The pats on the back negotiators gave each other at the drop of the
gavel were well deserved. Although far from perfect,
and just a beginning, the Kyoto Protocol marks real progress on the
road
to healing the atmosphere.
Rather predictably, the deal has been denounced by both environmental
groups who say it doesn't go far enough, and
business groups which say it will destroy whole industries. But it
is
always the harshest critics who are the loudest. There
are also plenty of NGOs and companies who are quietly happy with the
outcome of the 11-day set of talks.
To see why, look at the benefits of the treaty. It sets binding limits
on the emission of six, not just three, greenhouse gases
emitted by developed countries. Although the final average target of
5.2
per cent below 1990 levels does not sound very
impressive, remember that many developed countries -- despite the
voluntary commitments they made at the Earth Summit
in Rio de Janeiro five years ago -- currently emit far more GHGs now
than they did in 1990.
So the cuts will be steep. This means that governments will be forced
to
crack down on wasteful policies and subsidies that
promote the burning of fossil fuels, and industries will have to come
up
with clean, new technologies -- assuming compliance
measures are strict, of course.
The Kyoto Protocol also included some other significant achievements,
including an agreement to set up a carbon trading
system among developed countries and a provision that will allow a
country's sinks -- essentially, forests which store up
carbon -- to be taken into consideration. The trading mechanism should
help keep costs down, while the recognition of sinks
marks the first time ever that standing forests will be accorded some
economic value. Now that's historic.
Of course, there could also be problems with these provisions. Some
critics claim they will serve as loopholes to get around
the binding targets, and there is a danger that the sinks provision
could be used to promote monoculture plantations of
fast-growing trees rather than natural, biodiverse forests.
This only demonstrates that much more work needs to be done over the
coming year. Most importantly, the rules for the
trading system need to be worked out, as do the compliance measures,
which will basically ensure that this agreement is
truly binding, rather than just an updated version of the toothless
Rio
accord. This time, the climate change convention must
be given some teeth.
Of all the parties involved, America seems to be the most disappointed
with the final outcome. On the final night, the US got
into a fierce fight with China, which along with other key developing
countries refused to give even a vague promise to
commit to binding emission limits.
In a fit of bad sportsmanship, US officials, including Vice President
Al
Gore, are now claiming they won't even try to ratify the
protocol -- which they say doesn't stand a chance of passing a
Republican-controlled Senate -- until key developing
countries sign up for binding targets.
But if this is such a key issue, why did the US agree two years ago
to
the Berlin Mandate, which called for no additional
commitments for developing countries until after Kyoto? Indeed, why
did
Republican president George Bush agree to the
whole concept of splitting up developed and developing countries in
Rio?
The US, which emits a quarter of all mankind's greenhouse gases, must
live up to the commitments it made in Kyoto. After
all, it got what it wanted most -- agreement to set up a carbon trading
system. Set up properly, this could both ease the
burden on developed countries and entice developing countries to join
in
by voluntarily declaring their own emission targets.
It's true that big developing countries like China and India may one
day
pose the largest threat to our atmosphere, but that is
a problem for the future. Right now, the immediate threat to the climate
comes from the industrialised world, and from the US
most of all.