1

What went wrong with the Kyoto Protocol? Discuss strengths and weaknesses of
international climate agreements and alternative proposals
Introduction
Sustainable development and the environmental issues have gained more concerns in global
scale. Many developed and developing countries are taking number of actions to decrease
environmental damage. Thus, over 175 country-participants have adopted the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992
(Babiker et al., 1999). However, number of developed countries failed to voluntarily reach
the greenhouse gas emission levels set at the Summit. As the result UNFCCC countries
agreed to develop legally binding document that would require member-countries to reduce
their emissions (Babiker et al., 1999).
Kyoto Protocol
Kyoto Protocol was developed in 1997 by country-members of the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) (Crowley, 2007). This document is
seen as the first internationally binding agreement that is focused on emissions from
industrialized countries (Crowley, 2007). According to the Kyoto Protocol the key
greenhouse gas emissions are carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons,
perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and methane (Kameyama, 2004). The main objectives
of the Kyoto Protocol were to stabilize the greenhouse gas concentration in the atmosphere
and to ensure sustainable development in the world (Kameyama, 2004). According to this
agreement economically developed countries are required to reduce their emissions by 5
percent from their levels in 1990 before 2008-2010 (Kameyama, 2004). Countries like the
USA, Japan and number of European countries were required to reduce their emission levels
2

by 6-8 percent as they had the highest greenhouse gas emission levels (Hirono and Schroder,
2004). Whereas, there were no deadlines or limits set out for developing countries.
The Kyoto Protocol provides number of flexible mechanism that can be used to reduce
countrys emissions at possible lower costs (Aldy et al., 2003). Thus, it is stated that the
international trading mechanism enables countries to trade their targeted emission amounts
with one-another. In addition, the joint implementation mechanism helps participating
countries to cooperate on various environmental projects and transfer their emission
fallownesses (Schelling, 2002). Finally, the clean development mechanism enables
industrially developed countries to finance environmental projects in developing countries in
return for credits in meeting their own requirements of emission reduction (Schelling, 2002).
Aldy et al. (2003) summarize the Kyoto Protocol in four elements: ambitious and short-term
reduction targets for developed countries; absence of emission obligations for developing
countries, non-compliance sanctioned with a penalty; and flexibility of actions towards
achieving required emission levels.
Criticism of the Kyoto protocol
The Kyoto Protocol has been criticized for a number of reasons. Thus, it was argued that the
agreement imposes unfair high costs for some industrially developed countries, whereas
developing countries have no legal obligations on their emission levels. It is claimed that it is
important for both developed and developing countries to set emission targets for number of
reasons (Schelling, 2002). Thus, according to Schelling (2002), developing countries are
estimated to account for more than 50 percent of overall global emissions by 2020. Second, it
is more cost-effective to reduce emissions in developing countries now than after they reach
considerably higher levels of their emissions (Schelling, 2002). Finally, if developing nations
3

do not have any legal obligations for their emissions, developed countries may shift their
production sites to developing countries (Schelling, 2002).
The critics of the Kyoto Protocol claim that it is economically ineffective (Barrett, 2001).
Thus, President Bush stated that the agreement would negatively impact the USA economy
and would result in significant economical loses and job losses (BBC, 2003). Some scientists
and economists question mechanisms provided by the Protocol (Barrett, 2001). Thus, it is
believed that the treaty practices such as planting forests in order to obtain emission trading
credits are not as effective as it is stated. They argue that the foil used to plant forests release
large amounts of carbon dioxide, thus, planning new forests may increase greenhouse gas
emissions levels during the first 10 years (Barrett, 2001). Another criticism is focused on the
emission reduction mechanisms provided by the Kyoto Protocol (Babiker et al., 1999). It is
argued that the Protocol provides ineffective ways for full participation and compliance by
member countries. It is also believed that if developed countries reduce their consumption of
fossil fuel aiming to decrease their levels of greenhouse gas emissions, the prices of coal, oil
and gas will go down (Babiker et al., 1999). This in return, will make the fuel more
affordable for developing countries and increase their emission rates. In addition, it is argued
that the Kyoto Protocol is focused on greenhouse gases but do not consider global population
growth and other economical development issues that impact global warming (Babiker et al.,
1999). Thus, it makes the Protocol more anti-industrial oriented rather than an attempt to
target global environmental issues. Finally, the Kyoto Protocol is argued to focus on short-
term environmental benefits and fail to achieve long-term targets (Babiker et al., 1999). It is
claimed that the Protocol provides significantly ambitious targets in a short-term period
which does not address environmental issues in long-term.
Other international climate agreements
4

