What is this Kyoto thing all about anyway?

The protocol comes into force in two weeks, but how much do you really know about climate change and carbon trading? Paul Brown answers the big questions

On February 16, one of the most controversial treaties in decades becomes part of international law. It has been heralded as a breakthrough in the fight against dangerous climate change and a triumph for international diplomacy - despite the fact that the US, the world's greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, refuses to take part.

The protocol, an addition to the Climate Change Convention negotiated at the Earth Summit in 1992, is the first legally binding international treaty on the environment. The convention placed an obligation on every country that signed it to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions but did not give any targets - so everyone agreed another agreement was needed.

Kyoto gives each of the industrialised countries of the world an individual limit to the greenhouse gas emissions they can make. The reductions overall are tiny compared with the cuts that scientists say are necessary to stabilise the climate. So will Kyoto really make a difference to whether global warming is contained; can it save the planet from the potential of runaway global warming that is being debated this week at the Hadley Centre for Climate Change in Exeter? Here we explain the nuts and bolts of Kyoto, how it works, and what it does.

What is Kyoto designed to reduce?

Six gases. Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the biggest factor in climate change but methane from agriculture and landfill, nitrous oxide from vehicles, and hydofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride from other industrial processes are included.

Why do different countries have different targets?

In 1997, in Kyoto, a protocol or addition to the original treaty was negotiated after many tortuous sessions in which the industrialised countries each agreed a target to control emissions of six gases. It was tortuous because each country saw itself as a special case, and so the idea of differential responsibilities was born.

The first major difference in responsibilities was between industrial countries and developing countries. It was felt that industrial countries, which had gained most from the industrial revolution were also most to blame for the greenhouse effect. It was therefore agreed that the first round of reductions should be from them and the countries, such as the US and Japan, which are now burning most fossil fuels.

There were 34 industrial countries which agreed to targets, most of them in Europe. Some, such as Spain and Portugal, which were still developing, were allowed large increases in emissions and others, such as Germany, agreed to large cuts, partly because its heavy industry was shutting down but mainly because the government felt that it had to give a lead. Each country can discover how much CO2 it emits by calculating the volume of fossil fuels it burns, usually through imports and the tax system.

What difference does the US make?

The treaty immediately hit a snag because politicians in the US, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, passed a vote in the Senate refusing to ratify the protocol. This was because they felt that China and other developing countries would gain a competitive advantage over them, because they would not have the costs of reducing emissions.

The snag could have been devastating because, under the rules negotiated in Kyoto, industrialised countries responsible for 55% of the emissions had to have their national parliaments ratify the convention before it could come into force. Since the US is responsible for 36% of the greenhouse gases from the industrialised world it meant that almost all the other countries which had agreed targets had to ratify the protocol before it could come into force.

Russia had doubts that the treaty was worthwhile without the United States, but without Moscow's agreement the treaty could not reach the 55% of emissions threshold. After two years of delays Russia ratified last December, bringing the emission total to 61%. Ninety days later, on February 16, it comes into legal force. Only four of the original 34 nations have refused to take part: the US (36.1% of the greenhouse gas emissions of the industrialised world), Australia (2.1%), Liechtenstein (.001%) and Monaco (.001%).

How do the targets work?

In the intervening years countries have been working to reduce emissions. The measurements are generally taken from a starting date of 1990, and the targets for each country must be reached by the period 2008-12. Some former communist countries, known in the jargon as "countries in transition", were allowed to chose a different date because after the collapse of communism many closed heavy industries. Unlike the rest of the world, the former eastern bloc countries had a slump in emissions. This has become important to the workings of the treaty.

The targets, and the latest known emissions of each country, are reported here. Under the treaty, each country has to report to the secretariat of the United National Climate Change Convention each year what its emissions are and how it is progressing to its target. Each country also has to show what it is doing to reduce emissions and, if it is not reaching the target, what further measures are proposed.

One of the anomalies negotiated at Kyoto was that the European Union, then consisting of only 15 countries, negotiated a single target for itself of an 8% reduction over 1990 levels. This was because some countries had more advanced economies than others. But in Ireland, which was allowed a 13% rise, the economic boom which has been enjoyed there means emissions are already up by 29% - so wildly over target that the Dublin government is under heavy pressure to act to reduce the growth.

