Climate Action

Living Edition
| Editors: Walter Leal Filho, Anabela Marisa Azul, Luciana Brandli, Pinar Gökcin Özuyar, Tony Wall

Kyoto Protocol (KP)

  • Zeila OcchipintiEmail author
  • Roberto VeronaEmail author
Living reference work entry



Climate Change

Climate change concerns the rising of sea levels, desertification, loss of biodiversity, and the increasing intensity and frequency of extreme phenomena, such us hurricanes, storms, flood, and drought.

Global Warming

Global warming is the principle source of climate change. It consists of the increase in the average temperature of the Earth’s climate system.

Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)

GHGs are atmospheric gases. The more prevalent GHGs are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). The less prevalent are hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). The increase of their concentration in the atmosphere causes global warming.

Global Warming Potential (GWP)

GWP is an index measuring the effect of the differing times in which GHGs stay in the atmosphere and their capacity to absorb infrared radiation.


A protocol is...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. Abrell J, Ndoye A, Zachmann G (2012) Assessing the impact of the EU ETS using firm level data. X annual conference of the Euro-Latin Study Network on Integration and Trade (ESNIT). Trade and Climate Change, MilanGoogle Scholar
  2. Almer C, Winkler R (2017) Analyzing the effectiveness of international environmental policies: the case of the Kyoto Protocol. J Environ Econ Manag 82:125–151. Scholar
  3. Anderson B, Di Maria C (2011) Abatement and allocation in the pilot phase of the EU ETS. Environ Resour Econ 48:83–103. Scholar
  4. Barrett S (1998) The political economy of the Kyoto protocol. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 14:20–39. Scholar
  5. Begg K, Van der Woerd F, Levy D (eds) (2018) The business of climate change: corporate responses to Kyoto. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Bianca S (ed) (2016) Cambia il clima cambia il mondo. L’accordo globale di Parigi spiegato dai Protagonisti. Ministero dell’Ambiente e della Tutela del Territorio e del Mare. (Bianca S (ed) (2016) A changing climate, a changing world. The Paris global agreement explained by the participants. Ministry for Environment, Land and Sea Protection)Google Scholar
  7. Bolin B (2008) A history of the science and politics of climate change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Boyd E et al (2009) Reforming the CDM for sustainable development: lessons learned and policy futures. Environ Sci Pol 12:820–831. Scholar
  9. Castro P, Michaelowa A (2008) Empirical analysis of performance of CDM projects. Climate StrategiesGoogle Scholar
  10. CDM, UNFCCC (2018) Clean development mechanism. Accessed 12 June 2018
  11. De Alegría IM, Molina G, del Río B (2017) Carbon markets: linking the international emission trading under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the European Union Emission Trading Scheme (EU ETS). In: Chen W-Y et al (eds) Handbook of climate change mitigation and adaptation. Springer, International Publishing Switzerland, pp 313–339Google Scholar
  12. Egenhofer C, Alessi M, Georgiev A, Fujiwara N (2011) The EU emissions trading system and climate policy towards 2050: real incentives to reduce emissions and drive innovation? CEPS special reports Centre for European Policy Studies, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  13. Ellerman AD, Buchner BK (2007) The European Union Emissions Trading Scheme: origins, allocations, and early results. Rev Environ Econ Policy 1(1):66–87. Scholar
  14. Ellerman AD, Buchner BK (2008) Over-allocation or abatement? A preliminary analysis of the EU ETS based on the 2005-06 emissions data. Environ Resour Econ 41(2):267–287. Scholar
  15. Ernst & Young LLP (2016) COP21 and the Paris agreement: what it means for UK businesses. Climate policy update. Ernst & Young LLP, published in the UKGoogle Scholar
  16. European Union (2015) EU ETS Handbook. Retrieved from
  17. European Union (2003) Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Community and amending Council Directive 96/61/ECGoogle Scholar
  18. European Union (2009) Directive 2009/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC so as to improve and extend the greenhouse gas emission allowance trading scheme of the CommunityGoogle Scholar
  19. European Union (2011) Commission Decision of 27 April 2011 determining transitional union-wide rules for harmonised free allocation of emission allowances pursuant to Article 10a of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the CouncilGoogle Scholar
  20. European Union (2014) Consolidated Version of Directive 2003/87/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the community and amending Council Directive 96/61/ECGoogle Scholar
  21. European Union (2018) European Union. Accessed 12 June 2018
  22. Grubb M (2003) The economics of the Kyoto Protocol. WORLD ECONOMICS-HENLEY ON THAMES 4(3):143–190Google Scholar
