Kyoto Protocol (京都議定書)
Kyoto Protocol refers to a protocol adopted at the 3rd Session of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Kyoto Conference on Climate Change, COP3) held at Kyoto International Conference Center on December 11, 1997, according to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The formal name is Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
Details of the Agreements
As for the greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), Fluorocarbons (HFCs, PFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), which are the causes of global warming, developed countries agreed to set reduction rates of emissions with respect to the 1990 levels respectively, and collaboratively aim to achieve the target rates within the committed period (see the reduction target).
However, according to Article 3.7 of Kyoto protocol, each participating nation is supposed to choose the year 1995 as a base year for HFCs, PFCs and sulfur hexafluoride reduction. This regulation is valid only within the framework of Kyoto Protocol. According to United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which is a superordinate concept of Kyoto Protocol, the base year, or the reference year must be 1990 for the participating countries except a part of economically developing countries. Therefore, it should be noted that different increase-decrease rates for the last couple of years relative to the reference year of the greenhouse gas emissions are sometimes announced between the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto protocol. In Japan, increase-decrease rates relative to the reference year of Kyoto Protocol are always indicated. On the other hand, in Conference of Parties (COP), increase-decrease rates relative to the reference year of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change are often indicated.
Also, Kyoto Mechanism (Clean Development Mechanism, Emissions Trading (ET), Joint Implementation (JT)) and activities for sinks are included.
And particulars of the operation were decided at Seventh Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP7, Marrakesh Conference) in 2001.
Reduction target
Reduction targets of six greenhouse gases set for each country in Kyoto Protocol. Article 3 of the Kyoto Protocol states a target in which the total amount of emissions of the six greenhouse gases in the developed countries should be reduced by at least 5% compared to that of 1990 during the period of 2008 through 2012, and in Article 4 it is stated that the total amount of emissions of carbon dioxide and other five gases the amount of which is expressed in the equivalent value of carbon dioxide should be reduced so that the emissions does not exceed the following assigned target values.
92% (-8%) - Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italia, Latvia, Principality of Liechtenstein, Republic of Lithuania, Luxemburg, Principality of Monaco, Holland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (European Union 15 countries)
93% (-7%) - The United States of America (defection)
94% (-6%) - Canada, Hungary, Japan, Poland
95% (-5%) - Croatia
100% (±0%) - New Zealand, Russia, Ukraine
101% (+1%) - Norway
108% (+8%) - Australia
110% (+10%) - Iceland
European Community is admitted to reduce collectively (bubble) under Article 4 of Kyoto Protocol. In the bubble system adopted by Europe, individual reduction targets are assigned to each of 15 countries in European Community by the EU directive. Under the EU directive, Scandinavian countries, which have reduced the amount of emissions generated from fossil fuel by not only depending on technology but also lessening use of fossil fuel since the time before the formulation of Kyoto Protocol, are evaluated for their emissions reduction achievements and allowed to have lower reduction targets (p.84) in the Kyoto Protocol, for example, Sweden's target is +4%.
Compliance
As for duties subscribed by United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol, in order to make the duties fulfilled, regulations which would function as penalties were set up.
Specifically, they were decided in COP7 and COP/moP1, and the compliance committee, which deliberates and judges questions arising, was established; in addition, the following measures are expected to be taken when incompliance takes place.
Non-compliance with reporting requirements
Each country has to collect and report basic figures to estimate the fluctuation of the amounts of various emissions and of forest absorption, which are necessary for the management of emission amount of greenhouse gases by United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and Kyoto Protocol (Articles 3 and 7 of Kyoto Protocol, obligation of information report). If there is a serious problem in the report, the country will lose the qualification to join the Kyoto Mechanisms.
Non-compliance with emission allowances
In the case of exceeding the emissions allowance prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol (the reduction target has not been achieved), the following mesures are taken.
The amount exceeding the emissions allowance is increased by 30% and then is subtracted from the next emissions allowance (added on the next obligation value of reduction).
Furthermore, emission allowances cannot be sold in the emissions trading.
