|
|
| |
| |
Date Published: 22/10/01
Author: Simon Retallack Just as the Kyoto Protocol appeared to be knocking at death’s door, governments claim to have resurrected it. But what exactly has been saved, and what action if any will emerge? Simon Retallack reports. |
 |
Following the jubilation that greeted the outcome of the UN climate negotiations in Bonn in July, anyone would be forgiven for assuming that climate change had been licked. ‘It’s a brilliant day for the environment,’ gushed the British Environment Minister, Michael Meacher. ‘We have delivered probably the most comprehensive and difficult agreement in human history,’ said New Zealand delegate Peter Hodgson. ‘We can go home and look our children in the eye and feel proud of what we have done,’ proclaimed EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom. The cause of this euphoria? The rather arcane pleasure of completing the operating rules for the Kyoto Protocol. For the world’s environment ministers – who had spent four years trying but failing to finish the job, and an even longer ten years talking about climate change but achieving little – this was reason to celebrate. In the cold light of day, however, what does this deal mean? What will it actually deliver?
The answer is, far less than the environment ministers meeting in Bonn would have us believe. The Kyoto Protocol, as it was originally conceived in 1997, was never going to solve climate change, but it was a start. Its most important innovation was that it required industrialised countries to accept legally-binding targets to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The total reduction required, however, was of only 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2012 – far less than the immediate cut of over 60 per cent that climatologists say would be necessary to keep greenhouse gases at safe levels.(1) Now, though, even this modest target has been significantly weakened.
THE US LANDS THE FIRST HIT
The single largest blow to the Kyoto Protocol has been the decision of President George W Bush earlier this year to pull the US out altogether. This means that Kyoto has lost from its ambit the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases, which, as a result, is no longer legally bound to reduce its contribution to climate change.
The new Bush administration justified this decision on the grounds that the Protocol was ‘fatally flawed’ and ‘unfair’ because ‘It exempts developing nations and is not in the United States’ economic best interests.’(2)
These arguments are bogus. The US, with just five per cent of the world’s population, produces a quarter of the world’s carbon emissions, more than any other country:
11 times more per head of population than China, 20 times more than India, and 300 times more than Mozambique.(3) The US and other industrialised countries are responsible, without a shadow of a doubt, for the vast majority of the historic increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that is causing climate change and which already is wreaking destruction upon developing countries. It is, therefore, only right that the US and other industrialised countries should act first to reduce their emissions.
In any case, in raw geo-political terms, there is no alternative. Developing country governments would reject outright any demand that they should cut their much lower emissions as a precondition of US action.
The claim that Kyoto would damage US economic interests is misplaced too. If US companies lose any economic advantage it will be because the US does not reduce its emissions as agreed in Kyoto. In the wake of the OPEC oil price hikes in the 1970s, US car manufacturers lost market share to foreign competitors producing more fuel-efficient cars. The same dynamic could play itself out again now in the vehicle and clean energy sectors, with European and Japanese manufacturers taking the lead in developing the technologies of the future.
From a climatic perspective too, it is clearly inaction to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that will cause the greatest economic damage. Already, insurance companies estimate that the bill for severe weather in the 1990s worldwide was $480 billion, with economic and insured losses over that period increasing by a factor of 8 and 15 respectively.(4) If these rates are projected into the future in comparison to a standard growth in GDP of 3 per cent a year, by 2065, the world would become bankrupt, as damages would outstrip global earnings. (5)
But such reasoning cuts little ice with the Bush administration. Bush is acting, it is strongly suspected, to protect the short-term financial interests of polluting fossil fuel companies, with which he and his cabinet have very close ties. Oil, gas, coal and utility companies donated about $50 million to the Republican party’s election campaign in 2000.(6) Moreover, the President, Vice President, Commerce Secretary, and National Security Advisor, all either owned, ran, or worked for oil companies. The White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, meanwhile, worked as the chief lobbyist for the largest car makers in the US, and at least 15 other officials who have been appointed or nominated have ties to the energy and auto industries. Clearly, fossil fuel interests now no longer need to lobby the US government; they are the government.
