This article will explain in more detail the differences between the two as part of the IAS audit The president`s promise to renegotiate the international climate agreement has always been a smog screen, the oil industry has a red phone at Interior, and will Trump Food Trucks bring to Old Faithful? The first difference is that, although the Kyoto Protocol has three mechanisms in place, Article 6.4 of the Paris Agreement creates only one mechanism. However, it is not yet clear what kind of mechanism will emerge or whether it is a centralized mechanism or a bottom-up support mechanism. It is also unclear whether this is a broad framework mechanism in which many possible mitigation approaches are feasible (e.g. B on a project basis, on a sector basis, on a policy basis) or if it becomes more limited. Nor is it certain whether it will be a basic and credit mechanism or whether it will also include a negotiating mechanism.  However, it seems reasonable to assume that Article 6(4) will not include a centralised emissions trading scheme, as this would require, at international level, the imposition of national targets for States to enable trade and set conditions for interconnection.  Emissions trading schemes are instead covered by Article 6(1) and (2) of the Paris Agreement, which provides for the possibility for Parties to cooperate voluntarily in the implementation of their INDCs in order to allow for greater ambition in their mitigation measures, including by using internationally transferred mitigation results (ITMs) for national contributions. Indeed, an EIT requires the adoption of national targets at international level, as well as a large number of rules to enable trade and link systems, and these decisions are not compatible with the architecture of the Paris Agreement, which focuses on INDCs. Therefore, while Article 6(2) essentially forms the basis for the creation of the Inter-Country Emissions Trading Scheme and the interconnection of national Emissions Trading Schemes, with ITMs being the new currency, the only conditions imposed by Article 6(2) are that the schemes promote sustainable development and environmental integrity and do not lead to double counting. The Kyoto Protocol, a pioneering environmental agreement adopted at COP3 in Japan in 1997, is the first time that nations have agreed on legal country-specific emission reduction targets. The protocol, which only entered into force in 2005, set binding emission reduction targets only for industrialized countries, arguing that they were responsible for most of the world`s high greenhouse gas emissions. The United States initially signed the agreement, but never ratified it; President George W. Bush argued that the deal would hurt the U.S.
economy because developing countries like China and India would not be involved. Without the participation of these three countries, the effectiveness of the treaty has proven limited, as its objectives cover only a small fraction of all global emissions. . . .