98-2 ENR
Updated July 31, 1998
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Global Climate Change Treaty:
The Kyoto Protocol
Susan R. Fletcher
Senior Analyst in International Environmental Policy
Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division
Summary
Negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were completed December 11, 1997, committing the
industrialized nations to specified, legally binding targets for emissions of six
“greenhouse gases.” The treaty will open for signature on March 16, 1998. The United
States played a prominent role in these negotiations, and agreed to a target of reducing
greenhouse gases by 7% below 1990 levels during a “commitment period” between
2008-2012. Because of the way sinks, which remove these gases from the atmosphere,
are counted and because of other provisions discussed in this report, the actual reduction
of emissions required to meet the target within the United States is estimated to be lower
than 7%. The Administration has indicated that until developing countries also make
commitments to participate in greenhouse gas limitations, it will not submit the protocol
to the Senate for advice and consent, thereby delaying any possibility of ratification until
at least after a November 1998 meeting of the parties in Buenos Aires, Argentina. At
mid-year June 1998 meetings of the UNFCCC subsidiary bodies, a number of the more
difficult issues were discussed, but results of these meetings were generally
inconclusive. In Congress, several committees have held hearings on the Kyoto
Protocol and its implications, and a number of bills, resolutions and provisions in
appropriations bills have been introduced or considered, mostly to limit activities of the
U.S. government that are or could be seen as related to carrying out the goals of the
Kyoto Protocol.
Background
Responding to concerns that human activities are increasing concentrations of
“greenhouse gases” (such as carbon dioxide and methane) in the atmosphere, most nations
of the world joined together in 1992 to sign the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The United States was one of the first nations to ratify
this treaty. It included a legally non-binding, voluntary pledge that the major
industrialized/developed nations would reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CRS-2
levels by the year 2000. However, as scientific consensus grew that human activities are
having a discernible impact on global climate systems, possibly causing a warming of the
Earth that could result in significant impacts such as sea level rise, changes in weather
patterns and health effects—and as it became apparent that major nations such as the
United States and Japan would not meet the voluntary stabilization target by
2000—Parties to the treaty decided in 1995 to enter into negotiations on a protocol to
establish legally binding limitations or reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It was
decided by the Parties that this round of negotiations would establish limitations only for
the developed countries (those listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC, including the former
Communist countries, and referred to as “Annex I countries”; developing countries are
referred to as “non-Annex I countries”).1
During negotiations that preceded the December 1-11, 1997, meeting in Kyoto,
Japan, little progress was made, and the most difficult issues were not resolved until the
final days—and hours—of the Conference. There was wide disparity among key players
especially on three items: (1) the amount of binding reductions in greenhouse gases to be
required, and the gases to be included in these requirements; (2) whether developing
countries should be part of the requirements for greenhouse gas limitations; and (3)
whether to allow emissions trading and joint implementation, which allow credit to be
given for emissions reductions to a country that brings about the actual reductions in other
countries or locations where they may be cheaper to attain.

The United States proposal was for a reduction in all six major greenhouse gases to
1990 levels by the period 2008-2012, with joint implementation allowed. The European
Union (EU) argued strongly for a 15% reduction from 1990 levels by 2010 for three
greenhouse gases, using a “bubble,” or cumulative, approach for the nations within the
EU, but no joint implementation beyond that. Japan proposed a 5% reduction from 1990
levels for three greenhouse gases. The group of developing countries (known as the G77)
proposed that developed countries should stabilize their emissions of greenhouse gases
at 1990 levels by 2000, then reduce them by 15% by 2010, with further reductions of
20%—for a total of 35% reduction by 2020 below 1990 levels.
Following completion of the Protocol in December of 1997, details of a number of
the more difficult issues remained to be negotiated and resolved (see below). Some of
these were taken up at June 2-12, 1998 meetings of the subsidiary bodies of the FCCC on
implementation and scientific and technical affairs. These discussions were generally
inconclusive, and consideration and work on the details of these unresolved concerns
continues. Formal discussion and negotiation will resume at the COP-4 meeting in
November in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Summary of the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC
The Kyoto Protocol was completed in haste during an extension of the Kyoto
meeting beyond its December 10 deadline, into the morning of December 11. It contains
a number of areas for which details will have to be worked out over the next year. The
For
1
additional information on the negotiations in Kyoto and related background, see CRS Report
97-1000, Global Climate Change Treaty: Negotiations and Related Issues; and CRS Issue Brief
89005, Global Climate Change.

