The Global Commons: Negotiating Climate: Kyoto Protocol Marks a Step Forward

Overview
Greenhouse Gases
Kyoto Goal: Cut Emissions by 5 Percent
Emissions Reflect Economic Size
Per Capita CO₂ Emissions Are Small in Developing Countries
Developed Nations Have Altered the Atmosphere Most
Stabilizing CO₂ Means Steep Emission Cuts Eventually

Overview

How can the international community strike the necessary balance between expanding the pace of economic development -- and resultant higher energy use -- and responding adequately to concerns about climate change? How can nations gradually but substantially reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases without stalling their economies? And how can we ensure that the burden of protecting the climate is shared most equitably among nations? These are the questions the 167 nations that ratified the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change have been grappling with since before they first initialed the treaty at the Rio Earth Summit.

Greenhouse Gases

Share of Greenhouse warming Due to Different Greenhouse Gases

Source: J.T. Houghton et al., eds., Climate Change 1995: The Science of Climte Change, published for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in collaboration with the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations environment Programme (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, U.K., 1996).

In December 1997, these nations began to address these questions by forging the Kyoto Protocol, which was a follow-on to the original climate treaty, and marks the first international attempt to place legally binding limits on greenhouse gas emissions from developed countries. In addition to CO₂, the primary greenhouse gas, the Protocol focuses on five other greenhouse gases: methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆). (See Greenhouse Gases.) Specifically, the Protocol aims to cut the combined emissions of greenhouse gases from developed countries by roughly 5 percent from their 1990 levels by the 2008-2012 time frame, and it specifies the amount each industrialized nation must contribute toward meeting that reduction goal. Nations with the highest CO₂ emissions -- the United States, Japan, and most European nations -- re expected to reduce emissions by a range of 6 to 8 percent. (See Kyoto Goal: Cut Emissions by 5 Percent and Emissions Reflect Economic Size.) By 2005, all industrialized nations that ratify the accord must show “demonstrable progress -- toward fulfilling their respective commitments under the Protocol. To enter into force, at least 55 nations must ratify the treaty, including enough developed countries to account for 55 percent of the global CO₂ emissions in 1990 [1] [2].

The new treaty represents real progress in bringing to fruition the good intentions of the 1992 agreement. For the most part, developed nations have failed to attain the nonbinding emission reductions they committed to in the original climate treaty (i.e., they had agreed to voluntarily reduce greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2000), and have thus acknowledged the need for the binding emission targets represented in the Kyoto Protocol. Despite this progress, the new agreement contains complex issues to be resolved in future negotiations. One issue is that the Kyoto Protocol officially sanctions the concept of “emissions trading” between industrialized nations. In this scenario, a nation whose emissions fall below its treaty limit can sell credit for its remaining emissions allotment to another nation, which in turn can use the credit to meet its own treaty obligations. Proponents of this market-based approach to pollution control believe an emissions trading program will help curb the cost of controlling greenhouse gases by allowing emissions cuts to occur wherever they are least expensive. Such a trading scheme has been quite successful in the United States in lowering the cost of controlling SO₂ emissions from power plants -- the primary source of acid rain. However, the details for implementing such a complex trading plan, involving six different gases across several national borders, will need to be worked out at the next negotiating session in 1998 in Buenos Aires [3] [4]. The plan will need to address how reductions are to be counted, verified, and credited.

Another problematic area is that the treaty is ambiguous regarding the extent to which developing nations will participate in the effort to limit global emissions. The original 1992 climate treaty made it clear that, while the developed nations most responsible for the current buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere should take the lead in combating climate change, developing nations also have a role to play in protecting the global climate [5]. (See Per Capita CO₂ Emissions Are Small in Developing Countries and Developed Nations Have Altered the Atmosphere the Most.) However, the Kyoto Protocol does not set any binding limits on developing nation emissions, nor does it establish a mechanism or timetable for these countries to take on such limits voluntarily. On the other hand, the Protocol does establish a so-called Clean Development Mechanism, which allows developed countries to invest in projects in developing countries that reduce greenhouse gas emissions and receive credit for the reductions. The intent is to help developing nations minimize their emissions even as they develop their energy sectors and expand their economies[6].

