Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and

oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the 2007
Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global
surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century.[2][A]
Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been
caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity
such as the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation.[3] Global dimming, a result of increasing
concentrations of atmospheric aerosols that block sunlight from reaching the surface, has
partially countered the effects of warming induced by greenhouse gases.

Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global
surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st
century.[2] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing
sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future
greenhouse gas emissions. An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and
will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of
subtropical deserts.[4] Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be
associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects
include changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions,
and changes in agricultural yields. Warming and related changes will vary from region to
region around the globe, though the nature of these regional variations is uncertain.[5] As a
result of contemporary increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the oceans have become
more acidic, a result that is predicted to continue.[6][7]

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[8][9][10][B]

Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. The Kyoto Protocol is aimed at
stabilizing greenhouse gas concentration to prevent a "dangerous anthropogenic
interference".[11] As of November 2009, 187 states had signed and ratified the protocol.[12]

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and
oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation. According to the 2007
Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global
surface temperature increased 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century.[2][A]
Most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century has been
caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases, which result from human activity
such as the burning of fossil fuel and deforestation.[3] Global dimming, a result of increasing
concentrations of atmospheric aerosols that block sunlight from reaching the surface, has
partially countered the effects of warming induced by greenhouse gases.

Climate model projections summarized in the latest IPCC report indicate that the global
surface temperature is likely to rise a further 1.1 to 6.4 °C (2.0 to 11.5 °F) during the 21st
century.[2] The uncertainty in this estimate arises from the use of models with differing
sensitivity to greenhouse gas concentrations and the use of differing estimates of future
greenhouse gas emissions. An increase in global temperature will cause sea levels to rise and
will change the amount and pattern of precipitation, probably including expansion of
subtropical deserts.[4] Warming is expected to be strongest in the Arctic and would be
associated with continuing retreat of glaciers, permafrost and sea ice. Other likely effects
include changes in the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, species extinctions,
and changes in agricultural yields. Warming and related changes will vary from region to
region around the globe, though the nature of these regional variations is uncertain.[5] As a
result of contemporary increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide, the oceans have become
more acidic, a result that is predicted to continue.[6][7]

The scientific consensus is that anthropogenic global warming is occurring.[8][9][10][B]

Nevertheless, political and public debate continues. The Kyoto Protocol is aimed at
stabilizing greenhouse gas concentration to prevent a "dangerous anthropogenic
interference".[11] As of November 2009, 187 states had signed and ratified the protocol.[12]

Temperature changes
Main article: Temperature record

Two millennia of mean surface temperatures according to different reconstructions, each

smoothed on a decadal scale, with the actual recorded temperatures overlaid in black.

Evidence for warming of the climate system includes observed increases in global average air
and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea
level.[13][14][15][16][17] The most common measure of global warming is the trend in globally
averaged temperature near the Earth's surface. Expressed as a linear trend, this temperature
rose by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C over the period 1906–2005. The rate of warming over the last half of
that period was almost double that for the period as a whole (0.13 ± 0.03 °C per decade,
versus 0.07 °C ± 0.02 °C per decade). The urban heat island effect is estimated to account for
about 0.002 °C of warming per decade since 1900.[18] Temperatures in the lower troposphere
have increased between 0.13 and 0.22 °C (0.22 and 0.4 °F) per decade since 1979, according
to satellite temperature measurements. Temperature is believed to have been relatively stable
over the one or two thousand years before 1850, with regionally varying fluctuations such as
the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age.[19]

Estimates by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and the National Climatic
Data Center show that 2005 was the warmest year since reliable, widespread instrumental
measurements became available in the late 19th century, exceeding the previous record set in
1998 by a few hundredths of a degree.[20][21] Estimates prepared by the World Meteorological
Organization and the Climatic Research Unit show 2005 as the second warmest year, behind
1998.[22][23] Temperatures in 1998 were unusually warm because the strongest El Niño in the
past century occurred during that year.[24] Global temperature is subject to short-term
fluctuations that overlay long term trends and can temporarily mask them. The relative
stability in temperature from 2002 to 2009 is consistent with such an episode.[25][26]

Temperature changes vary over the globe. Since 1979, land temperatures have increased
about twice as fast as ocean temperatures (0.25 °C per decade against 0.13 °C per decade).[27]
Ocean temperatures increase more slowly than land temperatures because of the larger
effective heat capacity of the oceans and because the ocean loses more heat by evaporation.[28]
The Northern Hemisphere warms faster than the Southern Hemisphere because it has more
land and because it has extensive areas of seasonal snow and sea-ice cover subject to ice-
albedo feedback. Although more greenhouse gases are emitted in the Northern than Southern
Hemisphere this does not contribute to the difference in warming because the major
greenhouse gases persist long enough to mix between hemispheres.[29]

The thermal inertia of the oceans and slow responses of other indirect effects mean that
climate can take centuries or longer to adjust to changes in forcing. Climate commitment
studies indicate that even if greenhouse gases were stabilized at 2000 levels, a further
warming of about 0.5 °C (0.9 °F) would still occur.[30]

External forcings
External forcing refers to processes external to the climate system (though not necessarily
external to Earth) that influence climate. Climate responds to several types of external
forcing, such as radiative forcing due to changes in atmospheric composition (mainly
greenhouse gas concentrations), changes in solar luminosity, volcanic eruptions, and
variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun.[31] Attribution of recent climate change focuses on
the first three types of forcing. Orbital cycles vary slowly over tens of thousands of years and
thus are too gradual to have caused the temperature changes observed in the past century.

Greenhouse gases

Main articles: Greenhouse effect, Radiative forcing, and Atmospheric CO2

Greenhouse effect schematic showing energy flows between space, the atmosphere, and
earth's surface. Energy exchanges are expressed in watts per square meter (W/m2).

Recent atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) increases. Monthly CO2 measurements display
seasonal oscillations in overall yearly uptrend; each year's maximum occurs during the
Northern Hemisphere's late spring, and declines during its growing season as plants remove
some atmospheric CO2.
The greenhouse effect is the process by which absorption and emission of infrared radiation
by gases in the atmosphere warm a planet's lower atmosphere and surface. It was proposed by
Joseph Fourier in 1824 and was first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.
[32]
The question in terms of global warming is how the strength of the presumed greenhouse
effect changes when human activity increases the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere.

Naturally occurring greenhouse gases have a mean warming effect of about 33 °C (59 °F).[33]
[C]
The major greenhouse gases are water vapor, which causes about 36–70 percent of the
greenhouse effect; carbon dioxide (CO2), which causes 9–26 percent; methane (CH4), which
causes 4–9 percent; and ozone (O3), which causes 3–7 percent.[34][35][36] Clouds also affect the
radiation balance, but they are composed of liquid water or ice and so have different effects
on radiation from water vapor.

Human activity since the Industrial Revolution has increased the amount of greenhouse gases
in the atmosphere, leading to increased radiative forcing from CO2, methane, tropospheric
ozone, CFCs and nitrous oxide. The concentrations of CO2 and methane have increased by
36% and 148% respectively since 1750.[37] These levels are much higher than at any time
during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice
cores.[38][39][40] Less direct geological evidence indicates that CO2 values higher than this were
last seen about 20 million years ago.[41] Fossil fuel burning has produced about three-quarters
of the increase in CO2 from human activity over the past 20 years. Most of the rest is due to
land-use change, particularly deforestation.[42]

Over the last three decades of the 20th century, GDP per capita and population growth were
the main drivers of increases in greenhouse gas emissions.[43] CO2 emissions are continuing to
rise due to the burning of fossil fuels and land-use change.[44][45]:71 Emissions scenarios,
estimates of changes in future emission levels of greenhouse gases, have been projected that
depend upon uncertain economic, sociological, technological, and natural developments.[46] In
most scenarios, emissions continue to rise over the century, while in a few, emissions are
reduced.[47][48] These emission scenarios, combined with carbon cycle modelling, have been
used to produce estimates of how atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will
change in the future. Using the six IPCC SRES "marker" scenarios, models suggest that by
the year 2100, the atmospheric concentration of CO2 could range between 541 and 970 ppm.
[49]
This is an increase of 90-250% above the concentration in the year 1750. Fossil fuel
reserves are sufficient to reach these levels and continue emissions past 2100 if coal, tar sands
or methane clathrates are extensively exploited.[50]

The destruction of stratospheric ozone by chlorofluorocarbons is sometimes mentioned in

relation to global warming. Although there are a few areas of linkage, the relationship
between the two is not strong. Reduction of stratospheric ozone has a cooling influence.[51]
Substantial ozone depletion did not occur until the late 1970s.[52] Ozone in the troposphere
(the lowest part of the Earth's atmosphere) does contribute to surface warming.[53]

Aerosols and soot

Ship tracks over the Atlantic Ocean on the east coast of the United States. The climatic
impacts from aerosol forcing could have a large effect on climate through the indirect effect.

