Total aggregate GHG emissions, excluding emissions/removals from land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF, i.e. carbon storage in forests and soils) for all Annex I Parties (see list below), including the United States as a whole, decreased from 19.0 to 17.8 thousand teragrams (Tg, equivalent to 109 kg) of CO2 equivalent, a decrease of 6.0% over the period 1990-2008. [111]:3 Several factors contributed to this decrease. [111]:14 The first is due to the economic restructuring of Annex I “Economies in transition[111]:14 (EITs – see Intergovernmental Emissions Trading for the EIT List). During the period 1990-1999, EIT emissions fell by 40% following the collapse of central planning in the former Soviet Union and Eastern European countries. [112]:25 This has led to a massive contraction of their heavy industry-based economies, with associated reductions in their consumption and emissions of fossil fuels. [50]:24 The COP 6 meeting in The Hague in November 2000 was the last negotiating session on the Kyoto Protocol in which the United States participated. After President George W. Bush became president in January 2001, he rejected the Kyoto Protocol and abstained from participating in the Kyoto-related negotiations. Article 4.2 of the UNFCCC requires developed countries to “take the lead” in reducing their emissions. [75] Originally, industrialized countries were expected to stabilize their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. [75] The inability of the major industrialized countries to move in this direction was one of the main reasons why Kyoto moved towards binding commitments. [75] Policies of the Bush administration.

Just over two months after the failure of the COP 6 talks, President George W. Bush took office, announcing that his administration would conduct a cabinet-level review of climate policy. However, the Bush administration announced in late March 2001 that it was not interested in continuing the discussion on the Kyoto Protocol, which has been described as “dead” in relation to US policy. The U.S. Cabinet-level climate policy review was ongoing, and the government indicated that it would be interested in pursuing alternative approaches or collaborative efforts, such as market-based incentives and voluntary action, to address climate change concerns. On November 12, 1998, the United States signed the protocol, in part because the Clinton administration wanted to revive what was seen as some loss of momentum at COP-4. However, the treaty was not submitted to the Senate for approval in recognition of the S.Res resolution. 98, the 1997 resolution which highlights the disapproval of a treaty that did not contain legally binding obligations for developing countries. In the United States, ratification of treaties can only take place after they have been submitted to the U.S. Senate and approved by the U.S.

Senate. In 2001, at the beginning of his first term, President George W. Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol, as mentioned above and discussed below, and US policy withdrew from formal negotiations on the protocol. The Kyoto Protocol is an international treaty that extends the 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which commits States Parties to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, based on the scientific consensus that (Part I) global warming is taking place and (Part Two) it is extremely likely that man-made CO2 emissions are primarily the cause. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December 1997 and entered into force on 16 February 2005. There are currently 192 Parties (Canada withdrew from the Protocol with effect from December 2012)[4] to the Protocol. At COP13 in Bali, 36 developed countries of the contact group (plus the EU as a contracting party to the European Union) agreed to increase emissions by 10% for Iceland; However, since EU Member States each have individual commitments[89], some of the less developed EU countries are allowed to much larger increases (up to 27%) (see below the Kyoto Protocol#Increase in greenhouse gas emissions since 1990). [90] The reduction restrictions expired in 2013. When the talks began on November 13 at COP-6 in The Hague, netherlands, they initially focused on the Buenos Aires Action Plan (BAPA), but turned into a high-level negotiation on the most important political issues. This included a major controversy over the U.S. proposal to allow the recognition of carbon sinks in forests and farmland, thus addressing much of the U.S.

emission reductions in this way (between half and a quarter according to different versions of the U.S.). proposal); disagreements over the consequences of non-compliance by countries that have not met their emission reduction targets; and difficulties in determining how developing countries could receive financial support to address the adverse effects of climate change and meet their commitments to plan for the measurement and possible reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Although the Kyoto Protocol was a diplomatic feat, its success was far from certain. In fact, reports from the first two years after the treaty entered into force suggested that most participants would not meet their emissions targets. However, even if the targets were met, the ultimate environmental benefits would not be significant, according to some critics, as China, the world`s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and the United States, the world`s second largest emitter, would not be bound by the protocol (China because of its status as a developing country and the United States because it has not ratified the protocol). Other critics claimed that the emission reductions called for in the protocol were too modest to make a demonstrable difference in global temperatures in the decades that followed, even though they were fully achieved with the participation of the United States. At the same time, some developing countries have argued that improving adaptation to climate variability and change is just as important as reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Annex B of the Kyoto Protocol lists 39 countries, including the United States, the European Union, as well as EU countries, Japan and many former communist countries (the same countries as Annex I of the UNFCCC). The amounts for each country are shown as a percentage of the reference year 1990 (with the exception of some former communist countries) and range from 92% (a decrease of 8%) for most European countries to 110% (an increase of 10%) for Iceland. The United States has agreed on a commitment on this schedule of 93% or a 7% reduction from 1990 levels to be achieved on average over the five-year commitment period 2008-2012. The United States (under former President George W.

Bush) and Australia (initially under former Prime Minister John Howard) have not ratified the Kyoto Treaty. [126] According to Stern (2006)[126], their decision was based on the absence of quantitative emission commitments for emerging economies (see also the 2000 section). Australia, under former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, has now ratified the treaty,[127][128] which entered into force in March 2008. [129] The Protocol defines a “compliance” mechanism as “the monitoring of compliance with obligations and sanctions for non-compliance.” [91] According to Grubb (2003)[92], the explicit consequences of non-compliance with the Treaty are small compared to national law. [92] Nevertheless, the section on compliance with the treaty in the Marrakesh Accords was highly controversial. [92] The United States signed the Protocol on November 12, 1998. However, the Clinton administration did not submit the minutes to the Senate for deliberation and approval, as it acknowledged that one of the S.Res. . . .