|
The Kyoto Protocol is a proposed amendment to an international treaty on
global warming -- the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC). Countries which ratify this protocol will commit to reduce their
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which are linked to
global warming. It also reaffirms sections of the UNFCC.
The formal name of the proposed agreement is the Kyoto Protocol to the
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.
It was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature
on March 16, 1998, and closed on March 15, 1999. The treaty is expected to
come into force among signatory states if it is ratified by Russia.
Details of the treaty
According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Program:
The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which
industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of some
greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared
to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol,
this target represents a 29% cut.) The goal is to lower overall emissions
from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur
hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year
period of 2008 - 12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the
European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for
Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland.
It is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC), which was adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992). All parties
to the UNFCCC can sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to
the UNFCCC cannot. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of
the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan.
Most provisions of the Kyoto Protocol apply to developed countries,
listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC.
Financial Commitments
The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have
to pay, and supply technology to, other countries for climate-related
studies and projects. This was originally agreed in the UNFCCC.
Emissions Trading
General article: emissions trading
The protocol operates in an interesting fashion. Each Annex I country has
agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many
countries have limits that are set above their current production. These
"extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So,
for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off
its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their
targets, Canada for instance. This rewards countries that meet their
targets, and provides financial incentives to others to do so as soon as
possible.
Countries also receive credits through various shared "clean energy"
programs and "carbon sinks" in the form of forests and other systems that
remove carbon from the atmosphere.
Washington D.C.-based NGO, in their report "Getting It Right: Emerging
Markets for Storing Carbon in Forests", assumes values of $30-40/ton in the
US and $70-80/ton in Europe. On April 18, 2001, The Netherlands purchased
credits for 4 megatons of carbon dioxide emissions from Poland, Romania, and
the Czech Republic.
Status of the treaty
As of February 2002, the agreement had been ratified by 104 countries,
representing 43.9% of emissions [3]. Countries do not need to sign the
treaty in order to ratify itsigning is a symbolic act only. A total of 19
countries had signed the protocol but not ratified it. The remaining 58
parties to the UNFCCC had neither signed nor ratified the protocol.
According to the terms of the protocol, it enters into force "on the
ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the
Convention, incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in
total for at least 55 per cent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for
1990 of the Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of
ratification, acceptance, approval or accession."
Revisions
The protocol left several issues open, to be decided later by the COP.
COP6 attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in the Hague in late
2000, but was unable to reach an agreement due to disputes between the
European Union on the one hand (which favoured a tougher agreement) and the
United States, Canada, Japan and Australia on the other (which wanted the
agreement to be less demanding and more flexible).
In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting (COP6bis) was held in
Bonn where the required decisions were adopted. After some concessions, the
supporters of the protocol (led by the European Union) managed to get Japan
and Russia in as well by allowing more use of carbon dioxide sinks.
COP7 was held from 29 Oct - 9 Nov 2001 in Marrakech to establish the
final details of the protocol.
Current positions of governments
As of 2002, 104 countries have ratified the protocol, including Canada,
People's Republic of China, India, Japan, New Zealand, and the fifteen
countries of the European Union.
19 countries have signed the protocol but not ratified it. Of those eight
are Annex I countries:
- Australia (not intending to ratify)
- Croatia
- Liechtenstein
- Monaco
- Russia -- Russia is expected to ratify the treaty. (see below)
- Switzerland -- Switzerland passed the CO2 law on October 8, 1999 which
should allow it to achieve its target of 8% below 1990 levels by 2010. The
Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by the Senate but not yet by the House of
Representatives. [4] [5]
- Ukraine -- Ukraine is expected to ratify the treaty. (see below)
- United States -- The US, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, does
not intend to ratify the treaty. (see below)
Some countries that have signed but not yet ratified are: Egypt,
Indonesia, Israel, Kazakhstan, Marshall Islands, Niger, Philippines, Saint
Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Solomon Islands.
Position of the former Soviet block
The Kyoto Protocol limits emissions to a percentage increase or decrease
from their 1990 levels. Since 1990 the economies of most countries in the
former Soviet Union have collapsed, as have their greenhouse gas emissions.
Because of this, Russia should have no problem meeting its commitments
under Kyoto, as its current emission levels are substantially below its
targets. Indeed, it may be able to benefit from selling emissions credits to
other countries in the Kyoto Protocol, which are currently using more than
their target levels of emissions. For these reasons, Russia was initially
expected to ratify the treaty, which would have been sufficient to bring the
accord into force.
UN and European backers of the Kyoto Protocol who had hoped Russia would
commit to ratification were disappointed in September 2003 when at a Moscow
conference Putin indicated his reluctance to sign. Among the reasons for
this were the outspoken criticism of Russian scientists for the fundamental
scientific foundation of Kyoto - the hypothesis that CO2 is a major driver
of world climate change. Russia has committed to examining the treaty in
detail (including the science) before making a ratification decisions.[6]
The Ukrainian economy, like the Russian economy, is such that meeting
Kyoto commitments should initially be easy, and Ukraine is expected to
ratify the treaty.
Position of the European Union
On May 31, 2002, all fifteen members of the European Union deposited the
relevant ratification paperwork at the UN. The EU produces around 21% of
global greenhouse gas emissions, and has agreed to a cut, on average, to 8%
of 1990 emission levels. The EU has consistently been one of the major
supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, negotiating hard to get wavering countries
on board.
