , técnicos y de ciencias sociales puede proporcionar información sobre las decisiones relativas a este objetivo, por ejemplo, la posible magnitud y el ritmo de futuros cambios climáticos. [15] Sin embargo, , el IPCC también ha concluido que la decisión de lo que constituye "peligrosa" interferencia requiere juicios de valor, que puede variar entre las diferentes regiones del mundo. [15] Los factores que podrían afectar a esta decisión incluyen las consecuencias locales de los impactos del cambio climático, la capacidad de de una región particular, a adaptarse al cambio climático (la capacidad de adaptación), y la capacidad de una región a reducir sus emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (la capacidad de mitigación). [15]

[ editar ] Objetivos

Kioto tiene la intención de cortar globales de las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero .
Con el fin de estabilizar la concentración atmosférica de CO 2, en todo el mundo las emisiones tendrían que reducirse de forma drástica de su nivel actual. [16]

El objetivo principal del Protocolo de Kyoto es para contener las emisiones de los principales antropogénico (es decir, el hombre emite) de los gases de efecto invernadero (GEI) de manera que refleje que subyace a las diferencias nacionales en las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero, la riqueza, y la capacidad para hacer las reducciones. [17] El tratado sigue los principios fundamentales acordados en la original de 1992 la Convención Marco de Naciones Unidas. [17] De acuerdo con el tratado, en el año 2012, las Partes del anexo I que han ratificado el tratado debe haber cumplido con sus obligaciones de emisiones de gases invernadero limitaciones establecidas para la primera del Protocolo de Kyoto período de compromiso (2008-2012). Estos compromisos de limitación de emisiones se enumeran en el anexo B del Protocolo.

Primeros compromisos de la Ronda del Protocolo de Kioto son el primer paso detallado de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (Gupta et al., 2007). [18] El Protocolo establece una estructura de rodadura períodos de compromiso de reducción de emisiones, con las negociaciones sobre los compromisos del segundo período de que estaban programadas para comenzar en 2005 (véase el sucesor del Protocolo de Kyoto # para más detalles). [19] el primer período de compromisos de reducción de emisiones expira a finales de 2012.

El objetivo último de la CMNUCC es la "estabilización de las concentraciones de gases de efecto invernadero en la atmósfera a un nivel que impida interferencias antropogénicas peligrosas en el sistema climático". [5] Incluso si las Partes del anexo I éxito en el cumplimiento de sus compromisos de primera ronda, y mucho mayores reducciones de las emisiones será necesario en el futuro, para estabilizar las concentraciones atmosféricas de gases de efecto invernadero. [19] [20] : 122

Para cada uno de los gases de efecto invernadero antropogénicos distintos, diferentes niveles de reducción de emisiones sería necesario para alcanzar el objetivo de estabilizar las concentraciones atmosféricas (ver Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático # Estabilización de las concentraciones de gases de efecto invernadero ). [21] de dióxido de carbono (CO 2) es el más importante de gases de efecto invernadero antropogénico. [22] La estabilización de la concentración de CO 2 en la atmósfera en última instancia, requiere la eliminación efectiva de las emisiones de CO2 antropogénicas. [21]

Los cinco conceptos principales del Protocolo de Kyoto son los siguientes: [ cita requerida ]

  • Los compromisos para las Partes del Anexo I. La principal característica del Protocolo [23] se encuentra en el establecimiento de compromisos para la reducción de gases de efecto invernadero que son jurídicamente vinculantes para las Partes del Anexo I. Las Partes del anexo I asumió compromisos jurídicamente vinculantes basados ??en el Mandato de Berlín, que fue parte de negociaciones de la CMNUCC que condujeron al Protocolo. [24] [25] : 290
  • Implementación. Con el fin de cumplir con los objetivos del Protocolo, las Partes del anexo I están obligados a elaborar políticas y medidas para la reducción de gases de efecto invernadero en sus respectivos países. Además, están obligados a aumentar la absorción de estos gases y utilizar todos los mecanismos disponibles, tales como la aplicación conjunta, el mecanismo de desarrollo limpio y el comercio de emisiones, a fin de ser recompensados ??con créditos que permitan a las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero en el hogar.
  • Minimizar los impactos en los países en desarrollo mediante el establecimiento de un fondo de adaptación para el cambio climático.
  • Contabilidad, informes y revisión con el fin de asegurar la integridad del Protocolo.
  • Cumplimiento. El establecimiento de un Comité de Cumplimiento para exigir el cumplimiento de los compromisos asumidos en el Protocolo.

[ editar ] 2012 los objetivos de emisión y "mecanismos flexibles"

En el marco del Protocolo de Kyoto, 37 países industrializados y la Comunidad Europea (la Unión Europea -15, formado por 15 estados en el momento de las negociaciones de Kyoto) se comprometan a objetivos vinculantes para las emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero. [23] Los objetivos se aplican a los cuatro gases de efecto invernadero dióxido de carbono , el metano , el óxido nitroso , hexafluoruro de azufre , y dos grupos de gases, los hidrofluorocarbonos y los perfluorocarbonos . El GEI seis se convierten en equivalentes de CO 2 en la determinación de las reducciones de las emisiones. Estos son los objetivos de reducción, además de los gases industriales, los clorofluorocarbonos, o CFC, que se abordan en el 1987 el Protocolo de Montreal sobre Sustancias que Agotan la Capa de Ozono .

Según el Protocolo, sólo las Partes del anexo I se han comprometido a objetivos nacionales de reducción o conjunta (formalmente llamado "cuantificados de limitación y reducción" (OCLRE) - Artículo 4.1). [26] Partes en el Protocolo de Kioto que no figuran en el anexo I de la Convención (las Partes no-Anexo I) son en su mayoría de bajos ingresos países en desarrollo, [27] : 4 y participar en el Protocolo de Kyoto a través del Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio (se explica más adelante). [19] : 269

Las limitaciones de emisiones de las Partes del anexo I varía entre las distintas partes. [28] Algunas Partes tienen limitaciones de emisiones a reducir por debajo del nivel del año base, algunos tienen limitaciones en el nivel del año base (es decir, sin incremento máximo permitido por encima del nivel del año base), mientras que otros tienen limitaciones sobre el nivel del año base.

Los límites de emisiones no incluyen las emisiones de la aviación internacional y el transporte marítimo. A pesar de Bielorrusia y Turquía se enumeran en el anexo I de la Convención, que no tienen objetivos de emisión, ya que no eran Partes del anexo I, cuando se adoptó el Protocolo. [28] Kazajstán no tiene un objetivo, pero ha declarado que quiere convertirse en un Parte del anexo I de la Convención. [28]


Para la mayoría de las Partes de 1990 es el año base para el inventario nacional de gases de efecto invernadero y el cálculo de la cantidad asignada. [31] Sin embargo, cinco de las Partes tienen un año de base alternativo: [31]

  • Bulgaria: 1988;
  • Hungría: la media de los años 1985-1987;
  • Polonia: 1988;
  • Rumania: 1989;
  • Eslovenia: 1986.

Partes del Anexo I pueden utilizar una amplia gama de sofisticados mecanismos de "flexibilidad" (se explica en las siguientes secciones) para cumplir sus objetivos. Partes del Anexo I puedan alcanzar sus objetivos mediante la asignación de la reducción de las asignaciones anuales a los operadores más importantes dentro de sus fronteras, o al permitir que estos operadores para superar sus asignaciones en la compensación de los excesos a través de un mecanismo que se acordó por todas las partes de la CMNUCC, como por ejemplo mediante la compra de los derechos de emisión de otros operadores que tienen créditos por exceso de emisiones.

[ editar ] Los mecanismos flexibles

El Protocolo define tres " mecanismos de flexibilidad "que pueden ser utilizadas por las Partes del anexo I a cumplir sus compromisos de limitación de emisiones. [32] : 402 Los mecanismos de flexibilidad son Comercio Internacional de Emisiones (IET), el Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio (MDL) y Aplicación Conjunta (AC). IET permite a las Partes del anexo I al "comercio" de sus emisiones ( Cantidad de Unidades Asignadas , UCA, o "subsidios" para abreviar).