Global dimming, a gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's
surface, has partially counteracted global warming from 1960 to the present.[54] The main
cause of this dimming is aerosols produced by volcanoes and pollutants. These aerosols exert
a cooling effect by increasing the reflection of incoming sunlight. The effects of the products
of fossil fuel combustion—CO2 and aerosols—have largely offset one another in recent
decades, so that net warming has been due to the increase in non-CO2 greenhouse gases such
as methane.[55] Radiative forcing due to aerosols is temporally limited due to wet deposition
which causes aerosols to have an atmospheric lifetime of one week. Carbon dioxide has a
lifetime of a century or more, and as such, changes in aerosol concentrations will only delay
climate changes due to carbon dioxide.[56]

In addition to their direct effect by scattering and absorbing solar radiation, aerosols have
indirect effects on the radiation budget.[57] Sulfate aerosols act as cloud condensation nuclei
and thus lead to clouds that have more and smaller cloud droplets. These clouds reflect solar
radiation more efficiently than clouds with fewer and larger droplets.[58] This effect also
causes droplets to be of more uniform size, which reduces growth of raindrops and makes the
cloud more reflective to incoming sunlight.[59] Indirect effects are most noticeable in marine
stratiform clouds, and have very little radiative effect on convective clouds. Aerosols,
particularly their indirect effects, represent the largest uncertainty in radiative forcing.[60]

Soot may cool or warm the surface, depending on whether it is airborne or deposited.
Atmospheric soot aerosols directly absorb solar radiation, which heats the atmosphere and
cools the surface. In isolated areas with high soot production, such as rural India, as much as
50% of surface warming due to greenhouse gases may be masked by atmospheric brown
clouds.[61] Atmospheric soot always contributes additional warming to the climate system.
When deposited, especially on glaciers or on ice in arctic regions, the lower surface albedo
can also directly heat the surface.[62] The influences of aerosols, including black carbon, are
most pronounced in the tropics and sub-tropics, particularly in Asia, while the effects of
greenhouse gases are dominant in the extratropics and southern hemisphere.[63]

Solar variation

Main article: Solar variation

Solar variation over thirty years.

Variations in solar output have been the cause of past climate changes.[64] The effect of
changes in solar forcing in recent decades is uncertain, but small, with some studies showing
a slight cooling effect,[65] while others studies suggest a slight warming effect.[31][66][67][68]

Greenhouse gases and solar forcing affect temperatures in different ways. While both
increased solar activity and increased greenhouse gases are expected to warm the
troposphere, an increase in solar activity should warm the stratosphere while an increase in
greenhouse gases should cool the stratosphere.[31] Observations show that temperatures in the
stratosphere have been cooling since 1979, when satellite measurements became available.
Radiosonde (weather balloon) data from the pre-satellite era show cooling since 1958, though
there is greater uncertainty in the early radiosonde record.[69]

A related hypothesis, proposed by Henrik Svensmark, is that magnetic activity of the sun
deflects cosmic rays that may influence the generation of cloud condensation nuclei and
thereby affect the climate.[70] Other research has found no relation between warming in recent
decades and cosmic rays.[71][72] The influence of cosmic rays on cloud cover is about a factor
of 100 lower than needed to explain the observed changes in clouds or to be a significant
contributor to present-day climate change.[73]

Feedback
Main article: Climate change feedback

Feedback is a process in which changing one quantity changes a second quantity, and the
change in the second quantity in turn changes the first. Positive feedback amplifies the
change in the first quantity while negative feedback reduces it. Feedback is important in the
study of global warming because it may amplify or diminish the effect of a particular process.
The main positive feedback in global warming is the tendency of warming to increase the
amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, a significant greenhouse gas. The main negative
feedback is radiative cooling, which increases as the fourth power of temperature; the amount
of heat radiated from the Earth into space increases with the temperature of Earth's surface
and atmosphere. Imperfect understanding of feedbacks is a major cause of uncertainty and
concern about global warming.

Climate models
Main article: Global climate model
Calculations of global warming prepared in or before 2001 from a range of climate models
under the SRES A2 emissions scenario, which assumes no action is taken to reduce emissions
and regionally divided economic development.

The geographic distribution of surface warming during the 21st century calculated by the
HadCM3 climate model if a business as usual scenario is assumed for economic growth and
greenhouse gas emissions. In this figure, the globally averaged warming corresponds to
3.0 °C (5.4 °F).

The main tools for projecting future climate changes are mathematical models based on
physical principles including fluid dynamics, thermodynamics and radiative transfer.
Although they attempt to include as many processes as possible, simplifications of the actual
climate system are inevitable because of the constraints of available computer power and
limitations in knowledge of the climate system. All modern climate models are in fact
combinations of models for different parts of the Earth. These include an atmospheric model
for air movement, temperature, clouds, and other atmospheric properties; an ocean model that
predicts temperature, salt content, and circulation of ocean waters; models for ice cover on
land and sea; and a model of heat and moisture transfer from soil and vegetation to the
atmosphere. Some models also include treatments of chemical and biological processes.[74]
Warming due to increasing levels of greenhouse gases is not an assumption of the models;
rather, it is an end result from the interaction of greenhouse gases with radiative transfer and
other physical processes.[75] Although much of the variation in model outcomes depends on
the greenhouse gas emissions used as inputs, the temperature effect of a specific greenhouse
gas concentration (climate sensitivity) varies depending on the model used. The
representation of clouds is one of the main sources of uncertainty in present-generation
models.[76]

Global climate model projections of future climate most often have used estimates of
greenhouse gas emissions from the IPCC Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). In
addition to human-caused emissions, some models also include a simulation of the carbon
cycle; this generally shows a positive feedback, though this response is uncertain. Some
observational studies also show a positive feedback.[77][78][79] Including uncertainties in future
greenhouse gas concentrations and climate sensitivity, the IPCC anticipates a warming of
1.1 °C to 6.4 °C (2.0 °F to 11.5 °F) by the end of the 21st century, relative to 1980–1999.[2]
Models are also used to help investigate the causes of recent climate change by comparing
the observed changes to those that the models project from various natural and human-
derived causes. Although these models do not unambiguously attribute the warming that
occurred from approximately 1910 to 1945 to either natural variation or human effects, they
do indicate that the warming since 1970 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas
emissions.[31]

The physical realism of models is tested by examining their ability to simulate current or past
climates.[80] Current climate models produce a good match to observations of global
temperature changes over the last century, but do not simulate all aspects of climate.[42] Not
all effects of global warming are accurately predicted by the climate models used by the
IPCC. Observed Arctic shrinkage has been faster than that predicted.[81] Precipitation
increased proportional to atmospheric humidity, and hence significantly faster than current
global climate models predict.[82][83]

Attributed and expected effects

Main articles: Effects of global warming and Regional effects of global warming

Global warming may be detected in natural, ecological or social systems as a change having
statistical significance.[84] Attribution of these changes e.g., to natural or human activities, is
the next step following detection.[85]

Natural systems

Sparse records indicate that glaciers have been retreating since the early 1800s. In the 1950s
measurements began that allow the monitoring of glacial mass balance, reported to the
WGMS and the NSIDC.

Global warming has been detected in a number of systems. Some of these changes, e.g.,
based on the instrumental temperature record, have been described in the section on
temperature changes. Rising sea levels and observed decreases in snow and ice extent are
consistent with warming.[17] Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid-
20th century is, with high probability,[D] atttributable to human-induced changes in
greenhouse gas concentrations.[86]

Even with current policies to reduce emissions, global emissions are still expected to continue
to grow over the coming decades.[87] Over the course of the 21st century, increases in
emissions at or above their current rate would very likely induce changes in the climate
system larger than those observed in the 20th century.

In the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, across a range of future emission scenarios, model-
based estimates of sea level rise for the end of the 21st century (the year 2090-2099, relative
to 1980-1999) range from 0.18 to 0.59 m. These estimates, however, were not given a
likelihood due to a lack of scientific understanding, nor was an upper bound given for sea
level rise. Over the course of centuries to millennia, the melting of ice sheets could result in
sea level rise of 4–6 m or more.[88]

Changes in regional climate are expected to include greater warming over land, with most
warming at high northern latitudes, and least warming over the Southern Ocean and parts of
the North Atlantic Ocean.[87] Snow cover area and sea ice extent are expected to decrease. The
frequency of hot extremes, heat waves, and heavy precipitation will very likely increase.

Ecological systems

In terrestrial ecosystems, the earlier timing of spring events, and poleward and upward shifts
in plant and animal ranges, have been linked with high confidence to recent warming.[17]
Future climate change is expected to particularly affect certain ecosystems, including tundra,
mangroves, and coral reefs.[87] It is expected that most ecosystems will be affected by higher
atmospheric CO2 levels, combined with higher global temperatures.[89] Overall, it is expected
that climate change will result in the extinction of many species and reduced diversity of
ecosystems.[90]

Social systems

There is some evidence of regional climate change affecting systems related to human
activities, including agricultural and forestry management activities at higher latitudes in the
Northern Hemisphere.[17] Future climate change is expected to particularly affect some sectors
and systems related to human activities.[87] Low-lying coastal systems are vulnerable to sea
level rise and storm surge. Human health will be at increased risk in populations with limited
capacity to adapt to climate change. It is expected that some regions will be particularly
affected by climate change, including the Arctic, Africa, small islands, and Asian and African
megadeltas. In some areas the effects on agriculture, industry and health could be mixed, or
even beneficial in certain respects, but overall it is expected that these benefits will be
outweighed by negative effects.[91]

Responses to global warming

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) is an approach to mitigation. Emissions may be
sequestered from fossil fuel power plants, or removed during processing in hydrogen
production. When used on plants, it is known as bio-energy with carbon capture and storage.

