116
levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
1
The governing document focused on reducing
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) (Article 3),
known as the Kyoto basket of GHGs. The world was split into two categories:
Annex I nations (Table 3.1) and the rest of the world, which we refer to as the NonAnnex I nations. The Annex I nations consist of what most would have considered
to be a reasonably good representation of the developed world in 1997.
According to the terms of the Protocol, Annex I nations had varying emission
reduction targets for the Kyoto basket of GHGs, relative to emissions in year 1990
from that particular country. Total emissions of GHGs were combined into a single
emission metric, termed CO 2 -equivalent (CO 2 -eq) emission, attained by multiplying
the annual emissions of each compound by the global warming potential of that compound.
2
Each Annex I signatory nation negotiated an emission reduction target, except
that the 15 European nations agreed to follow a single, combined target referred to as
EU15. The target for the US was a 7 % reduction in CO 2 -eq emissions and the EU15
target was an 8 % reduction, both to be achieved by 2005 relative to 1990. The largest
reduction was 8 % (shared by several other nations in addition to EU15). Some signatories were allowed to increase emissions at a prescribed limit to growth, such as
1 See http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php for the actual document; versions in many other languages at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
2 Typically, emissions are quantified as mass of each compound released over a year, and GWPs are
based on the use of a 100-year time horizon for the governing equation. By definition, the GWP for
CO 2 , regardless of the source, is unity (i.e., equals 1). Numerous complications arise from the CO 2 -
equivalence convention, most notably the fact that best-estimates of GWPs change over time
(Table 1.2), and often papers and reports do not document which GWP was actually used.
Throughout this book, we use GWPs for CH 4 and N 2 O of 28 and 265, respectively, unless otherwise stated. Another complication is that the effect of inadvertent release of CH 4 on global warming
over the decadal time scale is not properly represented by the use of GWP on a 100-year time
horizon, as discussed in Sects. 1.2.2 and 4.4.2, as well as by Pierrehumbert (2014).
Table 3.1 Annex I nations of
the Kyoto Protocol
Australia
Greece
Norway
Austria
Hungary
Poland
Belarus
Iceland
Portugal
Belgium
Ireland
Romania
Bulgaria
Italy
Russia
Canada
Japan
Slovakia
Croatia
Latvia
Slovenia
Cyprus
Liechtenstein
Spain
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Sweden
Denmark
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Estonia
Malta
Turkey
Finland
Monaco
Ukraine
France
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Germany
New Zealand
United States
3 Paris INDCs
levels of greenhouse gases (GHGs).
1
The governing document focused on reducing
emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), methane (CH 4 ), nitrous oxide (N 2 O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF 6 ) (Article 3),
known as the Kyoto basket of GHGs. The world was split into two categories:
Annex I nations (Table 3.1) and the rest of the world, which we refer to as the NonAnnex I nations. The Annex I nations consist of what most would have considered
to be a reasonably good representation of the developed world in 1997.
According to the terms of the Protocol, Annex I nations had varying emission
reduction targets for the Kyoto basket of GHGs, relative to emissions in year 1990
from that particular country. Total emissions of GHGs were combined into a single
emission metric, termed CO 2 -equivalent (CO 2 -eq) emission, attained by multiplying
the annual emissions of each compound by the global warming potential of that compound.
2
Each Annex I signatory nation negotiated an emission reduction target, except
that the 15 European nations agreed to follow a single, combined target referred to as
EU15. The target for the US was a 7 % reduction in CO 2 -eq emissions and the EU15
target was an 8 % reduction, both to be achieved by 2005 relative to 1990. The largest
reduction was 8 % (shared by several other nations in addition to EU15). Some signatories were allowed to increase emissions at a prescribed limit to growth, such as
1 See http://unfccc.int/essential_background/kyoto_protocol/items/1678.php for the actual document; versions in many other languages at http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php
2 Typically, emissions are quantified as mass of each compound released over a year, and GWPs are
based on the use of a 100-year time horizon for the governing equation. By definition, the GWP for
CO 2 , regardless of the source, is unity (i.e., equals 1). Numerous complications arise from the CO 2 -
equivalence convention, most notably the fact that best-estimates of GWPs change over time
(Table 1.2), and often papers and reports do not document which GWP was actually used.
Throughout this book, we use GWPs for CH 4 and N 2 O of 28 and 265, respectively, unless otherwise stated. Another complication is that the effect of inadvertent release of CH 4 on global warming
over the decadal time scale is not properly represented by the use of GWP on a 100-year time
horizon, as discussed in Sects. 1.2.2 and 4.4.2, as well as by Pierrehumbert (2014).
Table 3.1 Annex I nations of
the Kyoto Protocol
Australia
Greece
Norway
Austria
Hungary
Poland
Belarus
Iceland
Portugal
Belgium
Ireland
Romania
Bulgaria
Italy
Russia
Canada
Japan
Slovakia
Croatia
Latvia
Slovenia
Cyprus
Liechtenstein
Spain
Czech Republic
Lithuania
Sweden
Denmark
Luxembourg
Switzerland
Estonia
Malta
Turkey
Finland
Monaco
Ukraine
France
Netherlands
United Kingdom
Germany
New Zealand
United States
3 Paris INDCs