The Guardian 12 December, 2007
Will the Kyoto Protocol survive Bali?
Anna Pha
The announcement that Australia has signed the ratification instrument of the Kyoto Protocol was enthusiastically received with a one-minute standing ovation by delegates to the annual United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Bali last week. Australia is the 176th country to ratify the agreement, and the United States of America is now the only industrialised country not to sign on.
More than 180 nations are taking part in these important discussions, including the US which is a part of the UNFCCC. At stake in these negotiations is not only the future of Kyoto but the future of the planet. Time is running out, but still there are governments and major carbon emitting big business patrons that steadfastly refuse to accept responsibility or recognise that the price of inaction is higher than for action. Their "solution" is profits first, business as usual and let the poor, less industrialised nations cut their emissions.
The people of the world have a different view. Saturday was the International Day of Action on Climate, midway through the conference, with actions in over 50 centres around the globe. Around 500 protestors from across Indonesia and some from overseas, marched through Bali’s main town of Denpasar carrying banners that read "Stop Climate Chaos," "Rich countries must pay" and "Bush: Killer of the planet." In London 10,000 turned out for a march and rally outside the US embassy.
The media are running hot with the Bali meeting: "The Bali conference … will set out a road map for the next round of action against climate change, starting when the current Kyoto targets expire in 2012", the Sydney Morning Herald reported.
The Courier Mail in Queensland spoke in terms of "forging a new environmental blueprint to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012". The Australian referred to "the end of the Kyoto agreement" in 2012. Other media sources used such terms as "new agreement", "new deal", "road map", or "future framework for climate change. Even the authoritative business outlet Bloomberg said Kyoto expires in 2012.
KYOTO DOES NOT EXPIRE IN 2012. It is a lie, one big dangerous lie, being perpetrated by some western governments, the mass media and others who would dearly like it to expire and are doing their best to replace or bypass the Kyoto Protocol with something much weaker that lets them off the hook.
Kyoto — a few facts
The UNFCCC was adopted at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, a huge turning point in gaining international recognition of the environmental problems facing humanity and out planet Earth. After several years of torrid negotiations, the Protocol was signed in Kyoto, Japan, in 1997. It was one of two Protocols adopted under the framework of this Convention, the other was on biodiversity.
Many compromises were made during negotiations of the Kyoto Protocol, considerably weakening the document, largely due to the obstructive behaviour of the US and several other developed countries including Australia. They argued that the scientific evidence asserting that global warming and the resultant climate change were a result of human activity was inconclusive.
Fortunately, the "precautionary principle" won the day, with the agreement stating that as there where threats of serious irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not prevent measures to mitigate its adverse effects.
Australia and the US were amongst the participating nations that signed the agreement at the time. The Kyoto Protocol has the ultimate aim of stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at safe levels, to ensure security of food production and sustainable development.
For the Protocol to come into effect, at least 55 parties to the UNFCCC, including developed countries accounting for at least 55 percent for the total 1990 CO2 emissions, had to then ratify it. Ratification was more difficult. The developed countries were slow to sign on. It took until 2005 to reach the specified requirements, as the world’s largest polluter, the US (and its loyal deputy Australia) steadfastly refused to sign, despite their role in significantly weakening the document.
Differentiated targets
According to the agreed formula, the developed countries as the major polluters, are required to cut greenhouse gas emissions to meet an overall reduction of at least 5.2 percent below the levels of 1990 (the base year) over the period 2008-2010.
These countries and their targets were listed in Annex 1 to the Protocol. These are legally binding on parties to the Protocol.
Australia has one of the most generous targets of any developed nation, an 8 percent increase in emissions above 1990 levels over that period. The European Union’s target, for example, is an 8 percent reduction compared to 1990 levels. The US’s is a 7 percent cut; Canada, Japan, Hungary and Russia each a 6 percent cut; and New Zealand has to stabilise its emissions over the target period at 1990 levels.
Developing countries are not required to make a commitment to reduce emissions because of their lower development level and as they contributed little to the historical build up of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These countries are listed in Annex 2. They have undertaken commitments such as collecting and submitting data and formulating and implementing mitigation and adaptation measures.
A development issue
Under the UNFCCC, it is recognised that the extent to which developing countries can do this will depend on the effective implementation by developed countries of their commitments related to financial resources and technology transfer. It takes into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries. China and India have low emission rates on a per capita basis, but very large populations. These and a number other important "development provisions" are contained in the UNFCCC and in Kyoto.
It is totally unrealistic to expect countries such as Brazil, South Africa, China and India to industrialise and address the poverty and other social needs of their populations at the same time as reducing their overall emission of greenhouse gases.
If the developed countries gave the financial and technological assistance that they committed to under Kyoto, these nations could avoid going down the same oil guzzling and polluting path followed so disastrously by the US, Australia, Europe and other industrialised countries.
Unfortunately, not only have the majority of developed nations ratifying Kyoto so far fallen short of their binding greenhouse gas targets, they have failed to give the assistance promised to the Annex 2 countries.
To add insult to injury, the US (not even a signatory), Canada, Japan and Australia are making demands that developing countries commit to reducing greenhouse emissions in the post-2012 period.
This is a criminal demand that, if adopted, would set back development and poverty alleviation, while enabling the rich countries to continue with their high emission levels through such means as buying carbon credits. This approach would be in breach of the Kyoto Protocol and its recognition of the importance of development for third world countries.
The Protocol established 2008-2012 as the first commitment period in a long process. The second commitment period is due to start in 2013. By the start of that year, developed countries should be working towards a new set of binding targets for further reducing their emissions. To enable a smooth transition, 2009 has been set as the target for agreement on these. Some initial discussions were begun at a meeting in Vienna last August, and should be continued in Bali.
Instead of bringing to Bali proposals for the next phase of their emission reductions and offers of concrete assistance to the developing nations, the US, Japan and Canada are determined to rewrite Kyoto or even set up other meetings to bypass it.
They are calling for a new "post-Kyoto treaty" as if Kyoto is about to expire. They are trying to make the assistance they already should be giving conditional on developing countries committing to reductions in emission levels.
Big business is sitting around the negotiating table alongside their government representatives. Some see Kyoto as a source of new business opportunities, others such as the large mining corporations and energy producers are threatened by it. They regard patents as profit-generating, a source of riches, regardless of the consequences for the people of poor nations or the planet.
A number of developed countries and the UNFCCC Secretariat are now using the US’s refusal to sign as an excuse to argue for a new regime which takes the "good parts" of Kyoto, and makes emission cuts voluntary or imposes binding cuts on developing countries, China and India in particular.
The US advocates imposing voluntary emission targets. The European Union, which has done a great deal to reduce emissions, takes a much better position, recognising the urgency and importance of Kyoto.
China and the G77 (non-aligned) and other groupings of nations are defending Kyoto, with its differential treatment for parties to the Protocol and its long-term nature. One alliance of 43 small island nations warned they risked being washed off the map by rising seas states if tougher actions to fight climate change were not taken.
As for Australia, whose ratification will take effect in March 2008, the new Labor government has joined the US in calling for binding cuts to be extended to developing nations. Climate Change Minister Penny Wong speaks in terms of the "post-Kyoto Protocol".
The future of Kyoto Protocol is very much in the hands of government ministers when they meet in Bali on Wednesday this week.