Mitigation

Main article: Global warming mitigation

See also: Carbon capture and storage and Fee and dividend

Reducing the amount of future climate change is called mitigation of climate change. The
IPCC defines mitigation as activities that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, or
enhance the capacity of carbon sinks to absorb GHGs from the atmosphere.[92] Many
countries, both developing and developed, are aiming to use cleaner, less polluting,
technologies.[45]:192 Use of these technologies aids mitigation and could result in substantial
reductions in CO2 emissions. Policies include targets for emissions reductions, increased use
of renewable energy, and increased energy efficiency. Studies indicate substantial potential
for future reductions in emissions.[93] Since even in the most optimistic scenario, fossil fuels
are going to be used for years to come, mitigation may also involve carbon capture and
storage, a process that traps CO2 produced by factories and gas or coal power stations and
then stores it, usually underground.[94]

Adaptation

Main article: Adaptation to global warming

Other policy responses include adaptation to climate change. Adaptation to climate change
may be planned, e.g., by local or national government, or spontaneous, i.e., done privately
without government intervention.[95] The ability to adapt is closely linked to social and
economic development.[93] Even societies with high capacities to adapt are still vulnerable to
climate change. Planned adaptation is already occurring on a limited basis. The barriers,
limits, and costs of future adaptation are not fully understood.

Another policy response is engineering of the climate (geoengineering). This policy response
is sometimes grouped together with mitigation.[96] Geoengineering is largely unproven, and
reliable cost estimates for it have not yet been published.[97]

UNFCCC

Most countries are Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC).[98] The ultimate objective of the Convention is to prevent "dangerous" human
interference of the climate system.[99] As is stated in the Convention, this requires that GHGs
are stabilized in the atmosphere at a level where ecosystems can adapt naturally to climate
change, food production is not threatened, and economic development can proceed in a
sustainable fashion.

The UNFCCC recognizes differences among countries in their responsibility to act on climate
change.[100] In the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, most developed countries (listed in Annex
I of the treaty) took on legally binding commitments to reduce their emissions.[101] Policy
measures taken in response to these commitments have reduced emissions.[102] For many
developing (non-Annex I) countries, reducing poverty is their overriding aim.[103]

At the 15th UNFCCC Conference of the Parties, held in 2009 at Copenhagen, several
UNFCCC Parties produced the Copenhagen Accord.[104] Parties agreeing with the Accord aim
to limit the future increase in global mean temperature to below 2 °C.[105]

Views on global warming

Main articles: Global warming controversy and Politics of global warming
See also: Scientific opinion on climate change and Climate change consensus

Per capita greenhouse gas emissions in 2000, including land-use change.

Total greenhouse gas emissions in 2000, including land-use change.

There are different views over what the appropriate policy response to climate change should
be.[106][107] These competing views weigh the benefits of limiting emissions of greenhouse
gases against the costs. In general, it seems likely that climate change will impose greater
damages and risks in poorer regions.[108]

Politics

Developing and developed countries have made different arguments over who should bear
the burden of costs for cutting emissions. Developing countries often concentrate on per
capita emissions, that is, the total emissions of a country divided by its population.[109] Per
capita emissions in the industrialized countries are typically as much as ten times the average
in developing countries.[110] This is used to make the argument that the real problem of
climate change is due to the profligate and unsustainable lifestyles of those living in rich
countries.[109] On the other hand, commentators from developed countries more often point
out that it is total emissions that matter.[109] In 2008, developing countries made up around
half of the world's total emissions of CO2 from cement production and fossil fuel use.[111]

The Kyoto Protocol, which came into force in 2005, sets legally binding emission limitations
for most developed countries.[101] Developing countries are not subject to limitations. This
exemption led the U.S. and Australia to decide not to ratify the treaty,[112] [113][114] although
Australia did finally ratify the treaty in December 2007.[115]
Public opinion

In 2007–2008 Gallup Polls surveyed 127 countries. Over a third of the world's population
was unaware of global warming, with people in developing countries less aware than those in
developed, and those in Africa the least aware. Of those aware, Latin America leads in belief
that temperature changes are a result of human activities while Africa, parts of Asia and the
Middle East, and a few countries from the Former Soviet Union lead in the opposite belief.
[116]
In the Western world, opinions over the concept and the appropriate responses are
divided. Nick Pidgeon of Cardiff University said that "results show the different stages of
engagement about global warming on each side of the Atlantic", adding, "The debate in
Europe is about what action needs to be taken, while many in the U.S. still debate whether
climate change is happening."[117][118]

Other views

Most scientists accept that humans are contributing to observed climate change.[44][119]
National science academies have called on world leaders for policies to cut global emissions.
[120]
However, some scientists and non-scientists question aspects of climate-change science.
[121][122]

Organizations such as the libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute, conservative

commentators, and some companies such as ExxonMobil have challenged IPCC climate
change scenarios, funded scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus, and provided
their own projections of the economic cost of stricter controls.[123][124][125][126] In the finance
industry, Deutsche Bank has set up an institutional climate change investment division
DBCCA)[127] which has commissioned and published research[128] on the issues and debate
surrounding global warming.[129] Environmental organizations and public figures have
emphasized changes in the current climate and the risks they entail, while promoting
adaptation to changes in infrastructural needs and emissions reductions.[130] Some fossil fuel
companies have scaled back their efforts in recent years,[131] or called for policies to reduce
global warming.[132]

Etymology
The term global warming was probably first used in its modern sense on 8 August 1975 in a
science paper by Wally Broecker in the journal Science called "Are we on the brink of a
pronounced global warming?".[133][134][135] Broecker's choice of words was new and represented
a significant recognition that the climate was warming; previously the phrasing used by
scientists was "inadvertent climate modification," because while it was recognized humans
could change the climate, no one was sure which direction it was going.[136] The National
Academy of Sciences first used global warming in a 1979 paper called the Charney Report, it
said: "if carbon dioxide continues to increase, [we find] no reason to doubt that climate
changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible."[137] The
report made a distinction between referring to surface temperature changes as global
warming, while referring to other changes caused by increased CO2 as climate change.[136]
This distinction is still often used in science reports, with global warming meaning surface
temperatures, and climate change meaning other changes (increased storms, etc..)[136]
Global warming became more widely popular after 1988 when NASA scientist James E.
Hansen used the term in a testimony to Congress.[136] He said: "global warming has reached a
level such that we can ascribe with a high degree of confidence a cause and effect
relationship between the greenhouse effect and the observed warming."[138] His testimony was
widely reported and afterward global warming was commonly used by the press and in public
discourse.[136

The average facade temperature of the globe has augmented more than 1 degree
Fahrenheit since 1900 and the speed of warming has been almost three folds the century
long average since 1970. This increase in earth’s average temperature is called Global
warming. More or less all specialists studying the climate record of the earth have the
same opinion now that human actions, mainly the discharge of green house gases from
smokestacks, vehicles, and burning forests, are perhaps the leading power driving the