It is probably no coincidence, then, that the Bush Administration has withdrawn the US from Kyoto, nor that it has refused to accept a cap on US CO2 emissions, pledged a massive expansion in fossil fuel production and proposed cuts to renewables and energy efficiency programmes.
The climatic consequences of all of these decisions will be appalling, as US emissions soar. This has not only rendered Kyoto much less effective as a means of reducing industrialised country emissions – of which the US is responsible for over one-third – but it has opened the door for the Kyoto Protocol to be weakened yet further.
OPENING THE DOOR TO RANSOM
For the Protocol to come into force and become legally binding, it needs to be ratified, by early September 2002, by the parliaments or legislatures of at least 55 countries, including those industrialised countries which contributed at least 55 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions in 1990.
So far, of the major emitters, only European governments have publicly pledged to ratify. If the Kyoto Protocol is to survive without the US though, it also requires ratification by Canada, Australia, Russia, or Japan, all close US allies throughout the negotiations who, as some of the world’s largest exporters, or, in the case of Japan, importers of fossil fuels, have always sought to keep obligations to reduce emissions to a minimum.
As soon as the US withdrew, the governments of these countries refused to clarify whether or not they would follow the US lead and pull out too. They then proceeded to exploit their new-found leverage by demanding large concessions that would water down the whole agreement.
The situation came to a head as the world’s environment ministers gathered in Bonn on 19 July to try to finalise Kyoto’s operating rules. This was a crucial meeting. If it--failed, the most recalcitrant countries would be able to claim that they didn’t have enough time to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by the targets they agreed in Kyoto, and the Protocol would collapse by default. After having failed to complete the task the previous November in the Hague and desperate to salvage his reputation, the chairman of the talks, Jan Pronk, the Dutch Environment and Development minister, was determined to do everything possible to ensure a deal.
In a bid to persuade enough countries to ratify the Protocol, Pronk produced a negotiating text – on a take-it-or-leave-it basis – which recognised almost all the demands for concessions made by Japan, Canada, Australia and Russia. Convinced that these countries might walk away unless they were given what they wanted, and anxious to avoid being blamed for bringing the talks down themselves, the ministers of the European Union conceded almost all of their long-standing concerns and agreed to a text shot through with loopholes.
LOOPHOLES TRIUMPH
Under the terms of the deal agreed in Bonn, countries are faced with no requirement to achieve the majority of their reduction targets by taking measures to reduce emissions (from cars, homes, and industry) domestically. Such action, the agreement says, shall constitute simply ‘a significant element’ of the effort made. Unrestricted use may therefore be made of so-called ‘flexible’ trading mechanisms to achieve target cuts, with countries free to buy the excess quotas of countries which live below their limit, or to pay other countries to undertake emission-reducing activities for them and use the credits generated (as under the Clean Development Mechanism).
Particularly hazardous climatically is the lack of any restriction in the Bonn agreement on the amount of carbon credits that can be sold from countries like Russia and Ukraine, whose industrial collapse has left them with vast surpluses, quite by accident. By being traded, that carbon or ‘hot air’ will simply end up back in the atmosphere, taking levels higher than they would otherwise have been.
Perhaps even more damagingly, the agreement allows for the substantial use of so-called ‘sinks’ as a means of meeting emission targets. As part of their emission reduction effort, countries can include carbon supposedly absorbed by the planting of new trees, as well from changes undertaken since 1990 in the ‘management’ of forests, croplands and grasslands, and through re-vegetation.
The only one of these activities whose use as a means of emission reduction is capped under the Bonn accord is forest management, and even then, the cap applies on a country-by-country basis, with very generous allocations awarded to some of the largest emitters. Japan, for example, is allowed to use forest management to write-off 13 million tonnes of carbon from its total emissions. So by using this technique alone, instead of making an emissions cut of 6 per cent below 1990 levels as originally agreed, Japan will only have to make a cut of 2 per cent. Canada’s allocation is even greater, allowing it to increase its emissions by 4 per cent instead of cutting them by 6 per cent.
To make matters worse, most of these sink activities have also been included in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), enabling industrialised countries to earn carbon credits by paying industrialising ones to undertake sink-related projects.
