Download The Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol - background
1992: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int/
- recognized there is a problem: CO2 emissions are warming the planet
- stabilize CO2 at "at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic (human induced) interference with the climate system.“
goals:
1) ensure that ecosystems can adapt to climate change
2) make sure that food production not threatened
3) allow sustainable economic development
- requires precise and regularly updated inventories of greenhouse gas
emissions from industrialized countries
-"Parties to the Convention“ agree to develop national programs
to slow climate change; meet at “Conference of Parties” (COP’s);
where binding international treaties (i.e. Kyoto) can be made
- establishes a "framework" document -- something to be amended
or augmented over time
The Kyoto Protocol - background
1992: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change http://unfccc.int/
- places the heaviest burden for fighting climate change on industrialized nations
Annex 1: industrialized economies and economies in transition
Annex 2: the richest Annex 1 countries
(aka the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD))
- general target: collectively reduce emissions to 1990 levels by 2000
(but no mechanisms, enforcement proposed)
- support developing countries’ climate change activities (granting body)
- developing countries’ emissions will grow before they shrink
- developing countries will have largest climate change impacts; work to mitigate
The Kyoto Protocol
Dec 1-11, 1997: representatives from 160 countries agreed to enter into
binding limits on emissions of greenhouse gases
TARGETS:
Total: reduce developed nation emissions to 5% below 1990 levels during
“commitment period” 2008-2012
(most countries need -18% reduction in BAU by 2008)
37 industrialized nations and the EU subject to binding emissions targets
Greenhouse gases: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs, and SF6
PENALTY:
Non-compliant countries will have to reduce emissions by 1.3 units for
every unit of emissions “overshoot” in subsequent commitment period.
Ex: if your emissions target is 7Gtons per year by 2012, and you end
up at 10Gtons/yr, in the next commitment period (2013-2020) you
will have to reduce by 4Gtons/yr (in addition to any new targets) to be
compliant
A.
Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol
The following table shall replace the table in Annex B to the Protocol:
The Doha Amendment passed on December 21, 2012
1
2
3
4
5
6
Quantified emission
limitation or reduction
commitment
(2008–2012)
(percentage of base year
1990 or period)
Quantified
emission
limitation or
reduction
commitment
(2013–2020)
(percentage of
base year or
period)
Reference
year1
Quantified
emission
limitation or
reduction
commitment
(2013–2020)
(expressed as
percentage of
reference
year)1
Pledges for the
reduction of
greenhouse gas
emissions by
2020
(percentage of
reference
year)2
108
99.5
2000
98
–5 to –15% or
–25%3
92
804
NA
NA
5
88
1990
NA
Belgium
80
4
NA
NA
80
4
NA
NA
6
80
NA
NA
804
NA
NA
80
4
NA
NA
80
4
NA
NA
80
4
NA
NA
4
2nd implementation: 1/1/13-12/31/20
*Russia,
Canada,
and Japan
bow out
of KP2
Party
Australia
Austria
Belarus *
Bulgaria*
Croatia*
92
92
95
Cyprus
Czech Republic*
Denmark
Estonia*
92
92
92
European Union
92
80
1990
NA
Finland
92
804
NA
NA
92
4
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
80
4
NA
NA
80
4
NA
NA
80
8
NA
NA
80
4
NA
NA
80
4
NA
NA
95
1990
95
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary*
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Kazakhstan*
92
92
94
110
92
92
80
80
–8%
–20%/–30%7
–20%/–30%7
–7%
Three primary mechanisms
1. Emissions trading
- trade carbon units between Annex 1 countries (flow is from countries with
carbon credits to countries with carbon overshoots)
- example: Europe’s Emissions Trading System (ETS), National Allocation Plans
2. Joint Implementation
- Annex 1 countries can invest in a emissions-reduction project in another
Annex 1 country and receive emissions reduction units (ERU)
3. Clean Development Mechanism
- Annex 1 countries receive ERUs for emissions reductions in developing countries
- must certify reductions (they would not have happened without action by Annex 1)
PROS:
- For countries that are ultra-efficient, Kyoto would be cost prohibitive. Such countries
can ‘buy their way out’ by buying carbon credits from other countries
- Developing countries have incentive to reduce emissions by selling carbon credits
Kyoto comes into force when 55% of the global CO2 emissions are covered by
Kyoto-ratifying countries
Kyoto took effect on Feb 16, 2005 after ratification by Russia
Brown = signed and ratified (dark brown = Annex 1 & 2)
Blue = signed and unratified (dark blue = withdrew, add Russia and Japan)
Country
Change in GHG
Emissions
(1990-2004)
EU Assigned
Objective
for 2012
Treaty Obligation
2008-2012
Germany
-17%
-21%
-8%
Canada
+27%
N/A
-6%
Spain
+49%
+15%
-8%
United
States
+16%
N/A
N/A (would be -7%)
France
-0.8%
0%
-8%
Greece
+27%
+25%
-8%
Ireland
+23%
+13%
-8%
Japan
+6.5%
N/A
-6%
United
-14%
Kingdom
-12.5%
-8%
Portugal
+41%
+27%
-8%
EU-15
-0.8%
N/A
-8%
Who are the
Biggest Losers?
