india and kyoto

8/8/2019 India and Kyoto

1/21

2010

Global Warming: Kyoto Protocol

& Beyond

Submitted By:

FMG18-C

Ankush Verma 91125

Madhur Chawla 91140

Anupama Talwar 91141

Simranjit Singh 91159

Gunashrit Nag 91168

Claire Crouan F20101

Submitted to: Dr. K.L. Chawla

Legal Aspects of Business


2/21

2 | P a g e Global War i K oto Protocol & Beyond L

lAsp

tsofBusin

ss

Table of Contents

Effec

s of Global warming................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 3

Spread ofdisease................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 3

Warmer watersandmore hurricanes................................ ................................ ............................. 4

Increasedprobabilityandintensity ofdroughtsand heat waves................................ .................... 4

Economicconsequences................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 4

Polaricecapsmelting ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 4

Kyoto Protocol ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 5

The Kyoto mechanisms ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 5

Emissionstrading knownas thecarbonmarket"................................ ................................ ........ 5

Cleandevelopmentmechanism (CDM) ................................ ................................ .......................... 5

Jointimplementation (JI). ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 6

Adaptation................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6

Emissions................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 7

Top-tenemitters................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 8

Monitoringemissiontargets ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 9

Financial commitments................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 9

Revisions ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 9

Post Kyoto-Protocol negotiations................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10

Therole oftheprivatesector................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 11

Transferring Technology ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 12

INDIA AND KYOTO ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 13

FRANCE TAKE ON KYOTO ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 15

About Kyoto protocol in France................................ ................................ ................................ .... 16

Francethrough European Union................................ ................................ ................................ .. 16

Limits................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 19

Conclusion................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 20

References................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 21


3/21

3 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond L

lAsp

tsofBusin

ss

Simranadd urpart here

Effects of Global warming

Overt e l t hundred years or so, the instrumentaltemperature record has shown a trend in

climate of increased global mean temperature, i.e., global warming. Global average

temperature is predicted to increase overthis century, with a probable increase in frequency

of some extreme weather events, and changes in rainfall patterns. Moving from global to

regional scales, there is increased uncertainty over how climate will change. The probability

of warming having unforeseen consequences increases with the rate, magnitude, and

duration of climate change. Some ofthe physicalimpacts of climate change are irreversible

at continental and global scales.With medium confidence, IPCC (2007b: 7) concluded that

with a global average temperature increase of 14C, (relative to 19902000) partial

deglaciation ofthe Greenland ice sheet would occur over a period of centuries to millennia.

Including the possible contribution of partial deglaciation of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet,

sea level would rise by 46 m or more.

The impacts of climate change across world population will not be distributed evenly

(Smith et al., 2001:957). Some regions and sectors are expected to experience benefits while

others will experience costs. With greater levels of warming (greaterthan 23C by 2100,

relative to 1990 temperature levels), it is very li ely that benefits will decline and costs

increase. Low-latitude and less-developed areas are probably at the greatest risk from

climate change (Schneideret al.., 2007:781). With human systems, adaptation potential for

climate change impacts is considerable, although the costs of adaptation are largely

unknown and potentially large.

There are number of harmful effects associated with global warming, but majorly it can be

divided into five deadliest effects. Green house gases stay can stay in the atmosphere for an

amount of years ranging from decades to hundreds and thousands of years. No matter what

we do, global warming is going to have some effect on Earth.Here are the 5 deadliest effects of global warming.

y Spread of disease As northern countries warm, disease carrying insects migratenorth, bringing plague and disease with them. Indeed some scientists believe that in some

countries thanks to global warming, malaria has not been fully eradicated.


