Kyoto Protocol

1992 – The UN Conference on the Environment and Development is held in Rio de Janeiro. It results in the Framework Convention on Climate Change ("FCCC" or "UNFCCC") among other agreements.

1995 – Parties to the UNFCCC meet in Berlin (the 1st Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC) to outline specific targets on emissions.

1997 – In December the parties conclude the Kyoto Protocol in Kyoto, Japan, in which they agree to the broad outlines of emissions targets.

2004 – Russia and Canada ratify the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC bringing the treaty into effect on 16 February 2005.

2011 – Canada became the first signatory to announce its withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol.[18]

2012 – On 31 December 2012, the first commitment period under the Protocol expired.

Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).[19] Article 2 of the Convention states its ultimate objective, which is to stabilize the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere "at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic (human) interference with the climate system."[20]

The natural, technical and social sciences can provide information on decisions relating to this objective including the possible magnitude and rate of future climate changes.[20] However, the IPCC has also concluded that the decision of what constitutes "dangerous" interference requires value judgements, which will vary between different regions of the world.[20] Factors that might affect this decision include the local consequences of climate change impacts, the ability of a particular region to adapt to climate change (adaptive capacity), and the ability of a region to reduce its GHG emissions (mitigative capacity).[20]

A number of emissions trading schemes (ETS) have been, or are planned to be, implemented.[49]^:19–26

• Japan: emissions trading in Tokyo started in 2010. This scheme is run by the Tokyo Metropolitan Government.[49]^:24

• European Union: the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS), which started in 2005. This is run by the European Commission.[49]^:20
• Norway: domestic emissions trading in Norway started in 2005.[49]^:21 This was run by the Norwegian Government, which is now a participant in the EU ETS.
• Switzerland: the Swiss ETS, which runs from 2008 to 2012, to coincide with the Kyoto Protocol's first commitment period.[49]^:22
• United Kingdom:
  • the UK Emissions Trading Scheme, which ran from 2002–06. This was a scheme run by the UK Government, which is now a participant in the EU ETS.[49]^:19
  • the UK CRC Energy Efficiency Scheme, which started in 2010, and is run by the UK Government.[49]^:25

• Canada: emissions trading in Alberta, Canada, which started in 2007. This is run by the Government of Alberta.[49]^:22
• United States:
  • the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which started in 2009. This scheme caps emissions from power generation in eleven north-eastern US states (Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Virginia).[49]^:24
  • emissions trading in California, which started in 2013.[49]^:26
• the Western Climate Initiative (WCI), which began in 2012. This is a collective ETS agreed between 11 US states and Canadian provinces.[49]^:25

• Australia: the New South Wales Greenhouse Gas Reduction Scheme (NSW), which started in 2003. This scheme is run by the Australian State of New South Wales, and has now joined the Alfa Climate Stabilization (ACS).[49]^:19
• New Zealand: the New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme, which started in 2008.[49]^:23

The design of the European Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) implicitly allows for trade of national Kyoto obligations to occur between participating countries (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 24).[50] Carbon Trust (2009, pp. 24–25) found that other than the trading that occurs as part of the EU ETS, no intergovernmental emissions trading had taken place.[50]

One of the environmental problems with IET is the large surplus of allowances that are available. Russia, Ukraine, and the new EU-12 member states (the Kyoto Parties Annex I Economies-in-Transition, abbreviated "EIT": Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine)[51]^:59 have a surplus of allowances, while many OECD countries have a deficit.[50]^:24 Some of the EITs with a surplus regard it as potential compensation for the trauma of their economic restructuring.[50]^:25 When the Kyoto treaty was negotiated, it was recognized that emissions targets for the EITs might lead to them having an excess number of allowances.[52] This excess of allowances were viewed by the EITs as "headroom" to grow their economies.[53] The surplus has, however, also been referred to by some as "hot air," a term which Russia (a country with an estimated surplus of 3.1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent allowances) views as "quite offensive."[54]

OECD countries with a deficit could meet their Kyoto commitments by buying allowances from transition countries with a surplus. Unless other commitments were made to reduce the total surplus in allowances, such trade would not actually result in emissions being reduced[50]^:25 (see also the section below on the Green Investment Scheme).

