Rhein on Energy and Climate

In early September, the UN Secretary-General has given the alarm signal by urging all governments to accelerate preparations for finalising the KYOTO successor agreement before the end of 2009. He has called upon them to engage in substantive talks at the next preparatory conference in Poznan in December 2008.

Despite a massive input of manpower from all walks of the global society, several preparatory meetings at international and regional levels, innumerable workshops and an unprecedented involvement of the civil society, the substance of the talks remains shrouded in an opaque mist.

Most Heads of government have abstained from getting immersed in an issue that seems far away, highly technical and potentially fraught with sacrifices.

Theoretically the international community can choose between two opposing approaches:

  • Amend the Kyoto Protocol signed in 1997 and entered into force as late as 2005;
  • Start from scratch and agree on concrete action plans for the main sectors responsible for C02 emissions, power, industry, transport and forests.

De facto, the international community has chosen the first option.
Time pressure and convenience exclude the second approach, however one may regret this.

The challenge is therefore to make the Kyoto Protocol more meaningful.
Presently, it is anything but effective.

  • It binds only 39 countries, 27 of which EU member countries. Combined these countries account for less than a third of global C02 emissions (EU 12 percent, Japan 5 percent, Russia 5 percent, Canada, Australia, Ukraine etc. another 5 percent). These countries have committed to lower their C02 emissions by a meagre 5 percent between 1990 and 2008-12. It is impossible to have a an impact on global green house gas emissions by binding in only one fifth of the world community and fixing derisive targets for the reduction of emissions, while huge emitter countries like China, India, Brazil and USA either fail to ratify or refuse to take any commitments for reducing their emissions.
  • It does not contain any effective sanctions in case of partial or total lack of implementation. Thus, Canada has widely overstepped its 5 percent reduction target, without anybody calling it to order.
  • More generally, it has ignored the implementation side and the practical policy issues, putting too much trust in the good will of the signatory countries.
  • It has focused too much on C02 emissions and neglected CH4 (methane), which accounts for about a quarter of all green house emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol needs three essential amendments for making it more climate-effective.

  1. First, all emitter countries contributing, say more than 1 percent, to global green house emissions, essentially all countries except sub-Sahara Africa and several countries in Latin America and Asia, will need to take quantitative commitments for cutting their emissions.
  2. Second, the targets for cutting global emissions must be substantial, say 10 percent by 2020, 30 percent by 2030, 40 percent by 2040 and 60 percent by 2050, the aim being to bring back the annual volume of global emissions to <15 billion tons by the middle of the century.
  3. Third, in view of ensuring implementation, it will be necessary to complement Kyoto Protocol II by a series or “implementing protocols” to be negotiated among the main emitting countries on how to
  • Obtain zero-C02 emission power generation and make buildings, automobiles, airplanes and ships substantially more fuel-efficient;
  • Cut Ch4 emissions;
  • Preserve forests;
  • Induce high-income countries to invest in energy efficiency and renewable energies in emerging countries.

The international community needs urgently to agree on such a basic approach. Failing to do so will compromise an effective climate regime for the next decade. In the next few months, it is therefore imperative to get the priorities right and focus on a few essentials.

The international community basically agrees on differentiated climate targets for high-income and emerging countries. High income countries have to bear the brunt of the reductions in the coming 20 years. They have to set an example. Considering the huge gap between per capita emissions of 20 tons by US, Canadian, GCC or Australian citizens and <2 tons by citizens in most developing countries this is a matter of basic equity. It will be extremely hard to pass this message to spoiled citizens in the West.

But India, China, Brazil, South Africa etc. will also have to commit to substantive reductions, increasing from year to year. Without their full participation the efforts by Europe and North America will be more than neutralised. Their governments will find it next impossible to impose the big cuts that are needed to effectively mitigate climate change.

The EU has to take a high profile and help focus the debate. It has been helpful by declaring its willingness to go for a 30 percent reduction, if the USA, Japan, Canada, Australia, GCC countries go along. The West must do better than a 20 percent reduction by 2020, if humanity wants to halve global emissions by 2050.

Political leaders have to wake up to these realities! They finally have to realise the unique chances their countries have in being the pioneers of the future energy system entirely based on solar power.

As a matter of urgency, the EU has to consult with its G8 partners in view of reaching a common line to present to the emerging countries. This is the key challenge for the next few months, even if the political vacuum in the USA makes this task extraordinarily difficult.

There is no point for the EU to try to sell its methods for curbing emissions. They are too complex for most countries. If any government wants to copy them, the EU should, of course, offer all advice they may require. But no more.

Author :
Print