Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Green House Gases Emission Reduction:Targets and Achievements by Annex I Parties (1990-2012)


Affiliations
1 Osmania University, Hyderabad 500007, India
 

Objectives: To analyse target achievements of Annex 1 parties’ reduction of greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) by 2012as per 1st phase of Kyoto Protocol. To analyse the methods used to achieve these targets.

Methods/Statistical analysis: Secondary data from World Development Indicators and UNFCCC websites have been used. Tabular method – totals and percentages have been computed to analyse differences in achievements of various countries. Pie graph is drawn to show the shares of compliant countries.

Findings: Overall GHG emission reduction from the 40 Annex 1 countries exceeded the target in 2012. However, 88% of this GHG decrease was due to the collapse of thirteen economies in transition (EIT). Of the remaining Annex 1 countries, only 13 had reduced, while the others had increased their emissions by 2012. Thus, the net decrease amounted to just 1.04% of 1990 levels in 2012, far below the Kyoto target of 5%. But for the historical chance of collapse of the socialist countries during this time period, the actual emissions reduction by these countries would have been negligible, thus defeating the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol. The Flexible mechanisms available to Annex 1 parties were also examined for their efficacy or otherwise towards cutting GHG emissions. We find many inadequacies in their implementation and functioning and their effectiveness in tackling climate change to ensure sustainable development. We did not find any earlier study of such an analysis.

Application: This analysis throws light on the manner in which Annex 1 countries are undertaking reduction of their GHG emissions. It shows that the actual achievement by 2012 in reducing GHGs has been negligible compared to the target. It shows the negligent attitude taken by most of the Annex 1 Parties, and the need to speed up the process of capping GHG emissions to negate climate change effects and to attain sustainable development. We feel that this paper will help to highlight the actual GHG reductions by Annex 1 parties, and the loopholes through which parties are escaping their emissions reducing responsibilities to combat climate change.


Keywords

Greenhouse Gases (GHG), Conference of Parties (COP), Kyoto Protocol (KP) Targets and Achievements, Annex Iparties, LULUCF, Flexible Mechanisms.
User
Notifications

  • Kyoto Protocol. http://unfccc.int/kyoto protocol/ items/2830.php. Date accessed: 9/06/2016.
  • Parties & Observers. http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/annex_i/items/2774.Date accessed: 3/06/2016.
  • Towards-a-climate-agreement. http://www.un.org/climatechange/. Date accessed: 2/07/2016.
  • The COP21 decisions at a glance: Infrographic: http://www.euractiv.com/sections/development-pol cy/infographic-cop21-decisions-glance-320520i.Date accessed: 2/06/2016.
  • Glossary: Key terms. http://www.c2es.org/international/negotiations/kyoto-protocol/glossary.Date accessed: 12/06/2016.
  • GHG data: http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators. Date accessed: 3/06/2016.
  • GHG emissions World: http://wdi.worldbank.org/table. Date accessed: 12/05/2016.
  • Greenhouse Gas Inventory Data: http://unfccc.int/ghg_data/items/3800.php.Date accessed: 3/05/2016.
  • Readfearn Graham and Lenore Taylor (12 Dec 2014)Australia could increase emissions 26% and still meet Kyoto pledge, says climate group.http://www.theguardian. com/environment/2012/Jan/16/greenhouse-gases-remain. Date accessed: 7/07/2016.
  • D.M. Liverman. Conventions of climate change: constructions of danger and the dispossession of the atmosphere, Journal of Historical Geography. 2009; 35(2) 279-296
  • EU ETS under heavy pressure, (16 Oct, 2012): http://www.carbontradewatch.org/.Date accessed: 5/07/2016.
  • Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability, IPCC Report: Published by IPCC, Geneva, 2014.
  • Carbon markets: Complete Disaster in the Making. Finance and Economics article, The Economist. http://www.economist.com/node/21562961. Date accessed: 15/09/2012.
  • Burniaux, Jean-Marc, Jean Chateau, Rob Dellink, Romain Duval and StéphanieJamet: The Economics of climate change mitigation: how to build the necessary global action in a cost-effective manner,Economics Department Working Papers, No.701, ECO/WKP42 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2009
  • Allan, Andrew. U.N. offsets crash to 15 cents ahead of EU ban vote. www.pointcarbon.com. Date accessed: 12/06/2016.
  • Graham, Alistair: The Hypocrisy of Land-Use Accounting, Humane Society International, http://www.ecosystemmarketplace.com/articles/the-hypocrisy-of-land-use-accounting/ Date accessed: 14/08/2016.
  • Kollmuss Anja, Lambert Schneider and VladyslavZhezherin: Has Joint Implementation reduced GHG emissions? Lessons learned for the design of carbon market mechanisms, Stockholm Environment Institute Working Paper No. 2015-07. 2015
  • Randall Spalding-Fecher, Amrita Narayan Achanta, Peter Erickson, Erik Haites, Michael Lazarus, Neha Pahuja, Nimisha Pandey, Stephen Seres and RitikaTewari(July 15, 2012): Assessing the Impact of the Clean Development Mechanism.http://www.cdmpolicydialogue.org /research/1030_impact.pdf. Date accessed: 7/06/2016.
  • Eva Filzmoser–Write up, www.carbonmarketwatch.org.Date accessed: 12/08/2016.
  • Chatterjee, Anish: CDM in the Forestry Sector. http://www.devalt.org/ newsletter/oct04/of4.htm Date accessed: 5/07/2016.
  • GAIA_CDM Factsheethttp://no-burn.org/ downloads/ Date accessed: 1/06/ 2016.
  • Marie Marciano, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternative, www.no-burn.org/climate. Date accessed: 28/07/2016.
  • Harmful CDM projects: http://carbonmarketwatch.org/category/project-campaigns/. Date accessed: 20/06/2016.
  • Data and Maps: http://www.eea.europa.eu/data.Date accessed: 8/06/2016.