4/21


lAsp

tsofBusin

ss

y Warmer waters and more hurricanes As the temperature of oceans rises, so willthe probability of more frequent and stronger hurricanes. We saw in this in 2004 and 2005.

y Increased probability and intensity of droughts and heat waves Althoughsome areas of Earth will become wetter due to global warming, other areas will suffer

serious droughts and heat waves. Africa will receive the worst of it, with more severe

droughts also expected in Europe. Wateris already a dangerously rare commodity in Africa,

and according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global warming will

exacerbate the conditions and could lead to conflicts and war.

y Economic consequences Most ofthe effects of anthropogenic global warming wont be good. And these effects spell one thing for the countries of the world: economic

consequences. Hurricanes cause do billions of dollars in damage, diseases cost money to

treat and control and conflicts exacerbate all ofthese.

y Polar ice caps melting The ice caps melting is a four-pronged danger.o First, it will raise sea levels. There are 5,773,000 cubic miles of waterin ice caps, glaciers,

and permanent snow. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, if all glaciers

melted today the seas would rise about 230 feet. Luckily, thats not going to happen all in

one go! But sea levels will rise.

o Second, melting ice caps will throw the global ecosystem out of balance. The ice caps arefresh water, and when they meltthey will desalinate the ocean, orin plain English - make itless salty. The desalinization of the gulf current will "screw up" ocean currents, which

regulate temperatures. The stream shutdown or irregularity would cool the area around

north-east America and Western Europe. Luckily, that will slow some of the other effects

of global warming in that area!

o Third, temperature rises and changing landscapes in the artic circle will endanger severalspecies of animals. Only the most adaptable will survive.

o Fourth, global warming could snowball with the ice caps gone. Ice caps are white, andreflect sunlight, much of which is relected backinto space, further cooling Earth. Ifthe ice

caps melt, the only reflectoris the ocean. Darker colors absorb sunlight, further warming the

Earth.


5/21


lAsp

tsofBusin

ss

Kyoto Protocol

The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered

into force on 16 February 2005. The detailed rules for the implementation of the

Protocol were adopted atCOP 7 in Marrakesh in 2001, and are called the Marrakesh

Accords. As of July 2010, 191 states have signed and ratified the protocol

The Kyoto mechanisms

Under the Treaty, countries must meet their targets primarily through national measures.

However, the Kyoto Protocol offers them an additional means of meeting their targets by

way ofthree market-based mechanisms.

The Kyoto mechanisms are:

Emissions trading known as the carbon market"

Greenhouse gas emissions a new commodity

Parties with commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Parties) have accepted

targets forlimiting or reducing emissions. These targets are expressed as levels of allowed

emissions, or assigned amounts, over the 2008-2012 commitment period. The allowed

emissions are divided into assigned amount units (AAUs).

Emissions trading, as set outin Article 17 ofthe Kyoto Protocol, allows countries that have

emission units to spare - emissions permitted them but not "used" - to sell this excess

capacity to countries that are over their targets.

Thus, a new commodity was created in the form of emission reductions or removals. Since

carbon dioxide is the principal greenhouse gas, people speak simply oftrading in carbon.

Carbon is now tracked and traded like any other commodity. This is known as the "carbon

market."

Clean development mechanism (CDM)

The Clean DevelopmentMechanism (CDM), defined in Article 12 ofthe Protocol, allows a

country with an emission-reduction or emission-limitation commitment under the Kyoto


6/21


lAsp

tsofBusin

ss

Protocol (Annex B Party) to implement an emission-reduction project in developing

countries. Such projects can earn saleable certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each

equivalentto one tonne ofCO2, which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets.

The mechanism is seen by many as a trailblazer. It is the first global, environmental

investment and credit scheme of its kind, providing a standardized emissions offset

instrument, CERs.

A CDM project activity mightinvolve, for example, a rural electrification project using solar

panels orthe installation of more energy-efficient boilers.

The mechanism stimulates sustainable development and emission reductions, while giving

industrialized countries some flexibility in how they meet their emission reduction or

limitation targets.

Joint implementation (JI).