---

CRS-3
Protocol opened for signature March 16, 1998, and will enter into force when 55 nations
have ratified it, provided that these ratifications include Annex I Parties that account for
at least 55% of total carbon dioxide emissions in 1990. At the end of July, 38 countries
had signed the treaty, including the European Union and most of its members, Canada,
Japan, China, and a range of developing countries.
The major commitments in the treaty on the most controversial issues are as follows:
Emissions Reductions. The United States would be obligated under the Protocol
to a reduction of 7% below 1990 levels for three greenhouse gases (including carbon
dioxide), and below 1995 levels for the three man-made gases, averaged over the
commitment period 2008 to 2012. The Protocol states that Annex I Parties are
committed—individually or jointly—to ensuring that their aggregate anthropogenic
carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of greenhouse gases do not exceed amounts assigned
to each country in Annex B to the Protocol, “with a view to reducing their overall
emissions of such gases by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008
to 2012.” Annex A lists the 6 major greenhouse gases covered by the treaty .
2
Annex B lists 39 nations, including the United States, the European Union plus the
individual EU nations, Japan, and many of the former Communist nations. The amounts
for each country are listed as percentages of the base year, 1990 (except for some former
Communist countries), and range from 92% (a reduction of 8%) for most European
countries—to 110% (an increase of 10%) for Iceland. The United States is committed on
this list to 93%, or a reduction of 7%, to be achieved as an average over the five years
2008-2012.
Based on projections of the growth of emissions using current technologies and
processes, the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions required of the United States would
likely be between 20% and 30% below where it would be otherwise by the 2008-2012
budget period. However, ac
3
cording to Administration officials, based on the accounting
method adopted in the Protocol, which includes (as the United States had urged)
greenhouse gas sinks, it appears that the actions that must be taken in to reduce emissions
within the United States, after sinks are counted, would be substantially less than
7%—probably in the range of 2 to 3%. The Administration also is assuming that a
significant portion of its 7% target could be met through some combination of emissions
trading and joint implementation.
Developing Country Responsibilities. The United States had taken a firm position
that “meaningful participation” of developing countries in commitments made in the
Protocol is critical to approval of the treaty by the U.S. Senate, and it argued that success
in dealing with the issue of climate change and global warming would require such
participation. The developing country bloc argued that the Berlin Mandate—the terms
of reference of the Kyoto negotiations—clearly excluded them from new commitments
2 The six gases covered by the Protocol are carbon dioxide (CO ), methane (CH ), nitrous oxide
2
4
(N O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphur hexafluoride (SF ).
2
6
The most prominent of these, and the most pervasive in human economic activity is carbon
dioxide, produced when wood or fossil fuels such as oil, coal, and gas are burned.
Se
3
e CRS Report 98-235 ENR, Reducing Greenhouse Gases: How Much from What Baseline?

