To encourage nations to strive to beat their targets,particularly in the early years of the agreement,it was decided to break the life of the agreement into two phases. The first “commitment period” lasted between 2008 and 2012,and the second from 2012 to 2020.

Those nations that beat their targets in the first phase could then “carry over” credit for the greenhouse gasses they did not emit during the first phase to meet their second phase target. In other words,they received credits for gases they could have emitted but didn't. These have come to be referred to as Kyoto carryover credits.

So,is the government right? It performed better than expected and has credits up its sleeve?

No. At Kyoto,Australia cemented its reputation as a tough negotiator against ambitious emissions reductions. After long and intense negotiations in 1997,Europe promised to reduce its emissions by 8 per cent of its 1990 level in the first phase (2008 to 2012). The United States agreed to cut emissions by 7 per cent,Japan and Canada by 6 per cent. Australia negotiated an increase of 8 per cent. At the time,Labor’s environment spokesman,Duncan Kerr,described the task given to Australia at Kyoto as a “three-inch putt”,prompting the academic and climate commentatorClive Hamilton to suggest that Australia could “barely miss” its target with even the slightest of effort.

Further,Australia insisted on the inclusion of emission reductions achieved by falling levels of land clearing. Because there had been a spike in the amount of land cleared in 1990 followed by a sharp decline,Australia’s overall emissions could rise by 28 per cent based on 1990 levels while still constituting an 8 per cent increase under the terms of the treaty.

Greenpeace called this “the Australia clause”.

The relative weakness of the Kyoto Protocol in general,though,meant Australia was not unique in exceeding its target. What made Australia stand out,however,was that among other rich world over-achievers such as Germany,New Zealand,Sweden and the UK it is the only one not to have voluntarily ruled out cancelling its carryover credits.

Well,whatever they were,did we beat our Kyoto targets?

Yes. On July 1,Energy and Emissions Reductions Minister Angus Taylor announced that Australia would beat its negotiated target by up to 430 million tonnes of greenhouse gasses – around 80 per cent of a full year’s emissions.

“Australia has over-achieved on our Kyoto-era commitments – this is something all Australians can be proud of,” he said.

In December,the official figures were released with an estimate that Australia would beat its 2020 target by 459 million tonnes including carryover credits,and would beat it by 316 million tonneswithoutrelying on those credits. So these 316 million tonnes are what the government believes it could use as “carryover credits” to help meet its 2030 targets in the Paris Agreement.

If that is what the negotiators agreed on,isn’t the government still right to carry over credits from Kyoto into the Paris Agreement?

No – not according to Australia’s critics,anyway. The Kyoto Protocol is ending as a legal instrument in 2020,to be replaced with the Paris Agreement,which was negotiated in 2015.

The treaty has different signatories and different"accounting"mechanisms.

The concept of carryover credits was designed for use between the two phases of the Kyoto treaty alone. To carry credits from the Kyoto treaty into the Paris Agreement would simply be “cheating”,says Christiana Figueres,who was executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change from 2010 to 2016.

“If you go as a tennis player to the Australian Open and you get your final score and your final standing,do you then progress to Wimbledon and pick up the scores that you had from the Australian Open? It just doesn’t make any sense,"Figueres toldThe Australian Financial Review in March.

"It is not legal,it is not correct,it is not moral. It is cheating,period.”

A group of nine Australian law professors wrote to Prime Minister Scott Morrison in March to voice similar concerns,though in slightly more diplomatic language.

“Kyoto came to an end. Paris is a completely different approach. It's a new architecture where things start fresh,"said one the signatories,University of Sydney professor of international law Tim Stephens.

As a result,while the government might be celebrating its success in meeting its targets without Kyoto carryover credits,international observers are less impressed.

Lesley Hughes,climate scientist and pro-vice chancellor at Macquarie University,explains,“It's like your child coming home from school and expecting praise when they announced that they've decided not to cheat in their exams.”

So would a decision not to use Kyoto credits make any difference at all?

Professor Hughes believes it does. To extend her analogy,it is good that Australia seems to have decided not to cheat in its exams. More importantly,it suggests to her that climate diplomacy is slowly beginning to take effect – that even if the treaties so far agreed upon are not yet strong enough to hold global warming to under 2 degrees,they are causing reluctant nations to begin to engage with the issue.