Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
their emissions to 5 percent below 1990 levels for the 2008-2012 budget
period. Under the protocol, important institutional features were estab-
lished, such as reporting requirements. The protocol also introduced a
method for calculating the relative importance of different GHGs. Its
most important innovation was an international cap-and-trade sys-
tem of emissions trading as a means of coordinating policies among
countries.
The Kyoto Protocol was an ambitious attempt to construct an inter-
national architecture that would effectively harmonize the policies of
different countries. But countries did not fi nd it economically attrac-
tive. The United States withdrew very early. It did not attract any new
participants from middle-income and developing countries. As a result,
there was signifi cant attrition in the coverage of emissions under the
Kyoto Protocol. Also, emissions grew more rapidly in noncovered coun-
tries, particularly developing countries like China. The protocol as fi rst
designed would have covered two-thirds of global emissions in 1990, but
the actual scope in 2012 was barely one-fi fth of world emissions. Analy-
ses showed that, even if indefi nitely extended, the Kyoto reductions
would have a very limited impact on future climate change. It died a
quiet death, mourned by few, on December 31, 2012 (see Figure 36).
4
The 2009 Copenhagen meeting was designed to negotiate a successor
agreement for the post-Kyoto period. It produced an agreement known as
the Copenhagen Accord. The accord adopted a global temperature tar-
get, “recognizing the scientifi c view that the increase . . . should be be-
low 2 degrees Celsius.” However, because countries were unwilling to
make binding commitments and were concerned about the division of
costs, the meeting concluded without a substantive agreement to limit
emissions.
What is the implication of the demise of the Kyoto Protocol and the
failure of the Copenhagen Accord? For the near term, it seems likely
that climate policy will at best take the route of parallel but uncoordi-
nated national policies—the second of the four approaches listed above.
Some countries (such as those of the EU) will continue to use cap and
trade. Others (perhaps India and China) may introduce cap-and-trade
limits or carbon taxes. Still others (such as the U.S.) will rely largely on