The UK agreed to a reduction of 12.5%, confident that with the switch from coal generation of electricity to gas it was already reducing CO2 emissions. (Gas produces about one third less CO2 per unit of electricity than a coal-fired station.) But since the Labour government came to power in 1997, CO2 emissions have grown and new measures to reduce them are being considered. One of the problems is that the government has failed in its promise to reduce traffic, and the price of gas has increased so some electricity generators are burning more coal.

How does Kyoto affect us?

Among the measures the government has taken is pouring money into renewables to reach a 10% target by 2010, and force electricity distributors to buy electricity from "green power", even though it is more expensive than that produced by fossil fuels. This has given consumers the option to buy green electricity. There are also a range of products on the market such as gas-condensing boilers, long-life lightbulbs, and schemes to insulate people's homes, which save a lot of electricity. There are a lot of cash incentives and subsidies for such schemes, but none are compulsory.

One other way in which our lives have changed because of Kyoto, without us noticing, is that car engines have become more efficient. Many people do not take advantage of this and buy fashionable 4x4s which are heavy on fuel. The British government introduced a fuel escalator to reduce emissions from vehicles, but gave up after protests, leading directly to a rise in greenhouse gases. The UK is still under its 12.5% target, but only just.

The EU has also brought in a number of measures. The UK's current boom in recycling is a direct result of an EU scheme to increase recycling of biodegradeable rubbish. This is the rubbish such as paper and organics that, when piled into landfills, pro duces methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

What else does Kyoto encourage countries to do?

There are three other ways that countries can reduce emissions, apart from measures at home. The first two involve working with other countries to reduce their emissions. The reasoning behind this is that the atmosphere does not care in which country the reductions are made - what it needs is a reduction in greenhouse gases.

There are two categories in which two countries can jointly reduce emissions, depending on the type of country. If they are both developed countries and both have to make reductions it is called a joint implementation scheme, and if one is a developing country then a clean development mechanism.

In this first case - if British money is spent in Poland making a power plant more efficient - it saves more CO2 than if the same money was spent on making an already efficient plant in England slightly better.

Under the treaty it is possible for the UK to claim a share of carbon saved, therefore reducing the UK's national total without having to make domestic reduction.

The second method involves installing a clean method of producing electricity such as solar power in a developing country as an alternative to a CO2-producing method like coal. In this case, the developed country claims all the carbon credit.

The third method is carbon trading. This greatly benefits the former communist countries which, because of the closure of their heavy industries since 1990, have saved thousands of tonnes of emissions. Under the trading scheme, countries such as Ireland, Portugal and Spain that are exceeding their targets can "buy" this surplus carbon and so reduce their own emissions. This was a big incentive for Russia to ratify the protocol. There is also trading within countries between companies.

Is the Kyoto protocol enforceable?

Since Kyoto is a legal agreement, there are penalties. Governments that fail to reach their targets will have to appear at a conference of the parties and account for their failure. They will have to suffer the indignity of being told how to solve the problem. If they are seen to have been cavalier with their responsibilities they can be excluded from the three forms of trading agreements with other countries in the protocol.

A further punishment is that in the next period of the reductions after 2012, any shortfall in the first period target is added to any new one and multiplied by 1.3.

But will it really work?

The first big question, the second being what is the future without America? The fact is that, even if all the planned reductions are achieved, the amount that CO2 emissions will be reduced will be tiny compared with that needed.

But Kyoto was only ever expected to be a first step. It does provide a blueprint and method for further reductions. Ultimately, the US will have to be persuaded back into the process, along with rapidly developing countries such as China and India, if sufficient reductions are to be made to save the climate. Without actions by them the world's temperature will escalate out of control anyway. There is still a long way to go.

Global greenhouse: how the nations measure up

Today's best video

  • Freerunner James Kingston climbs up a crane in Bangalore - video

    Freerunner James Kingston climbs up a crane in Bangalore

  • How to wear denim jackets - video

    How to wear denim jackets

    Lauren Cochrane shows us some examples of her favourite styles
  • Lucy 2014

    Luc Besson on Lucy

  • Arsenal's Aaron Ramsey leaves the field after being sent off

    Besiktas 0-0 Arsenal

    Arsenal manager Arsène Wenger unhappy after Aaron Ramsey gets two yellow cards

Today in pictures