Russia formally ratified the Kyoto Protocol - aimed at curbing global greenhouse gas emissions - on Thursday. In doing so, it triggered a 90-day countdown to bring the international climate treaty into force.
The United Nations protocol will become legally binding on 16 February 2005, committing the 30 industrialised countries that have backed it to cutting their greenhouse gas emissions to nearly 5% below 1990 levels. They will have until 2012 to achieve this drop.
“This is an historic step forward in the world’s efforts to combat a truly global threat,” said Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the UN. The ratification documents, signed by Russian president Vladimir Putin, were handed to Annan by Russia’s UN ambassador at a meeting of the Security Council in Nairobi, Kenya.
Most importantly, said Annan, Russia’s support “ends a long period of uncertainty”. The Kyoto Protocol has been in limbo since 1997, when it was first negotiated in Kyoto, Japan.
Tipping the balance
For the protocol to come into force it needed the support of countries that accounted for more than 55% of the industrialised nations’1990 greenhouse gas emissions. When the US said it would not sign up, this crucial threshold looked out of reach but Russia’s support has finally swung it, taking the percentage of emissions covered from 44.2% to 61.6%.
“We have a board outside my office tracking the ratifications,” says Richard Kinley, acting deputy executive secretary of the UN’s climate change secretariat. He says that changing the emission levels on that board was “a symbolic event for me today”.
Russia’s lower parliament, the Duma, voted 334 to 73 in favour of ratifying the protocol on 22 October 2004 after the cabinet gave their backing on 30 September 2004. This final ratification has been widely anticipated.
“But for us, the aficionados, this is the moment that really counts,” Kinley told New Scientist. “Now the clock is ticking.”
“The news that the Kyoto protocol is set to become international law is a victory for the climate,” says Professor Brian Hoskins, chair of the UK’s Royal Society global environmental research committee. “The protocol is an essential first step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases."
According to a press release from the United Nations Environment Programme:
"The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland."
It is a protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC, which was adopted in Rio de Janeiro in 1992). All parties to the UNFCCC can sign or ratify the Kyoto Protocol, while non-parties to the UNFCCC cannot. The Kyoto Protocol was adopted at the third session of the Conference of Parties (COP) to the UNFCCC in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan.
Most provisions of the Kyoto Protocol apply to developed countries, listed in Annex I to the UNFCCC.
Financial commitments
The Protocol also reaffirms the principle that developed countries have to pay, and supply technology to, other countries for climate-related studies and projects. This was originally agreed in the UNFCCC.
Emissions trading
Each Annex I country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So, for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, Canada for instance. This rewards countries that meet their targets, and provides financial incentives to others to do so as soon as possible.
Countries also receive credits through various shared "clean energy" programs and "carbon dioxide sinks" in the form of forests and other systems that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
Washington D.C.-based NGO, in their report "Getting It Right: Emerging Markets for Storing Carbon in Forests", assumes values of $30-40/ton in the US and $70-80/ton in Europe. On April 18, 2001, The Netherlands purchased credits for 4 megatons of carbon dioxide emissions from Poland, Romania, and the Czech Republic; this was part of the ERUPT procurement procedure. These purchase agreements however contained conditions precedent, e.g. referring to the financing of the underlying projects. Since several of these conditions have not been met, the amount of purchased credits has since then decreased.
Status of the agreement
As of November 2004, the agreement had been ratified by 127 countries, representing 61% of emissions. Countries do not need to sign the protocol in order to ratify it: signing is a symbolic act only. An up to date list of those who have ratified is available.
According to the terms of the protocol, it enters into force "on the ninetieth day after the date on which not less than 55 Parties to the Convention, incorporating Parties included in Annex I which accounted in total for at least 55 per cent of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 of the Parties included in Annex I, have deposited their instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession.". Of the two conditions, the "55 parties" clause was reached on May 23, 2002 when Iceland ratified. The ratification by Russia on November 18, 2004 satisfied the "55 percent" clause and brought the treaty into force, effective February 16, 2005.
Revisions
The protocol left several issues open, to be decided later by the COP. COP6 attempted to resolve these issues at its meeting in the Hague in late 2000, but was unable to reach an agreement due to disputes between the European Union on the one hand (which favoured a tougher agreement) and the United States, Canada, Japan and Australia on the other (which wanted the agreement to be less demanding and more flexible).
