Kyoto treaty against global warming comes into force by Reuters / UN News / The Independent 11:55am 12th Feb, 2005   16 February 2005    UN’s Kyoto treaty against global warming comes into force. (UN News)    The Kyoto treaty against global warming came into force today with United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan urging the world to save the planet by adding to the limits on greenhouse gases and the UN environment chief stressing that many in the United States, the world’s top polluter, support the protocol despite the US Government’s opposition.    Under the Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), industrialized countries are to reduce their combined emissions of six major greenhouse gases during the five-year period from 2008 to 2012 to below 1990 levels. So far 140 countries have ratified the accord.    The European Union and Japan, for example, are to cut these emissions by 8 per cent and 6 per cent respectively. For many countries, achieving the Kyoto targets will be a major change that will require new policies and new approaches. “By itself, the Protocol will not save humanity from the dangers of climate change,” Mr. Annan said in a video message to a celebratory ceremony in the ancient Japanese capital of Kyoto, where it was negotiated in 1997. “So let us celebrate today, but let us not be complacent.    “I call on the world community to be bold, to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol, and to act quickly in taking the next steps. There is no time to lose,” he added.    UNFCCC Executive Secretary Joke Waller-Hunter, in the keynote address, pointed to indications of climate change just in the past seven years. “Changes to polar ice, glaciers and rainfall regimes have already occurred,” she said. “We see an increasing number of extreme weather events, such as droughts, floods and hurricanes. While more research is needed, these alarming signals confirmed by the scientific community keep climate change high on the political and business agendas in many countries.”    UN Environment Programme (UNEP) Executive Director Klaus Toepfer took to task those who claim that the Protocol “is more dead than alive” without the United States, which accounts for about 24 per cent of global fossil fuel-related carbon dioxide emissions, about twice those of China, the world’s second largest emitter, according to figures from the US Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.    “While the Government of the United States has decided against the Kyoto treaty, many individual states in America are adopting or planning to adopt greenhouse gas reductions in line with the spirit of the Protocol,” he said in a message. “Many businesses there are also active and keen to join the new emission trading schemes and markets opening up. The Government itself is also promoting higher energy efficiency and alternatives like hydrogen and solar,” he added.    But he, too, echoed Mr. Annan’s call to do more. “We must act swift and sure to go beyond Kyoto,” he said. “We must put the planet on course for the up to 60 per cent cuts in greenhouse gas emissions needed to conserve the climate.”    After President George W. Bush withdrew US support for the Protocol in 2001, Russian ratification became vital for it to enter into force since 55 Parties to the UNFCCC must ratify it, including the developed countries whose combined 1990 emissions of carbon dioxide exceed 55 per cent of that group’s total. Russia, with 17 per cent, took the official step in November, pushing the amount beyond the threshold and setting the clock ticking for today’s entry into force.    Mr. Toepfer drew a “terrifying” picture of the impact of global warming drawn from recent reports, “a vision of a planet spinning out of control.” He noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the scientific body which advises governments and which was established by UNEP and the UN World Meteorological Organization (WMO), concluded a few years ago that global temperatures may rise by as much as 5.8 degrees centigrade by 2100 without action.    Another report, launched a few weeks ago by the International Climate Change Task Force, an alliance of three think-tanks in the US, Australia and Britain, argues that even a two-degree rise could take the planet past a point of “no return,” he added. “I certainly hope that these new calculations are proven wrong,” he said. “However, it seems that many of the past theoretical forecasts are sadly coming to pass.”    Meanwhile, the UN High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, Anwarul K. Chowdhury, pointed out the adverse effects that climate change and sea level rise present to the sustainable development of small island developing states. “Never before has the negative impact of climate change been more evident than the recent devastating weather conditions resulting in widespread hurricanes, cyclones, tropical storms, tidal waves, tsunamis in various parts of the world, particularly affecting small island developing states. These small countries are the most vulnerable to global climate change,” he stressed.    "Kyoto protocol about to bite, UN calls it 1st step", by Alister Doyle. (Reuters: AlertNet)    OSLO, Feb 15 (Reuters) - Rejected by the United States, the world's plan to combat global warming goes into force on Wednesday amid scant fanfare and U.N. warnings that it is only a tiny first step.    The 141-nation Kyoto protocol aims to brake a rise in temperatures widely blamed on mounting human emissions of heat-trapping gases that could trigger droughts and floods, raise sea levels and wipe out thousands of species by 2100.    Yet even some backers of the pact, which will be feted on Wednesday mainly in the Japanese city of Kyoto where it was signed in 1997, seem to be lacking enthusiasm.    Many nations, including Spain, Portugal and Ireland, are far above targets for cuts in emissions of greenhouse gases. Britain is in a legal dispute with the European Commission over London's easing of goals for industry and Italy is fretting about costs.    