The Kyoto Protocol Sample Clauses

The Kyoto Protocol. Project Design Means a detailed description of the Project to be submitted for Validation Document (PDD): prepared in accordance with the Kyoto Rules, the UFG and the Directive and attached as Annex III. The Purchaser will be responsible for providing PDD development for Registration of the Project.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3See All (5)
AutoNDA by SimpleDocs
The Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted in December 1997 at the Third Conference of the Parties held in Kyoto. The Kyoto Protocol requires stronger commitments from parties to achieve quantified emission reductions within a specific timeframe. These commitments cover the six greenhouse gases listed in Annex A of the Kyoto Protocol (Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, Hydrochlorocarbons, Perfluorocarbons and Sulphur hexafluoride). Relevance Athi Water Services Board and the contractor will be required to carry out regular inspection and maintenance of construction equipment in order to reduce the levels of green house gas emissions into the atmosphere, the design of the sewer ponds should ensure that the anaerobic ponds are covered to trap the methane gas which should be cleaned and used appropriately as renewable energy.
Sample 1Sample 2Sample 3
The Kyoto Protocol. Interna- tional climate change policy for the 21st century. Berlin and New York: Springer. X’Xxxxxx, X. (1994). On the misadventures of capitalist nature. In
Sample 1Sample 2
The Kyoto Protocol results Parties that committed themselves under the Kyoto Protocol to reduce greenhouse gas emissions were actively implementing mitigation measures: increased the share of low-carbon and renewable fuels, improved energy efficiency, etc. Non-commit- xxx parties noticeably increased their emissions (by several times). It can be easily illustrated by the growth of emissions in certain dynamically develop- ing countries (Table 4). e Table 3. Primary energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide emission from the combustion of anthropogenic fuel by the largest world emitters in 2012 [11, 12] Table 4. Primary energy Consumption behavior and Carbon Dioxide emission rates from the combustion of anthropogenic fuel in the devel- oping countries [11, 12] Country Primary energy Consumption, Exajoules CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, million tonnes of CO2 1990 2012 1990 0000 Xxxxxx 4.56 7.71 257.0 459.5 South Africa 3.70 5.14 243.8 422.3 Republic of Korea 3.82 11.54 231.8 575.5 Brazil 5.36 11.69 184.5 424.1 Iran, Islamic Rep. 3.04 9.41 171.2 514.5 Saudi Arabia 3.34 9.76 151.1 463.4 Indonesia 2.20 7.27 131.3 451.1 Table 5. Primary energy Consumption and Carbon Dioxide emission from the combustion of anthropogenic fuel by the largest world emitters in 2018 [11, 12] Country Primary energy Consumption, Exajoules CO2 emissions from fuel combustion, million tonnes of CO2 Fuel Coal Oil Gas United States 95.60 4 921.1 1 270.0 2 031.3 1 600.7 Russian Federation 30.04 1 587.0 411.2 303.0 838.0 China 135.77 9 570.8 7 637.2 1 374.7 525.9 Japan 18.84 1 080.7 431.3 384.1 228.4 Germany 13.44 696.1 273.1 233.3 171.1 Ukraine 3.54 181.8 97.6 28.5 55.8 United Kingdom 7.96 352.4 31.3 157.8 158.0 India 33.30 2 307.8 1 628.0 595.1 83.4 Mexico 7.83 448.5 48.3 243.9 155.8 South Africa 5.30 428.0 350.0 73.5 4.5 Republic of Korea 12.55 605.8 315.3 158.9 114.0 Brazil 12.13 406.3 63.9 274.0 68.4 Iran, Islamic Rep. 11.83 579.6 5.4 191.4 382.7 Saudi Arabia 10.91 491.7 0 318.3 173.4 Indonesia 8.23 542.9 221.9 238.1 82.4 From 1990 to 2012, energy consumption in Iran, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and the Republic of Korea increased by ∼200%. At the same time, CO2 emis- sions increased in Iran, Indonesia and Saudi Arabia by ∼200%, and in the Republic of Korea by ∼150%. Primary fuel consumption has grown significantly in Brazil ∼120%, Mexico ∼70% and South Africa ∼40%. Greenhouse gas emissions in these countries have already exceeded those of the United Kingdom.
Sample 1
The Kyoto Protocol. The UNFCCC, specifically, the first and second COPs paved the way for the negotiation of a precise protocol with requisite commitments, the Kyoto Protocol. Through the eight meetings by the ad hoc group on the Berlin Mandate, which were to discuss and develop the overall framework and precise provisions of the new instrument, a draft text to begin the negotiation process at COP3 was created (Breidenich et al., 1998:319). Following ten days of intense negotiation with this draft text provided by the group, Parties at the third COP at Kyoto, Japan, on December 11, 1997 adopted the Kyoto Protocol (Bodansky, 2001; Boyd, Corbera, & Xxxxxxx, 2008; Breidenich et al., 1998; Xxxxx, 2004; Xxxxx & Yamin, 2001). The Protocol was “hailed as the greatest achievement of modern environmental diplomacy” by some observers (Xxxxx and Yamin 2001: 262). At the heart of this Protocol are differentiated commitments (legally binding targets) by industrialized (Annex 1) countries to decrease their GHG emissions by 5.2 per cent with 1990 as the base year (Xxxxxxx et al., 2010; Xxxxx & Yamin, 2001; Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxx, 2007). This was premised on principles of equity and social justice related to both their disproportionally large historical and current contributions to atmospheric GHG concentrations as well as the fact that the enormous wealth and technological capacity they possess place them in a better position to take on GHG mitigation goals (Xxxxxxxx, 2008). These quantitative emission targets did not include developing countries, in other words, developing countries were not assigned quantifiable emission targets under the protocol; it only slightly builds upon the existing commitments of these countries that existed under the UNFCCC (Xxxxx & Yamin, 2001). This is congruent with the decision in the Berlin Mandate at COP-1 that “no new commitments would be negotiated for developing countries as part of the process” (Breidenich et al 1998:319). Although the divide between developing and developed counties epitomized the principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR), which is at the core of UNFCCC, the sharp divide failed to address significant future mitigation issues by emerging emitters who at the time were still classified as developing countries (Xxxxxxx et al., 2010). This issue partly caused US non-ratification of the protocol and would even come back to bite the regime in COP 15 at Copenhagen (Ibid). The negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol, both among the part...
Sample 1
The Kyoto Protocol. An Assessment In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol entered into force without the participation of the United States.97 Despite U.S. withdrawal, the parties hailed this as a milestone in the global effort to mitigate climate change.98 This does not, however, deter scholars from severely criticizing the Kyoto Protocol. Specifically, scholars argue that under the current provisions of the Protocol, impacts on global emissions will be negligible. For example, Xxxxxxxx and Stavins maintain: “[b]ecause the Kyoto Protocol’s ambitious targets apply only to the short term (2008-2012) and only to industrialized nations, the agreement will impose relatively high costs and generate only modest short-term benefits, while failing to provide a real solution.”99 While this condemnation has enjoyed widespread support among scholars, the most common criticism of the Kyoto Protocol can be summarized in four propositions: infra-red radiation, close to the earth’s surface. Thus, an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to increased warming, which in turn is adversely effecting the earth’s fragile environment. Harmful chemicals that have led to increased greenhouse gas concentrations include: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons (regulated by Montreal), and other halogenated substances such as CFCs and HCFCs. 92. HUNTER, XXXXXXX & XXXXXX, supra note 41, at 632.
Sample 1