The "Green Investment Scheme" (GIS) is a plan for achieving environmental benefits from trading surplus allowances (AAUs) under the Kyoto Protocol.[55] The Green Investment Scheme (GIS), a mechanism in the framework of International Emissions Trading (IET), is designed to achieve greater flexibility in reaching the targets of the Kyoto Protocol while preserving environmental integrity of IET. However, using the GIS is not required under the Kyoto Protocol, and there is no official definition of the term.[55]

Under the GIS a party to the protocol expecting that the development of its economy will not exhaust its Kyoto quota, can sell the excess of its Kyoto quota units (AAUs) to another party. The proceeds from the AAU sales should be "greened", i.e. channelled to the development and implementation of the projects either acquiring the greenhouse gases emission reductions (hard greening) or building up the necessary framework for this process (soft greening).[50]^:25

Latvia was one of the front-runners of GISs. World Bank (2011)[56]^:53 reported that Latvia has stopped offering AAU sales because of low AAU prices. In 2010, Estonia was the preferred source for AAU buyers, followed by the Czech Republic and Poland.[56]^:53

Japan's national policy to meet their Kyoto target includes the purchase of AAUs sold under GISs.[57] In 2010, Japan and Japanese firms were the main buyers of AAUs.[56]^:53 In terms of the international carbon market, trade in AAUs are a small proportion of overall market value.[56]^:9 In 2010, 97% of trade in the international carbon market was driven by the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS).[56]^:9 However, firms regulated under the EU ETS are unable to use AAUs in meeting their emissions caps.[58]

Between 2001, which was the first year Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) projects could be registered, and 2012, the end of the first Kyoto commitment period, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO₂e) in emission reductions.[59] Most of these reductions are through renewable energy commercialisation, energy efficiency, and fuel switching (World Bank, 2010, p. 262). By 2012, the largest potential for production of CERs are estimated in China (52% of total CERs) and India (16%). CERs produced in Latin America and the Caribbean make up 15% of the potential total, with Brazil as the largest producer in the region (7%).

The formal crediting period for Joint Implementation (JI) was aligned with the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, and did not start until January 2008 (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 20).[50] In November 2008, only 22 JI projects had been officially approved and registered. The total projected emission savings from JI by 2012 are about one tenth that of the CDM. Russia accounts for about two-thirds of these savings, with the remainder divided up roughly equally between the Ukraine and the EU's New Member States. Emission savings include cuts in methane, HFC, and N₂O emissions.

Indicative probabilities of exceeding various increases in global mean temperature for different stabilization levels of atmospheric GHG concentrations.[60]

Different targets for stabilization require different levels of cuts in emissions over time.[61] Lower stabilization targets require global emissions to be reduced more sharply in the near-term.[61]

Analysts have developed scenarios of future changes in GHG emissions that lead to a stabilization in the atmospheric concentrations of GHGs.[62] Climate models suggest that lower stabilization levels are associated with lower magnitudes of future global warming, while higher stabilization levels are associated with higher magnitudes of future global warming (see figure opposite).[60]

To achieve stabilization, global GHG emissions must peak, then decline.[63] The lower the desired stabilization level, the sooner this peak and decline must occur (see figure opposite).[63] For a given stabilization level, larger emissions reductions in the near term allow for less stringent emissions reductions later.[64] On the other hand, less stringent near term emissions reductions would, for a given stabilization level, require more stringent emissions reductions later on.[64]

The first period Kyoto emissions limitations can be viewed as a first-step towards achieving atmospheric stabilization of GHGs.[23] In this sense, the first period Kyoto commitments may affect what future atmospheric stabilization level can be achieved.[65]

At the 16th Conference of the Parties held in 2010, Parties to the UNFCCC agreed that future global warming should be limited below 2°C relative to the pre-industrial temperature level.[66] One of the stabilization levels discussed in relation to this temperature target is to hold atmospheric concentrations of GHGs at 450 parts per million (ppm) CO
₂- eq.[67] Stabilization at 450 ppm could be associated with a 26 to 78% risk of exceeding the 2 °C target.[68]

Scenarios assessed by Gupta et al. (2007)[69] suggest that Annex I emissions would need to be 25% to 40% below 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. The only Annex I Parties to have made voluntary pledges in line with this are Japan (25% below 1990 levels by 2020) and Norway (30–40% below 1990 levels by 2020).[70]

Gupta et al. (2007)[69] also looked at what 450 ppm scenarios projected for non-Annex I Parties. Projections indicated that by 2020, non-Annex I emissions in several regions (Latin America, the Middle East, East Asia, and centrally planned Asia) would need to be substantially reduced below "business-as-usual".[69] "Business-as-usual" are projected non-Annex I emissions in the absence of any new policies to control emissions. Projections indicated that by 2050, emissions in all non-Annex I regions would need to be substantially reduced below "business-as-usual".[69]

Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC commits industrialized countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing emissions.[75] The initial aim was for industrialized countries to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.[75] The failure of key industrialized countries to move in this direction was a principal reason why Kyoto moved to binding commitments.[75]

At the first UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Berlin, the G77 was able to push for a mandate (the "Berlin mandate") where it was recognized that:[76]

• developed nations had contributed most to the then-current concentrations of GHGs in the atmosphere (see Greenhouse gas#Cumulative and historical emissions).
• developing country emissions per-capita (i.e., average emissions per head of population)[77] were still relatively low.
• and that the share of global emissions from developing countries would grow to meet their development needs.

During negotiations, the G-77 represented 133 developing countries. China was not a member of the group but an associate.[78] It has since become a member.[79]

The Berlin mandate was recognized in the Kyoto Protocol in that developing countries were not subject to emission reduction commitments in the first Kyoto commitment period.[76] However, the large potential for growth in developing country emissions made negotiations on this issue tense.[80] In the final agreement, the Clean Development Mechanism was designed to limit emissions in developing countries, but in such a way that developing countries do not bear the costs for limiting emissions.[80] The general assumption was that developing countries would face quantitative commitments in later commitment periods, and at the same time, developed countries would meet their first round commitments.[80]

Views on the Kyoto Protocol#Commentaries on negotiations contains a list of the emissions cuts that were proposed by UNFCCC Parties during negotiations. The G77 and China were in favour of strong uniform emission cuts across the developed world.[81] The US originally proposed for the second round of negotiations on Kyoto commitments to follow the negotiations of the first.[82] In the end, negotiations on the second period were set to open no later than 2005.[82] Countries over-achieving in their first period commitments can "bank" their unused allowances for use in the subsequent period.[82]

The EU initially argued for only three GHGs to be included – CO
₂, CH
₄, and N
₂O – with other gases such as HFCs regulated separately.[81] The EU also wanted to have a "bubble" commitment, whereby it could make a collective commitment that allowed some EU members to increase their emissions, while others cut theirs.[81]

The most vulnerable nations – the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) – pushed for deep uniform cuts by developed nations, with the goal of having emissions reduced to the greatest possible extent.[81] Countries that had supported differentiation of targets had different ideas as to how it should be calculated, and many different indicators were proposed.[83] Two examples include differentiation of targets based on gross domestic product (GDP), and differentiation based on energy intensity (energy use per unit of economic output).[83]

The final targets negotiated in the Protocol are the result of last minute political compromises.[81] The targets closely match those decided by Argentinian Raul Estrada, the diplomat who chaired the negotiations.[84] The numbers given to each Party by Chairman Estrada were based on targets already pledged by Parties, information received on latest negotiating positions, and the goal of achieving the strongest possible environmental outcome.[85] The final targets are weaker than those proposed by some Parties, e.g., the Alliance of Small Island States and the G-77 and China, but stronger than the targets proposed by others, e.g., Canada and the United States.[86]

The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay billions of dollars, and supply technology to other countries for climate-related studies and projects. The principle was originally agreed in UNFCCC. One such project is The Adaptation Fund,[87] which has been established by the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to finance concrete adaptation projects and programmes in developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol.

The protocol left several issues open to be decided later by the sixth Conference of Parties COP6 of the UNFCCC, which attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in the Hague in late 2000, but it was unable to reach an agreement due to disputes between the European Union (who favoured a tougher implementation) and the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia (who wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible).

In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting (COP6-bis) was held in Bonn,[88] where the required decisions were adopted. After some concessions, the supporters of the protocol (led by the European Union) managed to secure the agreement of Japan and Russia by allowing more use of carbon dioxide sinks.

COP7 was held from 29 October 2001 through 9 November 2001 in Marrakech to establish the final details of the protocol.

The first Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (MOP1) was held in Montreal from 28 November to 9 December 2005, along with the 11th conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP11). See United Nations Climate Change Conference.

During COP13 in Bali, 36 developed Contact Group countries (plus the EU as a party in the European Union) agreed to a 10% emissions increase for Iceland; but, since the EU's member states each have individual obligations,[89] much larger increases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of the less developed EU countries (see below Kyoto Protocol#Increase in greenhouse gas emission since 1990).[90] Reduction limitations expired in 2013.

