Public Policy: Carbon Emissions, Kyoto and Paris

Read...

On the last page, we mentioned the word "policy." But what does that actually mean? While individual choices can contribute to reducing carbon emissions—through decisions you and I can make at home, like conserving energy, driving less, or consuming more sustainably—they alone are insufficient to drive the large-scale changes required to address climate change. Don't get me wrong, there is a benefit to collective action, but without getting everyone in the world to snap their fingers and buy in, it will not be enough.

In market-based economies, such as those in North America, Europe, and increasingly in the developing world, change depends on aligning incentives with sustainable practices. What on Earth does that mean? Currently, the economic system provides minimal support for renewable energy development while heavily subsidizing fossil fuels. Financially, it makes sense to continue emitting. If one person or one country cuts emissions, they might be at a heavy disadvantage to another. That is where climate policy comes in.

We're going to talk mainly about large-scale global policies here, but this can happen at all levels of society: from the entire globe down to an individual home owners' association!

The Kyoto Protocol: A First Step in Global Collaboration

Understanding the global nature of greenhouse gas emissions, nations have long recognized the need for international cooperation to tackle climate change. The first significant step came in 1992 with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), established at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. This agreement laid the groundwork for the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, where participating countries outlined targets to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations. Officially coming into force in 2005, the Kyoto Protocol focused on emissions reductions but left many details—like defining how much warming is dangerous or whether to use carbon taxes or trading—up to individual nations to decide.

A meeting of world leaders at the Climate Change Conference in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997.

Credit: Flickr, United Nations.

By 2007, the European Union had stepped into a leadership role, framing the idea of "dangerous anthropogenic interference" (DAI) as a global temperature rise of 2°C above pre-industrial levels. DAI is essentially the tipping point where climate impacts shift from manageable challenges to widespread crises. Think of it like a boiling pot of water: at first, it heats up slowly, and you can manage it by turning down the heat, but if you wait too long, the water will boil over and create a mess—much harder to clean up.

While 192 nations eventually ratified the Kyoto Protocol, key players like the United States and China held out. Both economies are deeply tied to fossil fuels, and in the U.S., lobbying by the fossil fuel industry has long influenced climate policy. Without the participation of these two major emitters, meaningful global progress in reducing emissions faced significant hurdles.

Kyoto marked an important milestone because it demonstrated that the global community recognized a problem and agreed (roughly) on a path forward to address it. However, it wasn’t without flaws. Low-lying island nations and tropical countries, already grappling with climate impacts, argued the agreement didn’t go far enough. For them, DAI isn’t a future problem—it’s an imminent crisis, and their limited resources make large-scale adaptation nearly impossible without international support. On the other hand, while many viewed Kyoto as a stepping stone toward stronger climate action, critics—especially in the U.S.—claimed it would harm economic growth. I'll note that most cost-benefit analyses (this isn't an economic class, so I'll spare you the details!) indicate the long-term costs of inaction far outweigh the price of addressing climate change now.

So, how did countries perform? The chart below compares emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol with actual outcomes between 1990 and 2010. Positive numbers (blue) show countries that exceeded their targets, while negative numbers (red) indicate countries that fell short. For instance, a nation pledging a 10% reduction but increasing emissions by 10% would score -20, while a nation pledging a 5% cut but achieving a 15% reduction would score +10. Eastern European countries generally outperformed their targets, while nations like Canada and Australia significantly missed theirs.

Comparison of each nation's greenhouse gas emission targets versus actual percentage changes between 1990 and 2010, excluding land use emissions and sinks. Positive values (blue) indicate countries that exceeded their targets, while negative values (red) represent those that fell short. For example, a nation with a -10% target that saw a 10% emissions increase scores -20, while a nation with a 5% target that achieved a 15% reduction scores 10.

Credit: The Guardian.

Overall, it’s a mixed bag. Some nations exceeded their goals, while others fell far behind. This uneven performance isn’t surprising, given that the Kyoto Protocol lacked strong enforcement mechanisms (in other words, it lacked "teeth"), relying largely on peer pressure between countries. Still, Kyoto’s legacy lies in demonstrating that global cooperation is essential for tackling climate change. Its successes and shortcomings set the stage for future agreements, highlighting the ongoing challenge of balancing fairness, economic interests, and the need for urgent action. As we’ll see in upcoming sections, solving this problem requires not only innovative policies but also a commitment from major emitters to prioritize the planet’s future over short-term gains.

The Paris Agreement and Prospects for Future Policy

In the years after the Kyoto Protocol, efforts to secure binding international climate agreements faced numerous hurdles. High-profile summits, including Bali in 2007 and Copenhagen in 2009, ended without significant breakthroughs. The core challenges remained: conflicting priorities between major players like the U.S. and China and broader divides between wealthier, industrialized nations and those still developing or struggling to develop. In the United States, political gridlock and intense lobbying from the fossil fuel industry further stalled progress, as well-funded campaigns sowed doubt about climate science and targeted lawmakers pushing for action.

These setbacks left many feeling disheartened about the prospect of global climate cooperation. Yet, there were glimmers of hope. China, the world’s largest emitter of carbon dioxide, began making notable strides in renewable energy investments, surpassing even the United States in its commitment to solar and wind power. In 2014, a historic moment occurred when Chinese leader Xi Jinping and U.S. President Barack Obama reached a bilateral agreement to limit greenhouse gas emissions. This pact between the two largest emitters showed the world that collaboration—even between economic competitors—was possible and necessary.

Domestically, while the U.S. Congress failed to pass sweeping climate legislation, incremental progress emerged through state and local efforts and executive actions. The Obama administration introduced ambitious measures, including the Clean Power Plan, which set a goal of cutting emissions from power plants by 32% by 2030, and stronger fuel-efficiency standards for vehicles. These policies highlighted how leadership at multiple levels could complement stalled federal action and reinforce international commitments.

The Paris Agreement, adopted in 2015, built on the foundations laid by the Kyoto Protocol but offered a more inclusive and flexible framework. Unlike Kyoto, which set binding emissions targets primarily for developed nations, Paris sought commitments from nearly every country, recognizing the shared but differentiated responsibilities of nations at various stages of development. The agreement aimed to limit global warming to “well below 2°C” above pre-industrial levels, with aspirations to cap it at 1.5°C—a recognition of the heightened risks faced by vulnerable nations like small island states.

The three main pillars of the Paris Climate Agreement: (1) limiting global temperature rise to under 2°C while achieving net zero emissions, (2) building climate resilience and adaptation measures, and (3) aligning global financial systems to support climate objectives.

Credit: Yale Sustainability Institute.

What made Paris unique was its reliance on voluntary emissions targets, allowing countries to set their own goals based on their capabilities and circumstances. While critics argued that these voluntary targets lacked enforcement mechanisms, the agreement fostered a spirit of collective responsibility and accountability. Regular reviews and updates to these targets encouraged nations to increase their ambition over time, creating a dynamic framework rather than a static treaty.

The Paris Agreement also emphasized the importance of financial and technical support for developing nations, ensuring they could adapt to climate impacts and transition to cleaner energy systems. This focus on equity recognized the historical emissions of industrialized countries while addressing the urgent needs of those already facing the brunt of climate change.

Though the Paris Agreement has not solved the climate crisis, it represents a significant step forward in global cooperation. It acknowledges the scale of the challenge, the necessity of collective action, and the need for both mitigation and adaptation. As we explore climate solutions, Paris serves as a reminder that while progress may be slow and imperfect, it is possible when nations work together with a shared vision for the future.