La base económica de proporcionar esta flexibilidad es que el marginal, el costo de reducir (o disminuir) las emisiones de diferencia entre los países. [33] : 660 [34] "El costo marginal" es el costo de disminuir la tonelada último de CO 2-eq para un Anexo I / no-Anexo I Parte. En el momento de los originales de los objetivos de Kioto, los estudios sugieren que los mecanismos de flexibilidad podría reducir el global ( global ) el costo de cumplimiento de los objetivos. [35] Los estudios también mostraron que las pérdidas nacionales en el anexo I del producto interno bruto (PIB) podría reducirse en un el uso de los mecanismos de flexibilidad. [35]

El MDL y la IC se llaman "mecanismos basados ??en proyectos", ya que generan reducciones de emisiones de proyectos. La diferencia entre el IET y los mecanismos basados ??en proyectos del IET es que se basa en el establecimiento de una restricción cuantitativa de las emisiones, mientras que el MDL y la IC se basa en la idea de "producción" de reducción de emisiones. [33] El MDL está diseñado para fomentar la producción de la reducción de emisiones en Partes no-Anexo I, mientras que la aplicación conjunta estimula la producción de la reducción de emisiones en las Partes Anexo I.

La producción de la reducción de emisiones generados por el MDL y la IC puede ser utilizado por las Partes del anexo I a cumplir sus compromisos de limitación de emisiones. [36] Las reducciones de emisiones producidas por el MDL y la IC se miden contra una hipotética línea de base de las emisiones que se habrían producido en ausencia de un proyecto de reducción de emisiones en particular. Las reducciones de emisiones producidas por el MDL se denominan Reducciones Certificadas de Emisiones (RCE), las reducciones producidas por la aplicación conjunta se denominan Unidades de Reducción de Emisiones (URE). Las reducciones son llamados " créditos ", porque son las reducciones de emisiones acreditadas a una línea de base hipotética de las emisiones. [ cita requerida ]

[ editar ] Internacional de Comercio de Emisiones

Un número de esquemas de comercio de emisiones (ETS) han sido, o está previsto que, en práctica. [37] :19-26

[ editar ] Asia
[ editar ] Europa
[ editar ] América del Norte
  • Canadá: comercio de emisiones en Alberta , Canadá, que comenzó en 2007. Este es administrado por el Gobierno de Alberta . [37] : 22
  • Estados Unidos:
    • la Iniciativa Regional de Gases de Efecto Invernadero (RGGI), que comenzó en 2009. Este esquema de límites de emisiones de la generación de energía en diez estados del noreste de EE.UU. (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nueva Hampshire, Nueva Jersey, Nueva York, Rhode Island y Vermont). [37] : 24
    • comercio de emisiones en California, que está previsto que comience en 2012. [37] : 26
  • de la Iniciativa Climática del Oeste (WCI), que está previsto que comience en 2012. Se trata de una ETS colectivos acordados entre 11 estados de EE.UU. y las provincias canadienses . [37] : 25
[ editar ] Ocean
[ editar ] Grupo Intergubernamental de Comercio de Emisiones

El diseño del Sistema de Comercio de Emisiones de la Unión Europea (EU ETS) permite implícitamente para el comercio de los nacionales de las obligaciones de Kioto que se produzcan entre los países participantes (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 24). [38] Carbon Trust (2009, pp 24-25 ) encontró que no sea el de comercio que se produce como parte de las ETS de la UE, sin comercio de emisiones internacional había tenido lugar. [38]

Uno de los problemas ambientales con el Instituto de Estudios Turísticos es el gran excedente de derechos de emisión que están disponibles. Rusia, Ucrania, y la nueva UE-12 los estados miembros (el Protocolo de Kyoto las Partes del anexo I Economías en Transición, abreviado "IET": Belarús, Bulgaria, Croacia, República Checa, Estonia, Hungría, Letonia, Lituania, Polonia, Rumania, Federación de Rusia, Eslovaquia, Eslovenia y Ucrania) [39] : 59 tiene un excedente de derechos de emisión, mientras que muchos de la OCDE los países tienen un déficit. [38] : 24 Algunas de las economías en transición con un superávit de considerarlo como una compensación potencial para el trauma de la su reestructuración económica. [38] : 25. Cuando el tratado de Kyoto fue negociado, se reconoció que los objetivos de emisiones para las economías en transición podría llevar a tener un número excesivo de derechos de emisión [40] Este exceso de derechos de emisión fueron vistos por las economías en transición como " margen de maniobra "para hacer crecer sus economías. [41] El superávit ha, sin embargo, también ha sido denominado por algunos como "aire caliente", un término que Rusia (un país con un excedente de derechos de emisión) puntos de vista como "muy ofensivo". [42 ]

Países de la OCDE con un déficit podría cumplir con sus compromisos de Kioto mediante la compra de derechos de emisión de los países en transición con un superávit. A menos que los demás compromisos se hicieron para reducir el excedente total de derechos de emisión, el comercio como en realidad no dé lugar a emisiones han reducido [38] : 25 (véase también la sección de abajo en el Esquema de Inversiones Verdes ).

[ editar ] Esquema de Inversiones Verdes

Un Esquema de Inversión Verde (GIS) se refiere a un plan para lograr beneficios ambientales derivados de derechos de emisión excedentes comerciales (UCA) en el marco del Protocolo de Kioto. [43] El Plan de Inversión Verde (GIS), un mecanismo en el marco del Comercio Internacional de Emisiones (IET) , está diseñado para lograr una mayor flexibilidad en la consecución de los objetivos del Protocolo de Kioto, preservando la integridad ambiental del Instituto de Estudios Turísticos. Sin embargo, utilizando el SIG no es necesaria en virtud del Protocolo de Kyoto, y no existe una definición oficial del término. [43]

En el marco del SIG de una Parte en el Protocolo de esperar que el desarrollo de su economía no va a agotar su cuota de Kyoto, puede vender el excedente de sus unidades de cuotas de Kioto (UCA) a la otra Parte. El producto de las ventas de UCA debe ser "reverdecido", es decir, canalizada a la elaboración y ejecución de los proyectos, ya sea la adquisición de las reducciones de emisiones de gases de efecto invernadero (duro ecológico) o la construcción del marco necesario para este proceso (suave verdes). [38] : 25

[ editar ] El comercio de UCA

Letonia fue uno de los corredores de cabeza de los SIG. Del Banco Mundial (2011) [44] : 53 informó de que Letonia ha dejado de ofrecer las ventas de UCA debido a los bajos precios de AAU. En 2010, Estonia fue la fuente preferida para los compradores de AAU, seguido por la República Checa y Polonia. [44] : 53

La política nacional de Japón para cumplir con su objetivo de Kioto incluye la compra de UCA vendidos bajo los SIG. [45] En 2010, Japón y las empresas japonesas fueron los principales compradores de UCA. [44] : 53 En términos del mercado internacional del carbono, el comercio de UCA son una pequeña proporción del valor de mercado en general. [44] : 9 En 2010, el 97% del comercio en el mercado internacional del carbono fue impulsado por el Sistema de Comercio de Emisiones de la Unión Europea (EU ETS). [44] : 9 Sin embargo, las empresas reguladas por ETS de la UE no puede utilizar UCA en el cumplimiento de sus límites de emisiones. [46]

[ editar ] Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio

Entre los años 2001, que fue el primer año Mecanismo de Desarrollo Limpio (MDL) se pueden registrar, y 2012, al final del período de compromiso de Kyoto, el MDL se espera que produzca alrededor de 1,5 millones de toneladas de dióxido de carbono equivalente (CO 2 e) la reducción de emisiones. [47] La mayoría de estas reducciones se realizan a través de las energías renovables, eficiencia energética y el cambio de combustible (Banco Mundial, 2010, p. 262). En 2012, el mayor potencial para la producción de los CERs se estima que en China (52% del total de RCE) e India (16%). RCE producidos en América Latina y el Caribe constituyen el 15% del potencial total, siendo Brasil el mayor productor de la región (7%).

