The Kyoto Protocol provided that 37 industrialized countries and the EU would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries were invited to voluntarily commit and more than 100 developing countries, including China and India, were totally excluded from the Kyoto agreement. The implementation of country-by-country policies based on the national situation was recognized in the protocol, which lists a number of policies and measures. There was no agreement on whether specific policies and actions should be coordinated across national borders. The UNFCCC is an explanation of the need for action, but it does not agree on specific emission reductions. The Kyoto Protocol complements the UNFCCC, which sets more stringent targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Countries that have ratified the protocol have committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The first commitment period of the protocol took place from 2008 to 2012. The second commitment period runs from 2013 to 2020. Unlike the UNFCCC, the United States has never ratified the Kyoto Protocol and has withdrawn the world`s largest emitter of greenhouse gas pollution from the market. In December 2012, at the end of the protocol`s first commitment period, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol met in Doha, Qatar, to adopt an amendment to the original Kyoto agreement. This Doha amendment added new emission reduction targets for the second commitment period 2012-2020 for participating countries. The Doha amendment had a short life.

At the 2015 Paris Summit on Sustainable Development, all participants in the UNFCCC signed another pact, the Paris Climate Agreement, which effectively replaced the Kyoto Protocol. In 2005, many countries, including those in the EU, planned to meet or exceed the agreement`s targets by 2011. Others, such as the United States and China – the world`s largest emitters – have produced enough greenhouse gases to mitigate the progress of countries that have met their targets. In fact, global emissions increased by about 40% between 1990 and 2009. The pre-Kyoto greenhouse gas emission targets were very different among the parties involved. Australia`s pre-Kyoto position was to increase emissions of all greenhouse gases by 18% between 1990 and 2010. The conference resulted in an agreed-upon increase in emissions of six gases of 8% between 2008 and 2012 based on 1990 emissions. The case of Australia supported the „full relationship of all components of Berlin`s mandate,“ particularly specific objectives that depend on what countries were willing to accept. (4) The agreement on this point was a central outcome of the conference and a number of objectives were therefore agreed. In addition, Australia wanted to include increases or reductions in greenhouse gas emissions due to changes in land use in the agreement. This point was agreed at the final stage of the Kyoto conference. Barker et al.

(2007, p. 79) have evaluated the literature on cost estimates of the Kyoto Protocol. [117] Due to the United States` non-participation in the Kyoto Treaty, the cost estimates were significantly lower than the estimates of the previous IPCC Third Assessment Report. Without the participation of the United States and using the Kyoto flexible mechanisms fully, the cost was estimated to be less than 0.05% of Schedule B GDP. This is compared to previous estimates of 0.1 to 1.1%. Without the use of flexible mechanisms, costs were estimated to be less than 0.1% without U.S. participation.