Effectuation condition
Both of the following two conditions should be met for effectuation of the protocol (Article 25 of Kyoto protocol).
Not less than 55 countries have ratified the protocol.
The total amount of carbon dioxide emissions of Annex I Parties which have signed the treaty (developed countries, cooperative countries with a positive stance) in 1990 accounts for equal to or more than 55% of the total amount of that of all Annex I Parties.
As for the latter condition, the United States of America, which emits the largest amount of gfreenhouse gases in the world, suspends the ratification because of its domestic situation at present.
Voluntary participations of developing countries were shelved because they thought they had to emit a large amount of carbon dioxide as long as they pursued economical development, and the United States of America, which was positive at first, rejected to accept the protocol, further Russian Federation suspended the ratification; accordingly, Kyoto Protocol was not effected until around 2004.
In 2004 Russia ratified the protocol and on February 16, 2005, the protocol became effective.
The United States of America, the only non-party member of the Kyoto Protocol among the developed countries, is accused domestically and internationally of seeking only economical benefits of the U.S. industries and refusing to commit the duty. However in Australia, which had not ratified the Kyoto Protocol likewise, change of government took place through a nationwide election and immediately after that the new government ratified the protocol on December 3, 2007.
In Japan, the Diet approved the ratification of the protocol on May 31, 2002, then Japan deposited the document of acceptance with the United Nations on June 4, 2004.
The number of signatory and ratification countries.
The signatory countries: 84 countries.
The ratification countries: 172 countries
The amount of emissions: 63.7 %.
The countries which signed and ratified the protocol: 81 countries.
Ireland, Argentine, Antigua and Barbuda, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Israel, Italia, Indonesia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Uruguay, Ecuador, Egypt, Estonia, El Salvador, Australia, Austria, Holland, Canada, Republic of Korea, Cuba, Greece, Guatemala, Cook Islands, Costa Rica, Samoa, Zambia, Switzerland, Sweden, Spain, Slovakia, Slovenia, Republic of Seychelles, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saint Lucia, Solomon Islands, Thailand, Czech Republic, China, Republic of Chile, Tuvalu, Denmark, Germany, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Turkmenistan, Niue, Republic of Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Republic of Panama, Independent State of Papua New Guinea, Republic of Paraguay, Republic of the Fiji Islands, Republic of the Philippines, Finland, Brazil, France, Bulgaria, Vietnam, Peru, Belgium, Poland, Bolivia, Portugal, Honduras, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of Mali, Marta, Malaysia, Micronesia, Mexico, Monaco, Maldives, Latvia, Lithuania, Principality of Liechtenstein, Romania, Luxemburg, Russian Federation, (European Union)
The countries which only signed: 3 countries.
The United States of America, Republic of Kazakhstan, Croatia
The countries which only ratified the protocol: 92 countries.
Iceland, Republic of Azerbaijan, United Arab Emirates, Algeria, Albania, Almenia, Yemen, Iran, India, Uganda, Ethiopia, Eritoria, Oman, Gaiana, Republic of Ghana, Republic of Cape Verde, Qatar, Gabonese Republic, Republic of Cameroon, Republic of The Gambia, Cambodia, North Korea, Republic of Guinea, Republic of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Cyprus, Republic of Kiribati, Kyrgyz Republic, State of Kuwait, Georgia, Grenada, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Cote d'Ivoire, Republic of Congo, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Republic of Colombia, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Djibouti, Jamaica, Syrian Arab Republic, Singapore, Sudan, Republic of Suriname, Sri Lanka, Kingdom of Swaziland, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Senegal, United Republic of Tanzania, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Togo, Commonwealth of Dominica, Dominican Republic, Nigeria, Republic of Nauru, Republic of Namibia, Nepal, Haiti, Pakistan, Republic of Vanuatu, Commonwealth of The Bahamas, Republic of Palau, Kingdom of Bahrain, Barbados, Hungary, People's Republic of Bangladesh, Butan, Burkina Faso, Republic of Burundi, Republic of Benin, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Republic of Belarus, Belize, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republic of Botswana, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Malawi, Republic of South Africa, Union of Myanmar, Republic of Mauritius, Islamic Republic of Mauritania, Republic of Mozambique, Republic of Moldova, Kingdom of Morocco, Mongolia, Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lao People's Democratic Republic, Libya, Republic of Liberia, Republic of Rwanda, Kingdom of Lesotho, Republic of Lebanon
Note 1) is Annex I Parties of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Note 2) European Union: among EU membership, old 15 countries (before the expansion in May 2004) owe -8% reduction target collaboratively as EU bubble.