[ editar ] Implementación Conjunta

El período de acreditación formal para la Aplicación Conjunta (AC) se alineó con el primer período de compromiso del Protocolo de Kyoto, y no comenzó hasta enero de 2008 (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 20). [38] En noviembre de 2008, sólo el 22 AC proyectos han sido oficialmente aprobados y registrados. El total de programas de reducción de emisiones de la aplicación conjunta de 2012 son alrededor de una décima parte del MDL. Rusia representa alrededor de dos terceras partes de estos ahorros, y el resto dividido en partes casi iguales entre Ucrania y los nuevos Estados miembros de la UE. La reducción de emisiones incluyen cortes en el metano, HFC, y emisiones de N 2 O.

[ editar ] La estabilización de las concentraciones de gases de efecto invernadero

IPCC (2001, p. 122) evaluó la manera de Kyoto de la primera ronda de reducción de emisiones podría ser consistente con un objetivo a largo plazo de estabilizar las concentraciones de GEI en la atmósfera. [20] Para un 450 ppmv de destino (las emisiones de CO 2) , algunos analistas sugirieron que los compromisos de la primera ronda de Kyoto eran insuficientemente rigurosos (IPCC, 2001, p 122;.. Morita et al, 2001, pp 152-153). [48] Los compromisos de la primera ronda de Kyoto fueron evaluados para ser coherentes con las trayectorias de emisiones que permitan alcanzar la estabilización en 550 ppmv o incluso más. Otros analistas sugirieron que los compromisos de la primera ronda podría ser más débil y aún así permitir a largo plazo 450 ppmv de destino (IPCC, 2001, p. 122).

[ editar ] Los detalles del acuerdo

De acuerdo con un comunicado de prensa del Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Medio Ambiente :

"Después de 10 días de duras negociaciones, los ministros y otros funcionarios de alto nivel procedentes de 160 países llegaron a un acuerdo esta mañana sobre un protocolo jurídicamente vinculante en virtud del cual los países industrializados reduzcan sus emisiones colectivas de gases de efecto invernadero en un 5,2%. El acuerdo tiene por objeto reducir las emisiones globales de un grupo de seis gases de efecto invernadero para el periodo 2008-12, calculado como promedio durante estos cinco años Los recortes en los tres gases más importantes -. de dióxido de carbono (CO 2), metano (CH 4) y óxido nitroso (N 2 O) - se medirá en un año base de 1990 Los recortes en los tres gases de larga vida industriales -. hidrofluorocarbonos (HFC), perfluorocarbonos (PFC) y hexafluoruro de azufre (SF 6) - se puede medir contra una línea de base 1990 o 1995 ".

Limitaciones en el alcance nacional de 8% para las reducciones de la Unión Europea y otros, al 7% para los EE.UU., el 6% para Japón, 0% para Rusia, y los aumentos permitidos de 8% para Australia y 10% para Islandia. [26]

Los suplementos de acuerdo de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático (CMNUCC), adoptado en la Cumbre de la Tierra en Río de Janeiro en 1992, que no establece ninguna limitación ni mecanismos de aplicación. Todas las partes en la Convención Marco puede firmar o ratificar el Protocolo de Kyoto, mientras que los no Partes en la CMNUCC no se puede. El Protocolo de Kyoto fue adoptado en la tercera sesión de la Conferencia de las Partes de la CMNUCC (COP 3) en 1997 en Kyoto, Japón. La mayoría de las disposiciones del Protocolo de Kioto se aplica a los países desarrollados, que figuran en el anexo I de la CMNUCC.

Los objetivos nacionales de emisión de excluir a la aviación internacional y el transporte marítimo. Partes de Kioto puede utilizar el uso del suelo , cambio de uso de la tierra y la silvicultura (LULUCF) en el cumplimiento de sus objetivos (Dessai, 2001, p. 3). [49] las actividades de UTCUTS también se les llama "hundir" las actividades. Los cambios en los sumideros y uso de la tierra puede tener un efecto sobre el clima (IPCC, 2007). [50] los criterios particulares aplicables a la definición de la actividad forestal en el marco del Protocolo de Kyoto.

El manejo forestal , tierras de cultivo de gestión, el pastoreo de gestión de la tierra, y la revegetación son todas las actividades LULUCF elegibles en virtud del Protocolo (Dessai, 2001, p. 9). Partes del anexo I el uso de la gestión forestal en el cumplimiento de sus objetivos tiene un límite.

[ editar ] la responsabilidad común pero diferenciada

Las emisiones anuales de carbono procedentes de diversas regiones del mundo durante el período 1800-2000 dC

La noción de "responsabilidades comunes pero diferenciadas", que fue escrito en el artículo 3 de la 1992 Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Cambio Climático , es el principio clave del Protocolo de Kyoto. According to the article, the Parties recognized the direct responsibility of developed countries in global climate change as well as the “special needs and special circumstances of developing countries” with the emphasis on sustainable development [ 51 ] .

In general, the parties agreed that:

  1. the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases originated in developed countries;
  2. per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
  3. the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet social and development needs. [ 52 ]

The principle, which put the emphasis on the leading role of developed countries, can be increasingly less relevant as global context is changing. According to International Energy Agency (IEA) 2011 statistics, starting from 2008, carbon emissions from non-Annex I countries have surpassed those of Annex I countries. By 2009, while CO2 emissions from Annex I countries were back at 1990 levels, those from non-Annex I countries kept growing [ 53 ] . Therefore, to make the regime work successfully, emission reductions from developing countries such as China and India needs to be well considered and included as well. [ 54 ] .

[ editar ] Emisiones

See also Greenhouse gas#Greenhouse gas emissions

Per-capita emissions are a country's total emissions divided by its population (Banuri et al. ., 1996, p. 95). [ 55 ] Per-capita emissions in the industrialized countries are typically as much as ten times the average in developing countries (Grubb, 2003, p. 144). [ 56 ] This is one reason industrialized countries accepted responsibility for leading climate change efforts in the Kyoto negotiations. In Kyoto, the countries that took on quantified commitments for the first period (2008–12) corresponded roughly to those with per-capita emissions in 1990 of two tonnes of carbon or higher. In 2005, the top-20 emitters comprised 80% of total GHG emissions (PBL, 2010. See also the notes in the following section on the top-ten emitters in 2005). [ 57 ] Countries with a Kyoto target made up 20% of total GHG emissions.

Another way of measuring GHG emissions is to measure the total emissions that have accumulated in the atmosphere over time (IEA, 2007, p. 199). [ 58 ] Over a long time period, cumulative emissions provide an indication of a country's total contribution to GHG concentrations in the atmosphere. The International Energy Agency (IEA, 2007, p. 201) compared cumulative energy-related CO 2 emissions for several countries and regions. [ 58 ] Over the time period 1900–2005, the US accounted for 30% of total cumulative emissions; the EU, 23%; China, 8%; Japan, 4%; and India, 2%. The rest of the world accounted for 33% of global, cumulative, energy-related CO 2 emissions.

Top ten emitters

What follows is a ranking of the world's top ten emitters of GHGs for 2005 (MNP, 2007). [ 59 ] The first figure is the country's or region's emissions as a percentage of the global total. The second figure is the country's/region's per-capita emissions, in units of tons of GHG per-capita:

  1. China 1 – 17%, 5.8
  2. United States 3 – 16%, 24.1
  3. European Union-27 3 – 11%, 10.6
  4. Indonesia 2 – 6%, 12.9
  5. India – 5%, 2.1
  6. Russia 3 – 5%, 14.9
  7. Brazil – 4%, 10.0
  8. Japan 3 – 3%, 10.6
  9. Canada 3 – 2%, 23.2
  10. Mexico – 2%, 6.4

Notas

  • These values are for the GHG emissions from fossil fuel use and cement production. Calculations are for carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), and gases containing fluorine (the F-gases HFCs, PFCs and SF 6 ).
  • These estimates are subject to large uncertainties regarding CO 2 emissions from deforestation; and the per country emissions of other GHGs (eg, methane). There are also other large uncertainties which mean that small differences between countries are not significant. CO 2 emissions from the decay of remaining biomass after biomass burning/deforestation are not included.
  • 1 excluding underground fires.
  • 2 including an estimate of 2000 million tonnes CO 2 from peat fires and decomposition of peat soils after draining. However, the uncertainty range is very large.
  • 3 Industrialised countries : official country data reported to UNFCCC

[ edit ] 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 of them is called The Adaptation Fund " [ 60 ] ", that 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.

