“It`s certainly not a good thing,” said Gilles Dufrasne, policy officer at Carbon Market Watch, an NGO. But “the political benefits of ratifying the amendment outweigh the market problems.” The 1997 Kyoto Protocol set binding climate targets for industrialized countries. The amendment signed in Qatar in 2012 extended its commitments and created a second commitment period for 37 countries to reduce their emissions from 2013 to 2020. Mark Lutes, senior advisor for global climate policy at WWF, wrote in a blog post that the Doha amendment “could be more than bulk ends and avoid more than an embarrassing gap in the global climate regime, because there are not enough countries that could bother to impose their ratifications.” 1992: The United Nations Conference on Environment and Development is held in Rio de Janeiro. It is the result, among other things, of the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) Although this has some impact on carbon accounting, the entry into force of the Doha amendment is largely symbolic. It concludes the Kyoto climate regime, while the world implements the Paris Agreement, which obliges each country to contribute to the achievement of climate goals. However, the Kyoto Protcol targets are being challenged by climate change deities, who condemn strong scientific evidence of the human impact on climate change. An eminent scholar believes that these climate change deniers are “good” in violation of Roussau`s idea of the social contract, which is an implicit agreement between members of a society to coordinate efforts in the name of general social utility. The movement to reject climate change is hampering efforts to reach an agreement on climate change as a global collective society. [139] In recent weeks, Patricia Espinosa, the UN`s climate change chief, has encouraged countries to speed up ratification of the amendment. “It`s about fulfilling obligations,” she said. Barker et al. (2007, p.
79) have evaluated the literature on cost estimates of the Kyoto Protocol. [117] Due to the United States` non-participation in the Kyoto Treaty, the cost estimates were significantly lower than the estimates of the previous IPCC Third Assessment Report. Without the participation of the United States and using the Kyoto flexible mechanisms fully, the cost was estimated to be less than 0.05% of Schedule B GDP. This is compared to previous estimates of 0.1 to 1.1%. Without the use of flexible mechanisms, costs were estimated to be less than 0.1% without U.S. participation. This is compared to previous estimates of 0.2 to 2%. These cost estimates were considered to be based on a great deal of evidence and convergence in the literature. Yet most of the countries that have not ratified the amendment are developing countries that have not had to meet such commitments. In 2001, the last meeting (COP6 bis) continued in Bonn [88] at which the necessary decisions were taken.
After some concessions, proponents of the protocol (under the leadership of the European Union) managed to secure the agreement of Japan and Russia by allowing for increased use of carbon sinks. The United States signed the protocol on November 12, 1998,[98] under President Clinton.