fashion.
The gases append to the planet's normal greenhouse effect, permitting sunlight in, but
stopping some of the ensuing heat from radiating back to space. Based on the study on
past climate shifts, notes of current situations, and computer simulations, many climate
scientists say that lacking of big curbs in greenhouse gas discharges, the 21st century
might see temperatures rise of about 3 to 8 degrees, climate patterns piercingly shift, ice
sheets contract and seas rise several feet. With the probable exemption of one more world
war, a huge asteroid, or a fatal plague, global warming may be the only most danger to
our planet earth.
Global Warming Causes
As said, the major cause of global warming is the emission of green house gases like
carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide etc into the
atmosphere. The major source of carbon dioxide is
the power plants. These power plants emit large
amounts of carbon dioxide produced from burning of
fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation.
About twenty percent of carbon dioxide emitted in
the atmosphere comes from burning of gasoline in
the engines of the vehicles. This is true for most of
the developed countries. Buildings, both commercial and residential represent a larger
source of global warming pollution than cars and trucks.
Building of these structures require a lot of fuel to be burnt which emits a large amount of
carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Methane is more than 20 times as effectual as CO2 at
entrapping heat in the atmosphere. Methane is obtained from resources such as rice
paddies, bovine flatulence, bacteria in bogs and fossil fuel manufacture. When fields are
flooded, anaerobic situation build up and the organic matter in the soil decays, releasing
methane to the atmosphere. The main sources of nitrous oxide include nylon and nitric
acid production, cars with catalytic converters, the use of fertilizers in agriculture and the
burning of organic matter. Another cause of global warming is deforestation that is caused
by cutting and burning of forests for the purpose of residence and industrialization.
Global Warming is Inspiring Scientists to
Fight for Awareness
Scientists all over the world are making
predictions about the ill effects of Global
warming and connecting some of the events
that have taken place in the pat few decades
as an alarm of global warming. The effect of
global warming is increasing the average
temperature of the earth. A rise in earth’s
temperatures can in turn root to other
alterations in the ecology, including an
increasing sea level and modifying the quantity and pattern of rainfall. These
modifications may boost the occurrence and concentration of severe climate events, such
as floods, famines, heat waves, tornados, and twisters. Other consequences may comprise
of higher or lower agricultural outputs, glacier melting, lesser summer stream flows, genus
extinctions and rise in the ranges of disease vectors. As an effect of global warming
species like golden toad, harlequin frog of Costa Rica has already become extinct. There
are number of species that have a threat of disappearing soon as an effect of global
warming. As an effect of global warming various new diseases have emerged lately. These
diseases are occurring frequently due to the increase in earths average temperature since
the bacteria can survive better in elevated temperatures and even multiplies faster when
the conditions are favorable. The global warming is extending the distribution of
mosquitoes due to the increase in humidity levels and their frequent growth in warmer
atmosphere. Various diseases due to ebola, hanta and machupo virus are expected due to
warmer climates. The marine life is also very sensitive to the increase in temperatures.
The effect of global warming will definitely be seen on some species in the water. A
survey was made in which the marine life reacted significantly to the changes in water
temperatures. It is expected that many species will die off or become extinct due to the
increase in the temperatures of the water, whereas various other species, which prefer
warmer waters, will increase tremendously. Perhaps the most disturbing changes are
expected in the coral reefs that are expected to die off as an effect of global warming.
The global warming is expected to cause irreversible changes in the ecosystem and the
behavior of animals.
A group of scientists have recently
reported on the surprisingly speedy rise in
the discharge of carbon and methane
release from frozen tundra in Siberia, now
starting to melt because of human cause
increases in earth’s temperature. The
scientists tell us that the tundra is in
danger of melting holds an amount of
extra global warming pollution that is
equivalent to the net amount that is previously in the earth's atmosphere. Likewise,
earlier one more team of scientists reported that the in a single year Greenland witnessed
32 glacial earthquakes between 4.6 and 5.1 on the Richter scale. This is a disturbing sign
and points that a huge destabilization that may now be in progress deep within the second
biggest accretion of ice on the planet. This ice would be enough to raise sea level 20 feet
worldwide if it broke up and slipped into the sea. Each day passing brings yet new proof
that we are now in front of a global emergency, a climate emergency that needs instant
action to piercingly decrease carbon dioxide emissions worldwide in order to turn down
the earth's rising temperatures and avoid any catastrophe.
It is not easy to attach any particular events to global warming, but studies prove the fact
that human activities are increasing the earth’s temperature. Even though most
predictions focus on the epoch up to 2100, even if no further greenhouse gases were
discharged after this date, global warming and sea level would be likely to go on to rise
for more than a millennium, since carbon dioxide has a long average atmospheric life
span.
You Can Help Fight Global Warming
Many efforts are being made by various nations to
cut down the rate of global warming. One such
effort is the Kyoto agreement that has been made
between various nations to reduce the emissions of
various green house gases. Also many non profit
organizations are working for the cause. Al Gore was
one of the foremost U.S. politicians to heave an
alarm about the hazards of global warming. He has produced a significantly acclaimed
documentary movie called "An Inconvenient Truth," and written a book that archives his
advice that Earth is dashing toward an immensely warmer future. Al Gore, the former vice
president of United States has given various speeches to raise an awareness of global
warming. He has warned people about the ill effects of Global warming and its remedies.
But an interesting side of the global warming episode is that there are people who do not
consider global warming as something that is creating a problem. Skeptics of global
warming think that global warming is not an ecological trouble. According to the global
warming skeptics, the recent enhancement in the earth's average temperature is no
reason for alarm. According to them earth's coastlines and polar ice caps are not at a risk
of vanishing. Global warming skeptics consider that the weather models used to establish
global warming and to forecast its impacts are distorted. According to the models, if
calculations are made the last few decades must have been much worse as compared to
actually happened to be. Most of the global warming skeptics believe that the global
warming is not actually occurring. They stress on the fact the climatic conditions vary
because of volcanism, the obliquity cycle, changes in solar output, and internal variability.
Also the warming can be due to the variation in cloud cover, which in turn is responsible
for the temperatures on the earth. The variations are also a result of cosmic ray flux that
is modulated by the solar magnetic cycles.
Global Warming Skeptics
The global warming skeptics are of the view that the
global warming is a good phenomenon and should
not be stopped. There are various benefits of global
warming according to them. According to the
skeptics, the global warming will increase humidity
in tropical deserts. Also the higher levels of carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere trigger plant growth. As
predicted, due to the global warming the sea levels
will rise. But this can be readily adapted. Another argument of global warming skeptics is
that earth has been warmer than today as seen in its history. The thought is that global
warming is nothing to get afraid of because it just takes us back to a more natural set of
environment of the past. Animals and plants appeared to do just fine in those eras of
warm climate on the earth. According to few skeptics, the present chilly climate on the
earth is an abnormality when judged over the geographical scale. Over geologic time, the
earth’s mean temperature is 22 degrees C, as compared to today's 15.5 degrees C.
Loss of water in the American SW is part of world increase in drought
-- one of many indicators that climate change is more rampant than ever.

This month Lake Mead, the nation's largest reservoir, reached the lowest level since it began
to fill in the 1930s; at the 1082 foot level it is only about 38 percent full. The American
Southwest is in the 11th year of drought, and regional temperatures are a degree and a half
warmer than the mid-20th century average. At a time of increasing water use to support
growing regional populations and agriculture, this is a severe stress on water supply for states
in the region. Engineers are digging a lower outlet in Lake Mead so that the flow for Las
Vegas, providing 90 percent of its needs, can continue to be drawn as the lake level drops
even further as predicted. When the lake reaches 1075 feet, restrictions on water use in
Nevada and Arizona will go into effect.

Natural drought cycles and seasons appear to be getting worse because of heavy water use
and continued emission of greenhouse gases by growing human populations. Studies by
Aiguo Dai, an atmospheric scientist in the National Center for Atmospheric Research, show
that across wide areas of the American SW, Africa, Australia, Southern Europe and SE Asia,
"recent warming has increased atmospheric moisture demand and likely altered atmospheric
circulation patterns." This will make droughts which may begin naturally much more severe
and long lasting as the world increasingly warms through this century -- assuming no strong
action is taken to reduce the amount of CO2 and methane sent up into the air.

The prediction of devastating droughts is just one of many big-picture studies of the Earth's
climate published by scientists since last year's Copenhagen climate talks. The predominant
result is that human-caused climate change is having very strong effects. While the politics
and personalities of science gained many more headlines recently than the science itself, the
planet continues to react to ever more greenhouse emissions. Thousands of climate and earth
researchers quietly kept at their work recording and analyzing the changes.

Recent results show that most of the adverse effects of global warming are running at or
above the worst case predictions and records of only a few years ago -- including the
movement of Greenland glaciers, sea level rise, areas under drought and flood around the
world, Arctic sea ice loss, oceans becoming acidic and warmer and reducing the amount of
vital plankton in the seas, methane escaping from thawing permafrost in the Arctic, and a
reduction of plant growth rather than an increase as many assumed. The most basic factors in
global warming also increased: Atmospheric CO2 increased to just under 390 ppm, the
highest in millions of years. And 2010 saw heat records around the world, including in
hundreds of U.S. towns, and will probably be one of the top three hottest years ever
measured.

For a timeline of science findings and news reports, see the Project on Climate Science.
There was a detailed article on Greenland's melt and what it means, in the New York Times.
Sketches of some active climate scientists are available from the Union of Concerned
Scientists. For a scientist-centered middle school climate science book, please see my book
with Lynne Cherry. And of course I continue my work in this website, particularly on
technology, sea level rise and the oil spill; and my book Earth Under Fire.

In Louisiana, California and Oregon recently, I saw new neighborhoods being built of extra-
efficient homes with solar panels, on demand water heaters, LED lighting, strong insulation,
smart climate controls, batteries to store electricity for night use and plug-ins for electric
vehicles. Said a realtor in Lancaster CA: "Even during our 107 degree heat wave the A/C
cycles off."

Innovative buildings for education, business and apartments employ wind turbines, high
efficiency glass, solar hot water systems, green living roofs, grey water recycling and
rainwater harvesting and structural functions which allow natural cooling and warming.
Please see 12 West and the Lillis Building sites for more information. Building codes are
being changed nationwide to emphasize low-carbon technologies. Photos of many more low-
energy choices available. Email or call us please.
Please see Climate News and Views.

World View of Global Warming is an independent documentary project by photojournalist

Gary Braasch, now in its 11th year, presenting a comprehensive look at global warming
science, the world wide effects of climate change, its implications, and what action is being
taken about it. Braasch documents this change through science reporting and photography
from the Arctic to Antarctica, from glaciers to the oceans. Rapid climate change is occurring
now and its effects are fast becoming one of the prime events of the 21st century.

Every citizen of the world needs to be aware of rapid climate change:

1. Understand the problem, its causes and threats.

2. Let your leaders know the facts and that you expect them to act.
3. Do something today to reduce greenhouse gas output --
please Take Action

Locations documented since April 1999. 

Site updated January 2010. Text and photography Copyright © 2005 - 2010 by Gary
Braasch. World View of Global Warming is funded by donations and grants. If you would
like to contribute, please click HERE.
  

Photographers' Perspectives on Global Warming

October 14 -
November 6, 2005
was shown at JW Gallery, Brooklyn.
Posters from this exhibit are available. Please email your request.

This project would be impossible without scientists and observers around the world who have
provided hundreds of scientific contacts and papers. See Background, Advisors, and
Reference for documentation, funders and major advisors, without whom I could not
complete the work. This project is privately supported and I seek donations through Blue
Earth Alliance.

