Under threat - polar bear
In Kyoto in 1997 at the third Conference of the Parties (COP 3), the Kyoto Protocol was adopted. Thirty-eight industrialised countries agreed to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions by varying amounts with an overall reduction of 5.2% below 1990 levels by the year 2010. It also provided a series of 'flexible mechanisms' to help them achieve this.
As negotiations have proceeded it has become clear that these 'mechanisms' have become potential loopholes that, if adopted, would allow industrialised countries to do very little or nothing in the way of real emissions reduction and still appear to meet their targets.
Sinks or Sources?
As part of the natural carbon cycle, forests, grasslands and agricultural land absorb and store CO2 from the atmosphere and hence are referred to as carbon 'sinks'. This storage, however, is temporary and the carbon can be released back into the atmosphere by change of land use, fire, deforestation, decomposition and, in the case of agricultural land, ploughing. These sinks then become 'sources' of CO2.
By contrast, subterranean carbon buried underground in the form of fossil fuels is locked out of the atmosphere and leaving it underground guarantees that it will not be a burden on the atmosphere.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, if a tonne of carbon stored in trees is allowed to be counted as a sink, then a corresponding increase in the emission of fossil fuel carbon to the atmosphere is allowed. In other words, under the rules of the Protocol, the use of 'sinks' results in more fossil fuel carbon being added to the atmosphere. This means the atmosphere is worse off.
It is argued that counting sinks in the Kyoto Protocol would provide a cheap way for countries to achieve emissions reductions and stabilise CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. It would also have the additional benefit of preserving forests.
But in fact:
- The temporary nature of 'carbon storage' in forests and the difficulties inherent in trying to calculate just how much CO2 is being stored and how much released could lead to unknown amounts of CO2 entering the atmosphere.
- Money invested in 'cheap' sinks projects is money diverted from projects that deliver clean technologies and thus avoid fossil fuel emissions.
- Old growth forests could actually be put at risk as they are cut down to make way for fast growing, single species plantations which absorb more CO2 and therefore provide more 'credits'.
Part of the Kyoto Protocol (Article 3.3) allows countries to increase their emissions by the amount that has been absorbed by 'afforestation' or 'reforestation' since 1990 and demands that emissions of CO2 that have been put back into the atmosphere by 'deforestation' since 1990, be added to their reduction commitment. Much discussion has occurred over the meaning of these terms and of what constitutes a forest. If these terms are manipulated, then the amount of 'sink' credits obtained can be expanded. Australia, for example, proposed defining a tree as any plant higher than 25cm.
Reforestation means planting forests on land that used to be forest but has since been converted to some other use. Some countries are trying to manipulate the definition so that it includes getting credit for regenerating trees after harvesting but not counting emissions that result from the harvesting.
This is like counting only the credit side of an accounting ledger. Not counting withdrawals may make balancing a country's emissions 'ledger' easier but emissions to the atmosphere will increase by an unknown number, undermining the integrity of the Protocol.
Article 3.4 permits 'additional activities' to be agreed for crediting. The issue of whether or not there should be any additional activities, and if so what they might be has been the subject of three years of very complex and often heated negotiations. Additional activities on the table now include forest management, cropland and grazing land management and revegetation, all of which are surrounded by even greater scientific uncertainties than the sinks described above.
Emissions Trading
Article 17 of the Kyoto Protocol envisages 'trading' of emissions reductions between Annex 1 countries. It does this by creating a market whereby the reductions countries make in excess of their own reduction requirements can be 'sold' to other countries in order to help them to meet their commitments under the Protocol. In order for this market to work, the accounting measures must be clear and verifiable. However, for any trading system to work, there must be a legally binding target which fixes a cap on the quantity of allowable emissions in order for them to have any value. The Kyoto Protocol includes these binding targets.
Recent proposals from a few advocates of carbon trading to set up the Emission Trading system with voluntary targets, outside the Kyoto protocol, miss the entire point of the system, which is to create incentives for emissions reductions. Further, a market for a product which is not 'finite' i.e., without legally binding caps, cannot work since the 'commodity' to be traded cannot have any value unless its supply is limited.
Whilst emission trading can be a very important tool to help reduce emissions cost-effectively the main issue in the negotiations has been the presence of a large surplus of emission credits from Russia and the Ukraine. These countries have a limit on their emissions set at 1990 levels.
However due to the economic collapse and re-structuring of the Soviet Union, the emissions of these countries are far below 1990 levels, and are projected to remain so at least until 2008-2012. This issue has become known as the "Hot Air" or Russian surplus problem. If OECD countries buy the Russian surplus (which would be cheap) they would be able to continue to emit without taking any significant domestic emission reduction and there would be no benefit to the atmosphere.
Joint Implementation
Article 6 of the Protocol allows developed countries to obtain emission credits for projects undertaken in another developed country. This is known as joint implementation (JI). Joint Implementation can be a tool to transfer environmentally sound technology eg to enhance energy efficiency. However, some countries wish to include unsustainable technologies such as nuclear power or 'clean coal', the latter of which is a contradiction in terms, at least from a climatic point of view.
The Clean Development Mechanism
The CDM was conceived as a way of transferring clean technology to developing countries. Industrialised countries would invest in developing country projects that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In return they would earn emissions credits that would help them towards achieving their Kyoto targets. Each credit earned abroad would be set against the emissions reduction target at home.
The CDM has the potential to assist the start of a transition towards sustainable energy in developing countries and, in the long-term, benefit the climate. However, some of the proposals on the table could result in the transfer of polluting, unsafe and unsustainable technology, including coal, large dams and nuclear power.
One of the most pernicious efforts at undermining the intent of the CDM in recent negotiations has been the effort to get nuclear power projects included in the CDM. This language was finally dropped at the negotiations in the Hague last November, but it has resurfaced in recent months, and no doubt will be a major point of contention in Bonn.
CDM projects must demonstrate that they add "real, measurable, and long-term benefits related to the mitigation of climate change", and are meant to contribute to sustainable development in developing countries. Whether or not these goals are reached depends very much on the rules for the CDM.
Conclusion
Whatever the outcome at Bonn, Greenpeace will continue to argue in favor of an environmentally effective Kyoto Protocol, with a minimum of loopholes, and for ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol by no later than the Rio +10 Summit in Johannesburg in September of 2002.
For the Protocol to enter into force it must be ratified by 55 countries including enough developed countries to account for 55 percent of the total emissions from the group of industrialised countries.
None of the 'benefits' of the Kyoto Protocol such as the Clean Development Mechanism or carbon trading will be achieved until the Protocol enters in to force. The Protocol remains the only international legal instrument designed to start the world on the road towards the massive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that will be required during this century to avoid disastrous climate change.