The use of sinks in any of these ways is hugely problematic. Their presence in the CDM could lead to the spread of large plantations that threaten biodiversity and indigenous communities. More worryingly in climatic terms, carbon sequestration by trees, plants and soils is still a very uncertain and unreliable science, as absorption is hard to measure and because trees fall victim to fire and rot as temperatures rise, releasing carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere in the process. Moreover, forest and farm land management practices are allowed under the Bonn agreement that have already taken place since 1990 and would therefore be likely to continue regardless of the Kyoto Protocol, generating no real emission reductions.
The combined effect of these loopholes and the US withdrawal is devastating to the ability of the Kyoto Protocol to reduce the emissions of industrialised countries as originally intended. According to an analysis by Greenpeace International, existing loopholes and the use of sinks could transform a 5 per cent cut into an increase in emissions of 0.3 per cent over 1990 levels. Add in unrestricted use of Russian ‘hot air’ and the figure rises to between 5.6 and 8.4 per cent.(7)
This is still somewhat lower than where the emissions of industrialised countries would be in 2012 on a business-as-usual basis, so some effort would still need to be made to reduce emissions. However, without US participation, Russian ‘hot air’ (which the US almost certainly would have bought had it ratified Kyoto) would now be available to be purchased by other industrialised countries. Consequently, in the words of Greenpeace, ‘the targets for emission reductions by Annex B [ie industrialised] countries could be effectively nullified.’ In fact, it would allow ‘an increase of greenhouse gas emissions beyond that which would otherwise occur’.(8)
WHAT IS THERE TO CELEBRATE?
Yet, the outcome of the meeting in Bonn was celebrated not just by government ministers, but by most environmental organisations. Jennifer Morgan, Director of WWF’s Climate Change Campaign, for example, described the agreement as ‘a geopolitical earthquake,’ and ‘a giant leap for humanity’.
Were they all on a different planet, a realm of make-believe? Their rhetoric was certainly overblown; most likely the product of seeing something they had all worked on tirelessly for years, and become so close to, saved from the dead. Delight at having isolated the US played a role too, with the Iranian Ambassador to the UN, Bagher Asadi, for example, proclaiming the deal ‘a triumph over unilateralism.’
But prod beyond that, and most green non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and European environment ministers recognise that the deal is much weaker than they had hoped. As Olivier Deleuze, the EU’s chief negotiator at the talks and Belgium’s Energy Minister conceded: ‘We know it is not enough. It is a very prudent first step.’ But, he added, ‘I prefer an imperfect agreement than none at all.’ Kate Hampton, of Friends of the Earth, concurs. ‘This, obviously, is totally inadequate. However, given the political realities, I think it is probably all that we could have achieved.’
NGOs, nonetheless, are optimistic that the Bonn agreement will still force countries to reduce their emissions below business-as-usual levels, because they think it unlikely that all the loopholes will be used. They predict that Russia will not put all of its surplus carbon on the global market because that would undermine its value and hence their earnings. They also expect the Russian government to adopt a Green Investment Scheme to ring fence ‘hot air’ revenues for investment in emissions reduction projects. Climate groups are also pledging to campaign to pressure governments to publicly forgo the use of loopholes such as ‘hot air’ and sinks. That may be a forlorn hope with countries such as Australia and Canada who may still not even ratify the Kyoto Protocol, but the EU may be susceptible to such pressure.
Most importantly perhaps, the revellers in Bonn believe that the deal agreed there provides a ‘sound legal architecture,’ in the words of WWF, upon which to build future global action to reduce emissions, or, as Bill Hare of Greenpeace describes it, an ‘essential ladder,’ in which ‘the Kyoto Protocol and the Bonn rules to implement it are the first step on what has to be a long climb.’ For them, the very fact that an agreement was reached, that the Kyoto Protocol has survived sends an invaluable signal to industry. It tells it, rightly or not, that we have entered a carbon-constrained world in which the cost of fossil fuel-based energy will rise, and that they need to begin investing in clean and efficient technologies that will reduce the threat of climate change. We can only hope that the campaigners are right.
