Talking about the weather

How important is global warming ? Last month, it figured prominently in President George W. Bush?s talks with European leaders as well as in the group-of-eight ministerial meeting in Genoa. The Bonn meeting on climate change was the subject of headlines in the international press. The prominence accorded to global warming in the agenda of world leaders might come as a surprise to those who still think of climate change as an esoteric subject for meteorologists or environmentalists. In fact, global warming has profound implications for our economy and society. What is ?global warming?? There is mounting evidence that a build-up of carbon dioxide and other ?greenhouse gases? in the atmosphere is causing the planet to become warmer. Carbon dioxide emissions have increased dramatically since the Industrial Revolution because of increasing dependence on hydrocarbon fuels ? coal, petroleum and natural gas. Energy generation and consumption lie at the heart of the problem. Higher temperatures will trigger off a number of other changes. For instance, rainfall patterns are likely to change. Storms and cyclones might become more frequent and severe. The sea-level is expected to rise because of thermal expansion of oceans and melting of the polar ice-caps. Low-lying islands and coastal areas would be submerged on account of rising sea-levels. In the Ganges-Brahmaputra delta, for example, millions of people are likely to be displaced during this century. These changes would, in turn, profoundly affect agriculture, forestry and fishery. They would have an impact on human health as well as bio-diversity. The changes would not occur overnight but would be spread over several decades. It is thus obvious that climate change could result in vast economic damage, if unchecked. On the other hand, arresting global warming will also involve costs, though these may be only a fraction of the damage that would otherwise result. Reducing carbon emissions involves cutting down use of hydrocarbon fuels. It thus has major implications for industry, transport and agriculture. The potential impact of global warming is so extensive that there is an obvious case for international co-operation to arrest the phenomenon and, where necessary, to adapt to its consequences. But while all countries have a common interest in mitigating global warming, there are major differences over the way in which costs should be distributed. Which countries should be required to reduce their emissions and by what extent? In the first place, there is a North-South divide on the question. Developing countries maintain that the North should meet the costs of mitigating and adapting to climate change since the industrialized countries are responsible for causing the problem through excessive per capita carbon emissions. Moreover, the North possesses the financial and technological resources required to tackle the problem. The North, on the other hand, argues that from a ?practical? view point, countries like China or India, whose emissions are rising rapidly, should accept some obligation to control the rate of growth of these emissions. Climate change is not simply a North-South question. There are major differences within the North as well as within the South. Within the North, there are divergences between the European Union, which favours relatively ambitious reduction targets, and countries like Japan or Canada which want more modest reductions. There are differences also within the South. In particular, the Gulf countries which derive most of their national income from oil revenues, are apprehensive about reducing global petroleum consumption. Most other developing countries, as potential victims of climate change, would like to see a strong agreement. Because of these diverse positions, the climate change negotiations have proved to be a difficult and complex process. The first milestone in the negotiations was the Framework Convention on Climate Change, concluded in 1992. The convention requires developed countries to stabilize and reduce their greenhouse gas emissions and to provide financial resources to developing countries to cover the marginal costs of measures they might implement. It imposes no commitment on developing countries to limit their emissions. It specifically recognised that the extent of measures taken by the developing countries will depend upon the extent of the financial resources provided to them. These provisions were accepted by the North after very difficult negotiations. The next major step was to fix specific emission ceilings for developed countries. This was achieved by the 1997 Kyoto protocol, which requires each developed country to reduce or limit its emissions to a specified level by the years 2008-2012. The intention was to reduce the overall emissions of developed countries by at least 5 per cent below the 1990 level. Though a modest target, it was nevertheless important as a first step. The Kyoto protocol was, however, incomplete in the sense that certain details had to be worked out before it could come into operation. These included questions concerning the impact of forestry as well as the question of a penalty for non-compliance. All too often in international agreements, the devil lurks in the details. There were wide differences on these questions. A conference held in The Hague last November failed to resolve the differences. At this juncture, the Kyoto protocol received a blow which could well have proved fatal. The newly-appointed Bush administration withdrew from the agreement, denouncing it as ?fatally flawed?. Washington claimed that implementing the Kyoto protocol would harm the American economy. It also complained that developing countries like China and India were not required to reduce their emissions. The United States accounts for no less than 36 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. It is evident that the impact of the protocol will be greatly reduced by the American decision to abandon it. The US rejection raised a broader question. Would other industrialized countries agree to abide by the Kyoto pact if the Americans pulled out? Is it feasible to implement a multilateral agreement with profound economic implications, without the US? It was widely expected that the Kyoto protocol would collapse if the failure of The Hague meeting were to be repeated at Bonn. Thus the survival of the Kyoto protocol was at stake in Bonn. Well aware of the consequences of failure, the EU chose to concede most of the demands of an opposing coalition of industrialized countries which included Japan, Canada, Australia and, on many issues, Russia. Generous ceilings on credits for forestry were given to Russia, Japan and Canada. A decision on penalties was postponed in deference to Japan.These concessions will reduce the impact of the protocol in terms of carbon emissions but the price had to be paid to salvage the protocol. Apart from its contributions to protecting the environment, the Bonn agreement also has an important political message. It shows that it is possible to have a multilateral agreement with wide-ranging economic implications even if the US stays out. It reflects the fact that the global power structure is polycentric at the economic level, even though, at the military-strategic level, there is a single super-power at the apex. After agreement was reached in Bonn, the European Commission commissioner, Margot Wallstrom, observed with justifiable pride: ?I think something has changed today in the balance of power between the US and the EU.?