There are various international climate change policies proposed since the Kyoto Protocol.
Aldy et al. (2001) suggest a hybrid international trading program that combines international
trading instruments with a safety-valve price defined by an international environmental
agency. According to this proposal finances that are raised through selling additional
emission permits will then be used for the research and development purposes in developing
countries (Aldy et al., 2001). This policy is focused on effective inclusion and participation of
developing countries.
Another global climate change policy is a research and development protocol, which is
proposed by Barrett (Barrett, 2001). This policy emphasises the importance of
environmentally friendly technology research and development. According to Barrett (2001)
this protocol will enhance collaborative research and development activities, and set out
common standards for the technology used in participating countries. The author claims that
the protocol will encourage both developed and developing countries to participate in
cooperative work towards global sustainable development (Barrett, 2001).
Benedick (2001) suggests a portfolio approach, which is also focused on the research and
development of eco-friendly technology. However, in contrast to Barretts proposal, this
approach includes negotiation of the emission targets set by the Kyoto Protocol and adoption
of a portfolio of global climate change policies (Benedick, 2001).
A global climate Marshall Plan is proposed as another climate change policy (Schelling,
2002). This model emphasises the importance the acceptance of common actions by
developed countries. According to this model economic instruments on emission limits and
timetables will be dismissed, and participating countries will be significantly penalised for
non-compliance (Schelling, 2002).
5

Stavins (2001) provides a three-part policy architecture, which is consistent with the
UNFCCC. This model includes full participation of all countries through economic methods
that provide voluntary accession by developing countries linked to their economic growth
rates. Stavins (2001) also emphasises the importance of rigid short-term targets combined
with ambitious but flexible long-term targets. Finally, the model includes market-based
instruments, such as permit trading and exchange (Stavins, 2001).
Thus, there is number of various global climate change policies proposed by the researchers,
however the majority of them have common characteristics. Thus, Aldy et al. (2003) claims
that the mainstream proposals stress ineffectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol, and its ambitious
short-term target orientation. As a result, proposed global climate change policies focus on
moderate short-term targets combined with more ambitious long-term strategies (Aldy et al.,
2003). Another similarity is that the majority of proposed policies emphasise the importance
of full participation of developing countries (Aldy et al., 2003). Thus, developing nations are
recommended to take emission reduction commitments as well as take part in research and
development of environmentally-friendly technologies. Aldy et al. (2003) also claims that the
majority of policy proposals include market-based mechanism in order to achieve their
targeted emission levels. Finally, the mainstream policies propose common standards for eco-
friendly technology and greenhouse gas emission levels (Aldy et al., 2003).
Assessing global climate policies
Aldy et al. (2003) provide six criteria to assess global climate policies: the environmental
outcome; dynamic efficiency; dynamic cost-effectiveness; distributional equity; flexibility;
and participation. Thus, according to the authors successful international policies focused on
climate change and global warming are required to meet all six criteria. The most important
criteria is the environmental outcomes of the policy. Aldy et al. (2003) agree that
6

