Skip to main content
Log in

The impact of surplus units from the first Kyoto period on achieving the reduction pledges of the Cancún Agreements

  • Letter
  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Countries with emission levels below their emission allowances have surplus Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) or other emission credits. Under the Kyoto Protocol, these surplus credits may effectively be carried from the first to a following commitment period. In the climate negotiations, various rules for carry-over and sale of surplus allowances have been put forward. This paper analyses the effect of these options on the reduction pledges for 2020, taking into account the estimated credits from the Clean Development Mechanism, Joint Implementation projects, and land-use activities for the first commitment period. For current Kyoto Protocol rules of unlimited carry-over of surplus allowances and limited carry-over of other credits, the environmental effectiveness of reduction pledges could be seriously undermined. For the group of countries that showed a willingness to participate in a second commitment period, it could imply that instead of an aggregated 2020 target resulting from the pledges of 18 to 28 % below 1990 levels by 2020, their emissions could return to business-us-usual emission projections. For the EU, a 30 % target by 2020 could imply higher emissions compared to a 20 % target, if surplus allowances would be used for achieving the 30 % but not for the 20 % target. Restricting the use of Kyoto surplus units to domestic use only, would limit the problem, but still seriously undermine the effectiveness of 2020 reduction targets.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See tinyurl.com/primapIV for a full description.

  2. All options are presented in the CRP 4 paper of the AWG-KP negotiating text (FCCC/KP/AWG/2010/CRP.4/Rev.4). The Durban climate negotiations did not change the existing options.

  3. This option does not restrict the amount of carry-over to commitment periods after CP1, and surplus units not used in CP2 could still be saved and transferred to later commitment periods after CP2.

  4. Since the climate negotiations in Copenhagen (2009), 42 Annex I Parties have submitted quantified economy-wide emission reduction targets (pledges) for 2020 to the UNFCCC secretariat for inclusion in the Appendices to the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, see http://unfccc.int/home/items/5265.php.These pledges are ‘anchored’ in the Cancún Agreements (UNFCCC 2010).

References

  • den Elzen M, Roelfsema M, Slingerland S (2010) Dealing with surplus emissions in the climate negotiations after Copenhagen: What are the options for compromise? Energ Policy 38:6615–6628

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IEA (2009) World Energy Outlook 2009—Climate Change Excerpt. International Energy Agency, Paris, http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/docs/weo2009/climate_change_excerpt.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • JRC/PBL (2009) Emission Database for Global Atmospheric Research (EDGAR), release version 4.0 (2009), European Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC)/PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu

  • Nabel JEMS, Rogelj J, Chen CM, Markmann K, Gutzmann DJH, Meinshausen M (2011) Decision support for international climate policy—The PRIMAP emission module. Environ Model Softw 26:1419–1433

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Point Carbon (2009) Assigned Amount Unit: Seller/buyer analysis and impact on post-2012 climate regime. Point Carbon, see: www.pointcarbon.com

  • Rogelj J, Chen C, Nabel J, Macey K, Hare W, Schaeffer M, Markmann K, Höhne N, Andersen KK, Meinshausen M (2010a) Analysis of the Copenhagen Accord pledges and its global climatic impacts—a snapshot of dissonant ambitions. Environ Res Lett 5:034013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogelj J, Meinshausen M, Nabel J, Chen C, Hare W, Markmann K, Schaeffer M, Macey K, Höhne N (2010b) Copenhagen Accord pledges are paltry. Nature 464:1126–1128

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • UNFCCC (2005) Decision 16/CMP.1 Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry, www.unfccc.int

  • UNFCCC (2010) Decision 1/CP.16, The Cancun Agreements. UNFCCC document FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1, http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2010/cop16/eng/07a01.pdf#page=2

  • World Bank (2010) State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2010. The World Bank, Washington, DC, www.carbonfinance.org

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thanks various colleagues for their comments, data assistance and discussions, mainly: Claudine Chen, Giacomo Grassi, George Hussey and Kathleen Markmann.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michel G. J. den Elzen.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

ESM 1

(DOC 215 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

den Elzen, M.G.J., Meinshausen, M. & Hof, A.F. The impact of surplus units from the first Kyoto period on achieving the reduction pledges of the Cancún Agreements. Climatic Change 114, 401–408 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0530-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-012-0530-5

Keywords

Navigation