In 2001, a continuation of the previous meeting (COP6bis) was held in Bonn where the required decisions were adopted. After some concessions, the supporters of the protocol (led by the European Union) managed to get Japan and Russia in as well by allowing more use of carbon dioxide sinks.
COP7 was held from 29 October - 9 November 2001 in Marrakech to establish the final details of the protocol.
As of November 2004, 127 countries have ratified the protocol, including Canada, People's Republic of China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia and the twenty-five countries of the European Union, as well as Romania and Bulgaria.
Fourteen other countries have signed the protocol but not ratified it. Of those six are Annex I countries:
Australia (not intending to ratify)
Croatia
Liechtenstein
Monaco
Switzerland -- Switzerland passed the CO2 law on October 8, 1999 which should allow it to achieve its target of 8% below 1990 levels by 2010. The Kyoto Protocol has been ratified by the Senate but not yet by the House of Representatives.
United States -- The US, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, does not intend to ratify the protocol. (See below)
Some countries that have signed but not yet ratified are: Egypt, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Philippines, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, and the Solomon Islands.
Position of Russia
Vladimir Putin approved the treaty on November 4, 2004 and Russia officially notified the United Nations of its ratification on November 18, 2004. With that, the Russian ratification is complete. The issue of Russian ratification was particularly closely watched in the international community, as the accord will be brought into force 90 days after Russian ratification (i.e. February 16, 2005).
President Putin had earlier decided in favour of the protocol in September 2004, along with the Russian cabinet. As anticipated after this, ratification by the lower (22 October 2004) and upper house of parliament did not encounter any obstacles.
The Kyoto Protocol limits emissions to a percentage increase or decrease from their 1990 levels. Since 1990 the economies of most countries in the former Soviet Union have collapsed, as have their greenhouse gas emissions. Because of this, Russia should have no problem meeting its commitments under Kyoto, as its current emission levels are substantially below its targets. Indeed, it may be able to benefit from selling emissions credits to other countries in the Kyoto Protocol, which are currently using more than their target levels of emissions.
Position of the European Union
On May 31, 2002, all fifteen then-members of the European Union deposited the relevant ratification paperwork at the UN. The EU produces around 21% of global greenhouse gas emissions, and has agreed to a cut, on average, by 8% from 1990 emission levels. The EU has consistently been one of the major supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, negotiating hard to get wavering countries on board.
In December, 2002, the EU created a system of emissions trading in an effort to meet these tough targets. Quotas were introduced in six key industries: energy, steel, cement, glass, brick making, and paper/cardboard. There are also fines for member nations that fail to meet their obligations, starting at €40/ton of carbon dioxide in 2005, and rising to €100/ton in 2008. Current EU projections suggest that by 2008 the EU will be at 4.7% below 1990 levels.
Position of the United States
The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified.
On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.
The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:
The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade. The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".
In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.
The prospect of the US staying outside the agreement influenced a number of other countries including Australia, Japan, and Canada to discuss whether they should ratify the agreement, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the USA. While Japan and Canada ultimately decided to ratify the protocol, Australia's current government has said it will not ratify. Although the major opposition parties have committed to ratification if in a position to do so, the Government retained power in the 2004 election so it seems unlikely that Australia will support the treaty in the near future.
Position of Canada
On December 17, 2002, Canada ratified the treaty. This was however opposed by groups of businesses, non-governmental climate scientists and energy concerns, using arguments similar to those being used in the US.
However an additional twist is involved. The US is Canada's major trading partner (and vice versa), so with Canadian companies having to pay for emissions, and US companies not, the fear is that Canadian companies will not be able to compete on a fair trading ground. In one example a company can sell natural gas to the US to be burned in an electrical plant to produce electricity. That gas, burned in the US, is not subject to "Kyoto tax". However if that same plant were operated in Canada, the gas would be taxed as it was burned. That would result in the same electricity costing more if produced locally.
The result is an ongoing "war of words", primarily between the government of Alberta (a major oil and gas producer) and the federal government, although non-governmental climate scientists are becoming increasingly vocal in the press in their opposition to the treaty. This is largely due to the fact that these scientists were shut out of the consultation process while environmental pressure groups were allowed to take part broadly.
It also appears that the federal government will ask for additional credits for "clean" fuels sold to the United States, most notably natural gas.
A September 2004 poll showed that support in Canada for the Kyoto protocol is around 70% and now includes a majority of Albertans as well, a province that was initially a hub for anti-Kyoto politics. In fact, it is now British Columbia where the support for the Kyoto protocol is the least in Canada but even there the majority is in favour.