The mechanism known as joint implementation, defined in Article 6 of the Kyoto

Protocol, allows a country with an emission reduction or limitation commitment under the

Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to earn emission reduction units (ERUs) from an emission-

reduction or emission removal project in another Annex B Party, each equivalent to one

tonne ofCO2, which can be counted towards meeting its Kyoto target.

Jointimplementation offers Parties a flexible and cost-efficient means of fulfilling a part of

their Kyoto commitments, while the host Party benefits from foreign investment andtechnology transfer.

The mechanisms help stimulate green investment and hel p Parties meet their emission

targets in a cost-effective way.

Adaptation

The Kyoto Protocol, like the Convention, is also designed to assist countries in adapting to

the adverse effects of climate change. It facilitates the development and deployment of

techniques that can help increase resilience to the impacts of climate change.


7/21

7 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond L!

"

#

lAsp! $

tsofBusin!

ss

The Adaptation Fund was established to finance adaptation projects and programmes in

developing countries that are Parties to the Kyoto Protocol. The Fund is financed mainly

with a share of proceeds from CDM project activities.

The Kyoto Protocol is generally seen as an important first step towards a truly global

emission reduction regime that will stabilize GHG emissions, and provides the essential

architecture for any future international agreement on climate change.

By the end of the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, a new

international framework needs to have been negotiated and ratified that can deliver the

stringent emission reductions the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has

clearly indicated are needed.

Emissions

Per-capita emissions are a country's total emissions divided by its population (Banuriet al..,

1996, p. 95). Per-capita emissions in the industrialized countries are typically as much as ten

times the average in developing countries (Grubb, 2003, p. 144). This is one reason

industrialized countries accepted responsibility for leading climate change efforts in the

Kyoto negotiations. In Kyoto, the countries thattook on quantified commitments forthe first

period (200812) 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).Countries with a Kyoto target made up 20% oftotal 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). Over a long time period,

cumulative emissions provide an indication of a country's total contribution to GHG

concentrations in the atmosphere. Overthe 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

ofthe world accounted for 33% of global, cumulative, energy-related CO2 emissions.


8/21

8 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond L%

&

'

lAsp% (

tsofBusin%

ss

Top-ten emitters

What follows is a ranking of the world's top ten emitters of GHGs for 2005 (MNP, 2007).

The first figure is the country's or region's emissions as a percentage ofthe globaltotal. The

second figure is the country's/region's per-capita emissions, in units of tons of GHG per-

capita:

1. China 17%, 5.82. United States 16%, 24.13. European Union-27 11%, 10.64. Indonesia - 6%, 12.95. India 5%, 2.16. Russia 5%, 14.97. Brazil 4%, 10.08. Japan 3%, 10.69. Canada 2%, 23.210.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 fromdeforestation; 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 notincluded.

excluding underground fires. 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.

Industrialisedcountries: official country data reported to UNFCCC


9/21

9 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond L)

0

1

lAsp) 2

tsofBusin)

ss

Monitoring emission targets

Under the Protocol, countriesactual emissions have to be monitored and precise records

have to be kept ofthe trades carried out.

Registry systems track and record transactions by Parties under the mechanisms. The UN

Climate Change Secretariat, based in Bonn, Germany, keeps an international transaction

log to verify thattransactions are consistent with the rules ofthe Protocol.

Reporting is done by Parties by way of submitting annual emission inventories and national

reports underthe Protocol at regularintervals.

A compliance system ensures that Parties are meeting their commitments and helps them to

meettheir commitments ifthey have problems doing so.

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.

Revisions

The protocol left several issues open to be decided later by the sixth Conference of Parties

(COP).COP6 attempted to resolve these issues atits 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 ofthe 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 ofthe protocol.


10/21

10 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond L3

4

5

lAsp3 6

tsofBusin3

ss

The firstMeeting ofthe 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 ofthe COP13 in

Bali. Ofthe 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, much largerincreases (up to 27%) are allowed for some of

the less developed EU countries. Reduction limitations expire in 2013.

