5. The Parties included in Annex I undergoing the process of transition to a market economy whose base year or period was established pursuant to decision 9/CP.2 of the Conference of the Parties at its second session shall use that base year or period for the implementation of their commitments under this Article. Any other Party included in Annex I undergoing the process of transition to a market economy which has not yet submitted its first national communication under Article 12 of the Convention may also notify the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol that it intends to use an historical base year or period other than 1990 for the implementation of its commitments under this Article. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall decide on the acceptance of such notification.
The USA could have defined it's year by the first initiative of greenhouse gas reductions. The outcomes were to best that year and continue every year to 2012. The USA could not achieve that? Really? It was extreme politics and cronys that prevented USA commitments. Kyoto Protocol was not a strategy to end the USA's economy.
The problem was the USA could not increase it's emissions. Carbon dioxide reductions weren't evident in the USA until President Obama's administration and institutionalizing alternative energies and an efficient grid.
6. Taking into account Article 4, paragraph 6, of the Convention, in the implementation of their commitments under this Protocol other than those under this Article, a certain degree of flexibility shall be allowed by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol to the Parties included in Annex I undergoing the process of transition to a market economy.
Kyoto Protocol had a bottom line to reduce and end greenhouse gas emissions. If the transition of markets and emissions of greenhouse gases were progressing ahead of expectations, there would be room for mitigating countries finding it difficult to make that transition. If the USA had made a commitment it could have been instrumental in assisting other countries in meeting their goals. We would have lead.
7. In the first quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment period, from 2008 to 2012, the assigned amount for each Party included in Annex I shall be equal to the percentage inscribed for it in Annex B of its aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A in 1990, or the base year or period determined in accordance with paragraph 5 above, multiplied by five. Those Parties included in Annex I for whom land-use change and forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 shall include in their 1990 emissions base year or period the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use change for the purposes of calculating their assigned amount.
8. Any Party included in Annex I may use 1995 as its base year for hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride, for the purposes of the calculation referred to in paragraph 7 above.
continued in next entry
The USA could have defined it's year by the first initiative of greenhouse gas reductions. The outcomes were to best that year and continue every year to 2012. The USA could not achieve that? Really? It was extreme politics and cronys that prevented USA commitments. Kyoto Protocol was not a strategy to end the USA's economy.
The problem was the USA could not increase it's emissions. Carbon dioxide reductions weren't evident in the USA until President Obama's administration and institutionalizing alternative energies and an efficient grid.
6. Taking into account Article 4, paragraph 6, of the Convention, in the implementation of their commitments under this Protocol other than those under this Article, a certain degree of flexibility shall be allowed by the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol to the Parties included in Annex I undergoing the process of transition to a market economy.
Kyoto Protocol had a bottom line to reduce and end greenhouse gas emissions. If the transition of markets and emissions of greenhouse gases were progressing ahead of expectations, there would be room for mitigating countries finding it difficult to make that transition. If the USA had made a commitment it could have been instrumental in assisting other countries in meeting their goals. We would have lead.
7. In the first quantified emission limitation and reduction commitment period, from 2008 to 2012, the assigned amount for each Party included in Annex I shall be equal to the percentage inscribed for it in Annex B of its aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the greenhouse gases listed in Annex A in 1990, or the base year or period determined in accordance with paragraph 5 above, multiplied by five. Those Parties included in Annex I for whom land-use change and forestry constituted a net source of greenhouse gas emissions in 1990 shall include in their 1990 emissions base year or period the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions by sources minus removals by sinks in 1990 from land-use change for the purposes of calculating their assigned amount.
8. Any Party included in Annex I may use 1995 as its base year for hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride, for the purposes of the calculation referred to in paragraph 7 above.
continued in next entry
