Global Cooperation!
When it became evident that climate change may be occurring there was the beginning of the movement that was responsible for the Kyoto meeting in December of 1997: a section of the United Nations was formed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (you might see UNFCCC in some of the linked text). The first meeting was the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, subsequent meeting set up the meeting where a reduction strategy for climate change was presented. This meeting was held in Kyoto, Japan and the vice President (Al Gore) signed for the US.
Important points
Reduction of six greenhouse gases by some countries, to varied levels below their emissions of greenhouse gases in 1990.
- carbon dioxide (CO2)
- methane (CH4)
- nitrous oxide (N2O)
- hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
The treaty to become legally binding when it is ratified by 55 Countries (they use the term States) but that must include Developed Nations responsible for 55% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the Developed Nations group in 1990. The treaty could not be ratified unless nearly all of the G8 countries ratified it. The US being the largest contributor to global anthropologic CO2 emissions has a key role in the protocol and can kill it with the assistance of just a couple of other countries (via not ratification). When Russia ratified the treaty it entered into force a few weeks later (Feb, 2005). You can read more from the wikipedia page on the subject.
Just to confuse everyone (and so as not to embarrass developing countries) they use the terms Annex 1 parties (mostly developed nations) and Annex 2 Parties (mostly the developing nations).
An emission trading methodology was adopted to reduce the cost of compliance (but details on how this will work are not yet in place). A major victory for the US as we utilizes this approach for SO2 and NOx emissions via the Clean Air Act of 1990 and its amendments.
Developing countries have a “right to develop” and so will not have to reduce or curtail their emissions of greenhouse gases at all.
Changing land use issues and natural carbon sinks (such as planting a forest) also impact the reduction levels assigned (and agreed to).
Sharing of technology (sounds a tad socialist to me).
There is a great deal of uncertainty in how everything will work out.
The European Union is allowed to act as a “bubble” and redistribute the reductions to meet the overall reduction level required.
More information on current negotiations are available here:
Emission Trading
Recall that this was discussed when we covered acid deposition. Internationally this will work well as it will be cheaper to reduce emissions in other countries that are operating old, inefficient equipment than it will to reduce emissions from plants that are efficiently run. As CO2, unlike a lot of emissions, is global in nature it does not matter that we are reducing emissions in India or China, we will still reap the benefit of slowing the pace of climate change. Many of the pollutant we discuss may be international in natures, such as acid deposition from Germany crossing into France or vice versa, they will not travel the globe and influence Australia for example. The long lifetimes of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere allows them to travel extensively so their increase can be measured at the poles far from the point source of origin (your car, power plant, natural source etc.) Ozone depleting CFCs also are long lived and tend to congregate above the South Pole.
As long as there is a reduction the requirement is met, its source is not important. However, there is a financial cost assigned with these reductions. The developing countries need health care, education, and clean water as a priority well above reduction in climate change. They can sell off emission reductions to the highest bidder (at a profit). Industry will be happy to buy these permits as long as they are priced below the cost of achieving the same reduction in their industry. More on this in the next part of the lesson.
Impact on the U.S.
We agreed to a reduction to7% below 1990 levels. That does not seem to be too high, but there is a problem: emissions have been growing (as has the economy).
The 7% reduction below 1990 levels may end up being a very significant 30 % reduction from 2010 levels. There is a lot of speculation on how much greenhouse gases we emit because it depends on many factors, such as the economy, severity of the winter or summer. While the 7 % reduction is high a 30 % reduction is staggering (7 % from going to below 1990 levels and 23 % estimated from the growth of the emissions).
The White House Stance
Read or listen to the then Presidents’ remarks on Climate Change made on July 2001. (note: to listen you download a *.ram file to your computer, if nothing happens you will need to click on the file to activate).
These comments are nearly enough to scupper the Kyoto protocol, as without the US ratification achieving the membership of Annex I countries that are required to have 55% emissions of CO2 (from Annex I countries) becomes very difficult (but not impossible, remember the US is about 20 to 25% of the World’s emissions of CO2).
I was surprised at the US position at the time but in hindsight it was not a major change in US policy. Congress made it very clear that they would not support the Kyoto Protocol when it would hurt the US economy while ignoring some of the other large emitters of greenhouse gases and this is still an issue. Bottom line is without China and India included Congress was not going to play ball. The Clinton response: the Kyoto Protocol was not sent to Congress (where it would have been rejected in spectacular fashion). Things might have been different if Al Gore was elected (he was at Kyoto and was a vocal supporter.) Clinton was also vocal for the need to include the developing countries. Why is that issue so important? Click on the icon and you shall hear.
It all seems less important after September 11th. Environmental legislation has been delayed, but will pick up again or not depending on who wins the Whitehouse race in 2012.