History

At the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992, The UN agreed that climate change was a serious threat to society and the environment, and that action much be taken 'to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference in the climate system'. This resulted in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. This document said that, as a first measure, all developed countries should reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to below their 1990 level by the year 2000. The agreement was non-binding, and as a result, very few countries are likely to achieve this target.

The other aspect of the convention was a mandate for more long term action to find a permanent global solution to climate change. It was recognised that this would take some time, and so the 'Conference of the Parties' (COP) was set up. This is a yearly summit attended by representatives of all countries who are signatories to the convention.

The first COP was in Berlin in the Spring of 1995. No agreements were reached at this event other than another mandate for further discussion; it was felt that the issue was too complex to be decided in one session of negotiations. It was agreed that a protocol should be negotiated for the thrid conference of the parties, two years later, at Kyoto. The initial agreement would only involve commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the developed (or Annex 1) countries, since they had caused the lion's share of historical emissions.

Non-governmental interests on both sides were well represented at Berlin. Firstly, the industry lobby, under under such guises as the Global Climate Coalition, sponsored many contrarian scientists and economists who put forward theories that global warming would not happen at all, or that it's effects would acually be beneficial to society if it did happen. Needless to say, because of the large amounts of money backing this view, and its appeal to politicians, these views got a great deal of publicity. Also prominent were direct actions by hundreds of environmentalists from across Europe, including locking on to delegate's coaches, and blockading the front doors of the convention on its last day (preventing delegates from coming out until they agreed something meaningful)

A series of smaller meetings took place over the next two years, along with CoP2 in Geneva, to develop the framework for the Kyoto Protocol. It was expected that a certain fixed percentage would be negotiated, and all developed countries would agree to cut their emissions by this amount by about the year 2010.

Two years later, the UNFCCC decended on Kyoto, Japan. This time an agreement had to be reached. The world's media swarmed onto what was essentially a very uninteresting event. In the end, it was agreed to surrender the idea of a uniform percentage cut for all developed countries - national circumstances were too different for that approach to be fair. A 'differentiated' scheme was worked out whereby countries could cut their emissions by differing amounts - 8% for the European Union, 7% for the US, 0% for Russia, and an increase of 5% for Australia.

However, there were a few provisions made which will become crucial to the direction of climate policy over the next few years. Schemes such as emissions trading and joint implementation became known as 'loop-holes' or 'flexibility mechanisms' depending on which side you were on. The details will be explained below

At Kyoto, the main principles of the agreement were agreed. However, this left any details which were not agreed upon, and these have been left for discussion in November 1998, in Buenos Aires.

The Kyoto climate protocol is only a start - everyone agrees that eventually a global agreement is needed which limits greenhouse gas production in all the countries of the world. The idea is that once the rest of the world is convinced that Annex 1 countries are making serious progess, then they will be prepared to take on reduction commitments themselves.

America in particular is not happy with the interim arrangement which the Kyoto Protocol represents. It believes that the agreement should be a level playing field with reduction commitments for developing countries as well as those for developed countries. It argues that while developing countries have no obligation to limit emissions, America's economy is at an unfair disadvantage.

Environmental groups generally believe that the Kyoto Protocol is far too weak, although some believe it to be a step in the right direction. There are several reasons for this. Firstly, the targets are too low: they correspond to a 5.2% cut in Annex 1 emissions from 1990 levels, but emissions are already 4.8% below 1990 in these countries due to the collapse of Eastern Europe. Also, the flexibility mechanisms (emissions trading and joint implementation) mean that countries can count reductions that they have financed in other countries instead of their own domestic emissions, and so they provide loopholes whereby countries can avoid taking action at home.

The Future

• The rules for emissions trading and joint implementation - the flexibility mechanisms.
• How to enforce the Kyoto Protocol - what to do if a country doesn't meet it's target
• How to include removal of CO₂ by 'sinks' in the agreement. This refers to plant systems: they soak up CO₂ when they photosynthesize, removing it from the atmosphere.

In the longer term, the UNFCCC needs to debate how to turn the Kyoto Protocol into a global agreement, whereby all nations are part of a scheme to ensure that greenhouse gas emissions are effectively and permanenetly reduced. There are very few plans at present of how this could be achieved.

One scheme that has been developed, and is gaining a high degree of support, is "Contraction and Convergence", developed by the Global Commons Institute. This proposal involves setting a global cap on greenhouse gas emissions, which is gradually reduced over several decades until a safe level is achieved. The ultimate limit would be decided by the Over this period of contraction, the emissions of each country are required to converge to a level proportionate to their population - although a scheme whereby the right to emit greenhouse gases can be traded is expected to ease the process.

The other viable way of designing a global agreement is for new countries to take on reduction commitments when they are able to (or when the COP says they should). This process is usually referred to as evolution. A scheme such as this would need to ensure that it was predictable enough to allow long term planning, and also that there was some mechanism for monitoring progress towards the ultimate goal of preventing climate change.