  23. Jacometti V (2010) Lo scambio di quote di emissione. Analisi di un nuovo strumento di tutela ambientale in prospettiva compratistica. Giuffré Editore, Milano. (Jacometti V (2010) The trade of emission allowances. The analysis of a new instrument for environmental protection from a comparative perspective. Giuffré, Milano)Google Scholar
  24. Jepma CJ (2003) The EU emissions trading scheme (ETS): how linked to JI/CDM? Clim Policy 3:89–94. Scholar
  25. JI UNFCCC (2018) Joint implementation projects. Accessed 12 June 2018
  26. Kettner C, Kletzan-Slamanig D, Köppl A (2015) The EU emission trading scheme: sectoral allocation and factors determining emission changes. J Environ Econ Policy 4:1–14. Scholar
  27. Klemetsen ME, Rosendahl KE, Jackobsen AL (2016) The impacts of the EU ETS on norwegian plants’ environmental and economic performance. Discussion Papers 833Google Scholar
  28. Koch N, Fuss S, Grosjean G, Edenhofer O (2014) Causes of the EU ETS price drop: recession, CDM, renewable policies or a bit of everything? – New evidence. Energy Policy 73:676–685. Scholar
  29. Kuriyama A, Abe N (2018) Ex-post assessment of the Kyoto Protocol – quantification of CO2 mitigation impact in both Annex B and Non-Annex B countries. Appl Energy 220:286–295. Scholar
  30. Marin G, Marino M, Pellegrin C (2017) The impact of the European emission trading scheme on multiple measures of economic performance. Environ Resour Econ:1–32. Scholar
  31. Martin R, Muûls M, Wagner UJ (2016) The impact of the European union emissions trading scheme on regulated firms: what is the evidence after ten years? Rev Environ Econ Policy 10:129–148. Scholar
  32. Montini M (ed) (2008) Il Protocollo di Kyoto e il Clean Development Mechanism: aspetti giuridici e istituzionali. Giuffré Editore, Milano. (Montini M (ed) (2008) The Kyoto protocol and the clean development mechanism: legal and institutional issues. Giuffré, Milano)Google Scholar
  33. Muûls M, Colmer J, Martin R, Wagner UJ (2016) Evaluating the EU emissions trading system: take it or leave it? An assessment of the data after ten years. Briefing paper No 21, Grantham InstituteGoogle Scholar
  34. Petrick S, Ulrich JW (2014) The impact of carbon trading on industry: evidence from German manufacturing firms. Kiel Working Paper No. 1912, KielGoogle Scholar
  35. Ramanathan R, He Q, Black A, Ghobadian A, Gallear A (2017) Environmental regulations, innovation and firm performance: a revisit of the Porter hypothesis. J Clean Prod 155:79–92. Scholar
  36. Roberts D (2016) A global roadmap for climate change action: from COP17 in Durban to COP21 in Paris. S Afr J Sci 112:1–3. Scholar
  37. Rossi G (ed) (2015) Diritto dell’Ambiente. Giappichelli Editore. (Rossi G (ed) (2015) Environmental law. Giappichelli)Google Scholar
  38. Schneider L (2009) Assessing the additionality of CDM projects: practical experiences and lessons learned. Clim Pol 9:242–254. Scholar
  39. Segura S, Ferruz L, Gargallo P, Salvador M (2018) Environmental versus economic performance in the EU ETS from the point of view of policy makers: a statistical analysis based on copulas. J Clean Prod 176:1111–1132. Scholar
  40. Shishlov I, Bellassen V (2012) 10 Lessons from 10 Years of the CDM. Report No. 37, CDC Climat, ParisGoogle Scholar
  41. Shishlov I, Bellassen V (2016) Review of the experience with monitoring uncertainty requirements in the clean development mechanism. Clim Pol 16:703–731. Scholar
  42. Shishlov I, Bellassen V, Leguet B (2012) Joint implementation: a frontier mechanism within the borders of an emissions cap. Report No. 33, CDC Climat, ParisGoogle Scholar
  43. Shishlov I, Morel R, Bellassen V (2016) Compliance of the parties to the Kyoto protocol in the first commitment period. Clim Pol 16(6):768–782. Scholar
  44. Springer U (2003) The market for tradable GHG permits under the Kyoto Protocol: a survey of model studies. Energy Econ 25:527–551. Scholar
  45. Stephan N, Bellassen V, Alberola E (2014) Use of Kyoto credits by european industrial installations: from an efficient market to a burst bubble. Report No. 43, CDC Climat, ParisGoogle Scholar
  46. UNFCCC (1992) The United Nations framework convention on climate change. FCC/INFORMAL/84/Rev.1 GE.14–20481 (E)Google Scholar
  47. UNFCCC (1998) Kyoto protocol to the United Nations framework convention on climate changeGoogle Scholar
  48. UNFCCC (2004) Information on global warming potentials. FCCC/TP/2004/3 15 June 2004.Technical paperGoogle Scholar
  49. UNFCCC (2012) Doha amendment to the Kyoto protocolGoogle Scholar
  50. UNFCCC (2015) Paris agreementGoogle Scholar
  51. UNFCCC (2018) The United Nations framework convention on climate change. Official website. Accessed 12 June 2018
  52. Warnecke C (2014) Can CDM monitoring requirements be reduced while maintaining environmental integrity? Clim Pol 14:443–466. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Economics and ManagementUniversity of PisaPisaItaly

Section editors and affiliations

  • Federica Doni

There are no affiliations available