Verifying compliance with the Kyoto protocol

Review of European Community and International Environmental Law

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 1998, Pages 170-175

  Lanchbery, John ^a  

^a Verification Technology Information Centre (VERTIC)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CLIMATE CHANGE; ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT; LEGISLATIVE IMPLEMENTATION; UNCERTAINTY; UNFCCC;

EID: 0031737170     PISSN: 09628797     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/1467-9388.00143     Document Type: Article

References (3)

1. See J. Lanchbery, 'Implementation Review in International Wild-life Agreements: Long Term Trends', in D.G. Victor, K. Raustiala and E.B. Skolnikoff (eds.), The Implementation and Effectiveness of International Environmental Commitments, (Cambridge, MIT Press, 1998).
2. In the climate regime the notion of sharing economic burdens, or preferably passing them entirely to other states, has bedevilled negotiations from the outset. All of the most contentious processes and mechanisms are a result of states trying to minimize perceived economic costs to themselves, by emissions trading, joint implementation, etc. Such processes could perhaps benefit all Parties, if well thought through, but that is often not the spirit in which they are introduced and discussed. It is also worth noting that it is not at all clear that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is necessarily costly.
3. Six main GHGs are included in the Kyoto Protocol. Three occur naturally, in addition to being generated as a result of human activities: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide. The remaining three are artificial: hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride. At present, only the removal of carbon dioxide by so-called sinks (in nature, green plants) is covered, although there are sinks for both methane and nitrous oxide.