In December, 2002, the EU created a system of emissions trading in an
effort to meet these tough targets. Quotas were introduced in six key
industries: energy, steel, cement, glass, brick making, and paper/cardboard.
There are also fines for member nations that fail to meet their obligations,
starting at 40/ton of carbon dioxide in 2005, and rising to 100/ton in
2008. Current EU projections suggest that by 2008 the EU will be at 4.7%
below 1990 levels.
Position of the United States
Summary: The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has
neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is
non-binding over the United States unless ratified.
On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the
U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98),
which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not
be a signatory to any protocol that that did not include binding targets and
timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result
in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the
Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically
signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton
Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not
intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he doesn't support
the general idea, but because he is not happy with the details of the
treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries
and others. Bush said of the treaty:
"The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet,
China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol.
This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest
of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should
not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility.
To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the
issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term
goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere."
China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per
capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita),
and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China has ratified the
Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next
decade. The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that:
"By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy
efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its
carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".
In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released
the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this
report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does
not explicitly endorse the protocol.
The prospect of the US staying outside the agreement influenced a number
of other countries including Australia, Japan, and Canada to discuss whether
they should ratify the agreement, putting themselves at a competitive
disadvantage with the USA. While Japan and Canada ultimately decided to
ratify the protocol, Australia's current government has said it will not
ratify. This may change at the next change of government, as the major
opposition parties have committed to ratification if in a position to do so.
Position of Canada
On December 17, 2002, Canada ratified the treaty. This was however
opposed by groups of businesses, non-governmental climate scientists and
energy concerns, using arguments similar to those being used in the US.
However an additional twist is involved. The US is Canada's major trading
partner (and vice versa), so with Canadian companies having to pay for
emissions, and US companies not, the fear is that Canadian companies will
not be able to compete on a fair trading ground. In one example a company
can sell natural gas to the US to be burned in an electrical plant to
produce electricity. That gas, burned in the US, is not subject to "Kyoto
tax". However if that same plant were operated in Canada, the gas would be
taxed as it was burned. That would result in the same electricity costing
more if produced locally.
The result is an ongoing "war of words", primarily between the government
of Alberta (a major oil and gas producer) and the federal government,
although non-governmental climate scinetists are becoming increasingly vocal
in the press in their opposition to the treaty - for example, see http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=309a5bd5-a66f-48fb-959f-9aa2688a3743.
This is largely due to the fact that these scientists were shut out of the
consultation process while environmental pressure groups were allowed to
take part broadly.
It also appears that the federal government will ask for additional
credits for "clean" fuels sold to the United States, most notably natural
gas.
Controversy
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that reducing these emissions is
crucially important; carbon dioxide, they believe, is causing the earth's
atmosphere to heat up too much (see global warming).
Most prominent among these advocates have been officials of the Clinton
administration and many environmentalist organizations. The United Nations
and some individual nations' scientific advisory bodies have also issued
reports favoring the Kyoto Protocol.
Some critics state that the protocol will prevent or damage economic
growth.
- American Council for Capital Formation
- National Bank of New Zealand
- John Daly, author of [The Greenhouse Trap], August 2002
- President George W. Bush
- Ken Green, Fraser Institute
The 1997 Leipzig Declaration called the Kyoto Protocol "dangerously
simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and
standards-of-living". Most of the signers of the Leipzig Declaration are
non-scientists or lack credentials in the specific field of climate
research.
An open letter was written to Canada's future prime minister, Paul
Martin, signed by 46 climate experts from six countries - Martin has yet to
respond. A previous open letter was signed by 27 climate experts and sent to
current prime minister, Jean Chrιtien.
Some opponents argue that the protocol does not go far enough to curb
greenhouse emissions, and the standards it sets would be totally ineffective
at curbing or even slowing climate change. In addition, there have been
recent scientific challenges to the idea of carbon credits, planting "Kyoto
forests" or tree farms to reduce total carbon dioxide output. Recent
evidence shows that this may in fact increase carbon dioxide emissions for
the first 10 years, due to the growth pattern of young forests and the
effect it has on soil-trapped carbon dioxide. Several industrial countries
have made carbon credits an important part of their strategies for reducing
their net greenhouse gas outputs, further calling into question the
effectiveness of the protocols.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol, it is necessary to
compare global warming with and without the agreement. Several independent
authors agree that the impact of the Kyoto protocol on global warming is
very small (a reduction of 0.15 Celsius degrees by 2100, out of a projected
total change of 2 Celsius degrees). Even some defenders of the Kyoto
Protocol agree that the impact of it is small, but they view it as a first
step, with more political than practical importance, for future reductions,
perhaps of up to 70%.
The Kyoto Protocol can also be evaluated by comparing costs and gains.
Several economic analyses were made that show that the Kyoto Protocol is
more expensive than the global warming that it avoids. Defenders of the
Kyoto Protocol argue however that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may
have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more
effective) cuts in the future. Also, they demonstrate commitment to the
precautionary principle.
Some theorists predict that even if the world's leading industrial
nations agree to reduce their "greenhouse" emissions as mandated by the
Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that there would be no net change in emissions
worldwide. As the industrialized countries cut their demand for fossil
fuels, the law of supply and demand will tend to cause the world prices of
coal, oil and gas go down, making fuel use more affordable for poorer
nations. These theorists predict increased fuel use (primarily coal) in the
"non-Annex I" countries, tending to offset the reductions of the "Annex I"
countries.
|
