Poor Nations Issue 'Save Kyoto Protocol' Plea in Lead-Up to Copenhagen
by Stacy Feldman - Nov 11th, 2009
in
Developing countries are expressing deep frustration at the attempts by wealthy nations to dissolve the Kyoto Protocol — the world's only existing international legal instrument to cut global warming pollution.
"What emerged [at climate talks in Barcelona Nov. 2-6] is that most developed countries want to kill KP and migrate to a lower-grade agreement," said Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, the Sudanese chair of the G-77 plus China.
The implications of this could be serious.
Contrary to popular belief, the Kyoto Protocol does not expire in 2012. A Copenhagen climate agreement in December was originally supposed to build on the existing legal treaty — not supplant it.
An analysis by Lim Li Li of the Malaysia-based NGO Third World Network explained: "The [Copenhagen] negotiations are not about ending the Kyoto Protocol, but implementing it."
If nations pull off a great escape from Kyoto, observers predict a legal gap in the architecture of the world's climate regime.
"The Kyoto Protocol is the only legally constituted working model we have of international commitment and cooperation to reduce greenhouse gases. And you don't saw off the branch you are sitting on," said UN climate chief Yvo de Boer.
With a legally binding Copenhagen treaty dead in the water, this is "no time to reinvent the wheel," de Boer said. "There is a strong sense that the Kyoto Protocol must continue."
The 'Post-Kyoto' Myth
It is often said that the Kyoto Protocol, now in its 12th year, will expire in 2012. That's only half true.
In 1997, 37 developed countries, called the Annex I Parties, agreed to slash emissions by an average target of 5 percent below 1990 levels over a period of four years, beginning in 2008.
This commitment — and only this — will end in 2012. All the other vital provisions of the Kyoto Protocol, including carbon market and international compliance measures, are expected to remain in full force.
For almost four years, the 184 parties of the Kyoto Protocol have been hashing out new targets for rich countries for the treaty's next commitment period.
These were supposed to be finalized in 2009, to ensure no gap between the two commitment periods. Final figures are still far away. The poor want the rich to commit to a 40 percent cut below 1990 levels by 2020. Current pledges are about a quarter to a third of that.
"We already expected that in [Barcelona] the final figures would have been made available so that these figures could be endorsed in Copenhagen," said Martin Khor, executive director of the South Centre, a Geneva–based research group that provides support to 51 developing nations.
"Unfortunately, [developing country] frustration could be carried over to Copenhagen," Khor said.
Two Tracks, Zero Progress
The United States made it clear it will not become a party to the Kyoto Protocol — ever.
To force its hand on the negotiations, the world agreed at the UN climate summit in Bali in 2007 that climate talks would proceed along two parallel tracks on the road to Copenhagen.
One would be for the 184 nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol. The other would be a broader negotiating track for all 194 parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) — the U.S. included.
The goal: to get rich nations that are not parties to Kyoto to make "comparable efforts" to those that are.
The original end result was for the two-track approach to create two separate outcomes in Copenhagen which would be legally distinct.
Things have changed.
Several Annex I Parties, namely the EU, Japan and Australia, are now arguing for the two tracks to merge into a single, legally binding international treaty. The new deal would bring on board the U.S. and supposedly see greater commitments from the big polluters in the developing world.
Claiming that time is short, rich nations are packaging this new outcome as a political pledge — not a legal one. It would be sealed in Copenhagen and worked into a new treaty within one year, according to some claims.
Some observers see this push for a single outcome as a means to force certain poor nations to take on binding emission reduction commitments, like the rich. Others claim it is a way for Annex I Parties to downgrade, or even get out of, their legally binding Kyoto commitments.
"We have seen countries like the European nations, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, actively or passively seeking to ditch their emission targets under the Kyoto Protocol," said Tom Picken, a campaigner for Friends of the Earth International England.
"They are tearing down an existing legally binding instrument, which has taken years of negotiations to establish in attempts to wriggle out of their responsibility to cut their own emissions first and fastest."
Architecture of Climate Deal: Up In the Air
Overall, what emerged in Barcelona was a picture of total confusion over the future architecture of a carbon regulation regime, a pointer towards even greater difficulties in Copenhagen.
"It's really astounding that at this point of the negotiations [the nature and form of the outcome] is what we're discussing,” said Angela Anderson, director of the Climate Change Program at the U.S. Climate Action Network.
Complicating talks is the Obama administration's so-called "implementing proposal."
Called "pledge and review" in policy circles, the plan calls for countries to come up with climate policies domestically and then bring them to the international community for review.