Enforcement

Ifthe 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

PostKyoto-Protocol negotiations

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 thatthis

would be in place by 2009.

On 7 June 2007, leaders atthe 33rd G8 summit agreed thatthe G8 nations would "aim to at

least halve globalCO2 emissions by 2050". The details enabling this to be achieved would

be negotiated by environment ministers within the United Nations FrameworkConvention

on Climate Change in a process that would also include the major emerging economies.

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.

A key feature of the talks was a United Nations report that showed how efficient energy

use could yield significant cuts in emissions atlow cost.


11/21

11 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond L7

8

9

lAsp7 @

tsofBusin7

ss

The talks were meant to set the stage for a major international meeting to be held inNusa

Dua, Bali, which started on 3 December 2007.

The Conference was held in December 2008 in Pozna, 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.

There was lack of progress leading to a binding commitment or an extension of the Kyoto

commitment period in climate talks atCOP 15 in Copenhagen, Denmarkin 2009.

Despite several further rounds of negotiation COP 16 in Cancun, Mexico in 2010, not much

progress was made. Further negotiations will be held in South Africa in 2011 (COP 17), and

in 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, itis likely that agreements in South Africa or South Korea/Qatar will

be too late to prevent a gap between the commitment periods.

The role of the private sector

Given the decline in ODA, much emphasis is placed on the importance of private transfers

to developing countries in making up for gaps in public financing. Itis difficultto over-state

the importance ofthe private sectorin proposals to address climate change. As the Business

Council for Sustainable Development on climate change and publicising the benefits

achieved by existing leaders in the field. Some firms such as BP and Shell have gone so far

as to establish their own intra-firm trading systems which encourage competitive reductions

between different parts of the firm.31 This carries benefits such as saving money through

reduced use of energy, first-mover advantages that come from developing new technologies

and production processes to meetthe targets and public and employee credibility from being

seen as an environmentally-responsible company.32 Companies have also been keen

participants in schemes such as the Chicago Climate Exchange, the European Emissions

Trading Scheme, the Carbon Disclosure Project and discussions about a possible Carbon

Certification Council to oversee a labelling scheme aimed at consumers emulating existing

schemes in the forestry and fisheries sectors. The fragile alliance between sections of the

financial community and environmentalists seeking to advance action on climate change

provides one example of the type of political coalition that will be necessary to carry

reforms forward. It also underlines the pointthat many ofthe key changes necessary to fund


12/21

12 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond LA

B

C

lAspA D

tsofBusinA

ss

climate protection and deter activities that accelerate climate change, will come not from

more international cooperation alone, but from changes in industry itself and in this case

from pressure from stakeholders with a clear self-interestin promoting action.

Many of the changes in company policy are consumer-driven and we should not under-

estimate the importance of consumer choice and consumer pressure in driving private sector

action on climate change. On one level, consumers themselves have to internalise the

externalities thatthey impose on the environmentthrough their consumer choices. One way

they can internalise those externalities is by supporting markets for climate-benign products

and refusing to purchase goods and services which imply a heavy impact on the climate, as

well as changing their own patterns of consumption in relation to energy use, transportation

and the like. Many NGOs have sought to supplement government efforts to persuade

consumers to use energy more efficiently by providing booklets and other information

materials on how savings can be made from changing simple household practices.

Development NGOs such as Christian Aid in the UK have also launched campaigns making

people aware of the difference small changes in their consumption of energy can make to

people in the South. In a more confrontational manner some groups have also organised

boycotts of firms that continue to oppose the Kyoto Protocol, encouraging consumers to use

their purchasing power to register their disapproval with companies obstruction of

international action on climate change.

Transferring Technology

Technology clearly has a key role to play in mitigation and adaptation to climate change.