[ editar ] Las revisiones

The protocol left several issues open to be decided later by the sixth Conference of Parties (COP). COP6 attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in the Hague in late 2000, but was unable to reach an agreement due to disputes between the European Union on the one hand (which favoured a tougher agreement) and the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia on the other (which wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible).

In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting (COP6bis) was held in Bonn where the required decisions were adopted. After some concessions, the supporters of the protocol (led by the European Union ) managed to get Japan and Russia in as well 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 .

On 3 December 2007, Australia ratified the protocol during the first day of the COP13 in Bali.

Of the signatories, 36 developed CG 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, [ 61 ] much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of the less developed EU countries (see below Kyoto Protocol#Increase in greenhouse gas emission since 1990 ). [ 62 ] Reduction limitations expire in 2013.

[ edit ] Enforcement

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. [ 63 ]

[ edit ] Negotiations

Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC commits industrialized countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing emissions (Grubb, 2003, p. 144). [ 56 ] The initial aim was for industrialized countries to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The failure of key industrialized countries to move in this direction was a principal reason why Kyoto moved to binding commitments.

At the first UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Berlin, the G77 (a lobbying group that represents 133 developing countries, of which China is an associate (Dessai, 2001, p. 4)) [ 49 ] was able to push for a mandate where it was recognized that (Liverman, 2008, p. 12): [ 25 ]

  • developed nations had contributed most to the then-current concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere
  • developing country emissions per-capita were still relatively low
  • and that the share of global emissions from developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.

This mandate was recognized in the Kyoto Protocol in that developing countries were not subject to emission reduction commitments in the first Kyoto commitment period. However, the large potential for growth in developing country emissions made negotiations on this issue tense (Grubb, 2003, pp. 145–146). 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. 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.

[ edit ] Base year

The choice of the 1990 main base year remains in Kyoto, as it does in the original Framework Convention. The desire to move to historical emissions was rejected on the basis that good data was not available prior to 1990. The 1990 base year also favoured several powerful interests including the UK, Germany and Russia (Liverman, 2008, p. 12). [ 25 ] This is because the UK and Germany had high CO 2 emissions in 1990.

In the UK following 1990, emissions had declined because of a switch from coal to gas (" Dash for Gas "), which has lower emissions than coal. This was due to the UK's privatization of coal mining and its switch to natural gas supported by North sea reserves. Germany benefitted from the 1990 base year because of its reunification between West and East Germany. East Germany's emissions fell dramatically following the collapse of East German industry after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Germany could therefore take credit for the resultant decline in emissions.

Japan promoted the idea of flexible baselines, and favoured a base year of 1995 for HFCs. Their HFC emissions had grown in the early 1990s as a substitute for CFCs banned in the Montreal Protocol (Liverman, 2008, p. 13). Some of the former Soviet satellites wanted a base year to reflect their highest emissions prior to their industrial collapse.

EIT countries are privileged by being able to choose their base-year nearly freely. [ citation needed ] However the oldest base-year accepted is 1986. [ citation needed ]

[ edit ] Emissions cuts

The G77 wanted strong uniform emission cuts across the developed world of 15% (Liverman, 2008, p. 13). [ 25 ] Countries, such as the US, made suggestions to reduce their responsibility to reduce emissions. These suggestions included:

  • the inclusion of carbon sinks (eg, by including forests, that absorb CO 2 from the atmosphere).
  • and having net current emissions as the basis for responsibility, ie, ignoring historical emissions.

The US originally proposed for the second round of negotiations on Kyoto commitments to follow the negotiations of the first (Grubb, 2003, p. 148). [ 56 ] In the end, negotiations on the second period were set to open no later than 2005. Countries over-achieving in their first period commitments can "bank" their unused allowances for use in the subsequent period.

The EU initially argued for only three GHGs to be included – CO 2 , CH 4 , and N 2 O – with other gases such as HFCs regulated separately (Liverman, 2008, p. 13). 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. 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.

The final days of negotiation of the Protocol saw a clash between the EU and the US and Japan (Grubb, 2003, p. 149). The EU aimed for flat-rate reductions in the range of 10–15% below 1990 levels, while the US and Japan supported reductions of 0–5%. Countries that had supported differentiation had different ideas as to how it should be calculated, and many different indicators were proposed: relating to GDP, energy intensity (energy use per unit of economic output), etc. According to Grubb (2003, p. 151), the only common theme of these indicators was that each proposal suited the interests of the country making the proposal.

The final commitments negotiated in the Protocol are the result of last minute political compromises (Liverman, 2008, pp. 13–14). These include an 8% cut from the 1990 base year for the EU, 7% for the US, 6% for Canada and Japan, no cut for Russia, and an 8% increase for Australia. This sums to an overall cut of 5.2% below 1990 levels. Since Australia and the US did not ratify the treaty (although Australia has since done), the cut is reduced from 5.2% to about 2%.

Considering the growth of some economies and the collapse of others since 1990, the range of implicit targets is much greater (Aldy et al. , 2003, p. 7). [ 64 ] The US faced a cut of about 30% below "business-as-usual" (BAU) emissions (ie, predicted emissions should there be no attempt to limit emissions), while Russia and other economies in transition faced targets that allowed substantial increases in their emissions above BAU. On the other hand, Grubb (2003, p. 151) pointed out that the US, having per-capita emissions twice that of most other OECD countries, was vulnerable to the suggestion that it had huge potential for making reductions. From this viewpoint, the US was obliged to cut emissions back more than other countries.

[ edit ] Flexibility mechanisms

Negotiations over the flexibility mechanisms included in the Protocol proved controversial (Grubb, 2003, p. 153). [ 56 ] Japan and some EU member states wanted to ensure that any emissions trading would be competitive and transparent. Their intention was to prevent the US from using its political leverage to gain preferential access to the likely surplus in Russian emission allowances. The EU was also anxious to prevent the US from avoiding domestic action to reduce its emissions. Developing countries were concerned that the US would use flexibility to its own advantage, over the interests of weaker countries.

[ edit ] Compliance

The protocol defines a mechanism of "compliance" as a "monitoring compliance with the commitments and penalties for non-compliance." [ 65 ] According to Grubb (2003, p. 157), the explicit consequences of non-compliance of the treaty are weak compared to domestic law. [ 56 ] Yet, the compliance section of the treaty was highly contested in the Marrakesh Accords. According to Grubb (2003), Japan made some unsuccessful efforts to "water-down" the compliance package.

[ edit ] 2000 onwards

When George W. Bush was elected US president in 2000, he was asked by US Senator Hagel what his administration's position was on climate change. Bush replied that he took climate change "very seriously," but that he opposed the Kyoto treaty, because "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy" (Dessai, 2001, p. 5). [ 49 ] Almost all world leaders (eg, China, Japan, South Africa, Pacific islands) expressed their disappointment over President Bush's decision not to support the treaty (Dessai, 2001, p. 6).

In order for the Protocol to enter into legal effect, it was required that the Protocol was ratified by 55 Parties including 55% of 1990 Annex I emissions (Dessai, 2001, p. 3). [ 49 ] The US accounted for 36% of emissions in 1990, and without US ratification, only an EU+Russia+Japan+small party coalition could place the treaty into legal effect. A deal was reached in the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001. According to the EU, the Kyoto Protocol had been saved (Dessai, 2001, p. 8). For the G77/China, the Bonn agreement represented the "triumph of multilateralism over unilateralism" (Dessai, 2001, p. 8).