The protocol defines a mechanism of "compliance" as a "monitoring compliance with the commitments and penalties for non-compliance."[91] According to Grubb (2003),[92] the explicit consequences of non-compliance of the treaty are weak compared to domestic law.[92] Yet, the compliance section of the treaty was highly contested in the Marrakesh Accords.[92]

If the enforcement branch determines that an Annex I country is not in compliance with its emissions limitation, then that country is required to make up the difference during the second commitment period plus an additional 30%. In addition, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an emissions trading program.[93]

The US signed the Protocol on 12 November 1998,[98] during the Clinton presidency. To become binding in the US, however, the treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, which had already passed the 1997 non-binding Byrd-Hagel Resolution, expressing disapproval of any international agreement that did not require developing countries to make emission reductions and "would seriously harm the economy of the United States". The resolution passed 95–0.[99] Therefore, even though the Clinton administration signed the treaty,[100] it was never submitted to the Senate for ratification.

When George W. Bush was elected US president in 2000, he was asked by US Senator Chuck Hagel what his administration's position was on climate change. Bush replied that he took climate change "very seriously",[101] but that he opposed the Kyoto treaty because "it exempts 80% of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the US economy."[102] The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research reported in 2001:

This policy reversal received a massive wave of criticism that was quickly picked up by the international media. Environmental groups blasted the White House, while Europeans and Japanese alike expressed deep concern and regret. [...] Almost all world leaders (e.g. China, Japan, South Africa, Pacific Islands, etc.) expressed their disappointment at Bush's decision.

In response to this criticism, Bush stated: "I was responding to reality, and reality is the nation has got a real problem when it comes to energy". The Tyndall Centre called this "an overstatement used to cover up the big benefactors of this policy reversal, i.e., the US oil and coal industry, which has a powerful lobby with the administration and conservative Republican congressmen."[103]

As of 2020, the US is the only signatory that has not ratified the Protocol.[104] The US accounted for 36% of emissions in 1990. As such, for the treaty to go into legal effect without US ratification, it would require a coalition including the EU, Russia, Japan, and small parties. A deal, without the US Administration, was reached in the Bonn climate talks (COP-6.5), held in 2001.[105]

In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia stated that they would not take on further Kyoto targets.[106] The Canadian government announced its withdrawal—possible at any time three years after ratification—from the Kyoto Protocol on 12 December 2011, effective 15 December 2012.[107] Canada was committed to cutting its greenhouse emissions to 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. The Harper government prioritized oil sands development in Alberta, and deprioritized the reduction of greenhouse emissions. Environment minister Peter Kent cited Canada's liability to "enormous financial penalties" under the treaty unless it withdrew.[106][108] He also suggested that the recently signed Durban agreement may provide an alternative way forward.[109] The Harper government claimed it would find a "Made in Canada" solution. Canada's decision received a generally negative response from representatives of other ratifying countries.[109]

Andorra, Palestine, South Sudan, the United States and, following their withdrawal on 15 December 2012, Canada are the only UNFCCC Parties that are not party to the Protocol. Furthermore, the Protocol is not applied to UNFCCC observer the Holy See. Although the Kingdom of the Netherlands approved the protocol for the whole Kingdom, it did not deposit an instrument of ratification for Aruba, Curaçao, Sint Maarten or the Caribbean Netherlands.[110]

Anthropogenic emissions of CO₂-equivalents per year by the 10 largest emitters (the European Union is lumped as a single area, because of their integrated carbon trading scheme). Data sorted based on 2010 contributions.

  China (party, no binding targets)

  United States (non-party)

  European Union (party, binding targets)

  India (party, no binding targets)

  Russia (party, binding targets 2008–2012)

  Indonesia (party, no binding targets)

  Brazil (party, no binding targets)

  Japan (party, no binding targets)

  Congo (DR) (party, no binding targets)

  Canada (former party, binding targets 2008–2012)

  Other countries

Total aggregate GHG emissions excluding emissions/removals from land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF, i.e., carbon storage in forests and soils) for all Annex I Parties (see list below) including the United States taken together decreased from 19.0 to 17.8 thousand teragrams (Tg, which is equal to 10⁹ kg) CO
₂ equivalent, a decline of 6.0% during the 1990–2008 period.[111]^:3 Several factors have contributed to this decline.[111]^:14 The first is due to the economic restructuring in the Annex I Economies in Transition[111]^:14 (the EITs – see Intergovernmental Emissions Trading for the list of EITs). Over the period 1990–1999, emissions fell by 40% in the EITs following the collapse of central planning in the former Soviet Union and east European countries.[112]^:25 This led to a massive contraction of their heavy industry-based economies, with associated reductions in their fossil fuel consumption and emissions.[50]^:24

