Carbon reduction scenarios are associated with high costs. It is estimated that the Gross Domestic Product of the United States for 2010 will be reduced by about $400 billion to meet the requirements of the Protocol by 2010 without prohibiting emissions trading with less developed countries. Emission reductions can be achieved in several ways, para. B example by imposing a tax on carbon emissions, by completely switching from coal fuels to natural gas for electricity production and from oil to natural gas for transport, by limiting petrol consumption through oil price increases, etc. According to the EIA, compliance with the requirements of the protocol will increase average household energy costs by $1740 in 2010. A few decades ago, few would have predicted that it would be a matter of paying countries to protect or plant forests to sequester carbon – or harvest methane, a very powerful warming gas, from huge landfills. These things are happening now. And it is likely that even if there is never a “Kyoto child”, many of the ideas tested will find their way into the politics of the future. As many experts have said, Kyoto is a modest but necessary first step.
In 2011, Canada, Japan and Russia declared that they would no longer adopt Kyoto targets.  On December 12, 2011, with effect from December 15, 2012, the Canadian government announced its possible withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol at any time three years after its ratification.  Canada had committed to reducing its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% below 1990 levels by 2012, but in 2009 emissions were 17% higher than in 1990. The Harper administration prioritized oil sands development in Alberta and deprioritized the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Environment Minister Peter Kent stressed Canada`s responsibility for “huge financial penalties” under the treaty if it does not withdraw.   He also suggested that the recently signed Durban Agreement could provide another way forward.  The Harper government has stated that it will find a “made in Canada” solution. Canada`s decision received a generally negative response from representatives of other countries that ratified it.  The introduction of new energy-efficient technologies, such as fuel cell vehicles, is unlikely to significantly reduce CO2 emissions as early as 2010. Probably the most cost-effective way to reduce carbon emissions is a large-scale shift to nuclear power generation, perhaps at levels above 50%, made a few years ago in France, Japan and other developed countries.
An important directive in the agreement calls for the reduction of global greenhouse gas emissions in order to limit the increase in the Earth`s temperature this century to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, while taking steps to limit the increase to 1.5 degrees. The Paris Agreement also provides an opportunity for developed countries to support developing countries in their efforts to adapt to climate control, and it provides a framework for transparent monitoring and reporting on countries` climate goals. Gupta et al. (2007) evaluated the climate policy literature. They noted that no authoritative assessment of the UNFCCC or its Protocol stated that these agreements had solved or would successfully solve the climate problem.  These assessments assumed that the UNFCCC or its protocol would not be amended. The Framework Convention and its Protocol contain provisions for future policy measures. In several large developing countries and fast-growing economies (China, India, Thailand, Indonesia, Egypt and Iran), greenhouse gas emissions have increased rapidly (PBL, 2009).  For example, emissions in China increased sharply between 1990 and 2005, often by more than 10% per year. Per capita emissions in non-Annex I countries remain for the most part significantly lower than in developed countries.
Non-Annex I countries do not have quantitative emission reduction commitments, but they do commit to mitigation measures. China, for example, had a national policy agenda to reduce emissions growth that included shutting down old, less efficient coal-fired power plants. In 2001, a follow-up to the previous meeting (COP6-bis) took place in Bonn, where the necessary decisions were taken. .