WHAT HISTORY WILL SAY
Once the final technical details of the agreement are hammered out in Marrakech in early November, the deal reached in Bonn does make it likely that Japan and Russia will now ratify the Kyoto Protocol, ensuring enough support for it to come into force by 2002. But it still falls far, far short of what is required if we’re to have a hope of successfully mitigating climate change. Its loopholes render its already inadequate reduction targets potentially non-existent, and it still exempts the world’s largest emitter.
It is now highly unlikely that the US will rejoin the Protocol under George W Bush. The best that can be hoped for in the US over the next four to eight years is the introduction of domestic measures designed to cap US emissions. Before the terrorist attacks of 11 September, some momentum was building in Congress for such initiatives, but now, legislative priorities clearly lie elsewhere, and may even lead to an increase in US emissions.
The verdict of future historians on the wisdom of the current generation of political stewards is likely to be harsh. Of the meeting in Bonn in July 2001 they are likely to record that a Protocol named after the Japanese city of Kyoto may have been rescued, but the world’s climate was not.
Kyoto may help change behaviour, particularly among investors. But its greatest value may well be this: to teach us that we can’t rely on governments to solve even the most grave of our problems.
In the end, it’s probably down to us.
Simon Retallack is managing editor of The Ecologist special issues and is co-director of the Climate Initiatives Fund.
BOX 1 HOW MOST COUNTRIES EMISSIONS ARE RISING
At Rio in 1992, industrialised countries pledged to stabilise their emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Most have failed to do so. US greenhouse gas emissions are now 11.2 per cent over 1990 levels; Japan’s are 9.7 per cent over; Canada’s are 13.2 per cent over; and Australia’s 14.5 per cent over.(9)
Only the emissions of the European Union were at 1990 levels in 2000, and that had very little to do with the introduction of measures designed to mitigate climate change, but rather one-off, coincidental events that produced emission reductions in the EU’s two largest emitters – Germany (after re-unification) and in the UK (following the ‘dash to gas,’ and the closure of coal-fired power plants). In almost every other EU country, emissions have risen since 1990, and even in Britain and Germany, emission began to rise again in 2000 because of increased use of coal.(10)
Unsurprisingly therefore, very few countries are on track to meet the formal targets they agreed at Kyoto to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2008-2012. Instead of reducing its emissions by 7 per cent below 1990 levels, under current policies, the US is projected to increase them by 23 per cent by 2010. Instead of a 6 per cent cut, Japan is heading for a 20 per cent increase and Canada, an 18 per cent increase.(11) And the European Commission estimates that member states’ existing policies and measures would at best reduce the EU’s overall greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 to 1.4 per cent below 1990 levels, not the 8 per cent required by Kyoto.(12)
BOX 2 - THE BUSH ENERGY PLAN : A FOSSIL FUEL BONANZA
President George W Bush’s National Energy Policy calls for a massive boost in the use of fossil fuels that will increase US emissions by an estimated 35 per cent.(13) The plan states that, over 20 years, ‘America must have in place between 1,300 and 1,900 new electric plants,’ most of which will be fuelled by natural gas.(14)
The plan also recommends ‘easing’ regulations which slow the siting and licensing of power plants and gas refineries. In particular, it calls for a review of regulations for coal-fired power plants which impose strict air emissions limits.(15)
President Bush has also said: ‘We need more oil, and we should produce more of it at home.’(16) His energy plan therefore proposes opening parts of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to oil and gas exploration, along with other federal lands, including parts of the Rocky Mountains.
Even more perversely, the Bush energy plan actually cuts resources for renewable alternatives to fossil fuels by 27 per cent.(17) While pledging an 813 per cent increase in funding for research into coal technology, funding for solar research is slated to be slashed by 53.7 per cent and fuel cell research by 14.3 per cent. Investment in actual wind and solar projects, meanwhile, would decline by 49 per cent.(18)
The Bush Administration also pledges to cut federal investment in energy efficiency by 7 per cent.(19) According to the Vice President, ‘Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy.’(20)
Following pressure from the US fossil fuel industry and several large unions, the House of Representatives has already passed Bush’s energy plan, allocating it a budget of $33 billion. The chances of the Senate following suit are growing, as the terrorist attacks on the US are being used by figures such as Senator Frank Murkowski, a Republican from Alaska, to call for increased domestic fossil fuel production as a means of becoming ‘less dependent on unstable foreign sources of energy.’