[ edit ] Ratification process

The Protocol was adopted by COP 3 on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan . It was opened on 16 March 1998 for signature by parties to UNFCCC .

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 [ 66 ] .

The US signed the Protocol, but did not ratify it. Before the Protocol was agreed on, the US Senate passed the Byrd-Hagel Resolution unanimously preventing ratification of any international agreement that 1) did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and 2) “would seriously harm the economy of the United States” [ 67 ] . Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty [ 68 ] , it remained only a symbolic act and was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.

The EU and its Member States ratified the Protocol in May 2002. [ 69 ] Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached on 23 May 2002 when Iceland ratified the Protocol [ 70 ] . 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 [ 71 ] .

As of November 2009, 187 countries and one regional economic organization (the EC ) have ratified the agreement, representing over 63.9% of the 1990 emissions from Annex I countries. [ 72 ]

[ edit ] Denunciation of Canada

In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia stated that they would not take on further Kyoto targets. [ 73 ] The Canadian government invoked Canada's legal right to formally withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol on 12 December 2011. [ 74 ] 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. Environment minister Peter Kent cited Canada's liability to "enormous financial penalties" under the treaty unless it withdrew. [ 73 ] [ 75 ] He also suggested that the recently signed Durban agreement may provide an alternative way forward. [ 76 ] Canada's decision was strongly criticised by representatives of other ratifying countries, including France and China.

A spokesperson for the island nation of Tuvalu , significantly threatened by rising sea levels, accused Canada of an "act of sabotage" against his country. Australian government minister Greg Combet , however, defended the decision, saying that it did not mean Canada would not continue to "play its part in global efforts to tackle climate change". [ 76 ] China called Canada's decision to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol "regrettable" and says it goes against the efforts of the international community. Canada's move came days after climate-change negotiators met to hammer-out a global deal in Durban, South Africa. [ 77 ]

Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Weimin expressed China's dismay at the news that Canada had pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol. Noting that the timing was particularly bad, because negotiators at the just-concluded Durban conference made what he described as important progress on the issue of the Kyoto Protocol's second commitment period. Liu said Canada's move goes against the efforts of the international community and is regrettable. He says Beijing hopes Canada will face up to its obligations, honor its commitments and actively participate in international efforts to fight climate change. [ 78 ]

The Chinese negotiator at Durban, Xie Zhenhua, said he was concerned that developed nations are reluctant to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions, which many scientists say exacerbate global warming. He also called on developed countries to provide financial and technical aid to help developing nations fight against and cope with the effects of climate change. [ 79 ]

[ edit ] Government action and emissions

Annual per capita carbon dioxide emissions (ie, average emissions per person) from fuel combustion between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.
Annual carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.

[ editar ] Anexo I

Total aggregate GHG emissions excluding emissions/removals from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF, ie, carbon storage in forests and soils) for all Annex I Parties taken together (including the USA) decreased from 19.0 to 17.8 thousand teragrams (Tg, which is equal to 10 9 kg) CO 2 equivalent, a decline of 6.0% during the 1990-2008 period. [ 80 ] :3 Several factors have contributed to this decline. [ 80 ] :14 The first is due to the economic restructuring in the Annex I Economies in Transition [ 80 ] :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. [ 7 ] :25 This led to a massive contraction of their heavy industry-based economies, with associated reductions in their fossil fuel consumption and emissions. [ 38 ] :24

Emissions growth in Annex I Parties have also been limited due to policies and measures (PaMs). [ 80 ] :14 In particular, PaMs were strengthened after 2000, helping to enhance energy efficiency and develop renewable energy sources. [ 80 ] :14 Energy use also decreased during the economic crisis in 2007-2008. [ 80 ] :14

[ editar ] Proyecciones

UNFCCC (2011) [ 80 ] :14 made projections of changes in emissions of the Annex I Parties and the effectiveness of their PaMs. It was noted that their projections should be interpreted with caution. [ 80 ] :7 For the 39 Annex I Parties, UNFCCC (2011) projected that existing PaMs would lead to annual emissions in 2010 of 17.5 thousand Tg CO 2 eq, excluding LULUCF, which is a decrease of 6.7% from the 1990 level. [ 80 ] :14 Annual emissions in 2020 excluding LULUCF were projected to reach 18.9 thousand Tg CO 2 eq, which is an increase of 0.6% on the 1990 level. [ 80 ] :14

UNFCCC (2011) [ 80 ] :14 made an estimate of the total effect of implemented and adopted PaMs. Projected savings were estimated relative to a reference (baseline) scenario where PaMs are not implemented. PaMs were projected to deliver emissions savings relative to baseline of about 1.5 thousand Tg CO 2 eq by 2010, and 2.8 thousand Tg CO 2 eq by 2020. [ 80 ] :14 In percentage terms, and using annual emissions in the year 1990 as a reference point, PaMs were projected to deliver at least a 5.0% reduction relative to baseline by 2010, and a 10.0% reduction relative to baseline in 2020. [ 80 ] :14 Scenarios reviewed by UNFCCC (2011) [ 80 ] :14 still suggested that total Annex I annual emissions would increase out to 2020 (see the preceding paragraph).

[ edit ] Annex I Parties with targets

Collectively the group of industrialized countries committed to a Kyoto target, ie, the Annex I countries excluding the USA, have 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. [ 7 ] :24 According to Olivier et al. (2011), [ 7 ] :24 the Kyoto Parties will comfortably exceed their collective target, with a projected average reduction of 16% for 2008-2012. This projection excludes both LULUCF and credits generated by the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). [ 7 ] :24

As noted in the preceding section, between 1990–1999, there was a large reduction in the emissions of the EITs. [ 7 ] :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 USA. [ 7 ] :25 Emissions of the Annex II countries (Annex I minus the EIT countries) have experienced a limited increase in emissions from 1990–2006, followed by stabilization and a more marked decrease from 2007 onwards. [ 7 ] :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. [ 7 ] :25 At the end of 2010, the EU-15 was on track to achieve its Kyoto target, but three EU-15 Member States (Austria, Italy and Luxembourg) were not on track to meet their burden-sharing targets. [ 81 ] :8 Other countries not on course to meet their Kyoto target include Liechtenstein , [ 81 ] :8 Switzerland , [ 81 ] :8 Australia, Canada (Canada withdrew from the Kyoto treaty in 2011), [ 82 ] New Zealand and Spain. [ 7 ] :25 In order to meet their targets, these countries would need to purchase emissions credits from other Kyoto countries. [ 7 ] :25 As noted in the section on Intergovernmental Emissions Trading , purchasing surplus credits from the EIT countries would not actually result in total emissions being reduced. An alternative would be the purchase of CDM credits or the use of the Green Investment Scheme.

Canada's environment minister, Peter Kent , informed a day after the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference that Canada will withdraw from the Kyoto accord (see the section on the withdrawal of Canada ). [ 82 ]

[ edit ] Annex I Parties without Kyoto targets

Belarus, Malta, and Turkey are Annex I Parties but do not have Kyoto targets. [ 81 ] The US has a Kyoto target of a 6% reduction relative to the 1990 level, but has not ratified the treaty. [ 7 ] :25 Emissions in the US have increased 11% since 1990, and according to Olivier et al. (2011), [ 7 ] :25 it will be unable to meet its original Kyoto target.

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. [ 7 ] :26 Including the US in their calculation, Olivier et al. (2011) [ 7 ] :26 projected that the Annex I countries would collectively achieve a 7% reduction relative to the base year, which is lower than the original target of a 5.2% reduction. This projection excludes expected purchases of emissions credits. [ 7 ] :26

[ edit ] Non-Annex I

UNFCCC (2005) compiled and synthesized information reported to it by non-Annex I Parties. [ 27 ] Most non-Annex I Parties belonged in the low-income group, with very few classified as middle-income. [ 27 ] :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. [ 27 ] :6 Many non-Annex I Parties are making efforts to amend and update their environmental legislation to include global concerns such as climate change. [ 27 ] :7

A few Parties, eg, South Africa and Iran , stated their concern over how efforts to reduce emissions by Annex I Parties could adversely affect their economies. [ 27 ] :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 CO 2 -eq. CO 2 was the largest proportion of emissions (63%), followed by methane (26%) and nitrous oxide (N 2 O) (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 CO 2 -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 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). [ 83 ] 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.