World View of Global Warming is a project of the Blue Earth Alliance, Seattle Washington,
a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization.  The project is supported entirely by donations, grants,
and license fees for the photographs.  Information about how to contribute is on the Blue
Earth web site, or contact Gary Braasch.  Thank you
Copenhagen summit

In 2012 the Kyoto Protocol to prevent climate changes

and global warming runs out. To keep the process on the
line there is an urgent need for a new climate protocol. At
the conference in Copenhagen 2009 the parties of the
UNFCCC meet for the last time on government level
before the climate agreement need to be renewed.

Therefore the Climate Conference in Copenhagen is

essential for the worlds climate and the Danish
government and UNFCCC is putting hard effort in making
the meeting in Copenhagen a success ending up with a
Copenhagen Protocol to prevent global warming and
climate changes.

The Climate Conference will take place in the Bella

Center. The conference centre is placed not far from
Copenhagen and near the Copenhagen Airport, Kastrup.
Climate friendly city car in front of the Bella Center
Governmental representatives from 170 countries are
expected to be in Copenhagen in the days of the
conference accompanied by other governmental representatives, NGO's, journalists and others. In
total 8000 people are expected to Copenhagen in the days of the climate meeting.

The host of the meeting in Copenhagen is the government

of Denmark represented by Connie Hedegaard, the Danish
minister of Climate and Energy and Prime Minister Lars
Løkke Rasmussen. The official
sekretariat is placed in
connection to The Prime
Ministers Office in Copenhagen.
Originally the hosting of the
climate conference was initiated
by the former Prime Minister
Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
Minister for Climate and Energy, Connie Hedegaard.
Photo: Jakob Dall
The Danish Government has
decided that not only the subject
of the conference should be
focused on the climate but also the conference itself. Among other
initiatives the organizers work on mounting af windmill near the Bella
Center to produce climate friendly electricity for the conference.
Former Prime Minister Anders Fogh Rasmussen
Photo: Hung Tien Vu
The conference in Copenhagen is the 15th conference of parties (COP15)
in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The recent meeting in
United Nations Climate Change Conferences was held in December 2007
in Bali.

The secretary for the climate conferences is the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change UNFCCC - based in the German city Bonn.

An important part of the scientific background for the political decisions

taken on the conferences is made by the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change IPCC, based in Geneva, Switzerland. The IPCC is
Established to provide the decision-makers and others interested in
climate change with an objective source of information about climate
change. IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World

Danish Prime Minister

Lars Løkke Rasmussen
Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In
2007 the IPCC received the Nobel Peace Price).

The Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC or FCCC), aimed at fighting global warming. The UNFCCC is an
international environmental treaty with the goal of achieving "stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic
interference with the climate system."[4]

The Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and entered into
force on 16 February 2005. As of July 2010, 191 states have signed and ratified the protocol.
[5]

Under the Protocol, 37 countries "Annex I countries") commit themselves to a reduction of

four greenhouse gases (GHG) (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride)
and two groups of gases (hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons) produced by them, and
all member countries give general commitments. Annex I countries agreed to reduce their
collective greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2% from the 1991 level. Emission limits do not
include emissions by international aviation and shipping, but are in addition to the industrial
gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which are dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol
on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
The benchmark 1990 emission levels were accepted by the Conference of the Parties of
UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3) were the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the
IPCC Second Assessment Report.[6] These figures are used for converting the various
greenhouse gas emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq) when computing
overall sources and sinks.

The Protocol allows for several "flexible mechanisms", such as emissions trading, the clean
development mechanism (CDM) and joint implementation to allow Annex I countries to meet
their GHG emission limitations by purchasing GHG emission reductions credits from
elsewhere, through financial exchanges, projects that reduce emissions in non-Annex I
countries, from other Annex I countries, or from annex I countries with excess allowances.

Each Annex I country is required to submit an annual report of inventories of all

anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions from sources and removals from sinks under
UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. These countries nominate a person (called a "designated
national authority") to create and manage its greenhouse gas inventory. Virtually all of the
non-Annex I countries have also established a designated national authority to manage its
Kyoto obligations, specifically the "CDM process" that determines which GHG projects they
wish to propose for accreditation by the CDM Executive Board.

Contents
[hide]

 1 Background
 2 Ratification process
 3 Objectives
 4 2012 emission targets and "flexible mechanisms"
o 4.1 Flexible mechanisms
 4.1.1 International Emissions Trading
 4.1.2 Clean Development Mechanism
 4.1.3 Joint Implementation
 5 Details of the agreement
o 5.1 Common but differentiated responsibility
 5.1.1 Emissions
o 5.2 Financial commitments
o 5.3 Revisions
o 5.4 Enforcement
o 5.5 Negotiations
 5.5.1 Base year
 5.5.2 Emissions cuts
 5.5.3 Flexibility mechanisms
 5.5.4 Compliance
 6 Government action and emissions
o 6.1 Annex I
o 6.2 Non-Annex I
 7 Views on the Protocol
 8 Successor
  9 See also
 10 References
 11 Further reading
o 11.1 Economics
 12 External links

[edit] Background
Main article: Global warming
See also: global climate model#Projections of future climate change and Scientific opinion
on climate change

The view that human activities are likely responsible for most of the observed increase in
global mean temperature ("global warming") since the mid-20th century is an accurate
reflection of current scientific thinking (NRC, 2001, p. 3,[7] 2008, p. 2).[8] Human-induced
warming of the climate is expected to continue

IPCC (2007) produced a range of projections of what the future increase in global mean
temperature might be.[9] Projections spanned a range due to socio-economic uncertainties,
e.g., over future greenhouse gas (GHG) emission levels, and uncertainties with regard to
physical science aspects, e.g., the climate sensitivity. For the time period 2090-2099,
measured from global mean temperature in the period 1980-1999, the "likely" range (as
assessed to have a greater than 66% probability of being correct, based on expert judgement)
across the six SRES "marker" emissions scenarios was projected as an increase in global
mean temperature of 1.1 to 6.4 °C.

The scientific question of what constitutes a "safe" level of atmospheric greenhouse gas
concentrations has been asked (NRC, 2001, p. 4). This question cannot be answered directly
since it requires value judgements of, for example, what would be an acceptable risk to
human welfare. In general, however, risks increase with both the rate and magnitude of future
climate change.

[edit] Ratification process

This section requires expansion.

The Protocol was adopted by COP 3 on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. It was opened on
16 March 1998 for signature by parties to UNFCCC.

 [show]
Afghanistan (non-party Dominican Republic Liechtenstein São Tomé and Príncipe
to Kyoto) Ecuador Lithuania Saudi Arabia
Albania Egypt Luxembourg Senegal
Algeria El Salvador Republic of Serbia
Angola Equatorial Guinea Macedonia Seychelles
Antigua and Barbuda Eritrea Madagascar Sierra Leone
Argentina Estonia Malawi Singapore
Armenia Ethiopia Malaysia Slovakia
Australia European Union Maldives Slovenia
Austria Fiji Mali Solomon Islands
Azerbaijan Finland Malta Somalia (non-party to
Bahamas France Marshall Islands Kyoto)
Bahrain Gabon Mauritania South Africa
Bangladesh Gambia Mauritius Spain
Barbados Georgia Mexico Sri Lanka
Belarus Germany Federated States of Sudan
Belgium Ghana Micronesia Suriname
Belize Greece Moldova Swaziland
Benin Grenada Monaco Sweden
Bhutan Guatemala Mongolia Switzerland
Bolivia Guinea Montenegro Syria
Bosnia and Guinea-Bissau Morocco Tajikistan
Herzegovina Guyana Mozambique Tanzania
Botswana Haiti Namibia Thailand
Brazil Honduras Nauru Timor-Leste
Brunei Hungary Nepal Togo
Bulgaria Iceland Netherlands Tom
Burkina Faso India New Zealand Tonga
Myanmar Indonesia Nicaragua Trinidad and Tobago
Burundi Iran Niger Tunisia
Cambodia Iraq Nigeria Turkey
Cameroon Ireland Niue Turkmenistan
Canada Israel Norway Tuvalu
Cape Verde Italy Oman Uganda
Central African Jamaica Pakistan Ukraine
Republic Japan Palau United Arab Emirates
Chad Jordan Panama United Kingdom
Chile Kazakhstan Papua New Guinea United States (non-
China Kenya Paraguay party to Kyoto)
Colombia Kiribati Peru Uruguay
Comoros North Korea Philippines Uzbekistan
Democratic Republic South Korea Poland Vanuatu
of the Congo Kuwait Portugal Venezuela
Republic of the Congo Kyrgyzstan Qatar Vietnam
Cook Islands Laos Romania Yemen
Costa Rica Latvia Russia Zambia
Côte d'Ivoire Lebanon Rwanda Zimbabwe
Croatia Lesotho Saint Kitts and Nevis
Cuba Liberia Saint Lucia  Observers:
Cyprus Libya Saint Vincent and the
Czech Republic Grenadines Andorra (non-party to
Denmark Samoa Kyoto)
Djibouti San Marino Holy See (non-party to
Dominica Kyoto)

Article 25 of the Protocol specifies that the Protocol enters into force "on the ninetieth day
after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties
included in Annex I which accounted in total for at least 55% of the total carbon dioxide
emissions for 1990 of the Annex I countries, have deposited their instruments of ratification,
acceptance, approval or accession."

