The Kyoto Protocol. Project Design Means a detailed description of the Project to be submitted for Validation Document (PDD): prepared in accordance with the Kyoto Rules, the UFG and the Directive and attached as Annex III. The Purchaser will be responsible for providing PDD development for Registration of the Project.
The Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in December 1997 at the Third Conference of the Parties held in Kyoto. The Kyoto Protocol requires stronger commitments from parties to achieve quantified emission reductions within a specific timeframe. These commitments cover the six greenhouse gases listed in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol (Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, Hydrochlorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons and Sulphur hexafluoride). Relevance Athi Water Services Board and the contractor will be required to carry out regular inspection and maintenance of construction equipment in order to reduce the levels of green house gas emissions into the atmosphere, the design of the sewer ponds should ensure that the anaerobic ponds are covered to trap the methane gas which should be cleaned and used appropriately as renewable energy.
The Kyoto Protocol. Interna- tional climate change policy for the 21st century. Berlin and New York: Springer. X’Xxxxxx, X. (1994). On the misadventures of capitalist nature. In
The Kyoto Protocol results Parties that committed themselves under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were actively implementing mitigation measures: increased the share of low-carbon and renewable fuels, improved energy efficiency, etc. Non-commit- xxx parties noticeably increased their emissions (by several times). It can be easily illustrated by the growth of emissions in certain dynamically develop- ing countries (Table 4). e Table 3. Primary energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide emission from the combustion of anthropogenic fuel by the largest world emitters in 2012 [11, 12] Table 4. Primary energy Consumption behavior and Carbon Dioxide emission rates from the combustion of anthropogenic fuel in the devel- oping countries [11, 12] Country Primary energy Consumption, Exajoules CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, million tonnes of CO2 1990 2012 1990 0000 Xxxxxx 4.56 7.71 257.0 459.5 South Africa 3.70 5.14 243.8 422.3 Republic of Korea 3.82 11.54 231.8 575.5 Brazil 5.36 11.69 184.5 424.1 Iran, Islamic Rep. 3.04 9.41 171.2 514.5 Saudi Arabia 3.34 9.76 151.1 463.4 Indonesia 2.20 7.27 131.3 451.1 Table 5. Primary energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide emission from the combustion of anthropogenic fuel by the largest world emitters in 2018 [11, 12] Country Primary energy Consumption, Exajoules CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, million tonnes of CO2 Fuel Coal Oil Gas United States 95.60 4 921.1 1 270.0 2 031.3 1 600.7 Russian Federation 30.04 1 587.0 411.2 303.0 838.0 China 135.77 9 570.8 7 637.2 1 374.7 525.9 Japan 18.84 1 080.7 431.3 384.1 228.4 Germany 13.44 696.1 273.1 233.3 171.1 Ukraine 3.54 181.8 97.6 28.5 55.8 United Kingdom 7.96 352.4 31.3 157.8 158.0 India 33.30 2 307.8 1 628.0 595.1 83.4 Mexico 7.83 448.5 48.3 243.9 155.8 South Africa 5.30 428.0 350.0 73.5 4.5 Republic of Korea 12.55 605.8 315.3 158.9 114.0 Brazil 12.13 406.3 63.9 274.0 68.4 Iran, Islamic Rep. 11.83 579.6 5.4 191.4 382.7 Saudi Arabia 10.91 491.7 0 318.3 173.4 Indonesia 8.23 542.9 221.9 238.1 82.4 From 1990 to 2012, energy consumption in Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Korea increased by ∼200%. At the same time, CO2 emis- sions increased in Iran, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia by ∼200%, and in the Republic of Korea by ∼150%. Primary fuel consumption has grown significantly in Brazil ∼120%, Mexico ∼70% and South Africa ∼40%. Greenhouse gas emissions in these countries have already exceeded those of the United Kingdom.
The Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC, specifically, the first and second COPs paved the way for the negotiation of a precise protocol with requisite commitments, the Kyoto Protocol. Through the eight meetings by the ad hoc group on the Berlin Mandate, which were to discuss and develop the overall framework and precise provisions of the new instrument, a draft text to begin the negotiation process at COP3 was created (Breidenich et al., 1998:319). Following ten days of intense negotiation with this draft text provided by the group, Parties at the third COP at Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997 adopted the Kyoto Protocol (Bodansky, 2001; Boyd, Corbera, & Xxxxxxx, 2008; Breidenich et al., 1998; Xxxxx, 2004; Xxxxx & Yamin, 2001). The Protocol was “hailed as the greatest achievement of modern environmental diplomacy” by some observers (Xxxxx and Yamin 2001: 262). At the heart of this Protocol are differentiated commitments (legally binding targets) by industrialized (Annex 1) countries to decrease their GHG emissions by 5.2 per cent with 1990 as the base year (Xxxxxxx et al., 2010; Xxxxx & Yamin, 2001; Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxx, 2007). This was premised on principles of equity and social justice related to both their disproportionally large historical and current contributions to atmospheric GHG concentrations as well as the fact that the enormous wealth and technological capacity they possess place them in a better position to take on GHG mitigation goals (Xxxxxxxx, 2008). These quantitative emission targets did not include developing countries, in other words, developing countries were not assigned quantifiable emission targets under the protocol; it only slightly builds upon the existing commitments of these countries that existed under the UNFCCC (Xxxxx & Yamin, 2001). This is congruent with the decision in the Berlin Mandate at COP-1 that “no new commitments would be negotiated for developing countries as part of the process” (Breidenich et al 1998:319). Although the divide between developing and developed counties epitomized the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), which is at the core of UNFCCC, the sharp divide failed to address significant future mitigation issues by emerging emitters who at the time were still classified as developing countries (Xxxxxxx et al., 2010). This issue partly caused US non-ratification of the protocol and would even come back to bite the regime in COP 15 at Copenhagen (Ibid). The negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol, both among the part...
The Kyoto Protocol. An Assessment In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force without the participation of the United States.97 Despite U.S. withdrawal, the parties hailed this as a milestone in the global effort to mitigate climate change.98 This does not, however, deter scholars from severely criticizing the Kyoto Protocol. Specifically, scholars argue that under the current provisions of the Protocol, impacts on global emissions will be negligible. For example, Xxxxxxxx and Stavins maintain: “[b]ecause the Kyoto Protocol’s ambitious targets apply only to the short term (2008-2012) and only to industrialized nations, the agreement will impose relatively high costs and generate only modest short-term benefits, while failing to provide a real solution.”99 While this condemnation has enjoyed widespread support among scholars, the most common criticism of the Kyoto Protocol can be summarized in four propositions: infra-red radiation, close to the earth’s surface. Thus, an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to increased warming, which in turn is adversely effecting the earth’s fragile environment. Harmful chemicals that have led to increased greenhouse gas concentrations include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons (regulated by Montreal), and other halogenated substances such as CFCs and HCFCs. 92. HUNTER, XXXXXXX & XXXXXX, supra note 41, at 632.