[ edit ] Cost estimates

Barker et al. (2007, p. 79) assessed the literature on cost estimates for the Kyoto Protocol. [ 84 ] Due to non-US participation in the Kyoto treaty, costs estimates were found to be much lower than those estimated in the previous IPCC Third Assessment Report . Without 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 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.

[ edit ] 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. [ 18 ] 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.

World Bank (2010, p. 233) commented on how the Kyoto Protocol had only had a slight effect on curbing global emissions growth. [ 47 ] The treaty was negotiated in 1997, but by 2005, energy-related emissions had grown 24%. 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.

Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based on the idea of climate justice (Liverman, 2008, p. 14). [ 25 ] This has particularly centred 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.

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). [ 64 ] In 2001, sixteen national science academies [ 85 ] stated that ratification of the Protocol represented a "small but essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases." [ 86 ] Some environmentalists and scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5). [ 87 ]

The lack of quantitative emission commitments for developing countries led to the governments of the United States, and also Australia under Prime Minister John Howard deciding not to ratify the treaty (Stern 2007, p. 478). [ 88 ] Australia, under former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd , has since ratified the treaty, [ 89 ] [ 90 ] which took effect in March, 2008. [ 91 ]

In May 2010 the Hartwell Paper was published by the London School of Economics . The authors argued that after what they regard as the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit , the Kyoto Protocol " has failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years " and that this failure opened an opportunity for a re-orientation towards a climate policy based on human dignity instead of human sinfulness. [ 92 ] [ 93 ] They propose that climate policy based on human dignity would emcompass ensuring energy access for all, aiding in the creation of energy in a manner that does not undermine the global Eco-System, and equipping societies with the tools to withstand the risks radical climate poses on them. [ 93 ]

[ editar ] Sucesor

In the non-binding ' Washington Declaration' agreed on 16 February 2007, heads of governments from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, 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 envisage a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries , and hoped that this would be in place by 2009. [ 94 ] [ 95 ]

On 7 June 2007, leaders at the 33rd G8 summit agreed that the G8 nations would "aim to at least halve global CO 2 emissions by 2050". The details enabling this to be achieved would be negotiated by environment ministers within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in a process that would also include the major emerging economies . [ 96 ]

A round of climate change talks under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) ( Vienna Climate Change Talks 2007 ) concluded in 31 August 2007 with agreement on key elements for an effective international response to climate change. [ 97 ]

A key feature of the talks was a United Nations report that showed how efficient energy use could yield significant cuts in emissions at low cost.

The talks were meant to set the stage for a major international meeting to be held in Nusa Dua , Bali , which started on 3 December 2007. [ 98 ]

The Conference was held in December 2008 in Pozna? , Poland. One of the main topics on this meeting was the discussion of a possible implementation of avoided deforestation also known as Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) into the future Kyoto Protocol. [ 99 ]

After the lack of progress leading to a binding commitment or an extension of the Kyoto commitment period in climate talks at COP 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, there were and will be several further rounds of negotiation COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico in 2010, COP 17 in South Africa in 2011, and in Qatar in 2012 (COP 18). Because any treaty change will require the ratification of the text by various countries' legislatures before the end of the commitment period on 31 December 2012, it is likely that agreements in South Africa or South Korea/Qatar will be too late to prevent a gap between the commitment periods. [ 100 ]