The EU and its Member States ratified the Protocol in May 2002.[10] Of the two conditions,
the "55 parties" clause was reached on 23 May 2002 when Iceland ratified the Protocol. The
ratification by Russia on 18 November 2004 satisfied the "55%" clause and brought the treaty
into force, effective 16 February 2005, after the required lapse of 90 days.

As of November 2009, 187 countries and one regional economic organization (the EC) have
ratified the agreement, representing over 63.9% of the 1990 emissions from Annex I
countries.[5] The most notable non-party to the Protocol is the United States, which is a party
to UNFCCC and was responsible for 36.1% of the 1990 emission levels of Annex I countries.
Countries like China, India and Brazil are still in the non-annex group. This makes them
without obligations in the Kyoto protocol to limit their CO2 emissions. As of now, nov. 2010,
these countries haven't changed their minds about signing in as Annex-1 countries and
thereby making them able to obligate themselves to a reduction. But making obligations to
the protocol aren't simple, as they also can be seen as damages to national competitiveness.
The Protocol can be signed and ratified only by parties to UNFCCC, (Article 24) and a
country can withdraw by giving 12 months notice. (Article 27)

[edit] Objectives

Kyoto is intended to cut global emissions of greenhouse gases.

The objective is the "stabilization and reconstruction of greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the
climate system."[4]

The objective of the Kyoto climate change conference was to establish a legally binding
international agreement, whereby all the participating nations commit themselves to tackling
the issue of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions. The target agreed upon was an
average reduction of 5.2% from 1990 levels by the year 2012. According to the treaty, in
2012, Annex I countries must have fulfilled their obligations of reduction of greenhouse
gases emissions established for the first commitment period (2008–2012) (see Annex B of the
Protocol). The Protocol expires at the end of 2012.

The five principal concepts of the Kyoto Protocol are:[citation needed]

  Commitments to the Annex-countries. The heart of the Protocol lies in establishing
commitments for the reduction of greenhouse gases that are legally binding for Annex
I countries. Dividing the countries in different groups is one of the key concepts in
making commitments possible, where only the Annex I countries in 1997, where seen
as having the economic capacity to commit themselves and their industry. Making
only the few nations in the Annex 1 group committed to the protocols limitations.
 Implementation. In order to meet the objectives of the Protocol, Annex I countries are
required to prepare policies and measures for the reduction of greenhouse gases in
their respective countries. In addition, they are required to increase the absorption of
these gases and utilize all mechanisms available, such as joint implementation, the
clean development mechanism and emissions trading, in order to be rewarded with
credits that would allow more greenhouse gas emissions at home.
 Minimizing Impacts on Developing Countries by establishing an adaptation fund for
climate change.
 Accounting, Reporting and Review in order to ensure the integrity of the Protocol.
 Compliance. Establishing a Compliance Committee to enforce compliance with the
commitments under the Protocol.

[edit] 2012 emission targets and "flexible mechanisms"

39 of the 40 Annex I countries have ratified the Protocol. Of these 34 have committed
themselves to a reduction of greenhouse gases (GHG) produced by them to targets that are set
in relation to their 1990 emission levels, in accordance with Annex B of the Protocol. The
targets apply to the four greenhouse gases carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur
hexafluoride, and two groups of gases, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. The six
GHG are translated into CO2 equivalents in determining reductions in emissions. These
reduction targets are in addition to the industrial gases, chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, which
are dealt with under the 1987 Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.

Under the Protocol, only the Annex I countries have committed themselves to national or
joint reduction targets, (formally called "quantified emission limitation and reduction
objectives" (QELRO) - Article 4.1) that range from a joint reduction of 8% for the European
Union and others, to 7% for the United States (non-binding as the US is not a signatory), 6%
for Japan and 0% for Russia. The treaty permits emission increases of 8% for Australia and
10% for Iceland.[11] Emission limits do not include emissions by international aviation and
shipping.

Annex I countries under the Kyoto Protocol, their 2012 commitments (% of 1990) and 1990
emission levels (% of all Annex I countries) [show]
Australia – 108% Finland – 92% (0.4%) Liechtenstein – Russian Federation –
(2.1% of 1990 France – 92% (2.7%) (0.0015%) 92% 100% (17.4%)
emissions) Germany – 92% Lithuania – 92% () Slovakia – 92%
Austria – 92% (0.4%) (7.4%) Luxembourg – 92% (0.42%)
Belarus – 95% (subject Greece – 92% (0.6%) (0.1%) Slovenia – 92% ()
to acceptance by other Hungary – 94% Monaco – 92% Spain – 92% (1.9%)
parties) (0.52%) (0.0015%) Sweden – 92% (0.4%)
Belgium – 92% (0.8%) Iceland – 110% Netherlands – 92% Switzerland – 92%
Bulgaria – 92% (0.6%) (0.02%) (1.2%) (0.32%)
Canada – 94% (3.33%) Ireland – 92% (0.2%) New Zealand – 100% Turkey ()
Croatia – 95% () Italy – 92% (3.1%) (0.19%) Ukraine – 100% ()
Czech Republic – 92% Japan – 94% (8.55%) Norway – 101% United Kingdom –
(1.24%) Latvia – 92% (0.17%) (0.26%) 92% (4.3%)
Denmark – 92% Poland – 94% (3.02%) United States of
(0.4%) Portugal – 92% (0.3%) America – 93%
Estonia – 92% (0.28%) Romania – 92% (36.1%) (non-party)
(1.24%)

Annex I countries can achieve their targets by allocating reduced annual allowances to major
operators within their borders, or by allowing these operators to exceed their allocations by
offsetting any excess through a mechanism that is agreed by all the parties to the UNFCCC,
such as by buying emission allowances from other operators which have excess emissions
credits.

38 of the 39 Annex I countries have agreed to cap their emissions in this way, two others are
required to do so under their conditions of accession into the EU, and one more (Belarus) is
seeking to become an Annex I country.

[edit] Flexible mechanisms

The Protocol defines three "flexibility mechanisms" that can be used by Annex I countries in
meeting their emission reduction commitments (Bashmakov et al.., 2001, p. 402).[12] The
flexibility mechanisms are International Emissions Trading (IET), the Clean Development
Mechanism (CDM), and Joint Implementation (JI). IET allows Annex I countries to "trade"
their emissions (Assigned Amount Units, AAUs, or "allowances" for short). For IET, the
economic basis for providing this flexibility is that the marginal cost of emission abatement
differs among countries. Trade could potentially allow the Annex I countries to meet their
emission reduction commitments at a reduced cost. This is because trade allows emissions to
be abated first in countries where the costs of abatement are lowest, thus increasing the
efficiency of the Kyoto agreement.

The CDM and JI are called "project-based mechanisms," in that they generate emission
reductions from projects. The difference between IET and the project-based mechanisms is
that IET is based on the setting of a quantitative restriction of emissions, while the CDM and
JI are based on the idea of "production" of emission reductions (Toth et al.., 2001, p. 660).[13]
The CDM is designed to encourage production of emission reductions in non-Annex I
countries, while JI encourages production of emission reductions in Annex I countries.

The production of emission reductions generated by the CDM and JI can be used by Annex B
countries in meeting their emission reduction commitments. The emission reductions
produced by the CDM and JI are both measured against a hypothetical baseline of emissions
that would have occurred in the absence of a particular emission reduction project. The
emission reductions produced by the CDM are called Certified Emission Reductions (CERs);
reductions produced by JI are called Emission Reduction Units (ERUs). The reductions are
called "credits" because they are emission reductions credited against a hypothetical baseline
of emissions.[citation needed]

[edit] International Emissions Trading

The most advanced emissions trading system (ETS) is the one developed by the EU (Gupta
et al.., 2007).[14] Ellerman and Buchner (2008) (referenced in Grubb et al.., 2009, p. 11)
suggested that during its first two years in operation, the EU ETS turned an expected increase
in emissions of 1-2 percent per year into a small absolute decline.[15] Grubb et al.. (2009,
p. 11) suggested that a reasonable estimate for the emissions cut achieved during its first two
years of operation was 50-100 MtCO2 per year, or 2.5-5 percent.

[edit] Clean Development Mechanism

Between 2001, which was the first year CDM projects could be registered, and 2012, the end
of the Kyoto commitment period, the CDM is expected to produce some 1.5 billion tons of
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) in emission reductions.[16] Most of these reductions are
through renewable energy, 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%).

[edit] Joint Implementation

The formal crediting period for JI was aligned with the first commitment period of the Kyoto
Protocol, and did not start until January 2008 (Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 20).[17] 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.

[edit] Details of the agreement

According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Program:

"After 10 days of tough negotiations, ministers and other high-level officials from 160
countries reached agreement this morning on a legally binding Protocol under which
industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2%.
The agreement aims to lower overall emissions from a group of six greenhouse gases by
2008–12, calculated as an average over these five years. Cuts in the three most important
gases – carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) – will be measured
against a base year of 1990. Cuts in three long-lived industrial gases – hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6) – can be measured against
either a 1990 or 1995 baseline."