The governments of all of the countries whose parliaments have ratified the Protocol are supporting it.
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that reducing these emissions is crucially important; carbon dioxide, they believe, is causing the earth's atmosphere to heat up (see global warming). This is supported by attribution analysis.
Most prominent among advocates of Kyoto have been the European Union and many environmentalist organizations. The United Nations and some individual nations' scientific advisory bodies have also issued reports favoring the Kyoto Protocol.
In the USA, there is at least one student group Kyoto Now! which aims to use student interest to support pressure towards Kyoto Protocol compliance.
As of November 15, 2004, nine Northeastern US states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), which is a state level emissions capping and trading program. It is believed that the state-level program will apply pressure on the federal government to support Kyoto Protocol.
Participating states: Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware.
Observer states and regions: Pennsylvania, Maryland, District of Columbia, Eastern Canadian Provinces, New Brunswick.
Opposition to Kyoto
Two countries (the USA and Australia) oppose the treaty, based on the public statements of their governments. Some public policy experts who are skeptical of the global warming hypothesis see Kyoto as a scheme to either retard the growth of some of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative.
Some critics say there are problems with the underlying science. For example, Russia's influential Academy of Sciences (RAN) said the government's decision to approve the Kyoto Protocol was "purely political," and that it had "no scientific justification." The Russian experts told president Putin that Kyoto was scientifically unfounded nonsense. Andrei Illarionov, Putin's economic policy advisor, compared Kyoto protocol to fascism.
Some critics state that the protocol will prevent or damage economic growth.
American Council for Capital Formation
United States Department of Energy
National Bank of New Zealand
John Lawrence Daly (deceased), author of The Greenhouse Trap, August 2002 [15]
U.S. President George W. Bush
The 1997 Leipzig Declaration called the Kyoto Protocol "dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living". Most of the signers of the Leipzig Declaration are non-scientists or lack credentials in the specific field of climate research.
In June of 2003, an open letter was written to Canada's then-future prime minister, Paul Martin, signed by 46 climate experts from six countries - Martin has yet to respond. A previous open letter was signed by 27 climate experts and sent to then-current Prime Minister, Jean Chrétien.
Some argue that the protocol does not go far enough to curb greenhouse emissions (Niue, The Cook Islands, and Nauru added notes to this effect when signing the protocol, and the standards it sets would be ineffective at curbing or slowing climate change. In addition, there have been recent scientific challenges to the idea of carbon credits, planting "Kyoto forests" or tree farms to reduce total carbon dioxide output. Recent evidence shows that this may in fact increase carbon dioxide emissions for the first 10 years, due to the growth pattern of young forests and the effect it has on soil-trapped carbon dioxide. Several industrial countries have made carbon credits an important part of their strategies for reducing their net greenhouse gas outputs, further calling into question the effectiveness of the protocols.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol, it is necessary to compare global warming with and without the agreement. Several independent authors agree that the impact of the Kyoto protocol on global warming is very small (a reduction of 0.15 Celsius degrees by 2100, out of a projected total change of 1.4 to 5.8 Celsius degrees). Even some defenders of the Kyoto Protocol agree that the impact of it is small, but they view it as a first step, with more political than practical importance, for future reductions, perhaps of up to 70%.
The Kyoto Protocol can also be evaluated by comparing costs and gains. Several economic analyses were made that show that the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than the global warming that it avoids. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue however that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future. Also, they demonstrate commitment to the precautionary principle.
Beyond other arguments some theorists predict that even if the world's leading industrial nations agree to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that there would be no net change in emissions worldwide. If the industrialized countries cut their demand for fossil fuels to meet the emmision reduction responsibilties, the law of supply and demand would tend to cause the world prices of coal, oil and gas go down, making fuel use more affordable for poorer nations. These theorists predict increased fuel use (primarily coal) in the "non-Annex I" countries, tending to offset the reductions of the "Annex I" countries.
It has been a long wait since the Kyoto protocol was signed in the early hours of 11 December 1997. Next year, if Russia sticks to the commitment it made last week, the treaty will at last come into force. And that will allow the world to get on with what really matters: drawing up the successor to Kyoto.
For if ardent greens and out-and-out sceptics can agree on anything, it is that Kyoto will not even come close to solving the problem of climate change. It is, as the UN Environment Programme director Klaus Toepfer said in a statement last week, “only the first step in a long journey”.