[ editar ] Véase también

[ editar ] Notas

  1. ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol , UNFCCC , http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/3145.php , retrieved 9 December 2011  
  2. ^ a b StarTribune - Canada formally pulls out of Kyoto Protocol on climate change Retrieved 4 May 2012.
  3. ^ "Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change: Annex B" . United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. nd . http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php . Retrieved 8 October 2011 .  
  4. ^ KOM(2007) final edition page 2 [ full citation needed ]
  5. ^ a b "Article 2" . The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. . http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php . 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"  
  6. ^ "Status of Ratification of the Kyoto Protocol" . United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change . http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php . Retrieved 15 August 2011 .  
  7. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Olivier, JGJ, et al. (21 September 2011) (PDF), Long-term trend in global CO 2 emissions; 2011 report , The Hague, Netherlands: PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency; Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES) of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre   PBL publication number 500253004. JRC Technical Note number JRC65918.
  8. ^ "Methodological issues related to the Kyoto protocol" . 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 . http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/cop3/07a01.pdf#page=31 . Consultado el 13 de febrero de 2010.  
  9. ^ US National Research Council (2001). "Summary" . Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions . Washington, DC, USA: National Academy Press. pág. 3 . http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=3 .  
  10. ^ a b US National Research Council (2008) (PDF). Understanding and Responding to Climate Change . Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, US National Academy of Sciences. pág. 2 . http://americasclimatechoices.org/climate_change_2008_final.pdf .  
  11. ^ a b c IPCC (2007). "3. Projected climate change and its impacts" . In Core Writing Team et al. (eds.). Summary for Policymakers . 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 . http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/spms3.html .  
  12. ^ Temperatures are measured relative to the average global temperature averaged over the years 1980-1999, with the projected change averaged over 2090–2099.
  13. ^ a b c Karl, TR, et al , ed. (2009). "Global climate change" . Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States . 32 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10013-2473, USA: Cambridge University  
  14. ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011a), Status of Ratification of the Convention , UNFCCC Secretariat: Bonn , Germany : UNFCCC , http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/status_of_ratification/items/2631.php   . 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.
  15. ^ a b c d IPCC (2001d). "Question 1" . In Watson, RT and the Core Writing Team. Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) . Cambridge University Press . http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/017.htm .  
  16. ^ Granger Morgan, M. (Lead Author), H. Dowlatabadi, M. Henrion, D. Keith, R. Lempert, S. McBride, M. Small and T. Wilbanks (Contributing Authors) (2009). "BOX NT.1 Summary of Climate Change Basics" . Non-Technical Summary . Synthesis and Assessment Product 5.2: Best practice approaches for characterizing, communicating, and incorporating scientific uncertainty in decisionmaking. A Report by the US Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. Washington DC, USA.: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. pág. 11 . http://www.globalchange.gov/publications/reports/scientific-assessments/saps/311 .  
  17. ^ a b Grubb, M. (2004). "Kyoto and the Future of International Climate Change Responses: From Here to Where?" (PDF). International Review for Environmental Strategies 5 (1): 2 (PDF version) . http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/J37.pdf .  
  18. ^ a b 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. . 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, NY, USA. This version: IPCC website . http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch13s13-3-1.html . Retrieved 2 April 2010 .  
  19. ^ a b c Grubb, M. and J. Depledge (2001). "The Seven Myths of Kyoto" (PDF). Climate Policy 1 (2): 169 . http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/JR09.pdf . Consultado el 18 de abril de 2011.  
  20. ^ a b IPCC (2001). "7.32 Stabilizing atmospheric concentrations would depend upon emissions reductions beyond those agreed to in the Kyoto Protocol" . In Watson, RT and the Core Writing Team. Question 7 . Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report. A Contribution of Working Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. This version: GRID-Arendal website . http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/vol4/english/051.htm . Consultado el 16 de abril de 2011.  
  21. ^ a b Meehl, GA, 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 . 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 . http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-10-3.html .  
  22. ^ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2007). "Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change" . In Solomon, S., et al. , (eds.). Summary for Policymakers . Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge University Press . http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/spmsspm-human-and.html .  
  23. ^ a b United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol , UNFCCC , http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php  
  24. ^ Depledge, J. (August 1999/August 2000) (PDF), United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Technical paper: Tracing the Origins of the Kyoto Protocol: An Article-by-Article Textual History , UNFCCC, p. 6 , http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/tp/tp0200.pdf  
  25. ^ a b c d e Liverman, DM (2008). "Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere" (PDF). Journal of Historical Geography 35 (2): Retrieved 10 May 2011 .  
  26. ^ a b "Industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2%" (Press release). United Nations Environment Programme . 11 December 1997 . http://unfccc.int/cop3/fccc/info/indust.htm . Consultado el 6 de agosto de 2007.  
  27. ^ a b c d e f 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 , United Nations Office at Geneva, retrieved 20 May 2010  
  28. ^ a b c United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol , UNFCCC , http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/3145.php  
  29. ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011), Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change , UNFCCC , http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php  
  30. ^ European Environment Agency (EEA) (15 November 2005), Kyoto burden-sharing targets for EU-15 countries - EEA ,  
  31. ^ a b United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2008) (PDF), Kyoto Protocol Reference Manual On Accounting of Emissions and Assigned Amount , Bonn, Germany: Climate Change Secretariat (UNFCCC), p. 55, ISBN 92-9219-055-5 , http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/publications/08_unfccc_kp_ref_manual.pdf  
  32. ^ Bashmakov, I., et al ., "6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments", Executive summary   , in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
  33. ^ a b Toth, FL, et al ., "10. Decision-making Frameworks", 10.4.4. Where Should the Response Take Place? The Relationship between Domestic Mitigation and the Use of International Mechanisms   , in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
  34. ^ Bashmakov, I., et al ., "6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments", 6.3 International Policies, Measures, and Instruments   , in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
  35. ^ a b Hourcade, J.-C., et al ., "8. Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation", 8.3.1 International Emissions Quota Trading Regimes   , in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
  36. ^ Bashmakov, I., et al ., "6. Policies, Measures, and Instruments", 6.3.2 Project-based Mechanisms (Joint Implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism)   , in IPCC TAR WG3 2001
  37. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Hood, C. (November 2010). "5. Current and proposed emissions trading systems" (PDF). Review Existing and Proposed Emissions Trading Systems: Information paper. Head of Publications Service, 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France: International Energy Agency (IEA) . http://www.iea.org/papers/2010/ets_paper2010.pdf . Retrieved 7 July 2011 .  
  38. ^ a b c d e f g h Carbon Trust (March 2009). "Global Carbon Mechanisms: Emerging lessons and implications (CTC748)" . Carbon Trust Retrieved 31 March 2010 .  
  39. ^ World Bank (2008), Development and Climate Change: A Strategic Framework for the World Bank Group: Technical Report , Washington, DC, USA: The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. , http://beta.worldbank.org/overview/strategic-framework-development-and-climate-change  
  40. ^ Hourcade, J.-C., et al. (2001). "8.3.1.1 "Where Flexibility"" . In B. Metz, et al. . 8. Global, Regional, and National Costs and Ancillary Benefits of Mitigation . Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. A Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press. pág. 538 . http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/341.htm .  
  41. ^ Blyth, W. and R. Baron (2003) (PDF), Green Investment Schemes: Options and Issues , Paris, France: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Environment Directorate and International Energy Agency (IEA), p. 11 , http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/48/54/19842798.pdf   OECD reference: COM/ENV/EPOC/IEA/SLT(2003)9
  42. ^ Chiavari, J. and M. Pallemaerts (30 June 2008) (PDF), 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) , Brussels, Belgium: Institute for European Environmental Policy, p. 11 , http://www.ieep.eu/assets/433/ecc_russia.pdf  
  43. ^ a b Carbon Finance at the World Bank (2011), Carbon Finance - Glossary of Terms: Definition of "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS) , Washington, DC, USA: World Bank Carbon Finance Unit (CFU) , http://go.worldbank.org/HZGVW3QN20 , retrieved 15 December 2011  
  44. ^ a b c d e World Bank (2011) (PDF), State and Trends of the Carbon Market Report 2011 , Washington, DC, USA: World Bank Environment Department, Carbon Finance  
  45. ^ Government of Japan (28 March 2008) (PDF), Kyoto Protocol Target Achievement Plan (Provisional Translation) , Tokyo, Japan: Ministry of the Environment, Government of Japan, pp. 81–82 , http://www.env.go.jp/en/earth/cc/kptap.pdf  
  46. ^ Ramming, I, et al. (September 2008). "34. AAU Trading and the Impact on Kyoto and EU Emissions Trading. Before the Flood or Storm in a Tea-cup?" . In Carnahan, K.. Greenhouse Gas Market Report 2008 . Geneva, Switzerland: International Emissions Trading Association (IETA). pág.   This document can also be downloaded as a PDF file
  47. ^ a b World Bank (2010). "World Development Report 2010: Development and Climate Change" . The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433 . http://go.worldbank.org/UVZ0HYFGG0 . Consultado el 6 de abril de 2010.  
