The politics of climate change explained
Fred Pearce charts a course through the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to bring it into force
What is the Kyoto Protocol?
It is the first legally binding treaty aimed at cutting emissions of the main greenhouse gases believed to contribute to global warming. More than 150 nations signed it back in December 1997 at a meeting in Kyoto. But they left much of the detail about how it would be implemented to future talks. These dragged on, reaching a crisis in The Hague in November 2000, when the US and the European Union failed to agree and talks broke down. George W. Bush was installed as President soon afterwards, and announced that he was pulling the US out of the deal altogether. Since the US is the source of a quarter of emissions of greenhouse gases that was a big blow, but the other nations decided to carry on and they finally reached agreement in Marrakech in November 2001.
Under the terms of the protocol, industrialised nations have committed themselves to a range of targets to reduce emissions between 1990, the base year, and 2010. World targets range from an average 8 per cent cut for most of Europe to a maximum 10 per cent increase for Iceland and an 8 per cent increase for Australia. (The US originally committed itself to a 7 per cent cut). The members of the European Union have agreed to share out their entitlement so that countries such as Ireland and Greece can increase their emissions while Britain, Germany and some others face tougher cuts.
The next step is the ratification of the treaty in national legislatures. Only when the great majority of industrial nations have ratified will the protocol come into legal force. Many countries, including the European Union, have promised to do this by August 2002. But in early 2002 Russia and Japan still seemed to be wavering.
Why did it take so long to sort out the small print of the deal?
Everyone got in a tangle over the so-called "flexibility mechanisms" that were intended to make the targets more attainable. When it came to it, the governments couldn't find enough common ground. In retrospect, that's hardly surprising, given the complexities involved and the loose language of the original agreement in Kyoto.
The Kyoto talks agreed that countries could meet some targets by encouraging the natural environment to soak up more CO2 rather than by cutting emissions. Top of the list of these so-called "carbon sinks" was forest planting. Countries could qualify for carbon credits by planting forests that soaked up CO2. They could offset these credits against higher emissions. The trouble was that the European Union came into the talks believing that these activities should be a small part of meeting targets, whereas the US, Russia, Canada and some other countries thought they should be a major part. The latter group largely got its way, even though the US withdrew from proceedings.
It was finally agreed that countries will be able to claim some carbon credits for planting forests in developing countries. And they will also be able to allow countries to claim credit for activities such as soil conservation, which will allow more carbon to be soaked up in soils.
How does that work?
The idea is that soil conservation initiatives, such as low-till farming, could trap more carbon in the soil. Deep ploughing allows oxygen deep into soils, speeding up the decay of organic matter and the release of CO2. Less ploughing slows these processes. By using these methods countries such as Canada and Australia believe they can soak up tens of millions of tonnes of carbon each year by 2010.
Is carbon trading part of the deal?
Yes, very much so. On the face of it, countries ought to clear up their own messes. Countries that emit large amounts of greenhouse gases ought to make the biggest reductions. But, in terms of cost effectiveness, that may not be the best way forward. Some countries can reduce their emissions much more cheaply than others. A country with lots of potential for wind power or other sources of renewable energy, for instance, might develop them on a large scale. They could reduce their emissions far more than required under Kyoto Protocol targets. Carbon trading will allow them to do this and then sell any spare rights to emit CO2 to a country with fewer of these options. But the fear is that some countries may find themselves with spare credits to sell just because their economies have slowed down, which would undermine the whole purpose of the protocol.
Is this the hot air issue?
Correct. At Kyoto, Russia and Ukraine were given the right to emit as much greenhouse gas in 2010 as they did in 1990, the year after the Berlin Wall fell. But since then their industries have collapsed and today their emissions are as much as 30 per cent below 1990 levels.
Environmentalists have dubbed this "hot air". Japan, Canada and perhaps others would like to buy up Russia's spare permits. During the talks in The Hague, Russia promised to invest any money it made from these transactions in clean energy. But sceptics still see hot-air trading as a Trojan Horse for undermining the protocol.
What other options do industrialised countries have to take action abroad?
The main one is the Clean Development Mechanism. This allows industrialised countries to claim credit for various activities in developing countries. It could become a major engine for getting clean energy technologies into poorer countries, so heading them off the dirty path to industrialisation that the rich nations took. After a long battle, it was decided nuclear energy will not qualify for the list of approved technologies under this mechanism. And the rules are biased towards small energy projects - solar cell systems, for example.
© Copyright Reed Business Information Ltd.