And the United Nations says that fighting climate change will be a long, hard slog.    "Kyoto is without doubt only the first step," Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Programme, told Reuters. "We will have to do more to fight this rapid increase in temperature on our wonderful blue planet earth. It will be hard work.. But if you calculate the cost of acting against the cost of not acting you will see this is the best return on investment you ever had," he said.    Kyoto sets legally binding goals of cutting rich nations' emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly carbon dioxide emitted by burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.    But some are unconvinced that investments, for instance to shift to clean energy like solar or wind power, are well spent. President George W. Bush pulled out the United States, the world's top polluter, in 2001 saying it was too costly and wrongly excluded developing nations from goals for 2012. Australia has also withdrawn. "Even if the Kyoto protocol were extended forever it would have no measurable effect on the climate," said Bjorn Lomborg, Danish author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist". He said Kyoto would cost $150 billion a year and that the money could be better used to fight diseases like AIDS and malaria, combating malnutrition and promoting free trade.    After the U.S. pullout, Kyoto won sufficient backing to start when Russia signed up late last year. It will formally enter into force at midnight New York time (0500 GMT Wednesday).    Most scientists see reason for alarm from the buildup of greenhouse gases since the Industrial Revolution. 1998 was the warmest year since surface records began in the 1860s, followed by 2002 and 2003.    Even if fully implemented, Kyoto would cut a projected rise in temperatures by just 0.1C (0.2F) by 2100, according to U.N. projections, a pinprick compared to forecasts by a U.N. climate panel of an overall rise of 1.4-5.8C by 2100.    Kyoto is the first legally binding plan to tackle climate change, building on a scheme launched at an Earth Summit in 1992 to stabilise emissions at 1990 levels by 2000, a goal not met. And most agree the fight against climate change after 2012 hinges on policies by Washington, which has rejected Kyoto-style caps on emissions.    "Kyoto won't work unless the United States is included after 2012," said Bo Kjellen, a researcher at Britain's Tyndall Centre. Countries like China or India would feel little incentive to sign up if Washington is exempted, he said.    February 16, 2005    "Kyoto is Not Enough to Tackle Climate Change", by Stephen Byers. (The Independent (UK)    Today, the Kyoto Protocol on climate change comes into effect. It is significant because it represents agreed international action to tackle global warming. But it would be a dangerous mistake to believe that Kyoto provides a solution to the scale of the problem our world now faces.    This is not due to the refusal of the US to sign up, or the fact that countries which are rapidly industrializing, such as China and India, are not required to make cuts in their greenhouse gas emissions. The reality is that the cuts required by the Protocol are inadequate in the rapidly worsening situation. In addition, the focus on Kyoto over recent years, and whether or not it will come into force, has become an excuse for inaction. As a result the international discussions about the next step to build on Kyoto have not gained momentum.    Yet the urgency of the issue is clear. Climate change is no longer an abstract concept. Polar ice caps are melting. Sea levels are rising. The earth's temperature is undoubtedly climbing. The five hottest years on record have occurred in the last seven years.    So, Tony Blair was right when he said last year that in the long term climate change was the single most important issue faced by the world. No country, however rich and powerful, will be immune from its effects. And he has made the subject a priority for Britain's leadership this year of the G8, and for the UK presidency of the European Union in July.    Such action is not without political risk. There are two main dangers. The first is that potentially unpopular political decisions need to be taken now with the benefit not being seen for 10 or 20 years. There is a mismatch in timing between the electoral disadvantage and environmental advantage.    Secondly, no nation acting alone can resolve climate change. There has to be concerted international action with all countries playing their part. In particular, this means that somehow the United States, which is responsible for a quarter of the world's carbon emissions, must be engaged.    These are the political challenges facing Tony Blair. If Britain is to make a success of the G8 and the EU presidency, then it is going to have to lead by example. The UK is on track to go significantly beyond the cuts in greenhouse gas emissions required under our Kyoto obligations. However, we have also set our own national target relating specifically to carbon dioxide emissions - to reduce them by 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2010.    As things presently stand, much more will need to be done if this goal is to be achieved. For the sake of our international credibility we must remain committed to this target and use the present review of our climate change program to come forward with a package of policies that will put us back on track to meet this ambitious carbon emissions reduction.    The European emissions trading scheme has huge potential to change the way thousands of businesses think about their energy use. Yet it has got off to a faltering start. The UK Government wishes to revise upwards the level of carbon allocations to business. The EU believes this proposal is too generous to industry and that as a result those businesses that cut emissions, and therefore have carbon allocations to sell, will find few takers, thus undermining the whole scheme.    This stand-off is to no one's benefit. The trading scheme could provide a model for the rest of the world to follow. The EU and the UK urgently need to find a way forward which puts the long term interests of us all first.    