Deal on climate change

AGAINST ALL EXPECTATIONS, signatories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change have been able to arrive at an agreement on how to operationalise the 1997 Kyoto Protocol; which is currently the only international instrument available to check the emission of the greenhouse gases (GHGs) that cause global warming. The agreement reached in Bonn after tortuous negotiations is not an ideal one since it contains many provisions that could water down the objectives of the Protocol. It is yet not a deal that should be faulted too much considering that it had to be reached against considerable odds, especially after the United States, which is responsible for the largest national emissions in the world, decided to withdraw from the Kyoto Protocol.

The developed countries had decided in 1997 that they would reduce emissions of GHGs to 5.2 per cent below 1990 levels by 2008-12. What all of them, other than the U.S., have now agreed on is how to achieve this reduction. The sticking point for years has been the degree of importance that should be given to domestic measures to reduce the burning of fossil fuels - the main source of carbon dioxide - and how much to instruments such as emissions trading, promotion of clean projects in the developing countries and, most controversially, the use of ``sinks'' (forests) that absorb carbon from the atmosphere. The price of bringing all countries on board has been that a bigger role than would have been advisable has had to be given to sinks and emissions trading. Unfortunately, a few countries - Japan, Canada and Australia - pushed for and obtained concessions on the use of carbon sinks, in spite of the fact that the science on this process is highly uncertain and few technologies are available for monitoring and measuring the process of absorption. The result is that a greater efficiency in the burning of fossil fuels will, it is estimated, reduce emissions by less than 2 per cent, while the rest of the 5.2 per cent reduction by 2012 is to be brought about by use of the indirect instruments. Obviously, countries can continue to be less than careful about the burning of fossil fuels. If this is one problem with the Bonn agreement, a definite plus is the framing of rules for punishment of countries which do not meet their targets by 2012. Defaulting countries will have to make a larger reduction of GHGs in the next period of implementation (2013-17) and also pay financial penalties. The developing countries have left Bonn only with assurances of additional voluntary funding for introduction of clean technologies. But the statesmanship with which the G-77 and China group yet agreed to the final package has won them many friends, especially the European Union which used the occasion to announce new aid of over $500 million a year from 2005 onwards for technology transfer and capacity building.

The deal that has been struck is an extremely complex one. But it is still only the first step on a long road. The signatories to the Kyoto Protocol will now have to ratify the agreement before 2002, the deadline for the coming into force of the treaty. Subsequent measures will have to accelerate the process of emission reduction, because the latest assessments are that global warming is taking place at twice the speed estimated earlier. Deeper cuts in emissions will be possible only if the U.S. shows greater sensitivity to global climate concerns. The Bonn agreement has demonstrated that the U.S. stands isolated in the world on the approach to climate change. That by itself is not likely to change the view of the world's biggest polluter of the atmosphere. The U.S. will reverse its current approach only when domestic pressure forces the Government to join the international community in the cooperative effort to combat global warming.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : An unwarranted standoff
Next     : Constitutional imbroglio in Sri Lanka