Related to The Kyoto Protocol

  • Protocol No action to coerce or censor or penalize any negotiation participant shall be made or implied by any other member as a result of participation in the negotiation process.

  • Recognition of U.S. Special Resolution Regimes (i) In the event a Covered Party becomes subject to a proceeding under a U.S. Special Resolution Regime, the transfer of this Agreement (and any interest and obligation in or under, and any property securing, this Agreement) from such Covered Party will be effective to the same extent as the transfer would be effective under the U.S. Special Resolution Regime if this Agreement (and any interest and obligation in or under, and any property securing, this Agreement) were governed by the laws of the United States or a State of the United States.

  • Recognition of the U.S. Special Resolution Regimes (a) In the event that any Underwriter that is a Covered Entity becomes subject to a proceeding under a U.S. Special Resolution Regime, the transfer from such Underwriter of this Agreement, and any interest and obligation in or under this Agreement, will be effective to the same extent as the transfer would be effective under the U.S. Special Resolution Regime if this Agreement, and any such interest and obligation, were governed by the laws of the United States or a state of the United States.

  • Advertising and Promotional Materials The Purchaser acknowledges and agrees that the Vendor shall have the right to use drawings, photographs, videos or other depictions of the interior and/or exterior of the Dwelling and/or the Subdivision or any components or features thereof in any promotional or advertising materials without notice to or consent from the Purchaser being required in any manner whatsoever.

  • Marketing Plan The MCP shall submit an annual marketing plan to ODM that includes all planned activities for promoting membership in or increasing awareness of the MCP. The marketing plan submission shall include an attestation by the MCP that the plan is accurate is not intended to mislead, confuse or defraud the eligible individuals or ODM.

  • Technical Specifications The Technical Specifications furnished on the CD are intended to establish the standards for quality, performance and technical requirements for all labor, workmanship, material, methods and equipment necessary to complete the Work. When specifications and drawings are provided or referenced by the County, these are to be considered part of the Scope of Work, and to be specifically documented in the Detailed Scope of Work. For convenience, the County supplied specifications, if any, and the Technical Specifications furnished on the CD.

  • Statement of Work The Contractor shall provide the services and staff, and otherwise do all things necessary for or incidental to the performance of work, as set forth below:

  • Clinical Data and Regulatory Compliance The preclinical tests and clinical trials, and other studies (collectively, “studies”) that are described in, or the results of which are referred to in, Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package or the Prospectus were and, if still pending, are being conducted in all material respects in accordance with applicable laws, rules, regulations and policies of the Food and Drug Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the “FDA”) or any committee thereof or of any other U.S. or foreign government or drug or medical device regulatory agency, or health care facility Institutional Review Board; each description of the results of such studies is accurate and complete in all material respects and fairly presents the data derived from such studies, and the Company and its subsidiaries have no knowledge of any other studies the results of which are materially inconsistent with, or otherwise call into question, the results described or referred to in the Registration Statement, the Pricing Disclosure Package or the Prospectus; for such studies that have been or are being conducted, the Company and its subsidiaries have made all such filings and obtained all such approvals as may be required by foreign government or drug or medical device regulatory agencies, or foreign health care facility Institutional Review Boards; and no investigational new drug application filed by or on behalf of the Company or any of its subsidiaries with the FDA has been terminated or suspended by the FDA, and neither the FDA nor any applicable foreign regulatory agency has commenced, or, to the knowledge of the Company, threatened to initiate, any action to place a clinical hold order on, or otherwise terminate, delay or suspend, any proposed or ongoing studies conducted or proposed to be conducted by or on behalf of the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

Time is Money Join Law Insider Premium to draft better contracts faster.