Whose emissions
have grown?
Source: International Energy Agency
Source: UNFCC
So it’s not true that EU countries are not meeting their Kyoto obligations
although help from Eastern Block countries help a lot….
Source: UNFCC
Land use changes have contributed significant CO2
Land-use and Land-use
Change and Forestry
(LULUCF) makes a huge
difference in maps of
relative CO2 emissions
wikipedia.org/LULUCF
Hugo Ahlenius, UNEP/GRID-Arendal
Enter REDD: Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation
Fact: 18% anthropogenic emissions comes from forest destruction
Idea: Developed countries will pay for developing countries
not to destroy rainforest
Bali Action Plan (COP 13)
REDDplus
The Bali Action Plan calls for:
What do people mean by
“perverse incentive” with
REDD?
Any equity issues to consider?
“Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues
relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and
forest degradation in developing countries; and the role
of conservation, sustainable management of
forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in
developing countries;”[ FCCC/CP/2007/6/Add.1, 14 March
2008; Decision 1/CP.13 [BAP], paragraph 1(b)(iii)]
EIA analysis of impact of Kyoto Protocol on US economy (Oct 1998):
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/kyoto/execsum.html
KEY POINTS:
1) US emissions projected to increase 34% above 1990 levels by 2010
2) Potential for natural C sinks may reduce US commitment to -3% (vs. 7%) of 1990 levels
3) Carbon prices range from $67/tonne (+24% by 2010) scenario to $385 (-7%) scenario
4) Large uncertainties (social response, market response); also cost depends on when
you begin to implement (starting later yields higher costs)
So would it ‘cost’ us? Yes
Do we know what the cost would be? Perhaps not so well….
What is the cost of climate change? Very difficult to say
The Basics of Cap and Trade
1. Cap and trade is a market-based approach to reducing pollution. The govt sets
an overall cap on emissions and creates allowances up to the level of the cap.
2. Sources must hold enough allowances to cover their emissions.
- can lower emissions and sell or bank allowances
- continue to emit higher than their allowance and purchase additional allowances
3. Market-driven: govt does not prescribe where emission reductions are made,
but the govt must set the goal and monitor compliance
US Cap and Trade Programs in Place (via EPA)
1. Acid Rain Program: covers SO2 emissions from power-generation facilities
- reductions of 51% of 1990 levels by 2008
2. NOx Budget Trading Program: covers O3-season (summer) NOx
- reductions of 60% of 2000 levels by 2007
EU Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading System (EU ETS)
1. Create allowances equivalent to the EU Kyoto assignments
for each country
2. Distribute them to the nations, and then the nations
distribute them to the large emitters
3. Each year, large emitters must return allowances equivalent
to their emissions that year
Phase 1 (2005-2007): allowances given out freely; involves 40% EU CO2
EU emissions grow by 1.9% in two years
Phase 2 (2008-2012): CDM and JI included; 60% allowances auctioned
EU emissions (only 3% required)
Phase 3 (2012- ): aviation included; most allowances (>50%) must be
auctioned; outside-EU emissions credits <50%
- new cap means -21% of 2005 emissions by 2020
Carbon currently trading at €8.52 ($10.50) per tonne
“Cheaper, not cleaner”
--The Economist
Australia chose a carbon tax:
$24/ton
source per unit mass or volume is multiplied by the SCC to obtain the tax. Based on the mean peer reviewed
value ($43/tC or $12/tCO2), the table below estimates the tax:
How $43/ton carbon price translates into energy prices:
Fuel
CO2 Emissions[41]
(mass of CO2
produced)
Tax
(per fuel unit)
CO2 Emissions[41]
(mass of CO2
produced)
Tax per kWh of
electricity[42]
gasoline
19.6 lb/US gal
(2.35 kg/L)
$0.11/USgal
($0.028/L)
n/a
n/a
diesel fuel
22.4 lb/US gal
(2.68 kg/L)
$0.12/USgal
($0.032/L)
n/a
n/a
jet fuel
22.1 lb/US gal
(2.65 kg/L)
$0.12/USgal
($0.032/L)
n/a
n/a
natural gas
0.1206 lb/cu ft
(1.93 kg/m3)
$0.00066/cu ft
($0.023/m3)
117 lb/MBTU (181
g/kWh)
$0.0066
coal (lignite)
2791 lb/ton
(1.396 kg/kg)
n/a
215 lb/MBTU (333
g/kWh)
$0.0121
coal
(subbutuminous)
3715 lb/ton
(1.858 kg/kg)
n/a
213 lb/MBTU (330
g/kWh)
$0.0119
coal (butuminous)
4931 lb/ton
(2.466 kg/kg)
n/a
205 lb/MBTU (317
g/kWh)
$0.0115
coal (anthracite)
5685 lb/ton
(2.843 kg/kg)
n/a
227 lb/MBTU (351
g/kWh)
$0.0127
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/coefficients.html
Note that the tax per kWh of electricity depends on the thermal efficiency of the generating power plant, which
varies from power plant to power plant. The table follows the American Physical Society (APS) estimate of