There has been concern that climate change does not become the latest policy arena in which

to repeat previous mistakes in development policy about the inappropriate transfer of

technology as aid to the global South. Concerns about subsidies to flailing technology

sectors whose applications are inappropriate to local Southern contexts for which they were

not designed, the use of conditionalities and tied aid which requires recipients to purchase

the technology from the donor have all re-surfaced as legitimate concerns expressed by

developing countries in the climate change debate.Much ofthe controversy has also centred

on the Global Environment Facility set up to oversee North-South transfers of environmental

aid. Its close ties to the World Bankto whom itis chiefly accountable has been a particular

source of concern for many developing countries.


13/21

13 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond LE

F

G

lAspE H

tsofBusinE

ss

Alongside the use of technologies intended to bring about a degree of leap-frogging to a

more sustainable energy path, there have been calls to develop spectaculartechnofixes to the

problem of climate change. Designed to avoid having to take politically sensitive action to

mitigate emissions, such grand designs include filling the oceans with iron fillings to

increase the rate at which they absorb CO2 or the use of huge mirrors placed in the

atmosphere to deflect the suns rays. Given the numerous issues about the plausibility and

desirability of such globaltechno-fixes.

INDIA AND KYOTO

It has been observed that India resist pressure to go beyond the Kyoto Protocol. India

opposed the amendment to the Kyoto Protocol at the Copenhagen Climate meet. The newamendment pushed for an agreement that was broader than 1997 treaty and puts more

pressure on developing countries for cutting the carbon emission.

The tiny Pacific island of Tuvalu raised the proposal of adding another protocolto the Kyoto

Protocol. Developing nations mainly India, China, South Africa and Brazil are, however,

sticking to a one protocol approach.

Indias focus is on heightened implementation ofthe convention. The spotlightis on existing

Commitment and notto enterinto new commitments.

Tuvalu is a small island where people live two meters above sea level, and it could be

swamped by rising sea levels. Tuvalu's representative Ian Fry requested the minister of the

Copenhagen Climate Change Conference, Connie Hedegaard to immediately form a contact

group to considerthe proposal for a new protocolthat calls for vigorous action such as:

Binding cuts Putting less than 1.5 degree limit in warming by developed countries and emerging

economies

Developing nations (India and China) and oil producing states including Saudi Arabia

opposed it on the ground that there should not be any detraction from Kyoto Protocol, the


14/21

14 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond LI

P

Q

lAspI R

tsofBusinI

ss

treaty that imposes legally binding sanctions on industrialized nations, excluding the US.

India and other nations suspectthat Europe's support for a new protocolis also an attemptto

Weaken the Kyoto Protocol.

According to the Indias environment secretary Vijay Sharma, several provisions in the draft

are inconsistent and obviously in conflict with the convention provisions pertinent to

historical responsibility and equity. Also there are articles bracketing the Annex 1 and non-

Annex countries and allows Annex 1 to abandon Kyoto, which is notthe right message to

Give atthis point oftime.

The Kyoto Protocol sets binding targets for 37 industrialized countries, called Annex 1

countries, for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to an average of 5% against 1990 levels

between 2008-2012. However, Tuvalu and Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) have

said here thatthe Copenhagen summit needs to produce a document much stronger than the

Kyoto Protocol that neither puts obligations on US nor on emerging economies.

A major portion of this conference is to extend the Kyoto Protocol into its second

commitment period starting from 2013 where developed countries have to make cuts will be

listed in Annex B, which is a top priority for India and China atthis climate meet.

But recently India agreed forthe binding commitments, international review ofits domestic

mitigation commitments once in two years and to have low carbon growth in the context of

sustainable growth, in a proposal submitted for adoption atCancun climate summit of 194

nations saying new agreement will be signed in Durban, South Africa in 2011.

This agreement has brought in mixed reactions from the different people in the fraternity,

according to some it is a balanced agreement in the spirit of constructive compromise

whereas according to others India has given fatal concessions to the United States without

getting anything in return and failed to protectthe interest of our poor.

This Long term cooperative action (LCA) draft speaks about the aim to restrict the

temperature rise by two degrees Celsius by 2050 without providing a formula for achieving

the same.


