The Kyoto Protocol was an international treaty which extended the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. A number of governments across the world took a variety of actions.
Annex I In total, Annex I Parties managed a cut of 3.3% in greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions between 1990 and 2004 (UNFCCC, 2007, p. 11). In 2007, projections indicated rising emissions of 4.2% between 1990 and 2010. This projection assumed that no further mitigation action would be taken. The reduction in the 1990s was driven significantly by economic restructuring in the economies-in-transition (EITs. See Kyoto Protocol § Intergovernmental Emissions Trading for the list of EITs). Emission reductions in the EITs had little to do with climate change policy (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 24). Some reductions in Annex I emissions have occurred due to policy measures, such as promoting energy efficiency (UNFCCC, 2007, p. 11).
Australia On the change of government following the election in November 2007, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed the ratification immediately after assuming office on 3 December 2007, just before the meeting of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change; it took effect in March 2008. Australia's target is to limit its emissions to 8% above their 1990 level over the 2008–2012 period, i.e., their average emissions over the 2008–2012 period should be kept below 108% of their 1990 level (IEA, 2005, p. 51). According to the Australian government, Australia should meet its Kyoto target (IEA, 2005, p. 56; DCCEE, 2010). When he was in the opposition, Rudd commissioned Ross Garnaut to report on the economic effects of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report was submitted to the Australian government on 30 September 2008. The policy of the Rudd government contrasts with that of the former Australian government, which refused to ratify the agreement on the ground that following the protocol would be costly.
Policy Australia's position, under Prime Minister John Howard, was that it did not intend to ratify the treaty (IEA, 2005, p. 51). The justification for this was that:
the treaty did not cover 70% of global emissions; developing countries are excluded from emission limitations; and the-then largest GHG emitter, the US, had not ratified the treaty. The Howard government did intend to meet its Kyoto target, but without ratification (IEA, 2005, p. 51). As part of the 2004 budget, A$1.8 billion was committed towards its climate change strategy. A$700 million was directed towards low-emission technologies (IEA, 2005, p. 56). The Howard government, along with the United States, agreed to sign the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate at the ASEAN regional forum on 28 July 2005. Furthermore, the state of New South Wales (NSW) commenced the NSW greenhouse gas abatement scheme. This mandatory scheme of greenhouse gas emissions trading commenced on 1 January 2003 and is currently in trial by the state government in NSW alone. Notably, this scheme allows accredited certificate providers to trade emissions from households in the state. As of 2006, the scheme is still in place despite the outgoing Prime Minister's clear dismissal of emissions trading as a credible solution to climate change. Following the example of NSW, the national emissions trading scheme (NETS) has been established as an initiative of state and territory governments of Australia, all of which have Labor Party governments, except Western Australia. The purpose of NETS is to establish an intra-Australian carbon trading scheme to coordinate policy among regions. As the Constitution of Australia does not refer specifically to environmental matters (apart from water), the allocation of responsibility is to be resolved at a political level. In the later years of the Howard administration (1996–2007), the states governed by the Labor took steps to establish a NETS (a) to take action in a field where there were few mandatory federal steps and (b) as a means of facilitating ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the incoming Labor government. In May 2009, Kevin Rudd delayed and changed the carbon pollution reduction scheme:
the scheme would begin in 2011/2012, a year later than initially scheduled (it had been scheduled to begin on 1 July 2010); there would be one-year fixed price of A$10 per permit in 2011/2012 (previously, price was to under the price cap of $40); there would be an unlimited amount of permits available from the government in the first year (previously, estimated 300 million tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) was to be auctioned off); a higher percentage of permits would be handed out, rather than auctioned off (previously, 60% or 90% of permits were to be handed out); compensation would be canceled in 2010/2011 and reduced in 2011/2012; households can reduce their carbon footprint by buying and retiring permits into an Australian carbon trust (previously, no such scheme was included); subject to an international agreement, Australia would commit to a reduction of 25% from the 2000 level by 2020 (previously, there was to be a reduction of 15%); 5% out of the 25% reduction could be achieved by the government purchase of international off-sets (previously, no such scheme was included). Greenpeace Greenpeace has called clause 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol the "Australia clause" on the ground that it unfairly made Australia a major beneficiary. The clause allows annex 1 countries with a high rate of land clearing in 1990 to set the level in that year as a base. Greenpeace argues that since Australia had an extremely high level of land clearing in 1990, Australia's "baseline" was unusually high compared to other countries.
Emissions In 2002, Australia represented about 1.5% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions (IEA, 2005, p. 51). Over the 1990–2002 period, Australia's gross emissions rose by 22%, which was surpassed by only four other International Energy Agency (IEA) members (IEA, 2005, p. 54). This was in large part due to economic growth. Net emissions (including changes in land-use and forestry) increased by 1.3% over this period. In 2005, Australia's GHG emissions made up 1.2% of the global total (MNP, 2007). Per-capita emissions are a country's total emissions divided by its population (Banuri et al., 1996, p. 95). In 2005, per capita emissions in Australia were 26.3 tons per capita (MNP, 2007).
Canada
… excerpt ends here. Continue reading the full article.