Emissions growth in Annex I Parties have also been limited due to policies and measures (PaMs).[111]^:14 In particular, PaMs were strengthened after 2000, helping to enhance energy efficiency and develop renewable energy sources.[111]^:14 Energy use also decreased during the economic crisis in 2007–2008.[111]^:14

CO
2 emissions from fuel combustion of Annex I Kyoto Protocol (KP) Parties, 1990–2009. Total Annex I KP emissions are shown, along with emissions of Annex II KP and Annex I EITs.

Collectively the group of industrialized countries committed to a Kyoto target, i.e., the Annex I countries excluding the US, had a target of reducing their GHG emissions by 4.2% on average for the period 2008–2012 relative to the base year, which in most cases is 1990.[112]^:24

As noted in the preceding section, between 1990–1999, there was a large reduction in the emissions of the EITs.[112]^:25 The reduction in the EITs is largely responsible for the total (aggregate) reduction (excluding LULUCF) in emissions of the Annex I countries, excluding the US.[112]^:25 Emissions of the Annex II countries (Annex I minus the EIT countries) have experienced a limited increase in emissions from 1990–2006, followed by stabilization and a more marked decrease from 2007 onwards.[112]^:25 The emissions reductions in the early nineties by the 12 EIT countries who have since joined the EU, assist the present EU-27 in meeting its collective Kyoto target.[112]^:25

In December 2011, Canada's environment minister, Peter Kent, formally announced that Canada would withdraw from the Kyoto accord a day after the end of the 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference (see the section on the withdrawal of Canada).[114]

Belarus, Malta, and Turkey are Annex I Parties but did not have first-round Kyoto targets.[115] The US had a Kyoto target of a 7% reduction relative to the 1990 level, but has not ratified the treaty.[7] If the US had ratified the Kyoto Protocol, the average percentage reduction in total GHG emissions for the Annex I group would have been a 5.2% reduction relative to the base year.[112]^:26

38 developed countries committed to limiting their greenhouse gas emissions. Because the United States did not ratify and Canada withdrew, the emission limits remained in force for 36 countries. All of them complied with the Protocol. However, nine countries (Austria, Denmark, Iceland, Japan, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Norway, Spain and Switzerland) had to resort to the flexibility mechanisms because their national emissions were slightly greater than their targets.[7]

In total, the 36 countries that fully participated in the Protocol were committed to reducing their aggregate emissions by 4% from the 1990 base year. Their average annual emissions in 2008–2012 were 24.2% below the 1990 level. Hence, they surpassed their aggregate commitment by a large margin. If the United States and Canada are included, the emissions decreased by 11.8%. The large reductions were mainly thanks to the dissolution of the Soviet Union, which reduced the emissions of the Eastern Bloc by tens of percents in the early 1990s. In addition, the financial crisis of 2007–08 significantly reduced emissions during the first Kyoto commitment period.[7]

The 36 countries that were committed to emission reductions only accounted for 24% of the global greenhouse gas emissions in 2010.[7] Even though these countries significantly reduced their emissions during the Kyoto commitment period, other countries increased their emissions so much that the global emissions increased by 32% from 1990 to 2010.[8]

Annual per capita carbon dioxide emissions (i.e., average emissions per person) from fuel combustion between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.

Annual carbon dioxide emissions from fuel combustion between 1990-2009 for the Kyoto Annex I and non-Annex I Parties.

UNFCCC (2005) compiled and synthesized information reported to it by non-Annex I Parties.[35] Most non-Annex I Parties belonged in the low-income group, with very few classified as middle-income.[35]^:4 Most Parties included information on policies relating to sustainable development. Sustainable development priorities mentioned by non-Annex I Parties included poverty alleviation and access to basic education and health care.[35]^:6 Many non-Annex I Parties are making efforts to amend and update their environmental legislation to include global concerns such as climate change.[35]^:7

A few Parties, e.g., South Africa and Iran, stated their concern over how efforts to reduce emissions by Annex I Parties could adversely affect their economies.[35]^:7 The economies of these countries are highly dependent on income generated from the production, processing, and export of fossil fuels.

