Has Kyoto become a cherry picking game?

9 June 2015

This might be hard to believe, but yes, it’s true — the Kyoto Protocol (KP) rules are still on the agenda.

After 2 years of negotiations battles around the so-called “special terms”, Ukraine forced Parties in Lima to make an exception allowing them to keep their reduction target by 2020. A target that means double growth, and being able to use the assigned amount units (AAUs) from the first commitment period in the second.

ECO thought that this would become a thing of the past, but unfortunately we were wrong. This Bonn session has instead seen Belarus and Kazakhstan prevent the adoption of the KP rules.

With the exception for Ukraine in hand, Belarus and Kazakhstan lined up for theirs too. Both understand that there may be some “privileges” that come with Ukraine’s circumstances. But, it’s impossible for the same “privileges” to extend to Belarus and Kazakhstan in the second commitment period, given that they didn’t even participate in the first.

It shouldn’t be this hard. If all Parties followed the example of Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan and demanded benefits for participation in the climate agreement, who would be left to save the climate?

Has Kyoto become a cherry picking game?

Support CAN

Help us build power in the climate movement by contributing a one-time or recurring donation that will go to supporting our global work as well as various activities and campaigns in communities in different regions.

Donate to CAN

Stay informed

Subscribe to receive monthly updates on the latest on the climate movement including the content from across the network, upcoming climate change events, news articles and opinion pieces on climate, straight to your inbox.

Subscribe to our newsletter