The clock is ticking. Every year we are releasing almost 7 billion tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere – carbon that had lain buried since the days of the dinosaurs. It will remain in the atmosphere for around a century, raising the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and trapping more of the sun’s heat.
Before the industrial age, the CO2 level was steady at around 280 parts per million. When the Kyoto protocol was drawn up in 1997, the CO2 level had reached at 368 ppm. Im 2004, it hit 379 ppm.
Floods and droughts
Most predictions of soaring temperatures, floods, droughts, storms and rising sea levels are based on a concentration of 550 ppm. On current trends, this figure, is likely to be reached in the second half of this century. Even if levels rose no higher, this would just be the start. Time lags in natural systems such as ice caps and ocean circulation mean that changes will continue for millennia after the CO2 level stabilises (see graphic).
The bottom line is that only drastic cuts in global emissions of CO2, of two-thirds or more, can stop the concentration of the gas rising ever higher and stave off ever more severe climate change. The more quickly the world can make such cuts, the lower the level at which concentrations will eventually stabilise.
The Kyoto protocol, however, involves only very modest reductions of less than 5%. The US does not support it, developing nations do not have to make any cuts and it expires in 2012. Perhaps most crucially, it does not provide a blueprint for where we want to end up and how we intend to get there.
But activation of the Kyoto protocol would still be highly significant, as it would free negotiators to begin to discuss what to do next. That process is set to begin formally next year, but is also likely to be the main talking point before then, at the next meeting of the protocol’s signatories in Buenos Aires in December. Activation of the protocol would also increase pressure on the US to rejoin the process.
Piecemeal negotiations
Climate scientists say politicians must move on from Kyoto-style piecemeal negotiations on individual national targets to a global plan to cap concentrations of critical greenhouse gases, especially CO2. Most would like to see CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere kept below 450 ppm, but many accept that 550 ppm is more realistic. “I don’t feel that we should be anywhere higher than 550 parts per million of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere,” David King, chief scientific adviser to the UK government, said in a speech earlier in 2004.
This would still lead to substantial climate change, with the temperature rising by 2°C to 5°C and the sea level rising by 0.3 to 0.8 metres by 2100, and by 7 to 13 metres over the next millennium. But a 550 ppm ceiling would stave off even more severe changes. It would also address the international commitment made at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 to prevent “dangerous” climate change. The Bush administration says it stands by that agreement, even though it disowns the Kyoto protocol.
The UK could help set the agenda. The prime minister, Tony Blair, has promised to make tackling climate change the centrepiece of his presidency of the G8 group of rich industrial nations in 2005. Though he is far from finalising his contribution, one option being discussed is to propose a ceiling on atmospheric CO2 that would set a firm and scientifically coherent benchmark to measure the success of future negotiations.
Agreeing on a CO2 ceiling would be the easy part. Any ceiling effectively puts an absolute limit on global emissions over the coming century, and the tricky part will be deciding who is entitled to make those emissions.
Developing countries insist they can only accept quotas based on population and suggest extending the Kyoto plans for emissions trading to smooth the transition. Industrialised countries such as the US, which emits eight times as much CO2 per head of population as China and 18 times as much as India, reject such suggestions, but are having difficulty finding a fair alternative.
Simple measures
Assuming agreement can be reached on emissions quotas, the next step will be achieving them. Stabilising at 550 ppm would mean ensuring global emissions peak no later than 2025, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Simple measures such as improving energy efficiency would help, but they will not be nearly enough. To ensure we add no more carbon to the atmosphere than we take away will require major structural changes to the global energy industry.
How much this will cost is unclear. Some economists say such changes will be hugely expensive, while companies with a competitive lead in alternative technologies see only profits. Big changes will be necessary whatever happens, as oil and natural gas supplies dwindle, though coal is still available in huge quantities.
Then there is the question of exactly what changes to make. The relative contribution of renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, the role of the hydrogen economy and whether fission power has a role to play are still fiercely debated.
The Bush administration insists that research into better technologies is more important than premature, expensive measures to cut emissions, and that may be right. But time is running out. It took 150 years for CO2 concentrations to rise from 280 ppm to 330 ppm; it has taken just 30 years to get from 330 ppm to 380 ppm. Last year, concentrations rose by a record 3 ppm.
That might have been a blip. But it could also mean that the ability of oceans and forests to soak up much of our emissions is reaching saturation point. If so, then we could be on course for 450 ppm by 2030 and 550 ppm by 2060.
