Falsehoods and Truths of the Climatic Summits

1998/12/01 Etxaide, Maider Iturria: Elhuyar aldizkaria

• Ingurumena

What happened in Kyoto

The Kyoto Climate Summit, held in December 1997, was the most giant and important climate conference to date. It approved a legally binding protocol. This protocol established limits on greenhouse gas emissions in the richest countries. Thus, 39 states pledged to reduce their greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to 1990 levels for the period 2008-2012.

But not everyone will have to reduce the same: The European Union (8%), the United States (7%), Japan (6%), Ukraine, the Russian Federation and New Zealand (8%) will maintain the same level and, finally, Norway, Australia and Iceland (1.8% and 10% respectively) will rise. The Member States of the European Union will also not have to act in the same way: although some are obliged to reduce them a lot, others may increase their emissions, such as Spain, which, in a shameful way, has had to increase their emissions by 13%.

On the other hand, most undeveloped states did not commit to Kyoto, even though the developed country has endeavored to achieve this cynically. It is clear that this Kyoto decision is nothing but null in the face of the gravity of the situation. According to statements made by the intergovernmental panel of experts, global reduction must reach a minimum of 25% to have significant effects on the climate. However, the energy and automobile multinationals that are against the reduction, gathered in coalitions, managed to get results in their favour with too strong pressure.

At best, the Kyoto protocol can be a gesture to industry and governments to start changing their energy system by looking for efficiency and starting to widely use renewable energy sources.

Protocol traps

Governments took advantage of the Kyoto meeting to clear their image: rich countries, the most responsible for climate change, showed good intentions but showed little desire to take effective action. In addition, they proposed many “escapes” to not comply with the protocol, and the configuration of those escape routes is the essence of what was treated in Buenos Aires.

There are three avenues: on the one hand, trade with emissions, on the other, consideration of carbon sinks as a way of offsetting emissions (the “net emissions” approach) and, finally, the joint consideration of all greenhouse gases for reduction (the “basket of gases” approach).

Trade would take place among the 38 countries that signed Kyoto and consists of: If in the period 2008-2012 a municipality issues less than allowed it can sell to another the difference between what is allowed and what is issued, so that that other municipality can exceed in that measure its authorized amount. In this way it reserves 5.2% global.

Another way of marketing would be to trade “emission reduction units” between municipalities. This means that rich countries (or large companies) could invest in projects that could further reduce their emissions. This sale would be like two: one between the rich peoples (called “co-execution”) and another between the developed and developing people (called the “clean development mechanism”).

Undoubtedly, the Kyoto protocol can become “the most important trade agreement of this century”. In addition, emissions traffic offers an easy getaway to countries that are able to pay, as they will not have to change their energy systems. This can lead to negative consequences in the future, as they will not be able, without major disasters, to face severe cuts.

Views of “net emissions” and “gas basket”

Net emissions are calculated by subtracting the number of industrial greenhouse gas emissions that absorb ecosystems. Applicable from the period 2009-2012. The calculation of carbon sinks is a complicated problem due to the lack of precision in the calculation of carbon flow in ecosystems. On the other hand, natural sinks, especially forests, are transient and can become carbon sources if degraded. In order to avoid the problems generated by the net approach, it is advisable to separate both sinks and emissions reduction targets.

On the other hand, the vision of the “gas basket” is based on the unification of emissions of all greenhouse gases (six in total). To do this, the different atmospheric heating capacity of these gases is taken into account and the conversion of all these gases into “CO2 equivalent”. This reduces the gases that are smaller and prevents the need to reduce the most backward greenhouse gas, CO2. For this not to happen, the reduction targets should be set by gas.