Per Capita CO2 Emissions Are Small in Developing Countries Per Capita CO2 Emissions for the 15 Countries with the Highest total Industrial Emissions, 1995 Source: Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (CDIAC), Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, "1995 Estimates of CO2 Emissions from Fossil Fuel Burning and Cement Manufacturing Based on the United Nations Energy Statistics and the U.S. Bureau of Mines Cement Manufacturing Data," ORNL/CDIAD-25, NDP-030 (an accessible numerical database) (Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 1997); United Nations (U.N.) Population Division, Annual Populations (The 1996 Revision), on diskette (U.N., New York, 1993).

Developed Nations Have Altered the Atmosphere Most Cumulative Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1950-95

Still another issue with the treaty relates to the practicability of achieving the specified level of emissions reductions (5 percent from 1990 levels). This task will present a formidable challenge to many industrialized countries, because greenhouse gas emissions have grown significantly since 1990 and are projected to continue growing at a brisk pace without substantial changes in energy consumption patterns and in the mix of fuels used for energy generation. For example, recent U.S. Department of Energy estimates show that by 2010 U.S. carbon emissions are likely to increase 34 percent from 1990 levels in the absence of any change in energy policies and consumer behavior. Stated another way, the United States, as the leading contributor to the world's greenhouse gas emissions, will need to reduce emissions more than one third from their anticipated level to meet its obligations under the treaty. Higher than expected economic growth, lower energy prices, and slower gains in energy efficiency and in the penetration of renewable energy sources have boosted U.S. emissions more quickly than anticipated even a few years ago [7].

The treaty negotiators in Kyoto acknowledged that the Kyoto Protocol represents only a first step toward achieving the goal set by the original climate treaty: to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere "at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system." Even if the Kyoto Protocol is ratified and nations abide by its terms, neither of which can be taken for granted, its effect will only slow -- not halt -- the buildup of greenhouse gases. Unlike the Montreal Protocol on Substances That Deplete the Ozone Layer, which will eventually "solve" the problem of ozone depletion if adhered to, the Kyoto Protocol will not "solve" the problem of climate change, but only begin the long process of weaning the world away from heavy reliance on fossil fuels and other sources of greenhouse gases.

Indeed, although clear consensus has not been reached regarding the level at which greenhouse gas concentrations must be stabilized in order to prevent "dangerous climate interference," calculations by the IPCC make it clear that emission reductions well beyond any contemplated in the Kyoto treaty will be needed to stabilize atmospheric CO₂ concentrations (which are a good proxy for all greenhouse gases) at even two or three times their preindustrial level of 280 parts per million (ppm). For instance, stabilizing CO₂ concentrations at double their preindustrial level -- a common benchmark used in discussions of global warming -- would require eventually reducing global carbon emissions (from all nations) by 60 percent from 1990 levels. And there is no guarantee that this would be a safe concentration. As Stabilizing CO₂ Means Steep Emission Cuts Eventually shows, higher emissions expected in the next few decades will require concomitantly deeper emissions cuts in the future to achieve the same stabilization [8].

Although such deep emissions cuts are beyond the limited scope of the Kyoto accord, climate negotiators hope the new treaty will provide a basis for continued progress beyond 2012 by stimulating energy policy reform and encouraging new R&D investments to bring low-emission technologies to market. It is also possible that the Kyoto Protocol itself could be toughened in the future to include more comprehensive emission cuts designed to eventually stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations at a safe level. If these steps occur, the evolution of the Kyoto Protocol might resemble the Montreal Protocol, which evolved from a weak agreement into a model environmental treaty as the threat to the stratospheric ozone layer became clear.

Stabilizing CO2 Means Steep Emission Cuts Eventually

CO2 Emissions Leading to Stabilization at Various Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations

Source: T.M.L. Wigley, R.Richels, and J.A. Edmonds, "Economic and Environmental Choices in the Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations," Natur, Vol. 379 (January 18, 1996), p. 240.