National limitations range from 8% reductions for the European Union and others, to 7% for
the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10%
for Iceland.[11]

The agreement supplements the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC) adopted at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, which did not set any
limitations or enforcement mechanisms. All parties to UNFCCC can sign or ratify the Kyoto
Protocol, while non-parties to UNFCCC cannot. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third
session of the Conference of Parties to the UNFCCC (COP 3) in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan. Most
provisions of the Kyoto Protocol apply to developed countries, listed in Annex I to UNFCCC.

National emission targets exclude international aviation and shipping. Kyoto Parties can use
land use, land use change, and forestry (LULUCF) in meeting their targets (Dessai, 2001,
p. 3).[18] LULUCF activities are also called "sink" activities. Changes in sinks and land use
can have an effect on the climate (IPCC, 2007).[19] Particular criteria apply to the definition of
forestry under the Kyoto Protocol.

Forest management, cropland management, grazing land management, and revegetation are
all eligible LULUCF activities under the Protocol (Dessai, 2001, p. 9). Annex I Parties use of
forestry management in meeting their targets is capped.

[edit] Common but differentiated responsibility

UNFCCC adopts a principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities." The parties

agreed that:

1. the largest share of historical and current global emissions of greenhouse gases
originated in developed countries;
2. per capita emissions in developing countries are still relatively low;
3. the share of global emissions originating in developing countries will grow to meet
social and development needs.[20]

[edit] Emissions

See also: Greenhouse gas#Greenhouse gas emissions

Per-capita emissions are a country's total emissions divided by its population (Banuri et al..,
1996, p. 95).[21] Per-capita emissions in the industrialized countries are typically as much as
ten times the average in developing countries (Grubb, 2003, p. 144).[22] This is one reason
industrialized countries accepted responsibility for leading climate change efforts in the
Kyoto negotiations. In Kyoto, the countries that took on quantified commitments for the first
period (2008–12) corresponded roughly to those with per-capita emissions in 1990 of two
tonnes of carbon or higher. In 2005, the top-20 emitters comprised 80% of total GHG
emissions (PBL, 2010. See also the notes in the following section on the top-ten emitters in
2005).[23] Countries with a Kyoto target made up 20% of total GHG emissions.

Another way of measuring GHG emissions is to measure the total emissions that have
accumulated in the atmosphere over time (IEA, 2007, p. 199).[24] Over a long time period,
cumulative emissions provide an indication of a country's total contribution to GHG
concentrations in the atmosphere. Over the 1900-2005 period, the US was the world's largest
cumulative emitter of energy-related CO2 emissions, and accounted for 30% of total
cumulative emissions (IEA, 2007, p. 201). The second largest emitter was the EU, at 23%;
the third largest was China, at 8%; fourth was Japan, at 4%; fifth was India, at 2%. The rest
of the world accounted for 33% of global, cumulative, energy-related CO2 emissions.

Top-ten emitters
What follows is a ranking of the world's top ten emitters of GHGs for 2005 (MNP, 2007).[25]
The first figure is the country's or region's emissions as a percentage of the global total. The
second figure is the country's/region's per-capita emissions, in units of tons of GHG per-
capita:

1. China1 – 17%, 5.8

2. United States3 – 16%, 24.1
3. European Union-273 – 11%, 10.6
4. Indonesia2 - 6%, 12.9
5. India – 5%, 2.1
6. Russia3 – 5%, 14.9
7. Brazil – 4%, 10.0
8. Japan3 – 3%, 10.6
9. Canada3 – 2%, 23.2
10. Mexico – 2%, 6.4

Notes

 These values are for the GHG emissions from fossil fuel use and cement production.
Calculations are for carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O) and
gases containing fluorine (the F-gases HFCs, PFCs and SF6).
 These estimates are subject to large uncertainties regarding CO2 emissions from
deforestation; and the per country emissions of other GHGs (e.g., methane). There are
also other large uncertainties which mean that small differences between countries are
not significant. CO2 emissions from the decay of remaining biomass after biomass
burning/deforestation are not included.
 1
excluding underground fires.
 2
including an estimate of 2000 million tonnes CO2 from peat fires and decomposition
of peat soils after draining. However, the uncertainty range is very large.
 3
Industrialised countries: official country data reported to UNFCCC

[edit] Financial commitments

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.

[edit] Revisions

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

In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting (COP6bis) was held in Bonn where the
required decisions were adopted. After some concessions, the supporters of the protocol (led
by the European Union) managed to get Japan and Russia in as well 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.

The 3 December 2007, Australia ratified the protocol during the first day of the COP13 in
Bali.

Of the signatories, 36 developed C.G. 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,[26] 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).[27] Reduction limitations expire in 2013.

[edit] Enforcement

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 plus an
additional 30%. In addition, that country will be suspended from making transfers under an
emissions trading program.[28]

[edit] Negotiations

Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC commits industrialized countries to "[take] the lead" in reducing
emissions (Grubb, 2003, p. 144).[22] The initial aim was for industrialized countries to
stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. The failure of key industrialized
countries to move in this direction was a principal reason why Kyoto moved to binding
commitments.

At the first UNFCCC Conference of the Parties in Berlin, the G77 (a coalition of 77
developing nations within the UN) was able to push for a mandate where it was recognized
that (Liverman, 2008, p. 12):[29]

 developed nations had contributed most to the then-current concentrations of GHGs in

the atmosphere
 developing country emissions per-capita were still relatively low
 and that the share of global emissions from developing countries would grow to meet
their development needs.

This mandate was recognized in the Kyoto Protocol in that developing countries were not
subject to emission reduction commitments in the first Kyoto commitment period. However,
the large potential for growth in developing country emissions made negotiations on this
issue tense (Grubb, 2003, p. 145-146). 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. 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.
[edit] Base year

The choice of the 1990 main base year remains in Kyoto, as it does in the original Framework
Convention. The desire to move to historical emissions was rejected on the basis that good
data was not available prior to 1990. The 1990 base year also favoured several powerful
interests including the UK, Germany and Russia (Liverman, 2008, p. 12).[29] This is because
the UK and Germany had high CO2 emissions in 1990.

In the UK following 1990, emissions had declined because of a switch from coal to gas
("dash for gas"), which has lower emissions than coal. This was due to the UK's privatization
of coal mining and its switch to natural gas supported by North sea reserves. Germany
benefitted from the 1990 base year because of its reunification between West and East
Germany. East Germany's emissions fell dramatically following the collapse of East German
industry after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Germany could therefore take credit for the resultant
decline in emissions.

Japan promoted the idea of flexible baselines, and favoured a base year of 1995 for HFCs.
Their HFC emissions had grown in the early 1990s as a substitute for CFCs banned in the
Montreal Protocol (Liverman, 2008, p. 13). Some of the former Soviet satellites wanted a
base year to reflect their highest emissions prior to their industrial collapse.

EIT countries are privileged by beeing able to choose their base-year nearly freely. However
the oldest base-year accepted is 1986.

[edit] Emissions cuts

The G77 wanted strong uniform emission cuts across the developed world of 15% (Liverman,
2008, p. 13).[29] Countries, such as the US, made suggestions to reduce their responsibility to
reduce emissions. These suggestions included:

 the inclusion of carbon sinks (e.g., by including forests, that absorb CO2 from the
atmosphere).
 and having net current emissions as the basis for responsibility, i.e., ignoring
historical emissions.

The US originally proposed for the second round of negotiations on Kyoto commitments to
follow the negotiations of the first (Grubb, 2003, p. 148).[22] In the end, negotiations on the
second period were set to open no later than 2005. Countries over-achieving in their first
period commitments can "bank" their unused allowances for use in the subsequent period.

The EU initially argued for only three GHGs to be included – CO2, CH4, and N2O – with
other gases such as HFCs regulated separately (Liverman, 2008, p. 13). 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. The most
vulnerable nations – the Association 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.

The final days of negotiation of the Protocol saw a clash between the EU and the US and
Japan (Grubb, 2003, p. 149). The EU aimed for flat-rate reductions in the range of 10-15%
below 1990 levels, while the US and Japan supported reductions of 0-5%. Countries that had
supported differentiation had different ideas as to how it should be calculated, and many
different indicators were proposed: relating to GDP, energy intensity (energy use per unit of
economic output), etc. According to Grubb (2003, p. 149), the only common theme of these
indicators was that each proposal suited the interests of the country making the proposal.

The final commitments negotiated in the Protocol are the result of last minute political
compromises (Liverman, 2008, p. 13-14). These include an 8% cut from the 1990 base year
for the EU, 7% for the US, 6% for Canada and Japan, no cut for Russia, and an 8% increase
for Australia. This sums to an overall cut of 5.2% below 1990 levels. Since Australia and the
US did not ratify the treaty (although Australia has since done), the cut is reduced from 5.2%
to about 2%.

Considering the growth of some economies and the collapse of others since 1990, the range
of implicit targets is much greater (Aldy et al.., 2003, p. 7).[30] The US faced a cut of about
30% below "business-as-usual" (BAU) emissions (i.e., predicted emissions should there be
no attempt to limit emissions), while Russia and other economies in transition faced targets
that allowed substantial increases in their emissions above BAU. On the other hand, Grubb
(2003, p. 151) pointed out that the US, having per-capita emissions twice that of most other
OECD countries, was vulnerable to the suggestion that it had huge potential for making
reductions. From this viewpoint, the US was obliged to cut emissions back more than other
countries.