As of December 3, 2007.
And in America, which refuses to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, 219 cities have ratified it under their own authority.
Kyoto Mechanisms
The term refers to provisions to ease the reduction of greenhouse gases such as tree planting activities, activities abroad, International Emissions Trading and so on, except for merely domestic activities of emissions reduction, and is also called flexibility mechanisms. In general, it refers to three mechanisms: Clean Development, International Emissions Trading, and Joint Implementation, but it sometimes includes activities for sinks.
Clean Development Mechanism
Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is a mechanism in which developed countries support developing countries in fields such as technology and finance so as to reduce the amount of emissions of greenhouse gases and/or carry out activities to increase the amount of carbon dioxide absorption; and a certain amount of the consequently reduced emissions can be used partly as an amount of emissions of greenhouse gases in the developed countries.
Developed countries can reduce the amount at a low cost and developing countries can get the provision of technology and money as a counter value.
Emissions Trading
Emissions Trading (ET) is a mechanism which allows the following four types of carbon credit trades. They are also called "Emissions Trading," "Emissions Permits Trading," or "Emissions Warrants Trading."
AAU (Assigned Amount Unit) - emission allowances assigned to each country.
RMU (Removal Unit) - amount of absorption by activities for sources of absorption (activities for sinks).
ERU (Emission Reduction Unit) - credit issued in JI.
CER (Certified Emission Reduction) - credit issued in CDM.
These carbon credits are traded in a unit of ton of carbon dioxide. The credits, provided by the countries which have succeeded in emissions reduction to meet the allowance or by activities for emissions reduction, can be bought by the countries which have emitted the gases over the emissions allowance and are regarded as compliance with the emissions allowance.
Two effects are taken into consideration, that is, the countries which have difficulty in reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases can realize it at low cost, whereas the countries not having difficulty in reducing the emissions can achieve remuneration for the emissions reduction in large quantities.
Although the Kyoto Protocol defines the emissions trading to be carried out only among countries, the tradings are being done domestically in individual countries where the emissions reduction can be realized more effectively. However, there is an issue how to assign the upper limits of emissions fairly and impartially, and if assigned uniformly, it can be disadvantageous to enterprises which have already realized the emissions reduction with their efforts. Accordingly, the method to purchase the right of emissions at auction is spreading, meanwhile there are issues such that getting an initial fund for purchase is a considerable burden and a management risk arises caused by the fluctuation of prices.
And in Marrakesh agreements of 2001 the right of emissions is supposed not to be given and European Union also does not admit the right of emissions. Originally this system was intended to arouse a further intention of emissions reduction promoted by the benefits of trading through the reduction of emissions, but conversely, it is pointed out that the system can lessen essentially needed efforts to reduce the emissions in the following cases: the amount of emissions of the past becomes vested interest or the like depending on a way of assigning the emissions allowances; if the market price of carbon credit becomes lower than the cost of exchange from fossil fuel to renewable energy or of emissions reduction by using energy-saving material.
Also with escalation in interest these days, the amount of emissions reduction verified by the third-party institution (VER: Verified Emissions Reduction) is being traded among private sectors (see Carbon Offset, Green Electricity Certificate and so on); note that these trades are made in general out of the framework of the Kyoto Mechanisms.
Joint Implementation
Joint Implementation (JI) refers to a system in which an advanced country of investment (a country which invests) reduces the amount of greenhouse gases emissions in a host advanced country of investment (a country where the activities are carried out); and the reduction of emissions achieved there (ERU: Emission Reduction Unit) is traded among these advanced countries. That is, the total emissions amount of the whole advanced countries does not fluctuate.
