Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Emissions trading · Global · 2008–2016

Kyoto Protocol first commitment period (2008–2012): most of the overachievement was "hot air"

Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 2 none on record · 1 insufficient · 1 not measured See the gaps

A 2016 peer-reviewed study in Climate Policy, as summarised by I4CE, found that all Annex B parties met their first-period targets and that the parties surpassed their aggregate commitment by an average 2.4 GtCO2e a year, of which "hot-air" was estimated at 2.2 GtCO2e a year.

About 2.4 GtCO2e a year, of which "hot-air" was estimated at 2.2 GtCO2e a yearAggregate overachievement of first-period targets, of which "hot air"
Shishlov, Morel and Bellassen, Climate Policy, 2016, as summarised by I4CE.

Status As of October 2026: the first commitment period (2008–2012) has ended; the 2016 peer-reviewed study, as summarised by I4CE, is the finding on record.

What?
The parties to the Kyoto Protocol surpassed their aggregate first-period commitment by an average 2.4 GtCO2e a year; of the possible explanations, "hot-air" was estimated at 2.2 GtCO2e a year, according to a peer-reviewed study summarised by I4CE. I4CE
Where?
Annex B parties to the Kyoto Protocol I4CE
When?
First commitment period, 2008–2012 I4CE
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
None on record
Harmed
None on record
Why?
The SEI working paper states that most of the 13 billion AAU surplus that accumulated in the first commitment period is due to weak reduction targets. Stockholm Environment Institute
How?
Parties' compliance with first-period targets was analysed in a peer-reviewed article in Climate Policy (2016). I4CE
5 of 6 questions answered from the record · open: who

What happened

The record, in order.

The Kyoto Protocol entered into force on 16 February 2005 and had 192 parties, according to the UN Treaty Collection. The United States signed on 12 November 1998 and never ratified; Australia ratified on 12 December 2007; Canada notified its withdrawal on 15 December 2011, effective 15 December 2012. The first commitment period ran from 2008 to 2012.

A peer-reviewed article by Shishlov, Morel and Bellassen in Climate Policy (2016), on compliance of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period, is summarised by I4CE. It found that all Annex B parties complied with their first-period (2008–12) targets and that, of the 36 countries that fully participated, nine emitted more than committed and had to resort to flexibility mechanisms. The parties surpassed their aggregate commitment by an average 2.4 GtCO2e a year; of the possible explanations for this overachievement, "hot-air" was estimated at 2.2 GtCO2e a year, while accounting rules for land use, land-use change and forestry removed a further 0.4 GtCO2e a year from the net result. The summary adds that the hypothetical participation of the US and Canada would have reduced the overachievement by a net 1 GtCO2e a year.

A 2015 Stockholm Environment Institute working paper estimated that Ukraine had accumulated "an AAU surplus of more than 2.5 billion AAUs, representing almost 57% of its total CP1 assigned amount" and that Russia had accumulated about 5.7 billion AAUs, 34% of its total assigned amount. It stated that most of the 13 billion AAU surplus that accumulated in the first commitment period was due to weak reduction targets. The Doha decision of 2012 limits the use of first-period surplus assigned amount units in the second commitment period; Russia did not join the second period. The sources reviewed do not state how the SEI estimates relate to the study's 2.2 GtCO2e a year figure.

  1. 1998United States signs the Kyoto Protocol (12 November); it never ratifies
  2. 2005Protocol enters into force (16 February)
  3. 2007Australia ratifies (12 December)
  4. 2008First commitment period begins (2008–2012)
  5. 2011Canada notifies its withdrawal (15 December), effective 15 December 2012
  6. 2012Doha decision limits the use of first-period surplus units in the second period; Russia does not join the second period (SEI, 2015)
  7. 2016Shishlov, Morel and Bellassen publish the compliance analysis in Climate Policy

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

    Recorded

    • All Annex B parties complied with first-period (2008–12) targets; among the 36 countries that fully participated, nine emitted more than committed and had to resort to flexibility mechanisms (I4CE summary of the Climate Policy article).
      I4CE
    • The parties to the Protocol surpassed their aggregate commitment by an average 2.4 GtCO2e a year; of the possible explanations, "hot-air" was estimated at 2.2 GtCO2e a year (I4CE summary of the Climate Policy article).
      I4CE
    • SEI estimated that Ukraine accumulated an AAU surplus of more than 2.5 billion AAUs, almost 57% of its total first-period assigned amount, and that Russia accumulated about 5.7 billion AAUs, 34% of its total assigned amount.
      Stockholm Environment Institute

    In nature's name

    What was promised in nature's name, the money that moved, and what was measured.

    What was measured

    Measured below the promise

    A peer-reviewed analysis, as summarised by I4CE, assessed compliance, not atmospheric change. It found every Annex B party complied and that most of the aggregate overachievement was "hot air". The sources reviewed do not give the reduction implied by the targets, so the shortfall against that promise is not quantified here.

    Aggregate overachievement of first-period targets
    About 2.4 GtCO2e a year (average, aggregate)
    Shishlov, Morel and Bellassen, Climate Policy, 2016, as summarised by I4CE I4CE
    Of which "hot air"
    About 2.2 GtCO2e a year
    Same study I4CE
    Annex B parties that complied with first-period targets
    All; of 36 fully participating countries, nine had to resort to flexibility mechanisms
    Same study I4CE

    Operation Ended · First commitment period 2008–2012; the Doha decision (2012) limits the use of first-period surplus units in the second period, which Russia did not join. Stockholm Environment Institute

    Findings on record

    • Peer-reviewed study Shishlov, Morel and Bellassen, Climate Policy (peer-reviewed), summarised by I4CE (2016) · Article on compliance of the parties to the Kyoto Protocol in the first commitment period I4CE

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
    Peer-reviewed findingNo court case

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Court

    Record

    • None on record The I4CE page is a summary; the article's own text is not among the sources reviewed.
    • Insufficient Unconfirmed: a secondary report of the study attributes "hot air" mostly to the collapse of industry in post-Soviet countries; neither the I4CE page nor the SEI paper states this.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not applicable: no harm to nature is recorded in the sources reviewed.

    Who paid?

    The sources reviewed give no programme-wide cost for the first commitment period.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts— Press and investigations— Communities and civil society✓ Researchers✓ International bodies

    Researchers

    International bodies

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
    Similar cases
    Law, regulation and treaties · Mekong basin · date not stated
    Four Mekong dams trap an average 81% of sediment, Reuters reports
    Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesSame countryHarm to nature not measured
    Law, regulation and treaties · European Union · 2018
    EU bans three neonicotinoid pesticides outdoors in 2018; Turkey follows in part
    Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesSame countryHarm to nature not measured
    Law, regulation and treaties · European Union · 2025
    European Parliament votes to downgrade wolf protection
    Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesSame countryHarm to nature not measured
    Law, regulation and treaties · European Union · 2022
    EU Deforestation Regulation delays and trade pressure
    Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesSame regionHarm to nature not measured
    Law, regulation and treaties · European Union · 2024–2026
    EU narrows supply-chain law and delays deforestation rule twice
    Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesSame regionHarm to nature not measured
    Law, regulation and treaties · Greenland · 2009–2014
    Danish opinion piece reports Greenland seal exports down 90 per cent
    Same type: Law, regulation and treatiesSame regionHarm to nature not measured