A Question of Value: On the Legality of Using Kyoto Protocol Units under the Paris Agreement

The first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol generated about 4.3 billion Assigned Amount Units (aaus) and about 180 million Certified Emission Reductions (cers) for carry-over by Annex i states and potential use as ‘overachievements’ or offsets to discount emissions under ndcs. The second commitment period may generate additional carry-over units, and there is an estimated ‘dormant’ amount of about 4.6 billion cers that could be issued from ongoing cdm projects. To rely on these units risks upsetting the process of trust-building necessary to increase ambition under the Paris Agreement. This article questions the legality of carry-overs but finds that a textual interpretation of the current legal framework under both treaties leaves the matter unresolved. With a more refined legal interpretation, based on the principles of environmental integrity and sound accounting under the Paris Agreement, the article re-evaluates aaus and cers under the Agreement, by relying on insights from a social theory of value and the critical studies literature on the political economy of carbon markets. The conclusion is that aaus cannot be used under the ndc accounting framework, as their formal value of 1 Mt CO2 eq. under the Kyoto Protocol is considerably diminished under the Agreement. As for cers, their value depends on different social realities related to their issuance. States or the cma should adopt transparent criteria to select the cers that are worth transitioning pursuant to the Article 6.4 mechanism. The same conceptual framework of value-attribution can also inform the design and operation of the Article 6 mechanisms and their units in order to attain higher environmental integrity and sound accounting for ndcs.

Analysis of Russia's Approach to Kyoto Protocol: Russia's Withdrawal from Second Commitment Period (2013-2020)

In 2004 Russia ratified Kyoto Protocol, one of the international agreements which focuses on climate change mitigation. Kyoto Protocol was established as a framework for countries to mitigate climate change globally by reducing their greenhouse gas emissions accordingly to their respective targets. Russia officially participated in the first commitment period of Kyoto Protocol in 2005 after ensuring the benefits by doing so. Entering the second commitment period, in 2011 Russia decided to withdraw. In consideration of Russia’s position as the largest fossil fuel energy exporter and as a country whose economy is in restoration, Russia’s approach to Kyoto Protocol is based on its interests and benefits which it gains from the framework. This paper analyzes the factors behind Russia’s withdrawal from the second commitment period of Kyoto Protocol through the perspective of offensive realism with qualitative methodology. The thesis finds that Russia’s reasoning of withdrawal was an act to protect its national interest, which is economic security, specifically its energy sector.

EDGAR v4.3.2 Global Atlas of the three major greenhouse gas emissions for the period 1970–2012

The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) compiles anthropogenic emissions data for greenhouse gases (GHGs), and for multiple air pollutants, based on international statistics and emission factors. EDGAR data provide quantitative support for atmospheric modelling and for mitigation scenario and impact assessment analyses as well as for policy evaluation. The new version (v4.3.2) of the EDGAR emission inventory provides global estimates, broken down to IPCC-relevant source-sector levels, from 1970 (the year of the European Union's first Air Quality Directive) to 2012 (the end year of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, KP). Strengths of EDGAR v4.3.2 include global geo-coverage (226 countries), continuity in time, and comprehensiveness in activities. Emissions of multiple chemical compounds, GHGs as well as air pollutants, from relevant sources (fossil fuel activities but also, for example, fermentation processes in agricultural activities) are compiled following a bottom-up (BU), transparent and IPCC-compliant methodology. This paper describes EDGAR v4.3.2 developments with respect to three major long-lived GHGs (CO2, CH4, and N2O) derived from a wide range of human activities apart from the land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector and apart from savannah burning; a companion paper quantifies and discusses emissions of air pollutants. Detailed information is included for each of the IPCC-relevant source sectors, leading to global totals for 2010 (in the middle of the first KP commitment period) (with a 95 % confidence interval in parentheses): 33.6(±5.9) Pg CO2 yr−1, 0.34(±0.16) Pg CH4 yr−1, and 7.2(±3.7) Tg N2O yr−1. We provide uncertainty factors in emissions data for the different GHGs and for three different groups of countries: OECD countries of 1990, countries with economies in transition in 1990, and the remaining countries in development (the UNFCCC non-Annex I parties). We document trends for the major emitting countries together with the European Union in more detail, demonstrating that effects of fuel markets and financial instability have had greater impacts on GHG trends than effects of income or population. These data (https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.2658138, Janssens-Maenhout et al., 2019) are visualised with annual and monthly global emissions grid maps of 0.1∘×0.1∘ for each source sector.

