Reneging on the Kyoto Protocol

The presence of certain trace gases in the atmosphere enables it to act like a greenhouse. An increase in the concentration of these greenhouse gases (GHGs) causes an enhanced greenhouse effect and a warming of the earth, leading to a change in climate. Carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels are the largest source of GHGs. These are most difficult to reduce as energy is an essential input in all economic activities. As a first step towards controlling GHG emissions, over 150 countries signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. Under the Protocol it was agreed that industrialised countries and economies in transition (EITS) would together reduce their emissions of GHGs by 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels of emission over the period 2008 to 2012. To achieve this they had the flexibility to trade their quotas and to invest in developing countries such that these investments resulted in additional emissions savings. The latter option is referred to as the Clean Development mechanism (CDM). The Kyoto Protocol did not mandate legally binding reduction targets for developing countries given their low contribution to the problem. Also, transfer of technology and resources from the developed countries to help developing countries to adopt more efficient and cleaner modes of production was identified. Three and a half years after the path-breaking agreement at Kyoto, the Protocol is yet to enter into force. Prior to the resumed session of the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP 6 Part II) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) held in Bonn (July 16-27, 2001) the US declared that it would not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The US President, Mr George Bush, in a letter to four senators dated March 13 stated that the Protocol was unfair as it exempted 80 per cent of the world from undertaking any commitments. The "80 per cent of the world'' referred to by Mr Bush were developing countries such as India, China and Brazil. The US would consider ratification of the Protocol if, and only if, these countries took on legally binding commitments. The US' demand for developing country participation as a precondition for its ratification is a case of `passing the buck', recognising that these countries are not in a position to accept any commitment in the near future. The US' statements are bewildering. The per capita emissions by an average American are equal to the emissions by 22 Indians. Is it fair to ask an average Indian to further curtail his emissions! If the US had cut emissions by just 6 per cent in 1990, the savings would be sufficient to provide energy to half the Indian population of 1 billion. Developing countries, with 77.5 per cent of the world population account for only 32 per cent of the global emissions, whereas the US, with less than 5 per cent of the world population, alone accounts for 23 per cent of the global emissions. At the resumed negotiations, the future of the Kyoto Protocol witnessed fluctuating fortunes. The President of COP 6.5, after protracted consultations, presented a draft political agreement on July 21, outlining agreement on core elements for the implementation of the Protocol. This draft, referred to as the `Bonn Agreement', was adopted on July 25. The agreement initially created much euphoria that a deal had been struck. An examination of the document revealed that it is a non-starter. There are four main criticisms. One, the document has abundant generalities that imply long and possibly inconclusive hours at the negotiating table yet again. For example, a special climate change fund is defined -- the sources of financing this are contributions from developed countries. The contributions by different parties and the total size of the fund have been left unspecified. This is bound to generate debate on who contributes how much, and what is an adequate size. Second, there have been generous allocations for meeting commitments through homegrown forests and through forests grown in developing countries. The problem in using forestry sinks is that there is a fair amount of uncertainty in measuring the carbon captured and in the permanency of these sinks. This concession considerably softens the commitment target and diminishes the modest environmental objective set in Kyoto. Third, the issue of compliance in the Bonn Agreement is presented in a much watered-down text which will affect efforts to adhere to the GHG reduction targets. Last, the developing countries participated in the recent negotiations as mere spectators. One may argue that as the developing countries are not accepting legally binding targets they have to accept the decisions of the 'big brothers'. The US' retraction and the revisions in the Kyoto Protocol diminish the benefits and assistance that developing countries can expect from the revised agreement -- this is still the lesser evil than the demand for legally binding commitments for developing countries. What was most unexpected was the big step-down by the members of the European Union. This, ostensibly, is to keep open the option of the US joining at a later stage, and to accommodate the more rigid developed countries. The US, by virtue of being the single largest and most significant contributor to the problem, plays an important role in the entire debate. With its withdrawal a desirable outcome now would be that the rest of the world, sans the US and its comrades, would move towards implementing the Kyoto Protocol. The US has the option of joining the treaty at a later stage. Despite its importance, the US withdrawal from the treaty had a positive dimension -- it avoided repetition of its interference in the negotiations on the Protocol's implementation. However, the set of compromises and relaxation of rules and requirements reached make the Kyoto Protocol a toothless instrument to address the problem of climate change. The main positive aspect of the Bonn Agreement is that there are some indications of solidarity by the rest of the world to show that they will move ahead without the US on the Kyoto Protocol. The Protocol thus survives, but in a weakened state! Like all other important issues, global warming has strong political dimensions. Negotiations on action to combat climate change have been beset by one compromise after another, reducing the process to afarce. The original Protocol, which was a useful firststep, has unfortunately been reduced to a half step, with the withdrawal of the US and with the concessions granted to other truant developed countries. One hopes the Kyoto Protocol does not an end like the Shakespearean tragedy where one is left searching "Kyoto, Kyoto, wherefore art thou?''