[edit] Flexibility mechanisms

Negotiations over the flexibility mechanisms included in the Protocol proved controversial
(Grubb, 2003, p. 153).[22] Japan and some EU member states wanted to ensure that any
emissions trading would be competitive and transparent. Their intention was to prevent the
US from using its political leverage to gain preferential access to the likely surplus in Russian
emission allowances. The EU was also anxious to prevent the US from avoiding domestic
action to reduce its emissions. Developing countries were concerned that the US would use
flexibility to its own advantage, over the interests of weaker countries.

[edit] Compliance

The protocol defines a mechanism of "compliance" as a "monitoring compliance with the

commitments and penalties for non-compliance."[31] According to Grubb (2003, p. 157), the
explicit consequences of non-compliance of the treaty are weak compared to domestic law.[22]
Yet, the compliance section of the treaty was highly contested in the Marrakesh Accords.
According to Grubb (2003), Japan made some unsuccessful efforts to "water-down" the
compliance package.

[edit] Government action and emissions

Carbon emissions from various global regions during the period 1800–2000 AD
Main article: Kyoto Protocol and government action
See also: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions per capita, List of countries by
carbon dioxide emissions, and List of countries by ratio of GDP to carbon dioxide emissions

[edit] Annex I

In total, Annex I Parties to the UNFCCC (including the US) managed a cut of 3.3% in GHG
emissions between 1990 and 2004 (UNFCCC, 2007, p. 11).[32] 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 the following section for the
list of EITs). Emission reductions in the EITs had little to do with climate change policy
(Carbon Trust, 2009, p. 24).[17] Some reductions in Annex I emissions have occurred due to
policy measures, such as promoting energy efficiency (UNFCCC, 2007, p. 11).

Progress towards targets

Progress toward the emission reduction commitments set in the Kyoto Protocol has been
mixed. World Bank (2008, p. 6) reported that there were significant differences in
performance across individual countries:[33]

 For the Annex I non-Economies-in-Transition (non-EIT) Kyoto Protocol (KP) Parties,

emissions in 2005 were 5% higher than 1990 levels (World Bank, 2008, p. 59). Their
Kyoto target for 2008-2012 is for a 6% reduction in emissions. The Annex I non-EITs
KP Parties are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France,
Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Monaco,
Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the
United Kingdom.
 The Annex I Economies in Transition (EIT) KP Parties emissions in 2005 were 35%
below 1990 levels. Their Kyoto target is for a 2% reduction. The Annex I EIT KP
Parties are Belarus, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia,
Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Ukraine.
 In 2005, the Annex I non-KP Parties emissions were 18% above their 1990 levels.
The Annex I non-KP Parties are Turkey and the United States.
 In total, the Annex I KP Parties emissions for 2005 were 14% below their 1990 levels.
Their Kyoto target is for a 4% reduction.
KP Parties

According to the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (PBL, 2009), the

industrialized countries with a Kyoto target will, as a group, probably meet their emission
limitation requirements.[34] Collectively, this was for a 4% reduction relative to 1990 levels. A
linear extrapolation of the 2000-2005 emissions trend led to a projected emission reduction in
2010 of almost 11%. Including the potential contribution of CDM projects, which may
account for emissions reductions of approximately 500 megatonnes CO2-eq per year, the
reduction might be as large as 15%.

The expected reduction of 11% was attributed to the limited increase in emissions in OECD
countries, but was particularly due to the large reduction of about 40% until 1999 in the EITs.
The reduction in emissions for the smaller EITs aids the EU-27 in meeting their collective
target. The EU expects that it will meet its collective target of an 8% reduction for the EU-15.
This reduction includes:

 CDM and JI projects, which are planned to contribute 2.5% towards the target;
 carbon storage in forests and soils (carbon sinks), which contribute another 0.9%.

Japan expects to meet its Kyoto target, which includes a 1.6% reduction from CDM projects
and a 3.9% reduction from carbon storage, contributing to a total reduction of 5.5%. In other
OECD countries, emissions have increased. In Canada, Australia, New Zealand and
Switzerland, emissions have increased by 25% compared to the base year, while in Norway,
the increase was 9%. In the view of PBL (2009), these countries will only be able to meet
their targets by purchasing sufficient CDM credits or by buying emissions ("hot air") from
EIT countries.

Non-KP Parties

Emissions in the US have increased 16% since 1990. According to PBL (2009), the US will
not meet its original Kyoto target of a 6% reduction in emissions.[34]

[edit] Non-Annex I

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. They are not obligated by the limits of emissions in the Kyoto
Protocol (p. 4). Fast growing economy countries like China, South Africa, India and Brazil
are still in this non-obligated group. 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 (p. 6).
Many non-Annex I Parties are making efforts to amend and update their environmental
legislation to include global concerns such as climate change (p. 7).

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

As the Non-Annex 1 countries arent obligated to any commitment on emmissions some

critics argue that their signatures on the protocol have been free and unsignificant.
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, Republic
of Moldova, and the former Yugoslav Republic of 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).[34] 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.

[edit] Views on the Protocol

Main article: Views on the Kyoto Protocol

Gupta et al. (2007) assessed the literature on climate change policy. They found that no
authoritative assessments of the UNFCCC or its Protocol asserted that these agreements had,
or will, succeed in solving the climate problem.[36] In these assessments, it was assumed that
the UNFCCC or its Protocol would not be changed. The Framework Convention and its
Protocol include provisions for future policy actions to be taken.

World Bank (2010, p. 233) commented on how the Kyoto Protocol had only had a slight
effect on curbing global emissions growth.[16] The treaty was negotiated in 1997, but by 2005,
energy-related emissions had grown 24%. World Bank (2010) also stated that the treaty had
provided only limited financial support to developing countries to assist them in reducing
their emissions and adapting to climate change.

Some of the criticism of the Protocol has been based on the idea of climate justice (Liverman,
2008, p. 14).[29] This has particularly centred on the balance between the low emissions and
high vulnerability of the developing world to climate change, compared to high emissions in
the developed world.

Some environmentalists have supported the Kyoto Protocol because it is "the only game in
town," and possibly because they expect that future emission reduction commitments may
demand more stringent emission reductions (Aldy et al.., 2003, p. 9).[30] In 2001, sixteen
national science academies[37] stated that ratification of the Protocol represented a "small but
essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."[38]
Some environmentalists and scientists have criticized the existing commitments for being too
weak (Grubb, 2000, p. 5).[39]

Many economists think that the commitments are stronger than is justified (Grubb, 2000,
p. 31). The lack of quantitative emission commitments for developing countries led the US
and Australia (under Prime Minister John Howard) to decide not to ratify the treaty (Stern
2007, p. 478).[40] Australia, under former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has since ratified the
treaty. Despite ratification, Australia has thus far not implemented legislation to bring itself
into compliance.

An editor has expressed a concern that this paragraph lends undue weight to
certain ideas, incidents, controversies or matters relative to the article subject as
a whole. Please help to create a more balanced presentation. Discuss and resolve
this issue before removing this message. (May 2010)

In May 2010 the Hartwell Paper was published by the London School of Economics with
funding from the Japan Iron and Steel Federation, Tokyo, Japan and Japan Automobile
Manufacturers Association, Inc., Tokyo, Japan .[41] The authors argued that after what they
regard as the failure of the 2009 Copenhagen Climate Summit, the Kyoto Protocol crashed
and they claimed that it "has failed to produce any discernable real world reductions in
emissions of greenhouse gases in fifteen years."[41][42] They argued that this failure opened an
opportunity to set climate policy free from Kyoto and the paper advocates a controversial and
piecemeal approach to decarbonization of the global economy.[43][44][45][unbalanced opinion]

[edit] Successor
Main article: Post-Kyoto Protocol negotiations on greenhouse gas emissions

In the non-binding 'Washington Declaration' agreed on 16 February 2007, Heads of

governments from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, United Kingdom, the
United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa agreed in principle on the
outline of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisage a global cap-and-trade system
that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, and hoped that this
would be in place by 2009.[46][47]
On 7 June 2007, leaders at the 33rd G8 summit agreed that the G8 nations would "aim to at
least halve global CO2 emissions by 2050". The details enabling this to be achieved would be
negotiated by environment ministers within the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change in a process that would also include the major emerging economies.[48]

A round of climate change talks under the auspices of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Vienna Climate Change Talks 2007) concluded
in 31 August 2007 with agreement on key elements for an effective international response to
climate change.[49]

A key feature of the talks was a United Nations report that showed how efficient energy use
could yield significant cuts in emissions at low cost.

The talks were meant to set the stage for a major international meeting to be held in Nusa
Dua, Bali, which started on 3 December 2007.[50]

The Conference was held in December 2008 in Poznań, Poland. One of the main topics on
this meeting was the discussion of a possible implementation of avoided deforestation also
known as Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) into the
future Kyoto Protocol.[51]

After the lack of progress leading to a binding commitment or an extension of the Kyoto
commitment period in climate talks at COP 15 in Copenhagen, Denmark in 2009, there are
several further rounds of negotiation COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico in 2010, South Africa in
2011 (COP 17), and in either Qatar or South Korea in 2012 (COP 18). Because any treaty
change will require the ratification of the text by various countries' legislatures before the end
of the commitment period Dec 31, 2012, it is likely that agreements in South Africa or South
Korea/Qatar will be too late to prevent a gap between the commitment periods.[52]