EDGAR v4.3.2 Global Atlas of the three major Greenhouse Gas Emissions for the period 1970–2012

The Emissions Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR) compiles anthropogenic emissions data for greenhouse gases (GHG) and for multiple air pollutants based on international statistics and emission factors. EDGAR data provides quantitative support for atmospheric modelling and for mitigation scenario and impact assessment analyses as well as for policy evaluation. The new version v4.3.2 of the EDGAR emission inventory provides global estimates, disaggregated to IPCC-relevant source-sector levels, from 1970 (the year of EU's first Air Quality Directive) to 2012 (the end year of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (KP)). Strengths of EDGAR v4.3.2 include global geo-coverage (226 countries), continuity in time, and comprehensiveness in activities. Emissions of multiple chemical compounds, GHG as well as air pollutants, from relevant sources (fossil fuel activities but also, for example fermentation processes in agricultural activities) are compiled following a bottom-up (BU), fully-traceable and IPCC-based methodology. This paper describes EDGARv4.3.2 developments with respect to three major GHG (CO2, CH4, and N2O) derived from a wide range of human activities apart from the land-use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF) sector and apart from Savannah burning; a companion paper quantifies and discusses emissions of air pollutants. Detailed information is included for each of the IPCC-relevant source-sectors, leading to global totals for 2010 (in the middle of the first KP commitment period) (with 95 % confidence interval in parentheses): 33.6 (±5.9) Pg CO2/yr, 0.34 (±0.16) Pg CH4/yr, and 7.2 (±3.7) Tg N2O/yr. We provide uncertainty factors in emissions data for the different GHGs and for three different groups of countries: OECD countries of 1990, countries with economies in transition in 1990, and the remaining countries in development (the UNFCCC non-Annex I parties). We document trends for the major emitting countries together with the European Union in more detail, demonstrating that effects of fuel markets and financial stability have had greater impacts on GHG trends than effects of income or population. These data (DOI: https://doi.org/10.2904/JRC_DATASET_EDGAR) are visualised with annual and monthly global emissions grid-maps of 0.1° ×0.1° for each source-sector; these data can be freely accessed from the EDGAR website http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/overview.php?v=432&SECURE=123.

The Desirability of Depoliticization: Compliance in the International Climate Regime

The Kyoto Protocol is remarkable among global multilateral environmental agreements for its efforts to depoliticize compliance. However, attempts to create autonomous, arm’s length and rule-based compliance processes with extensive reliance on putatively neutral experts were only partially realized in practice in the first commitment period from 2008 to 2012. In particular, the procedurally constrained facilitative powers vested in the Facilitative Branch were circumvented, and expert review teams (ERTs) assumed pivotal roles in compliance facilitation. The ad hoc diplomatic and facilitative practices engaged in by these small teams of technical experts raise questions about the reliability and consistency of the compliance process. For the future operation of the Kyoto compliance system, it is suggested that ERTs should be confined to more technical and procedural roles, in line with their expertise. There would then be greater scope for the Facilitative Branch to assume a more comprehensive facilitative role, safeguarded by due process guarantees, in accordance with its mandate. However, if – as appears likely – the future compliance trajectories under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will include a significant role for ERTs without oversight by the Compliance Committee, it is important to develop appropriate procedural safeguards that reflect and shape the various technical and political roles these teams currently play.