This "bottom-up approach" is "unacceptable," Greenpeace International wrote in an analysis. There will be no guarantee that CO2 cuts would be in line with what is required by science. And further,
"It makes enforcement only as strong as the domestic system. For the US this system happens to be quite strong but this is not necessarily so in other countries. This approach would eliminate the ability of the international community to respond if there is a problem."
This isn't the first time "pledge and review" has been put on the table.
As Anderson explained, when Kyoto was being negotiated, the concept of "pledge and review" was introduced as a way to strengthen countries' commitments to emissions reductions. It was rejected by the parties as "not being sufficient to address the challenge" and not "accountable enough to produce emissions reductions needed," she said.
Anderson added that Barcelona was the week the world should have taken "pledge and review" off the table. That did not happen.
No Kyoto, No Deal
During the Barcelona talks, developing countries "made it very clear" they would not accept this "climb down of the climate regime," which they see as a planned killing of the Kyoto Protocol, Khor said.
"Developed countries have to make clear they will remain in KP and seriously negotiate in Copenhagen a second commitment period that starts in 2013 for further emissions reductions," he added.
In Barcelona, the Africa Group walked out of talks after developed countries failed to attempt to conclude work on CO2 cuts in the Kyoto Protocol track. The world may see a repeat of this next month in Copenhagen.
A Third World Network analysis warned that Africa "would stand strongly" against any attempts by the rich to reach an agreement which could "in any way result in the Kyoto Protocol being superseded or made redundant."
Whether this threat will infuse the remaining negotiations with new energy or bring them to a complete halt remains to be seen.
"If there will be any failure there it's not because of lack of attempt and efforts from our side," Di-Aping said on behalf of the G-77 plus China.
See also:
UN Climate Chief Praises China, Says US Must Deliver Concrete 2020 Target
Poor Demand Binding Treaty in Copenhagen, as Rich Squash Hope
US Envoy Says CO2 Cuts Proposed by Congress 'More Aggressive' Than EU's
Road to Copenhagen: A New Social Contract
Bookmark/Search this post with:
If we do not move now to save the planet, then when?
Ben Bernanke has just been named "Person of the Year" for saving the global economy from utter ruin by avaricious fat cats and their minions on Wall Street. When is someone going to be recognized for saving the Earth from greed-mongering economic powerbrokers and their bought-and-paid-for politicians?
My vote goes to Yvo De Boer for "Person of the Year", even though everyone realizes he will likely fail to save the planet because Father Profit seems to regularly triumph over Mother Nature. After all, greed rules and rules absolutely in our time, does it not?
All of this is such BS
There is a VERY easy way out of this. One that solves the CO2 emission issue, while not killing the economies.
Have every nation TAX ALL GOOD based on the CO2 that comes from the regional area (that is how much CO2 from a region sq km) were the item was made, where the PRIMARY sub-component was made, and the distance from the final item assemblage to the point of retail. The reason is that right now Kyoto has proven that it will NOT WORK. The reason is that all nations will cheat. That cheating is what will destroy this. In addition, there is a VERY real CO2 cost in making good further and further away. Ideal, the above would be calculate a percentage of a top rate, of which the base rate is raised with time.
For example (Assume America initially charges a top rate of 5%):
Assume that a good comes from Canada, and the good was made 100% in Canada. Canada has LOW emissions per sq km. This is easily verified by all via sat. The sats will show how much CO2 in, and how much CO2 out. In addition, Canada is next door (i.e. very little distance between the countries), so the distance is not an issue. They may have say 10% of the 5% (i.e. .5%) charged against them. If they drop their CO2, then the rate of 10% will drop lower.
Now, what advantage is there is this?
Ideally, each nation would take out a chunk of the tax (say 10%) and apply it to a fund to help that nations that really need it. I am not talking China (a rich nation by nearly every honest measure). I am talking Peru, Columbia, Congo, Nigeria, Pakistan, etc. I am talking POOR NATIONS. These nations will need help to survive this. More importantly, some of that money should be used to help them move off Fossil Fuel to AE/Nukes.
Skip Copenhagen and have the western nations, followed by other nations adopt this approach. It will bring along ALL NATIONS.
Provide Nobel Laureate one good reason for going to Copenhagen
Please, give President Barack Obama a reason for going to Copenhagen next month so that he has a chance to make the difference that makes a difference. Action is needed now. Support the objectives of the Copenhagen Climate Conference before it is too late for even these great, leading-edge human beings with feet of clay to guide the children away from the patently unsustainable lifestyles of the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe among us and toward sustainable ways of living in the planetary home God has blessed us to inhabit as stewards, I suppose.
Post new comment