Abstract Views: 267

PDF Views: 130




  • Green House Gases Emission Reduction:Targets and Achievements by Annex I Parties (1990-2012)

Abstract Views: 267  |  PDF Views: 130

Authors

Prabha Panth
Osmania University, Hyderabad 500007, India

Abstract


Objectives: To analyse target achievements of Annex 1 parties’ reduction of greenhouse gases emissions (GHG) by 2012as per 1st phase of Kyoto Protocol. To analyse the methods used to achieve these targets.

Methods/Statistical analysis: Secondary data from World Development Indicators and UNFCCC websites have been used. Tabular method – totals and percentages have been computed to analyse differences in achievements of various countries. Pie graph is drawn to show the shares of compliant countries.

Findings: Overall GHG emission reduction from the 40 Annex 1 countries exceeded the target in 2012. However, 88% of this GHG decrease was due to the collapse of thirteen economies in transition (EIT). Of the remaining Annex 1 countries, only 13 had reduced, while the others had increased their emissions by 2012. Thus, the net decrease amounted to just 1.04% of 1990 levels in 2012, far below the Kyoto target of 5%. But for the historical chance of collapse of the socialist countries during this time period, the actual emissions reduction by these countries would have been negligible, thus defeating the purpose of the Kyoto Protocol. The Flexible mechanisms available to Annex 1 parties were also examined for their efficacy or otherwise towards cutting GHG emissions. We find many inadequacies in their implementation and functioning and their effectiveness in tackling climate change to ensure sustainable development. We did not find any earlier study of such an analysis.

Application: This analysis throws light on the manner in which Annex 1 countries are undertaking reduction of their GHG emissions. It shows that the actual achievement by 2012 in reducing GHGs has been negligible compared to the target. It shows the negligent attitude taken by most of the Annex 1 Parties, and the need to speed up the process of capping GHG emissions to negate climate change effects and to attain sustainable development. We feel that this paper will help to highlight the actual GHG reductions by Annex 1 parties, and the loopholes through which parties are escaping their emissions reducing responsibilities to combat climate change.


Keywords


Greenhouse Gases (GHG), Conference of Parties (COP), Kyoto Protocol (KP) Targets and Achievements, Annex Iparties, LULUCF, Flexible Mechanisms.

References