
Global Cooperation through Conference of Parties —COP Meetings
When it became evident that climate change may be occurring, there was the beginning of the movement (a series of meetings called the Conference of Parties —COP) that was responsible for the Kyoto meeting in December of 1997: a section of the United Nations was formed: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (you might see UNFCCC in some of the linked text). The first meeting was the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, subsequent meetings set up the reduction strategies for climate change. The two most important meetings were held in Kyoto, Japan (the Kyoto Protocol) and in Paris, France (the Paris Agreement).
Important points for the Kyoto Protocol (1997)
Reduction of six greenhouse gasses by some countries, to varied levels below their emissions of greenhouse gasses in 1990.
- carbon dioxide (CO2)
- methane (CH4)
- nitrous oxide (N2O)
- hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)
The treaty was to become legally binding when it was ratified by 55 Countries (they use the term "States") including the Developed Nations responsible for 55% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the Developed Nations group in 1990. This treaty was ratified in 2005 (Russia was the last necessary country to adopt it.) The United States has not ratified it yet (but we are bound by the agreement).
Just to confuse everyone (and so as not to embarrass developing countries) they use the terms Annex 1 parties (mostly developed nations) and Annex 2 Parties (mostly the developing nations).
An emission trading methodology was adopted to reduce the cost of compliance (but details on how this will work are not yet in place). A major victory for the US as we utilize this approach for SO2 and NOx emissions via the Clean Air Act of 1990 and its amendments.
Developing countries have a “right to develop” and so will not have to reduce or curtail their emissions of greenhouse gases at all.
Changing land use issues and natural carbon sinks (such as planting a forest) also impact the reduction levels assigned (and agreed to).
Sharing of technology (sounds a tad socialist to me and will be difficult to employ).
There is a great deal of uncertainty in how everything will work out.
The European Union is allowed to act as a “bubble” and redistribute the reductions to meet the overall reduction level required. Australia joined but then after a government change, left the agreement. The United States has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
More information is available (if you are interested) from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Emission Trading
Recall that this was discussed when we covered acid deposition. Internationally, this will work well, as it will be cheaper to reduce emissions in other countries that are operating old, inefficient equipment than it will to reduce emissions from plants that are efficiently run. As CO2, unlike a lot of emissions, is global in nature, it does not matter that we are reducing emissions in India or China, we will still reap the benefit of slowing the pace of climate change. Many of the pollutants we discuss may be international in natures, such as acid deposition from Germany crossing into France or vice versa, they will not travel the globe and influence Australia for example. The long lifetimes of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere allows them to travel extensively so their increase can be measured at the poles far from the point source of origin (your car, power plant, natural source, etc.) Ozone-depleting CFCs also are long-lived and tend to congregate above the South Pole.
As long as there is a reduction, the requirement is met, it's source is not important. However, there is a financial cost assigned with these reductions. The developing countries need health care, education, and clean water as a priority well above reduction in climate change. They can sell off emission reductions to the highest bidder (at a profit). Industry will be happy to buy these permits as long as they are priced below the cost of achieving the same reduction in their industry. More on this in the next part of the lesson.
Impact on the U.S.
We agreed to a reduction to 7% below 1990 levels. That does not seem to be too high, but there is a problem: emissions have been growing (as has the economy, followed by a downturn...).
The 7% reduction below 1990 levels looked like it may have ended up being a very significant 30% reduction from 2010 levels. There is a lot of speculation on how much greenhouse gases we emit because it depends on many factors, such as the economy, severity of the winter or summer, changes in the fuel mix. While the 7% reduction is high, a 30% reduction is staggering (7% from going to below 1990 levels and 23% estimated from the growth of the emissions). Actual numbers ended up being much smaller but we will not meet the goals, like many, many nations.
The White House Stance
There is a significant change in policy when the Obama administration was replaced by the Trump administration.
Obama Administration
- Reducing Emissions through Clean Energy Investments and Standards
- Monitoring Emissions
- Climate Change Adaptation
- Climate Change Science and Education
The U.S. managed to have very significant reduction but much was due to fuel switching from coal to natural gas for economic reasons rather than policy (although that did contribute).

Here is a good link to see what the US had agreed to (take a quick look).
Important points for the Paris Agreement (2015)
- There was a change from having greenhouse emissions be below a set year to having the limiting the warming extent so that the global temperature is < 2°C higher than the pre-industrialization level (hoping to be <1.5°C). The Paris Agreement was ratified in 2016 when 55 nations accounting for ~55% of global greenhouse emissions enter into the agreement. There were also two other significant changes:
- Increasing the ability to adapt to climate change
- Making finance flows consistent towards a pathway for lower greenhouse gas emissions
- the U.S agreed to a 26% reduction of greenhouse gasses by 2025
- See this quick 1 min video overview from the United Nations