Activities for sources of absorption (activities for sinks)
In the activities for sinks, increase in the amount of sinks for carbon dioxide brought by tree planting and so on after 1990 is converted and added on the emissions reduction of greenhouse gases. Meanwhile decrease in forests, which are sources of absorption, caused by urbanization and/or conversion to agricultural lands and so on is converted and added on the amount of increase in the emissions. In Kyoto Protocol of United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, it is called Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).
Specifically, the following activities are prescribed (Kyoto Protocol, Article 3.3).
Afforestation (to plant trees newly in the land where there have not been forests in the past fifty years).
Reforestation (to plant trees in the land which was not a forest before 1990).
Deforestation (forests are converted to the other uses).
They are called ARD activities, ARD being the acronym of the activities mentioned above.
In addition, in the Marrakesh agreements, the use of "forest management," "pastureland management," and "vegetation management" was also approved (Kyoto Protocol, Article 3.4). Accordingly, existing forests which have been appropriately managed since 1990 can be put into the amount as a sink. Japan and Canada, who thought it difficult to achieve the goal of obligation and whose green coverage ratio is relatively high, insisted the adoption and eventually approved.
Summary
As for the reduction amount 6% of Japan, it is based on the reference year 1990 (reference year of CFC's substitute is 1995). And in the goal achievement plan of Kyoto Protocol, the reduction targets are decided for each factor of measures against global warming. If the goal is not achieved, the country is expected to be punished, for instance, a penalty is imposed to be added on the reduction target after 2013. However, the domestic emissions amount in 2007 is conversely larger than that of the reference year by 9.0% and about 15% reduction from the present state is necessary. While having gone into the commitment period, effective measures have not been taken at all and the emissions amount in 2007 is larger by 2.4% than that of the previous year and does not seem to decrease at all. It is worried that Japan may have to purchase the right of emissions of seven hundred billion yen, or depending on the situation, of several trillion yen, to satisfy the commitment.
Details of each measurement
(Each target level was approved by the Cabinet in April 28, 2005, a part of this was changed in July 11, 2006 and a figure in parentheses () is a target level of emissions amount as of 2010 in two million tons CO2 equivalent).
The reduction of carbon dioxide emissions related with energy consumption +0.6% (1,056)
Western countries such as European Union, having a higher reduction target than Japan, aggressively promote the suppress of the emissions, while in Japan, the emissions amount increases not by +0.6% but by +8%, and in spite of facing such a situation, the government authority cannot take effective measures at present.
The emissions amount from factories and so on has achieved the allotted target and is in decline, but the increase of emissions from transportation operations (in business and so on) and civilian sectors has been prominent, and in particular due to a huge increase of cars, the emissions from private cars dramatically increased by +52.6% as of 2004 and accounted for 16% in the total emissions amount nationwide.
As measures against cars, business operations and civilian sectors, emissions from which tend to increase rather than decrease, the introduction of environmental taxes has been under consideration recently. As for a carbon tax in particular, among environmental taxes, conventionally external expenses are internalized by the method of direct taxation against the emissions of carbon dioxide, that is, it has a role of correcting the failure of a market, where an environmental burden is not considered so far in a market economy because of the externality against environmental pollutions.
It directly exerts influence on waste of fossil fuels at cars, civilian sectors and so on, which has hugely increased with no restraint, sets up the framework for widely imposing economic burdens, depending on the amount of emissions, on industries, individuals and so on, and consequently, according to the market principle, directly drives the suppression of emissions from the sectors mentioned above. Therefore, researchers and the Ministry of the Environment, which advocate this idea, consider it to be very effective for the reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide.
As mentioned above, a carbon tax does not aim at factories or the like, but intends to effectively drive the suppression of the emissions from private cars, civilian sectors and so on. However, Japan Federation of Employers' Associations strongly opposes the tax, saying that the reduction amounts have been accumulated by corporate efforts at factories and so on, and the Associations and the like actively lobby the governing party; thus the understanding for environmental taxes has not spread enough so that the introduction of the tax is not yet in sight.