15/21

15 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond LS

T

U

lAspS V

tsofBusinS

ss

The package aims at unquantified reduction in emissions by 2050, a dilution of the

Copenhagen Accord and provides a mechanism on technology transfer, protecting forests

and indigenous people. There is no mention of Intellectual Property Rights in the draft. It

also aims at creating two green funds -- one for adaptation and another for finance.

FRANCE TAKEONKYOTO

To respect their commitments in conformance with the Kyoto protocol, industrialnations

have to setup national programs offight against climate change in branches ofindustry so

diverse as the residential, the Tertiary sector, the transport, the agriculture, theforestry, the

energy andthe waste.

Which national program?

Before the Kyoto protocol, France had already taken the measures to reduce its greenhouse

gas emissions which limited themselves to the horizon 2000.By signing this Protocol and its

commitments, new measures have been organized to stabilize the emissions of France in

2010 with regard to theirlevel of 1990.

Thus France set up a National Plan of Fight against climate change (PlanNationalde Lutte

contre le Changement Climatique (PNLCC) in French) in 2000. This last one was replaced

by the Plan Climate in 2004 which groups together actions in allthe branches ofindustry to

stabilize emissions in 2010 attheirlevel of 1990.

With the Grenelle de lEnvironnement, launched in 2007 by President Sarkozy and driven

by French MinisterBorloo, France has drawn a consensus between stakeholders andwith

civil society tofurthergreen its economy. As a result, laws have been adopted and will soon

be enforced with a specific emphasis on reducing carbon emissions (green building,

emission from car, renewable energy objective, public transportation, carbon tax)

France wishes, on the longestterm, to divide by 4 its emissions before 2050.Considering the

economic growth of France and increase ofthe energy needs, drastic measures must be

again taken to reach this objective.


16/21

16 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond LW

X

Y

lAspW

tsofBusinW

ss

AboutKyoto protocol in France

The protocol was signed in 29April 1998 (signature alone is symbolic; a token gesture of

support)

The ratification was done in 31 May 2002 (ratification carries legal obligations and

effectively becomes a contractual arrangement)

France through European Union

France set within the framework ofits policy of fight againstthe change Climatic, various

commitments of reduction ofits greenhouse gas emissions in the horizon 2010. So France is

bound by two objectives:

- A collective of reduction ofits 8 % greenhouse gas emissions with regard to the

levels of 1990 during the first "period of commitment (2008-2012) with its partners ofthe

European Union (" European bubble ")

- And an individual commitmentto stabilize its emissions, who owes, in 2012, will be

the same thatin 1990

According to the "agreement of sharing ofthe load" which became legally binding for

Member states when the European Union ratified the Kyoto protocol (decision 2002 / 358 /

CE ofthe Council of April 25th, 2002), this objective of 8 % is shared between 15 Member

states.

This objective can be negative (-21 % for Germany), null (0 % for France) or positive (15 %

for Spain). Other countries ofthe European Union 25 have each other assigned an objectives

of 6 % reduction or 8 %, with the exception ofCyprus and ofMalta to which no objectivewas fixed.

In view ofits high level, but by comparison lower of emissions than the other European

countries, due to in particular ofits use ofthe nuclear power ratherthan to the oil orto the


17/21

17 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond La

b

c

lAspa d

tsofBusina

ss

coal forthe electricity production, France has attributing a nationalobjective of

stabilization ofits emissions between 1990 and 2010.

Source:France 2008, La Documentationfranaise

The European Union has undertaken to cutits emissions by 8%. France and Finland are the

only EU countries required to stabilise emissions.

Currentsituation ofFrance towardsitsstakes and in its commitments

Firstis importantto know that France is already one ofthe most soberindustrialized savings

in carbon, with emissions per capita lowerthan 25 % in the European average and lower

than 30 to 40 % to those ofits neighbors in the world.