BOX 3 - WHAT IS THE UK DOING TO REDUCE EMISSIONS?
The Blair government in the UK has set itself targets for reducing CO2 emissions by 23 per cent below 1990 levels and for producing 10 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by 2010. However, neither of these goals may be reached.
Spending on research and development in renewable energy has fallen by 81 per cent from 1987–1998, and since the Blair Government took office in 1997, public spending on renewables has declined by 57 per cent, to a total of £58.5 million,(21) leaving renewables’ contribution to electricity generation at just 0.4 per cent.(22) The Government has pledged to spend £260 million on renewables from 2001–2003, but that is still only a third of what was spent to build the Millennium Dome, and just 0.07 per cent of total government expenditure.(23)
A Royal Society report on renewable energy finds that in relation to offshore wind, tidal, wave and solar energy, ‘none of these is currently being exploited to a significant extent.’(24) Solar photovoltaic cells, for example, can be found on the roofs of just 166 buildings in the UK.(25)
In Britain, as in many other countries, the electricity market is distorted in a way that makes it harder for renewable technologies to compete. Complicated and costly grid connection and permit requirements have to be met, discriminatory planning application rules overcome, and tariff systems put up with that pay less for renewable energy being supplied to the grid than utilities may charge for their electricity. There is also a lack of sufficient grants or low-interest loans for the purchase and installation of renewable energy systems, such as solar PV for buildings.
The Government has introduced a tax on energy use in industry, the Climate Change Levy, to promote the conservation of energy, but it has allowed companies with high energy use to claim 80 per cent discounts in exchange for voluntary targets.(26) The tax also exempts household electricity consumption – responsible for a quarter of UK CO2 emissions. And in the transport sector, the government has dropped its tax escalator on petrol and has so far spent 37 per cent more on roads than on railways (while pledging to spend £60 billion on roads and rail each, over 10 years).(27)
That, together with a decade of little progress in the fuel efficiency of cars, has meant that road traffic remains the UK’s fastest growing source of CO2. Traffic levels increased by 12 per cent between 1990 and 1998. They are forecast to grow by another 17 per cent by 2010, and 48 per cent by 2026.(28)
Moreover, the imperative to mitigate climate change has not dissuaded the Government from continuing to provide £17 million a year in subsidies to fossil fuel companies,(29) grant nine new licenses for off-shore oil drilling in the North Sea,(30) or provide £3 billion in annual subsidies to industrial agriculture while setting aside just 0.7 per cent of that figure to develop more ‘climate-friendly’ organic farming.(31)
The maintenance of such damaging inconsistencies is still all too common among governments worldwide.
BOX 4 - SUCCESS STORIES
With political will, success has been proved possible. China has reduced its CO2 emissions by between 8.5 and 17 per cent between 1997 and 1999, despite economic growth estimated at 36 per cent over the same period. These reductions were achieved by promoting energy conservation and efficiency, tax reforms and reducing coal subsidies. The upper estimate is equal to the 400 million tonnes of carbon that the entire US transportation sector emitted in 2000.(32)
The goals of two other countries also clearly demonstrate that far-reaching change is deemed possible. The government of Iceland has pledged to use hydrogen fuel-cell technology to replace fossil fuels entirely by 2030, and Denmark plans to use wind to generate half of the country’s electricity by 2030.(33)
BOX 5 INSTEAD OF BLOWING $60 BILLION ON STAR WARS...
The Bush administration is planning to spend at least $60 billion over 15 years on an anti-missile defence system which would have done nothing to prevent the attacks on 11 September. If this sum was diverted to support renewable energy...
* The electricity needs of 40 million average US households could be supplied from wind energy, displacing 350 million metric tonnes of CO2 annually, and offsetting around a third of US residential sector emissions;(34)
* 1.5 billion families in the developing world could receive solar cookers, dramatically reducing the use of wood as a cooking fuel.(35)
REFERENCES
1. Report of Working Group I for the First Assessment
Report of the IPCC, 1990.