The reduction of emissions of carbon dioxide which generates in non-energy fields: -0.3% (70)
Some carbon dioxide is emitted during a processing stage of an industrial product such as cement, and the reduction of such emissions is planned by using mixed cement and so on.
The suppression of emissions of Methane and nitrous oxide: -0.4% (20), -0.5% (34)
The main emissions sources are wastes, sludge and so on, and the suppression of emissions from these sources and improvement in the process of handling these materials are under consideration to reduce the emissions of the gas.
The suppression of emissions of CFC's substitute: +0.1% (51)
This material is mainly used as a cooling medium, and its reduction is up to plans and activities of the industry.
The securement of forests as a source of absorption: -3.9% (-48)
The anchor effect of carbon dioxide is expected through the growth of well-managed forests and it accounts for the largest part in the reduction list. Specifically, it is supposed to secure the next, or future forests.
The forests which have been properly managed (grass establishment, weeding and brushing, improvement cutting, tree thinning and so on) since 1990.
The forests which are protected and preserved by the regulations of tree trimming and diversion and so on according to the decrees and so on.
However in Japan, there is little land for newly tree planting, and the mountain forests and farmlands increase, in which management has been abandoned by the forest owners (especially artificial forests) and/or disposition or diversion to building lots has been inevitably done in order to complete the inheritance tax payment; furthermore, the policies of the ruling party put a clock back, such as the enforcement of autonomous bodies where the taxations on productive green area farmlands are differently dealt with, the reduction of budget for keeping conservation forests, the large reduction of the staff in Forestry Agency and so on; therefore, it is considered to be difficult to achieve the absorption target initially expected.
For example, Forestry Agency has announced that tree thinning will be carried out in three million and three hundred thousand hectares in six years from 2007 to 2012 to achieve the reduction target. The amount of the area accounts for 13.3% of the total forest area in Japan.
The reduction by emission trading and licensing of technology: -1.6% (-20).
As for the reduction by emission trading and licensing of technology, rulemaking has recently been in process as in the Kyoto Mechanisms.
Status of each country
The increase-decrease rates of emissions of greenhouse gases from 1990 to 2005 in the countries and regions (Annex I Parties) being obliged to achieve the reduction goals are shown below.
The reducing obligation is not imposed on the United States of America because it has not ratified Kyoto Protocol yet.
The figure of Greece is from the document submitted in 2006.
Discussions on Kyoto Protocol
There are various kinds of discussions on measures against global warming and Kyoto Protocol. Among them, as for specific measures and numerical goals for the reduction of greenhouse gases, there are lots of clashes of opinions among countries and also among individuals. Also, with respect to the necessity or effect of Kyoto Protocol, there are lots of skepticism (opinions taking a skeptical view), but many of them lack credibility.
Discussions inside Japan.
The following are discussions in Japan on the reducing obligation in the Kyoto Protocol.
An opinion saying "the Protocol was politically biased in the process of ratification and effectuation" is heard here and there along with the following views: setting 1990 as the reference year was to give time to Russia for ratification, which is quite a political consideration; Japan has implemented world's leading environmental measures particularly in the industry, but is required for a high reduction level of 6%.
However, even though Japan has implemented world's leading environmental measures particularly in the industrial field, the per capita emissions amount of greenhouse gases originating from fossil fuel is still high and Japan has not achieved the reduction goal of emissions of greenhouse gases in fact.
Japan, the host country of Kyoto conference, was pressured to make the conference be a success by public opinions at home and from overseas. There were two kinds of expectations: Ministry of the Foreign Affairs' expectation to organize the conference orderly and Ministry of the Environment's expectation to accelerate the environmental measures in Japan.