Emissions

GHG emissions, excluding land use change and forestry (LUCF), reported by 122 non-Annex I Parties for the year 1994 or the closest year reported, totalled 11.7 billion tonnes (billion = 1,000,000,000) of CO₂-eq. CO₂ was the largest proportion of emissions (63%), followed by methane (26%) and nitrous oxide (N₂O) (11%).

The energy sector was the largest source of emissions for 70 Parties, whereas for 45 Parties the agriculture sector was the largest. Per capita emissions (in tonnes of CO₂-eq, excluding LUCF) averaged 2.8 tonnes for the 122 non-Annex I Parties.

• The Africa region's aggregate emissions were 1.6 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 2.4 tonnes.
• The Asia and Pacific region's aggregate emissions were 7.9 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 2.6 tonnes.
• The Latin America and Caribbean region's aggregate emissions were 2 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 4.6 tonnes.
• The "other" region includes Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Malta, Moldova, and North Macedonia. Their aggregate emissions were 0.1 billion tonnes, with per capita emissions of 5.1 tonnes.

Parties reported a high level of uncertainty in LUCF emissions, but in aggregate, there appeared to only be a small difference of 1.7% with and without LUCF. With LUCF, emissions were 11.9 billion tonnes, without LUCF, total aggregate emissions were 11.7 billion tonnes.

Trends

In several large developing countries and fast growing economies (China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt, and Iran) GHG emissions have increased rapidly (PBL, 2009).[116] For example, emissions in China have risen strongly over the 1990–2005 period, often by more than 10% year. Emissions per-capita in non-Annex I countries are still, for the most part, much lower than in industrialized countries. Non-Annex I countries do not have quantitative emission reduction commitments, but they are committed to mitigation actions. China, for example, has had a national policy programme to reduce emissions growth, which included the closure of old, less efficient coal-fired power plants.

Another area which has been commented on is the role of the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms – emissions trading, Joint Implementation, and the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).[130][131] The flexibility mechanisms have attracted both positive and negative comments.[132][133][134]

As mentioned earlier, a number of Annex I Parties have implemented emissions trading schemes (ETSs) as part of efforts to meet their Kyoto commitments. General commentaries on emissions trading are contained in emissions trading and carbon emission trading. Individual articles on the ETSs contain commentaries on these schemes (see Kyoto Protocol#International Emissions Trading for a list of ETSs).

One of the arguments made in favour of the flexibility mechanisms is that they can reduce the costs incurred by Annex I Parties in meeting their Kyoto commitments.[130] Criticisms of flexibility have, for example, included the ineffectiveness of emissions trading in promoting investment in non-fossil energy sources,[135] and adverse impacts of CDM projects on local communities in developing countries.[136]

As the Kyoto Protocol seeks to reduce environmental pollutants while at the same time altering the freedoms of some citizens.

As discussed by Milton Friedman, one can achieve both economic and political freedom through capitalism; nonetheless, it is never guaranteed that one is going to have equality of wealth of those on top of the "food chain" of this capitalistic world. All these alterations come to what the leaders of the citizens choose to impose in means of improving ones lifestyle. In the case of the Kyoto Protocol, it seeks to impose regulations that will reduce production of pollutants towards the environment. Furthermore, seeking to compromise the freedoms of both private and public citizens. In one side it imposes bigger regulations towards companies and reducing their profits as they need to fulfil such regulations with, which are oftentimes more expensive, alternatives for production. On the other hand, it seeks to reduce the emissions that cause the rapid environmental change called climate change.

The conditions of the Kyoto Protocol consist of mandatory targets on greenhouse gas emissions for the world's leading economies. As provided by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, "These targets range from −8 per cent to +10 per cent of the countries' individual 1990 emissions levels with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 per cent below existing 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012."[137]

China, India, Indonesia and Brazil weren't required to reduce their CO₂ emissions. The remaining signatory countries weren't obliged to implement a common framework nor specific measures, but to reach an emission reduction target for which they can benefit of a secondary market for carbon credits multilaterally exchanged from each other.[138] The Emissions-trading Scheme (ETS) allowed countries to host polluting industries and to buy from other countries the property of their environmental merits and virtuous patterns.[138]

The Kyoto Protcol's goals are challenged, however, by climate change deniers, who condemn strong scientific evidence of the human impact on climate change. One prominent scholar opines that these climate change deniers "arguably" breach Rousseau's notion of the social contract, which is an implicit agreement among the members of a society to coordinate efforts in the name of overall social benefit. The climate change denial movement hinders efforts at coming to agreements as a collective global society on climate change.[139]