2. President Bush’s spokesman, Ari Fleischer, cited in: ‘Bush “no” to Kyoto puts treaty at risk,’ The Financial Times, 29 March, 2001.
3. Kevin A Baumert and Nancy Kete: The US, Developing Countries, and Climate Protection: Leadership or Stalemate? World Resources Institute, Washington DC, June 2001.
4. A Meyer and T Cooper: ‘Why convergence and contraction are key,’ Environmental Finance, May 2000.
5. Julian Salt: ‘Why the insurers should wake up,’ Environmental Finance, September 2000.
6. The Centre for Responsive Politics, Election Cycle 2000, Top Contributors.
7. Malte Meinshausen and Bill Hare: ‘Extended quantitative analysis of the COP-6 President’s text,’ Greenpeace, June 2001, pp 2-3.
8. ibid, p 8.
9. ‘Emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, PFCs and SF6 1990–1998, excluding CO2 emissions/removals from land-use change and forestry.’ Report on national green house gas inventory data from Annex I Parties for 1990 to 1998: Table B1, (UNFCCC/SBI/2000/11).
10. ibid, and ‘EU greenhouse gas emissions down 4%, more cuts needed – EEA.’ European Environment Agency. News Release. Copenhagen, 20 April 2001.
11. Second compilation and synthesis of second national communications: Table C6, (FCCC/1998/11/Add.2)
12. ‘Energy experts say EU may not meet Kyoto target,’ Reuters, May 23, 2001.
13. National Environmental Trust, USA.
14. ‘National Energy Policy,’ May 2001. ‘The Bush-Cheney Energy Plan: How it Fares in the 21st Century’ The Energy Foundation, May 2001.
15. Bush-Cheney Energy Plan, Energy Foundation May 2001.
16. Power up the Power Plants, David Whitman, May 21 2001
17. US Federal Budget and Appropriations records, cited by the Sustainable Energy Coalition
18. ibid.
19. US Federal Budget and Appropriations records, cited by the Sustainable Energy Coalition.
20. ‘US Sticking With Fossil Fuels, Cheney Says,’ Environmental News Service, 1 May, 2001.
21. Christopher Wright from the Department of Trade and Industry in correspondence with Matilda Lee.
22. This figure excludes large-scale hydroelectric plants, landfill gas and incineration. Source: 'The role of the Renewables Directive in meeting Kyoto targets', October 2000, Royal Society document 11/00 ISBN 0 85403 548 6 published jointly with the Royal Academy of Engineering.
23. The Millennium Dome cost over £750 million and the Government’s total managed expenditure was £371.6 billion in 2000. Sources: Environmental News Service, ‘UK Sets Sights on Solar Powered Future,’ 26 March, 2001; and Sustainable Development Commission: Spending Review 2000 and Sustainable Development. Background note for members: Sustainable Development Commission.
24. Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, 22nd Report, Energy – The Changing Climate, June 2000.
25. Editorial, The Guardian, 22 June, 2001.
26. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR): Climate Change Levy – frequently asked questions and answers, fact sheet 9.
27. DETR, Transport Statistics, Great Britain, 2000 Edition.
28. DETR and quoted in Transport 2000 ‘Favourite Facts’
29. ‘Energy Subsidies in Europe’ commissioned by Greenpeace from the Institute for Environmental Studies, Vrije University in Amsterdam, 1997.
30. Simon Jeff from the Department of Trade and Industry in conversation with Matilda Lee.
31. The Soil Association, UK.
32. Kevin A Baumert and Nancy Kete: The US, Developing Countries, and Climate Protection: Leadership or Stalemate?, World Resources Institute, Washington DC, June 2001.
33. The US, Developing Countries, and Climate Protection: Leadership or Stalemate?, by Kevin A Baumert and Nancy Kete of the World Resources Institute.
34. Tom Gray of the American Wind Energy Association in conversation with Matilda Lee.
35. Kevin Porter of Solar Cookers International in conversation with Matilda Lee.
|
| |
| Back to articles related to Globalisation |
| |
 |
|
|
|
'contentbuilder is a service provided by etribes Limited - www.communitybuilder.com' |
| |
|
|