environmental effectiveness is difficult to measure because of high uncertainty in predicting
climate change and identifying non-monetary value of the environment. It is also claimed that
such policies may foster emission leakage from developed countries with high levels of
greenhouse emissions to developing countries with lower emissions (Aldy et al., 2003: 375).
The authors also argue that such international policies may have a different effect and simply
redistribute global levels of greenhouse emissions instead of reducing it.
Dynamic efficiency refers to the assessment of individuals consumption preferences over
time (Aldy et al., 2003). It is argued that peoples expectations of future income affect their
decisions of future consumption including energy use. Thus, possible global climate policies
are also required to consider changes in consumer consumption preferences over time (Aldy
et al., 2003). Assessment of the most cost-effective solution of global climate change is also
defined to be essential for identifying effective strategies. Thus, it is argued that effective
policy provides the most cost-effective way in addressing global greenhouse gas emission
levels. Another important criteria for effective global climate policy is argued to be its
flexibility (Aldy et al., 2003). Aldy et al. (2003) claim that international policies on climate
change are characterised by the uncertainty in their benefits and costs. Therefore it is
necessary to modify and adapt these policies in line with new information and modern
technology developments. Thus, flexible policies have significantly more advantages and are
considered to be more effective. Finally, Aldy et al. (2003) state that effective climate change
policy is required to ensure full participation and compliance by all countries.
Conclusion
Global warming and the environment have been raising concerns of more countries resulting
in development of international policy that address global climate change issues. The first
international legal agreement that is adopted by number of developed and developing
7

countries is the Kyoto Protocol. The mainstream critics of the treaty argue that the Protocol
regulations are unfairly divided by developed and developing countries. It is also claimed that
the agreement focuses on ambitious short-term targets and fails to address environmental
issues in a long-term period.
There are number of proposed global climate change policies that are discussed in the
literature. Aldy et al. (2003) believes that the majority of the proposals share common
characteristics that are focused on weaknesses of the Kyoto Protocol. The authors also
provide a set of criteria that is used to assess international agreements on global climate
change. These requirements include the environmental outcome; dynamic efficiency;
dynamic cost-effectiveness; distributional equity; flexibility; and participation. Thus, it is
argued that it is important to satisfy the requirements stated above in order to develop an
effective global climate change policy.

8

Reference list
Aldy, J.E., Barrett, S., Stavins, R.N. (2003) Thirteen plus one: a comparison of global
climate policy architectures, Climate Policy, Vol. 3, 373-397pp.
Babiker, M., Reilly, J.M., Jacoby, H.D. (1999) The Kyoto Protocol and developing
countries, Report No. 56, accessed on:
http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/3590/MITJPSPGC_Rpt56.pdf?sequence=1
[25.04.2011]
Barrett, S. (2001) Towards a better climate treaty, accessed on:
http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/NDL2002/NDL2002-054.pdf [25.04.2011]
Benedick, R.E. (2001) Striking a new deal on climate change, Issue in Science and
Technology, fall, 71-76pp.
BBC (2003) Kyoto will not stop global warming, 7.08.2003, accessed on:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3131285.stm [25.04.2011]
Crowley, K. (2007) Is Australia faking it? The Kyoto Protocol and the greenhouse policy
challenge, Global Environmental Politics, Vol. 7, No. 4, 118-139pp.
Hirono, R., Schroder, H. (2004) The road to and from the Kyoto Protocol : the perspectives
of Germany and Japan, International Review for Environmental Strategies, Vol. 5, No. 1,
39-60pp.
Kameyama, Y. (2004) Evaluation and future of the Kyoto Protocol, International Review
for Environmental Strategies, Vol. 5, No. 1, 71-82pp.
Schelling, T.C. (2002) What makes greenhouse sense? Time to rethinking the Kyoto
Protocol, Foreign Affairs, Vol. 81, No. 3, 2-9pp.
9

Stavins, R.N. (2001) Economic analysis of global change policy: a primer, in: Claussen, E.,
Cochran, V.A., Davis, D.P. Climate change: science, strategies and solutions, Brill
Publishing, Boston