18/21

18 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond Le

f

g

lAspe h

tsofBusine

ss

According to the figures published by the services ofthe Ministry of Ecology, Energy, of

Sustainable development and ofthe sea (MEEDDMin French) show a decline of 10,3 % of

the French greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2009.

Here is a world map showing which are the countries respected their commitments ofthe

Kyoto protocolin terms of greenhouse gas emissions.

This map, based on the emissions of 2007, shows the good pupils in blue, and the bad in

yellow, pink and red. The figures ofthe legend representthe distance between the

greenhouse gas emissions ofthe countries in 2007 with regard to their objective Kyoto, in %

ofthe emissions of 1990.

France has a good position and respect practically its commitments.


19/21

19 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond Li

p

q

lAspi r

tsofBusini

ss

Limits

But we have to relativize these figures. In factthe decline of emissions in 2009 is essentially

the product ofthe economic crisis and corresponds to no effort of structural processing. It

explains by a clear recession ofthe economic activity, in particularthe branches ofindustrymore extensive in energy.

Furthermore, the stabilization then the decline observed on the emissions ofthe national

scope hides probably an increase of emissions bound to the national demand via relocated

emissions.

These results knock down the perspective ofthe conclusions done by the government.

Indeed, supposed sobriety in carbon of France appears to raise more growing recourse to an

outsourcing ofits emissions than to a realinternaltransfer. This question deserves to be

seriously putin debate

To conclude as we saw previously, in view ofthe economic growth of France and increase

ofthe energy needs, drastic measures must be again taken to reach the objective to continue

the decline of gas emissions. This tendency is obviously common to allthe nations included

in the protocol.


20/21

20 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond Ls

t

u

lAsps v

tsofBusins

ss

Conclusion

Global average temperature is predicted to increase overthis century, with a probable

increase in frequency of some extreme weather events, and changes in rainfall patterns.

Moving from globalto regional scales, there is increased uncertainty over how climate will

change. The probability of warming having unforeseen consequences increases with the rate,

magnitude, and duration of climate change. Some ofthe physicalimpacts of climate change

are irreversible at continental and global scales.

With such grave dangers being faced by our planet due to global warming various initiatives

have been taken up at a world stage and one ofthem is the Kyoto Protocol under which As

of July 2010, 191 states have signed and ratified the protocol.

Some ofthe key aspects ofthe protocol deal with Emissions trading known as the carbon

market", Clean development mechanism (CDM), Jointimplementation (JI), Monitoring

emission targets, Financial commitments etc.But even after considering such initiatives

further changes are required to provide key essentialtool for sustainable development ofthe

world as a whole such as The role ofthe private sectorin the same and by providing greater

Transferring Technology amongstthe counties to reduce the overall emissions in the world as

a whole by using cleanertechnologies. Some recommendation such as moving beyond Kyoto

Protocol have also now being initiated which require stricter regulations and greater control

and thus countries like India whose economy is in the development stage does not wantto

strangle its growth and has thus deviated away and resisted in moving beyond the Kyoto

protocol. Thus we can see that aftertaking into consideration the stance of India and France

with respectto the Kyoto protocol, there is a need to provide mechanism of controlling

emissions of pollution causing particles in such a way thatis does not strangulate the

development process and provides a sustainable environment forthe same so as to be able to

provide a clean and wealthy environment forthe future generations.


21/21

21 | P a g e Global War ing: Kyoto Protocol & Beyond Lw

x

y

lAspw

tsofBusinw

ss

References

y http://www.rac-f.org/, visited on 15/12/2010y Marignac.Y (2010) volutiondes missions franaises de gaz effetde serre : une baisse

en trompe l'oeil for Greenpeace France

y http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php, visited on 16/12/2010y http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol#Objectives, visited on 16/12/2010y Peter Newell, The KyotoProtocol andBeyond: The WorldAfter 2012,Human Development

Report 2007/2008, Human Development Report Office OCCASIONAL PAPER

india and kyoto

Documents