Apart from agreements which allocate emissions reductions to countries, there is scope for other international agreements which will have a positive effect at preventing climate change. One proposal,Greenpeace's 'Carbon Logic', is that since the fossil fuel reserves we know about already would have a dangerous climatic effect if burnt, then there should be an immediate moratorium on future fossil fuel exploration. There is also scope for an internationally agreed tax on aviation fuel, which currently represents around 5% of global CO₂ emissions, yet remains untaxed.

Opponents of joint implementation believe it is a way for rich countries to avoid taking action at home. Also, many environmental NGOs believe that the total reduction in emissions may be less now JI is included in the Kyoto protocol. This is because it is difficult to determine whether projects initiated under a JI scheme would have occured anyway, without JI. It is likely that it will be assumed that the project would not have taken place without the incentive of Joint implementation, and so more credit will be given to the financing country than it really deserves.

Proponents of the scheme it is a good method of 'technology transfer' - passing on new, efficient technology from the West to replace the highly polluting systems which are often found in the Third World and former Eastern Bloc, and to provide economic growth for developing countries in the most sustainable way possible. There is cause for concern, however, that JI will act as a mechanism for Western multinationals to extend their control over the economies of the South and East, with no safeguard for human rights, social welfare, or other environmental concerns.

In the wording of the Kyoto Protocol, the term joint implementation is used specifically to mean projects where both countries involved are part of Annex 1. Therefore most projects will probably be financed by Western countries and implemented in ex-communist countries, where reductions are easier to make.

The Kyoto Protocol also mentions another scheme, similar to JI. Elsewhere in the protocol there is a description of the possible 'clean development mechanism', a very similar scheme except it deals with projects between annex 1 countries and developing countries. The details for both will continue to be discussed at Buenos Aires and possibly beyond.

Emissions Trading

Emissions trading is also promised in the Kyoto Protocol, but as with joint implementation, there is much work to do before it is accepted by all countries. The basic idea is that if a country reduces its emissions by more than its emission target, then it can sell its surplus to countries which have not been able to meet their targets.

Like joint implementation, critics of emissions trading believe it is a way for countries to avoid taking action to reduce emissions at home, and simply buy their way out of the problem. There is particular concern about a loophole which has become known as 'hot air' trading. It is feared that some western countries, especially the US, will meet much of their target by buying quota from Russia and Ukraine. Both these countries have commited themselves to stabilising emissions at 1990 levels by 2010, but because of the economic changes after the collapse of communism, both countries are currently emitting 30% less than they were in 1990. Because it is so easy for Russia and Ukraine to meet their targets, it will mean that in neither the buying or selling countries will any real effort have been made to reduce emissions.

In its general commitment to the concept of emissions trading, the Kyoto protocol says that it should be 'supplemental' to domestic action. The meaning of the word 'supplemental' is, however, still quite ambiguous. Whether or not a certain proportion of the emissions reduction has to come from domestic action is an argument which has yet to be resolved. The US is likely to be recommending that it doesn't - in attempts to persuade the Senate to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, American Politicians have been heard discussing meeting as much as 85% of their commitment through trading.

Bubbles

The European Union successfully argued at Kyoto for their target to be met by all 15 EU states collectively. The 8% reduction allocated to them will then be shared out, with some states such as Germany, cutting by up to 20%, and some, such as Portugal, increasing emissions by 25%. This is justified as being in line with European policies on integration, and has become known as the 'EU Bubble'. However, the clauses allowing bubbles are general, and recently America, Canada, Russia, Japan, Australia and ~New Zealand have been discussing setting up a 'Pacific Rim Bubble' This would then offer all the advantages of emissions trading (ie. avoiding domestic reductions) but without any of the rules.

Just as CO₂ can be introduced into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels, so it can be removed by plants as they photosynthesise. They Kyoto Protocol accounts for this by allowing land use change and forestry to be counted towards the emission reduction targets. However, it is not straightforward how this should be done. Terms such as afforestation, deforestation and forest need to be clearly defined, as does the amount emission reduction which can be claimed. One important technicality is whether carbon locked up in forest soils can be included - if so how is it measured? The IPCC has been commisioned to write a special report on this issue, which will be ready before COP6

At present, the only land use change which can count towards meeting Kyoto Protocol requirements is changes in forest cover since 1990. However, this is not the only land use change which can have an impact on greenhouse gas concentrations and when the science is able to account for them, it is likely that these other changes will also be included. Also, research is being carries out into artificial methods of carbon sequestration, where CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere and biologically, physically or chemically stored somewhere where it has no impact on the climate system (eg. in the deep ocean or in aquifers) Many such schemes are proposed, most have serious hazards associated with them, but there is a danger that politicians may be convinced that this 'climate engineering' is preferable to challenging consumerism.

The UNFCCC has also been discussing how best to facilitate the transfer of environmentally sound technology and knowhow. To this end, it has been discussing the establishment of national clean technology centres in each country, to act as information centres where the best practice for each application can be found.