---

CRS-4
in this Protocol, and continued to oppose emissions limitation commitments by non-
Annex I countries. The negotiations concluded without such commitments, and the
United States indicated that it will not submit the Protocol for Senate consideration—and
therefore will not ratify it—until subsequent negotiations are held and meaningful
commitments are made by developing countries. The next meeting of the Parties will be
in November 1998 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, and may provide the first formal
opportunity for this issue to be revisited, although it is not clear yet whether or how it
would be put on the agenda for that meeting.
The Protocol does call on all Parties—developed and developing—to take a number
of steps to formulate national and regional programs to improve “local emission factors,”
activity data, models, and national inventories of greenhouse gas emissions and sinks that
remove these gases from the atmosphere. All Parties are also committed to formulate,
publish, and update climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, and to cooperate
in promotion and transfer of environmentally sound technologies and in scientific and
technical research on the climate system.
Emissions Trading and Joint Implementation. Emissions trading, in which a
Party included in Annex I “may transfer to, or acquire from, any other such Party emission
reduction units resulting from projects aimed at reducing anthropogenic emissions by
sources or enhancing anthropogenic removals by sinks of greenhouse gases” for the
purpose of meeting its commitments under the treaty, is allowed and outlined in Article
6, with several provisos. Among the provisos is the requirement that such trading “shall
be supplemental to domestic actions.” The purpose of this proviso is to make it clear that
a nation cannot entirely fulfill its responsibility to reduce domestic emissions by relying
primarily on emissions trading or joint implementation to meet its targets. A number of
specific issues related to the rules on how joint implementation and emissions trading will
work are to be negotiated and resolved in subsequent meetings, as these issues are
clarified and identified. In the months since the Protocol was completed, it has become
increasingly clear that this is an extremely complex issue, and an emissions trading system
is not likely to be designed and implemented quickly.
A major development is the establishment of a “clean development mechanism”
(CDM), through which joint implementation between developed and developing countries
would occur. The United States had pushed hard for joint implementation, and early
proposals were formulated with the expectation that “JI” projects would be primarily
bilateral. Instead, negotiations resulted in agreement to establish the clean development
mechanism to which developed Annex I countries can contribute financially, and
developing non-Annex I countries can benefit from financing for approved project
activities; Annex I countries can then use certified emission reductions from such projects
to contribute to their compliance with part of their emission limitation commitment.
Emissions reductions achieved through this mechanism can begin in the year 2000 to
count toward compliance in the first commitment period (2008-2012). Again, proposals
on how this mechanism will operate will be developed and, presumably, discussed at the
November 1998 Conference of the Parties. Like emissions trading, making the CDM
operational appears likely to be a protracted and difficult process, given the increasing
number of complexities emerging from the on-going work and discussions on how the
CDM might work.

---

CRS-5
Issues for Congress
Ratification. For the United States to ratify the Protocol, the treaty must be
submitted to the U.S. Senate for advice and consent. Ratification requires a two-thirds
majority vote in the Senate for approval. Unless the United States ratifies the treaty, it
will not be subject to its terms and obligations. President Clinton has voiced strong
support for the Kyoto Protocol, and the United States is expected to sign it, although it is
not clear when. However, in recognition of the opposition expressed in the Senate by
S.Res.98, which passed 95-0, to a Protocol that does not include requirements for
emissions limitations by developing countries, the President has indicated that he will not
submit the treaty to the Senate for advice and consent until additional negotiations have
provided for meaningful developing country participation. The next Conference of the
Parties that would offer an opportunity to make such provisions will be in November
1998 in Buenos Aires. Thus it seems unlikely that the treaty will be submitted to the
Senate until after that time.
Oversight. Both the House and Senate sent delegations of Members to serve as
observers on the U.S. delegation to the Kyoto meeting. Supporters and opponents of the
Protocol were included in these delegations. A number of committees have held hearings
on the implications of the Protocol for the United States, its economy, energy prices,
impacts on climate change, and other related issues. While the Administration has stated
4
that it believes the treaty can be implemented without harm to the U.S. economy, and
without imposing additional taxes, a number of questions related to how its goals can be
achieved are likely to arise in hearings during the year ahead.
Legislation. When a treaty is sent to the Senate for consideration, legislation that
might be required for its implementation is also typically sent to the Congress. Such
legislation is not likely in the near future, certainly not until the end of 1998, or until the
treaty is sent to the Senate. However, the President’s proposal on climate change,
announced in October, included, among other things, a $5 billion package of tax credits
and spending on research and development over 5 years to encourage energy efficiency
and development of new lower emission technologies. In the President’s budget
proposals, he offered an initiative over multiple years of $6.3 billion dollars for research
and development and some possible tax incentives. A number of legislative
proposals—including bills, resolutions, and provisions in several appropriations
bills—express concerns related to the Kyoto Protocol. Many of these would limit
activities of the U.S. government that might be seen to advance the goals of the Kyoto
Protocol prior to its consideration by the Senate.5
4 Congressional hearings are discussed in the CRS electronic briefing book on Global Climate
Change at http://thomas.loc.gov/brbk/html/ebgcccon.html
S
5
ee CRS Issue Brief 89005: Global Climate Change. Another source for a listing of legislation
and its status, and other information about the Kyoto Protocol and other climate change concerns
and reports, is the CRS electronic briefing book on Global Climate Change on the CRS Home
Page at: http://thomas.loc.gov/brbk/html/ebgcctop.html

---