Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 114, Issue 2, pp 401–408 | Cite as

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

  • Michel G. J. den ElzenEmail author
  • Malte Meinshausen
  • Andries F. Hof
Letter

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.

Keywords

Emission Reduction Clean Development Mechanism Ambition Level Joint Implementation Commitment Period 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

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.

Supplementary material

10584_2012_530_MOESM1_ESM.doc (215 kb)
ESM 1 (DOC 215 kb)

References

  1. 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 38:6615–6628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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 26:1419–1433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Point Carbon (2009) Assigned Amount Unit: Seller/buyer analysis and impact on post-2012 climate regime. Point Carbon, see: www.pointcarbon.com
  6. 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 5:034013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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 464:1126–1128CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. UNFCCC (2005) Decision 16/CMP.1 Land Use, Land-use Change and Forestry, www.unfccc.int
  9. 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
  10. World Bank (2010) State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2010. The World Bank, Washington, DC, www.carbonfinance.org

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michel G. J. den Elzen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Malte Meinshausen
    • 2
    • 3
  • Andries F. Hof
    • 1
  1. 1.PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment AgencyClimate, Air and EnergyBilthovenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)Telegrafenberg A31Germany
  3. 3.The University of Melbourne, School of Earth SciencesVictoria 3010Australia

Personalised recommendations