Japan's numerical goal of -6% was brought in through a political agreement at a non-official meeting between Japan, America and Europe, and the agreement between America and Japan was intended for encouraging developing countries to join the conference. However, as the U.S. Senate had adopted the Byrd-Hegel Resolution, the Senate had decided not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in the case where any incident which holds true with the article 3 of the resolution takes place such as absence of developing countries. Also, Europe, Russia and America had simulated previously whether or not the numerical goals could be achieved and the influence on the economy based on the energy situation of each country, but Japan agreed on 6% without deep consideration.
Around 2007 when it was whispered that it seemed unlikely for Japan to achieve the goal, some critics or individuals began to claim a conspiracy theory that Kyoto Protocol itself was a political pressure from Western countries (it is a groundless theory and is far from even being skepticism because it is based on the issue which was once discussed and consequently lost its supporters).
When a conference of Post Kyoto Protocol was about to begin, the following claims came out mainly from the interest groups relating to the steel industry: necessity of reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases could be understandable, however, in the Japanese steel industry, which emits the largest amount of carbon dioxide, there was no room for the reduction because the industry's energy efficiency had almost reached the technological limit, therefore further burdens of emissions reduction should be borne by countries other than Japan.
It is nonsense to discuss the per capita emission amount of greenhouse gases of Japan by comparison with that of a developing country whose industry is immature, accordingly, the present regulations are unfair to Japan.
Discussions on the effects
The following discussions are made as for the effects of Kyoto Protocol.
Countries such as People's Republic of China and India, which were regarded as developing countries at the time of ratification, have economically developed steadily afterward and they have come to produced a massive amount of greenhouse gases to be the world's top-class emitter due to their inefficient energy policies; accordingly, it is problematic that they have not undertaken any obligation in spite of such a situation. However, developing countries strongly insist that "it is unfair for developing countries to undertake the obligation to reduce the emission amount of carbon dioxide voluntarily on the basis of the outcome brought about by developed countries," and the task to establish the next scheme for Kyoto Protocol has regrettably made little progress, and some people say that Kyoto Protocol is transient and will probably end up as a failure.
->It is a fact that the emission amount of developing countries such as China, India and so on is increasing, but in 2007, even in China, which is said to be comparable to the United States of America, the largest emitter in the world, the per capita emission amount is about 1/4 of the United States; this makes things difficult, in other words, the reduction rate of a country whose per capita emission amount is large is not enough. And the above descriptions comes from the comparison in a single year emission amount and if compared in accumulated emission amounts, the difference will be obviously bigger; therefore, industrially developed countries such as EU and the like took the lead in ratification of the Kyoto Protocol.
In addition, there is discussion on easing measures against global warming. See the discussions on the dispute and easing technique on global warming.
Effect of Kyoto Protocol
Even if America joins now, some point out that, the temperature increase issue will improve only by 0.15 degrees Celsius by 2100, a sea surface elevation of only 2.5 centimeters will be prevented, that is, "the effect is such that global warming is slowed by about six years," and "the effect is limited if Kyoto Protocol is conservatively observed;" however, the Kyoto Protocol is considered to be a valuable achievement to some extent despite the above harsh comments.
Skepticism on the global warming issue
There are various kinds of skepticism on credibility or influence of the global warming, but the tendencies are limited to a few, and they are deniable in general and have little credibility.
There are many theories, some of which are not convincing and some of which point out the difference in degree of the progress of global warming; in summary, any of them does not show a scientific ground for denying the influence of global warning caused by greenhouse gases originated from fossil fuel.
The world after Kyoto Protocol.
As for the framework defined by Kyoto Protocol after 2012, international meetings are being held to set a "Post Kyoto Protocol."
America has come back to the conference because of the upsurge of domestic public opinion, however, the following issue of conflict between America and other developed countries is pointed out: America, while objecting to the present framework, opposes to Japan, Russia, Australia and so on, which negotiate for the treaty revision, and also opposes to EU, which aims to promote the present framework and to reduce the emissions led by developed countries.
And developing countries ask for the reduction led by the side of developed countries, technology transfer, financing help and so on, but in the setting of reduction target of their own countries, they point out a large size of accumulated emission amounts (see the right graph), then oppose to the developed countries, saying "developed countries are responsible for global warming."