  48. ^ Morita, T. et al. (2001). "2.5.2.3 Comparison of Quantified Stabilization Scenarios" . In B. Metz et al. . 2. Greenhouse Gas Emission Mitigation Scenarios and Implications . Climate Change 2001: Mitigation. Contribution of Working Group III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Print version: Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. This version: GRID-Arendal Consultado el 16 de abril de 2011.  
  49. ^ a b c d Dessai, S. (2001). "The climate regime from The Hague to Marrakech: Saving or sinking the Kyoto Protocol?" . Tyndall Centre Working Paper 12 . Tyndall Centre Retrieved 5 May 2010 .  
  50. ^ IPCC (2007). "Glossary JP. In (section): Annex II Glossary. In (book):" . In Pachauri, RK and Reisinger, A.. 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 (Core Writing Team,. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland (web Retrieved 28 May 2010 .  
  51. ^ United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 3, p.4
  52. ^ "The full text of the convention" . The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change . http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php . Retrieved 5 November 2006 .  
  53. ^ CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion Highlight - 2011 edition, p. 26 ( http://www.iea.org/co2highlights/co2highlights.pdf )
  54. ^ Baylis, John, Steve Smith, and Patricia Owens. The Globalization of World Politics. 5 ª ed. Oxford: 2011. p.358.
  55. ^ Banuri, T. et al . (1996). "Equity and Social Considerations.". In JP Bruce et al .. Climate Change 1995: Economic and Social Dimensions of Climate Change . Contribution of Working Group III to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA. DOI : 10.2277/0521568544 . ISBN 978-0-521-56854-8 .  
  56. ^ a b c d e Grubb, M. (July–September 2003). "The Economics of the Kyoto Protocol" . World Economics 4 (3): 143–189 . http://www.econ.cam.ac.uk/rstaff/grubb/publications/J36.pdf . Retrieved 25 March 2010 .  
  57. ^ PBL (24 February 2010). "Dossier Climate Change: FAQs. Question 10: Which are the top-20 CO 2 or GHG emitting countries?" . Netherlands Environment Agency Consultado el 1 de mayo de 2010.  
  58. ^ a b IEA (2007). "World Energy Outlook 2007 Edition- China and India Insights" . International Energy Agency (IEA), Head of Communication and Information Office, 9 rue de la Fédération, 75739 Paris Cedex 15, France. pp. 600 . http://www.iea.org/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1927 . Consultado el 4 de mayo de 2010.  
  59. ^ MNP (2007). "Greenhouse gas emissions of countries in 2005 and ranking of their per capita emissions" . Netherlands Environment Agency website . http://www.pbl.nl/images/Top20-CO2andGHG-countries-in2006-2005(GB)_tcm61-36276.xls . Consultado el 1 de mayo de 2010.  
  60. ^ http://www.adaptation-fund.org/
  61. ^ "The Kyoto protocol – A brief summary" . European Commission . http://ec.europa.eu/environment/climat/kyoto.htm . Consultado el 19 de abril de 2007.  
  62. ^ "Kyoto Protocol" . UNFCCC. 14 May 2008 . http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/background/items/3145.php . Consultado el 21 de mayo de 2009.  
  63. ^ "An Introduction to the Kyoto Protocol Compliance Mechanism" . UNFCC . http://unfccc.int/kyoto_mechanisms/compliance/introduction/items/3024.php . Retrieved 30 October 2006 .  
  64. ^ a b Aldy, JE et al . (9 September 2003). "Thirteen Plus One: A Comparison of Global Climate Policy Architectures" . Climate Policy 3 (3): Retrieved 2 April 2010 .  
  65. ^ Maljean-Dubois,, S. "Compliance with the Kyoto Protocol on Climate Change" . Synthèse, n° 01, 2007 . Institute for Sustainable Development and International  
  66. ^ "The Kyoto Protocol full text (PDF)" . UNFCC Homepage . http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.pdf .  
  67. ^ Byrd-Hagel Resolution ( http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html )
  68. ^ "Clinton Hails Global Warming Pact" . All Politics (CNN). 11 December 1997. Retrieved 5 November 2006.
  69. ^ "European Union ratifies the Kyoto Protocol" (Press release). European Union. 31 de mayo Consultado el 13 de febrero de 2010.  
  70. ^ "Status of ratification" . UNFCC Homepage . http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/status_of_ratification/items/2613.php . Retrieved 5 June 2012 .  
  71. ^ West, Larry. "What is the Kyoto Protocol" . About.com (Part of NYT) . http://environment.about.com/od/kyotoprotocol/i/kyotoprotocol.htm . Retrieved 5 June 2012 .  
  72. ^ "Kyoto Protocol: Status of Ratification" (PDF). United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change . 14 de enero Retrieved 6 May 2009 .  
  73. ^ a b "Canada pulls out of Kyoto protocol" . The Guardian . 13 December 2011 . http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/dec/13/canada-pulls-out-kyoto-protocol . Retrieved 13 December 2011 .  
  74. ^ "Canada withdrawing from Kyoto" . The Toronto Star . 12 de diciembre Retrieved 12 December 2011 .  
  75. ^ David Ljunggren and Randall Palmer (13 December 13, 2011). "Canada to pull out of Kyoto protocol" . Reuters . Financial Post . http://business.financialpost.com/2011/12/13/canada-to-pull-out-of-kyoto-protocol/ . Consultado el 9 de enero de 2012.  
  76. ^ a b "Canada under fire over Kyoto protocol exit". BBC News . 13 December 2011.  
  77. ^ Stephanie Ho (RSS Feeds RSS Feed Wednesday, 14 December 2011). "China Calls Canada's Kyoto Protocol Withdrawal 'Regrettable'" . Voice of Retrieved 14 June 2012 .  
  78. ^ Meagan Fitzpatrick (13 Dec 2011). "May accuses Harper of breaking law over Kyoto" . Canadian Broadcasting Corporation News . http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/12/13/pol-may-kyoto.html . Retrieved 14 June 2012 .  
  79. ^ Stephanie Ho (RSS Feeds RSS Feed Wednesday, 14 December 2011). "China Calls Canada's Kyoto Protocol Withdrawal 'Regrettable'" . Voice of Retrieved 14 June 2012 .  
  80. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (2011) (PDF), Compilation and synthesis of fifth national communications. Executive summary. Note by the secretariat. , Geneva (Switzerland): United Nations Office at Geneva , http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2011/sbi/eng/inf01.pdf  
  81. ^ a b Vaughan, A (13 December 2011). "What does Canada's withdrawal from Kyoto protocol mean?" . The Consultado el 17 de diciembre de 2011.  
  82. ^ PBL (16 October 2009). "Industrialised countries will collectively meet 2010 Kyoto target" . Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL) Retrieved 3 April 2010 .   [ enlace roto ]
  83. ^ Barker T., et al. (2007). "Mitigation costs across sectors and macro-economic costs" . In B. Metz, OR Davidson, PR Bosch, R. Dave, LA Meyer. Technical summary . 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, NY, USA. This version: IPCC Consultado el 16 de abril de 2011.  
  84. ^ the Australian Academy of Science , the Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences 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)
  85. ^ Joint academies' statement (18 May 2001). "The Science of Climate Change (editorial)" . Science 292 (5520): 1261. DOI : 10.1126/science.292.5520.1261 . http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/292/5520/1261 . Retrieved 3 April 2010 .  
  86. ^ Grubb, M. (April 2000). The Kyoto Protocol: An Economic Appraisal. FEEM Working Paper No. 30 2000 . SSRN. DOI : 10.2139/ssrn.229280 . SSRN 229280 .  
  87. ^ Stern, N. (2007). "Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change (pre-publication edition)" . Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York, NY, USA . http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm . Retrieved 25 February 2010 .  
  88. ^ "Govt still not serious about climate change: Labor" . ABC News Online . 26 October 2006 . http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200610/s1772952.htm . Retrieved 30 October 2006 .  
  89. ^ BBC (3 December 2007). "Rudd takes Australia inside Kyoto" . BBC News . http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/7124236.stm . Retrieved 5 December 2007 .  
  90. ^ "Australia's Rudd sworn in as PM" . BBC News (BBC). 3 December 2007 . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7124236.stm . Retrieved 3 December 2007 .  
  91. ^ Prins, Gwyn et. al (May 2010). "The Hartwell Paper – A new direction for climate policy after the crash of 2009" . London School of Economics . http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/1/HartwellPaper_English_version.pdf . Consultado el 12 de mayo de 2010.  
  92. ^ a b Mike Hulme (11 May 2010). "After the crash – a new direction for climate policy" . BBC News . http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8673828.stm . Consultado el 12 de mayo de 2010.  
  93. ^ "Politicians sign new climate pact" . BBC. 16 February 2007 . http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6364663.stm . Consultado el 28 de mayo de 2007.  
  94. ^ "Global leaders reach climate change agreement" . The Guardian . Reino Unido. 16 February 2007 . http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2014683,00.html . Consultado el 28 de mayo de 2007.  
  95. ^ "Breakthrough on climate protection" . G8 Summit 2007 Heiligendamm. 7 June 2007 . http://www.g-8.de/nn_92160/Content/EN/Artikel/__g8-summit/2007-06-07-g8-klimaschutz__en.html . Retrieved 7 June 2007 .  
  96. ^ "Vienna UN conference shows consensus on key building blocks for effective international response to climate change" (PDF) (Press release). De las Naciones Unidas. 31 August Consultado el 12 de octubre de 2007.  
  97. ^ "UN climate change conference hails Australia Kyoto signing" (Press release). CBC News. 3 December 2007 . http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2007/12/03/un-climate.html .  
  98. ^ Walsh, Bryan (4 December 2008). "Green Banks: Paying Countries to Keep their Trees" . Time Magazine . http://timeinc8-sd11.websys.aol.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1864302,00.html . Consultado el 21 de mayo de 2009.  
  99. ^ UNFCCC (20 July 2010). "Legal considerations relating to a possible gap between the first and subsequent commitment periods" . Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol . http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/awg13/eng/10.pdf . Consultado el 3 de agosto de 2010.  

[ editar ] Referencias

[ editar ] Para leer más

  • Ekardt, F./von Hövel, A.: Distributive Justice, Competitiveness, and Transnational Climate Protection . In: Carbon & Climate Law Review, Vol. 3., 2009, p. 102–114.
Economía

[ editar ] Enlaces externos

Herramientas personales
Los espacios de nombres

Variantes
Acciones
Navegación
Interacción
Caja de herramientas
Imprimir / exportar
Idiomas

iv.gd - Translate any webpage in real-time - This webpage has been translated in order to make it available in another language, view original page

View this page in: Afrikaans, Albanian, Arabic, Belarusian, Bulgarian, Catalan, Chinese (Simp), Chinese (Trad), Croatian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Filipino, Finnish, French, Galician, German, Greek, Hebrew, Hindi, Hungarian, Icelandic, Indonesian, Irish, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Malay, Maltese, Norwegian, Persian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, Russian, Serbian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish, Swahili, Swedish, Thai, Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Welsh, Yiddish

Content and any subsequent copyright is upheld by the third-party - contact@iv.gd