The Kyoto Protocol was the first international climate agreement. The Protocol was first adopted by Kyoto, Japan in 1997 with the objective of reducing CO2 emissions. Unlike the other climate agreements that have been evaluated thus far, the Kyoto Protocol didn’t leave concrete entry space or guidelines for developing countries to join in.
This piece of climate legislation was on the stricter side given the political time period it was ratified in. Under the Protocol Developed, industrialized countries made promises to reduce their annual hydrocarbon emissions by an average of 5.2% by the year 2012. Collectively this number would represent about 29% of the world’s total greenhouse gas emissions. Countries still set their own individual hydrocarbon emission goals. The European Union, and the countries it is comprised of, pledged to cut emissions by 8% while the U.S. and Canada promised to reduce their emissions by 7% all by 2012.
What made the Kyoto Protocol so strict was that If a country emitted more hydrocarbons than its arbitrary goal allowed, then that country would be penalized by being forced to take a harder emissions goal the following goal period. In practice, this would mean that if the United States only managed to reduce greenhouse emission by 6% in 2012, and our goal was 7%, then the following year they would be asked to reduce it by 8% by 2020.
Unlike some of the other agreements evaluated thus far, the Kyoto Protocol allowed Carbon Trading which is the practice of buying and selling carbon emission permits. This meant that a country could pay another country to take some of their carbon reduction goal if they were going to fail to reach it. It was effectively a carbon tax on goals that wouldn’t be met.
When the first round of hydrocarbon goals came to end in 2012, a net negative environmental impact still occurred. Hydrocarbon emissions were still on the rise. The European Union and its conglomerate managed to meet their goals but both the United States and China fell short, both of whom happen to be the largest carbon-emitting countries. They produced enough greenhouse gases to mitigate any of the progress that was made by nations who met their targets. Ultimately, there was an increase of about 40% in hydrocarbon emissions globally between 1990 and 2009.
In December of 2012, the Doha Amendment was ratified which marked the beginning of the second goal period with new goals assigned. This was a short-lived amendment because in 2015 the United Nations signed the Paris Climate Agreement which had a more feasible framework and acted as a stronger guide for the countries involved.
Work Cited
Clark, Duncan. “Has the Kyoto Protocol Made Any Difference to Carbon Emissions?” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 26 Nov. 2012, www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2012/nov/26/kyoto-protocol-carbon-emissions.
Tardi, Carla. “The Kyoto Protocol.” Investopedia, Investopedia, 5 Feb. 2020, www.investopedia.com/terms/k/kyoto.asp.
“What Is the Kyoto Protocol?” UNFCCC, unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol.
I enjoyed reading your blog posts because I am not very educated in legislations, and I like learning about them, especially ones regarding climate and sustainability as it is such a relevant issue. I thought the aspect of the Kyoto Protocol where countries could buy and sell carbon emission permits is somewhat scary and could cause many conflicts and in general, refute the main goal of the entire protocol if misused. I also think that there should be penalties involved in emissions, but the harsh consequences proposed could become unmanageable for some nations.
While the lack of concrete entry guidelines is definitely an oversight for the Kyoto Protocol, being the first international climate change agreement is no small feat. Having the world collaborate on this growing issue 20 years ago paved the way for future climate change agreements to take place such as the Paris Climate Agreement. Despite the increase in hydrocarbon emissions, I think that the Kyoto Protocol was a necessary prototype in order to avoid future failures. Hopefully, nations can meet the goals that they’ve been provided in order to help stop climate change before it is too late.
I can definitely see why this legislation did not find major success. By initially leaving out a clear way to enter the agreement there is a pre-existent barrier to find worldwide success. I also think that global politics restrict the ability to penalize rather than provide incentives. It is good that this did have a net negative emission, and I feel like it set a standard for future climate legislation. It is an advantageous plan which has created a presidency for the future.
It has been a lot of fun reading your civic issue blog thus far. I agree with what previous commenters have said: I don’t have a lot of knowledge on these types of legislation, but I still allow politicians to affect my own opinions on the matter. (Here’s to being more informed!) I imagine it must be extremely tough to create protocols for entire countries to follow, because once one country asks for an exception, the rest want in. Expectations of developing and underdeveloped countries are also interesting: developed countries exploited the Earth, so why can’t they to achieve better lives for their people?
It’s interesting to start from the first international climate agreement and to examine how we have changed as a world since then. The thing that sucks about the Kyoto Protocol is that it didn’t leave room for other countries to join.