Figures 1 illustrates the impact of uncertainty on compliance under the Kyoto Protocol (Track I). Track I refers to 2010 (commitment year) and situations when countries comply, or do not comply, with their commitments. The figure distinguishes four cases to visualize the difference between: A) no compliance; B) ‘perfect’ compliance when we can judge with equal confidence (50%) that a country’s true emissions fall above or below its Kyoto (emissions) target [KT]; C) undershooting of KT with a risk > 0 and < 0.5 that a country’s true emissions fall above its KT; and D) undershooting of KT with zero risk that a country’s true emissions fall above its KT.
Fig. 1: Track I: compliance mode. The four countries (Parties) A–D under the Kyoto Protocol exhibit identical GHG emissions and uncertainties in their base year (here 1990 for all) and also an identical Kyoto (emissions) target [KT] in the commitment year (2010). Track I refers to 2010. Here, Party A complies with its KT while Parties B–D do not. Party A: above KT, no compliance; Party B: compliance with a chance of 50% that Party B’s true emissions fall above or below its KT; Party C: ‘over-compliance’ with a risk > 0 and < 0.5 that Party C’s true emissions fall above its KT; and Party D: safe ‘over-compliance’ with zero risk that Party D’s true emissions fall above its KT.
Last edited: 22 July 2013
IMPACTS OF UNCERTAINTY
Go back to main page for
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA)
Schlossplatz 1, A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
Phone: (+43 2236) 807 0 Fax:(+43 2236) 71 313