By our own actions at home we will be in a strong position to lead on the international stage. The G8 has the potential to be the vehicle by which the US can engage in discussions on climate change. I know that many regard the Bush administration as a lost cause. That the Texas oil lobby has a vice-like grip on energy policy. But there are signs that things are beginning to change. Post 11 September the issue of energy security has moved rapidly up the political agenda.    American financial institutions in general, and the insurance sector in particular, are increasingly concerned about the costs of extreme weather conditions. The insurance industry estimates the cost of claims from last summer's hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico will amount to more than $22bn (£11.6bn) in the Florida alone.    If the mood is changing in the US then the G8 provides the way forward. If we were to propose a Climate Group made up of the G8 plus those rapidly developing countries such as China and India to look at the action necessary to cut greenhouse gas emissions there is a chance President Bush may be prepared to respond positively.    Today, we should give a single cheer for Kyoto but recognize that there needs to be a fresh injection of political will if we are to achieve a new global consensus that will provide the world with the means to meet the challenge of climate change.    (Stephen Byers is co-chair of the International Climate Change Task Force).    © 2005 Independent Newspapers, Ltd.    February 17, 2005    "Emissions trading is Kyoto's success story", by David B. Sandalow. (The Boston Globe)    The auditorium in the Kyoto Conference Center was filled with sleeping delegates after two nights of nonstop negotiation. But Stu Eizenstat, head of the U.S. delegation to the 1997 global warming conference, was wide awake. Exuding energy, Eizenstat turned on his microphone and delivered a simple message - the "final compromise" just circulated for approval was unacceptable to the United States because it deleted all reference to "emissions trading." The conference chairman let silence fill the room, then said simply, "May I please see the U.S. delegation in my office?"    Moments later, as we huddled in a small office, the chairman told U.S. representatives we were the only delegation insisting on a controversial provision and implored us to accept an agreement without reference to emissions trading. Eizenstat refused. The chairman agreed to include the provision, returned to the auditorium, and soon afterward announced that the conference had adopted a new agreement. He proposed a name - the "Kyoto Protocol."    More than seven years later, the agreement has finally taken effect. On Wednesday, the Kyoto Protocol - revered in much of the world, reviled by many in the United States - became legally binding on 131 countries that have accepted its terms.    The event is rich in irony. The United States will not be a party to the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, the Bush administration's rejection of the agreement has become a symbol of its foreign policy for much of the world. Yet the Kyoto Protocol's most enduring legacy may be a uniquely American idea - that "emissions trading" can help control heat-trapping gases at low cost.    Today the European Union - an opponent of emissions trading during the Kyoto talks - is embracing an ambitious "cap and trade" program to help fight global warming. Meanwhile in the United States - birthplace of emissions trading and its strongest advocate in the Kyoto process - efforts to establish a national trading program for heat-trapping gases have stalled, with no progress in sight.    Emissions trading is an alternative to traditional regulation, in which market forces are used to help lower the cost of meeting an environmental goal. In a typical emissions trading program, companies are first given permits to release a pollutant and then given a choice - either use the permits or sell them. Companies that cut pollution cheaply make money by selling permits to companies where cutting pollution is more expensive. The result: An environmental goal is achieved at lower overall cost than under traditional approaches.    These programs have been wildly successful in the United States. In 1990, the first President Bush signed legislation creating an emissions trading program to help fight acid rain. Initial cost estimates ran from $400 to $1,000 per ton of pollution; actual costs have been $100 to $200 per ton thanks in part to the flexibility provided by emissions trading. Similar programs have been used with great success to control ozone-depleting chemicals and urban smog.    In retrospect, the U.S. insistence on including emissions trading in the Kyoto Protocol paid important dividends. Trading programs are far more widely accepted today than seven years ago. Indeed, they are the foundation of the European Union's new plan for controlling heat-trapping gases.    In several respects the Kyoto Protocol has already been a historic success. It has led dozens of countries to adopt serious programs to address global warming, many for the first time. It has greatly improved understanding of the benefits - and limitations - of emissions trading. It has helped educate publics around the world about the risks of global warming.    In other important ways, however, the Kyoto Protocol has been a failure. Its rejection by the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States, severely limits its impact. The agreement's impact on clean energy growth in developing countries will probably be modest. The next generation of global warming agreements must engage both the world's biggest emitter and major developing countries.    (David B. Sandalow, an environment scholar at the Brookings Institution, was assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment and science in the Clinton administration.)    See People's Stories - Environment for more Kyoto stories..
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item