Little Happens at Gloomy COP-9
The ninth conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP-9), held in Milan, Italy, from December 1 to 12, was a low-key affair made gloomy by statements from Russian officials that Russia could not ratify the Kyoto Protocol in its present form and by an extraordinary announcement by Margot Wallstrom, the European Unions environment commissioner. Wallstrom warned that only two of the EUs fifteen members — the United Kingdom and Sweden — were on course to meet their Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions.
Agreement was reached on several technical issues related to implementing the Kyoto Protocol. The most contentious issue was whether carbon sinks using genetically-modified organisms could be counted. Environmentalists denounced the use of “Frankentrees” on the grounds that one environmental catastrophe should not be used to precipitate another. But delegates finally agreed that each countrys own laws on GMOs would determine whether GMOs could be used in that country.
With prospects for Kyoto dimming, many side events put on by NGOs and governments were on the subject of what to do next. It seems unlikely that a second commitment period after 2012 can be agreed. Thus various alternatives were discussed, often with a fair degree of candor. It seemed to the editor that two broad camps were being formed at COP-9.
In the pragmatist camp were those NGOs that support a wide variety of future approaches to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. The working idea at present is that all these approaches could be part of an a la carte menu that nations could choose from in order to fulfil their second round commitments.
The idealist camp has settled on promoting the “contraction and convergence” model developed by Aubrey Meyer of Londons Global Commons Institute. Contraction and convergence assigns every person on Earth an identical emissions quota. Over time, this quota would be reduced to the level of average emissions in the poorest countries. In the meantime, richer nations could buy rights to emit from poorer nations. As the quota went down each year, the cost of buying them would go up, so that in theory national per capita incomes would converge at the level of the poorer nations.
Dr. R. K. Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, tried to liven up the proceedings by putting out a press release attacking Ian Castles and David Henderson, who have published a devastating analysis of the IPCCs climate scenarios. The claims made in the press release will only sound plausible to those who have not read Castles and Henderson.
The United States sent a large delegation of approximately sixty officials, headed by Under Secretary of State Paula Dobriansky and Senior Climate Negotiator Harlan Watson. They made presentations on the U. S.s technological research initiatives. In addition, a congressional delegation headed by Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok.), chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, spent December 10 and 11 at the meeting. Senator Inhofe did create a stir at a briefing when he gave a 45-minute speech on the flawed science supporting global warming alarmism. He and two of his colleagues, Senators Larry Craig (R-Id.) and Craig Thomas (R-Wyo.), were immediately denounced in a multi-page press release complete with photos of the three put out by the National Environmental Trust, an NGO pressure group of questionable trustworthiness.
The big event for the World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, the United Nations Environment Programme, and several other groups was the launch of the “international climate symbol.” It consists of a blue and green Earth with a candle flame on top dripping white wax down the side. This symbol can be viewed at www.saveourclimate.org.
EU Commissioner “Torpedoes” Kyoto
At the same time as the European Unions intergovernmental summit on the proposed EU constitution was dissolving in acrimony, cracks began to appear at the commissioner level in EU unity over its approach to the Kyoto Protocol.
EU Energy Commissioner Loyola de Palacio told a meeting of member state energy ministers in Brussels that it would be “suicide” for the EU to follow the Kyoto treaty if Russia did not ratify. “The time has come for us to face reality,” dePalacio said. “We can’t go on pretending that everything is fine when it’s not.”
Italian Industry Minister Antonio Marzano, whose country currently holds the rotating EU presidency, added further fuel to the fire when he said the EU could suffer competitively if it was alone in implementing Kyoto. According to Reuters (Dec. 17), he went on, “Clearly we (energy and environment ministers) are going to have to pool our resources on this…if we are going to find a balance.”
Environmentalists have reacted angrily to the Commissioners stance. “(She) is actively torpedoing the EU’s efforts to keep Kyoto alive,” Stephan Singer, head of the World Wildlife Funds climate and energy policy unit, said in a statement (Reuters, Dec. 18).
Russian Position Further Clarified
Russias position on ratifying the Kyoto Protocol continues to baffle those who do not follow the Russian press. Following the statement of President Putins chief economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, on Dec. 2 that Russia would not ratify Kyoto “in its present form,” environmentalists and their allies have clung to the words the next day of Deputy Economics Minister, Mukhmed Tsikanov, who said that Russia was continuing “to move towards ratification.”
These interpretations ignore the fact, clearly evident from reports from Novosti, the Russian Information Agency, and the Moscow Times, that Dr. Illarionov was actually repeating a statement made at a private meeting by President Putin himself. As Novosti said, “At the meeting Vladimir Putin stated a position regarding Russia’s ratification of the Kyoto Protocol: it cannot be ratified in its present form as limiting the development of the Russian economy.” Dr. Illarionov himself underlined this when he told a news conference on Dec. 4, “The statement I made two days ago repeated word for word what the Russian president said at his meeting with EU representatives.” The statement by Minister Tsikanov was directly dealt with when Dr. Illarionov told Heritage Foundation fellow Ariel Cohen, “When Deputy Minister of Economy said recently that Russia is still negotiating, I corrected him saying that he reflected the Russian position in August. Things are different in December.” (Tech Central Station, Dec. 16).
Although not as widely reported as Tsikanovs statement, some have pointed to the comments of Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov during a visit to Kyoto on Dec. 16, when he said that Russia was moving towards ratification, but that Moscow needed to weigh the consequences of the protocol’s ratification and be convinced that other countries would take on similar burdens.
Dr. Illarionov clarified the position further on Dec. 17, according to the Interfax news agency, when he said that, “Only 32 out of 210 countries have ratified the protocol and committed to lowering greenhouse gas emissions”. Russia could join the protocol if more countries did, he said. Moreover, Russia should be excluded from the addendum listing the countries for which reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is mandatory when they sign the protocol. . . Another option would be excluding the emission reduction commitments from the protocol, he said.” None of these options is likely to be attractive to Kyoto enthusiasts.
Joke on Kyoto
As COP-9 opened, Joke Waller-Hunter, executive secretary of the U. N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, gave her vision of the future of the Kyoto protocol (BBC News Online, Nov. 29).
She began by ignoring reality in praising Chinas “progress” on greenhouse gas emissions. Apparently unaware of recent re-estimates of the amount of Chinas CO2 emissions and Indias recent announcement that it will accept no restrictions on emissions (see the Oct. 30 edition of the newsletter), Ms. Waller-Hunter said, “Countries like India, China and Cuba are all waiting for the protocol’s clean development mechanism to start working — that will let richer countries invest in projects to cut greenhouse gases in the developing world. The rapidly industrializing countries see their environmental and economic interests coinciding. China is really decoupling energy use from GDP.”
Ms. Waller-Hunter went on to admit that the Kyoto Protocol would have very little effect beyond preparing the world for much harsher restrictions. She said, “It’s wrong to think the protocol will do so little that it’s insignificant. It’s a very important first step that can lead to much more far-reaching measures. Yes, it’s a peanut, but a vital one in the long run.”
“At the moment only the industrialized (Annex One) countries have to cut their emissions, but within a few years these cuts will be obligatory for every country. We have to look at a future of increasing carbon constraints.”
Waller-Hunter then admitted that to get poorer countries to sign up would entail a form of massive redistribution of wealth from developed to developing countries when she said, “We shall have to find ways of making the principle of equity a reality, or it will be very hard to get the poorer countries involved.” Equity in emissions means equal per capita rights to emit greenhouse gases, which would require the developed world to buy the capacity it needs to sustain its economies from the developing world.