CLIMATE CHANGE

"I stand before you as a representative of an endangered people. We are told that as a result of global warming and see level rise, my country, the Maldives, may, some time during the next century, disappear from the face of the Earth." Spoke H.E. Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, President of the Republic of the Maldives at UNCED in 1992. Sea level rise, floods in Mozambique, forest fires in Indonesia, hurricanes in South America or storms in Europe -- freak weather events like these are predicted to become more frequent because of man made climate change: the last two years have seen more serious extreme weather events than the twenty years before.

Greenhouse gas emissions that heat up the atmosphere mostly result from burning fossil fuels, excess meat production, hundreds of millions of cars and a resource hungry industry to feed (mostly northern) over-consumption patterns.

Climate change is the most serious threat the world has to face over the next decades. Those who will suffer most are the poorest of the poor who cannot protect themselves from floods, droughts, spread of diseases and the like. Climate change also underlines an outstanding lack of equity: while an average citizen from the US produces about 20 tonnes of carbon dioxide, a person from India is responsible for just above one ton. It's the rich countries who are mainly responsible for climate change, but the poor will have to pay for it.

To properly assess the impacts of climate change, the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and UNEP established the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) already in 1988. Its reports on scientific and socio-economic aspects of climate change as well as on options for limiting greenhouse gas emissions have played a major role in the international negotiations to tackle climate change.

According to the IPCC, global temperature may rise 1 to 3.5°C by the year 2100. This may not seem a great deal but should be compared with the rise in temperatures since the last ice age of only 3-5°C. Scientists argue that to stabilise the global climate, a reduction of 60-80% in greenhouse gas emissions would be necessary. Even if greenhouse gas emissions were stabilised today, atmospheric temperature would continue to rise because of the long life time of greenhouse gases. Apart from extreme weather disasters, a rise in average global temperatures can have additional negative affects: increased desertification in arid and semiarid zones; loss of biodiversity as climatic zones change too quickly for many ecosystems to adapt - just to name a few.

THE DEBATE

At UNCED, in 1992, the "UN Framework Convention on Climate Change" (UNFCCC) that aims to "achieve … stabilisation of greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system" was signed by more than 180 governments. The UNFCCC promotes the principles of common but differentiated responsibility and precautionary action. Given the overall lack of willingness to take action, it can already be regarded as a success that climate change itself and its adverse effects were acknowledged (and the need to curb it at least to a level that ecosystems to adapt naturally to it) as a common concern of humankind. The UNFCCC recognised the particular role the industrialised countries have in taking the lead in curbing global warming and to assist developing countries to averse the negative effects of climate change and to allow adaptation.

In 1997, the parties signed the Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC which basically lists emission limitation and reduction commitments for developed countries and countries with economies in transition. The Kyoto Protocol aimed for a reduction of 5,2% of greenhouse gas emissions compared to 1990 levels. Since 1997, the parties have been meeting on international conferences and arguing how to turn their commitments into action and how to lighten their burden by introducing so-called flexible mechanisms. The main conflict over the recent past related to how these mechanisms should look like and to keeping the environmental integrity of the Protocol, i.e. achieving real reductions of emissions in the end.

In July 2001, heads of state met in Bonn to settle the disputes about how the mechanisms of the Protocol would actually work. The US had been playing an infamous role by refusing to commit themselves to any action and trying to trash the entire agreement. The agreement was made; without the US, extremely weak and with hardly any direct positive impact on climate change - but it's a beginning. The Bonn agreement also included a legally binding compliance regime to be completed at the following conference in Marrakech, where Australia, assisted by Canada, Japan and the USA, attempted to undermine the legally binding nature of the compliance regime of the Kyoto Protocol.

The seventh Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC took place in Marrakech (Morocco) from in late 2001. Negotiations were meant to complement the mainly political decisions of the previous conference in Bonn on the design of the political core elements of the Kyoto Protocol with further technical rules. These rules cover issues such as what penalties countries that fail to reach their targets will face, how they can buy and sell the right to emit greenhouse gases, and to what extent countries must report on the amount of emissions they produce each year.

The international community now prepares for the next conference (COP8), taking place in India. It will use the meeting to prepare for the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. Delegates will also focus on key concerns of developing countries, such as how to gain better access to low-emitting technologies and how to cope with the expected impacts of climate change.

America had been strongly criticised by foreign leaders and environmental activists for its rejection of the Kyoto protocol, which is widely regarded as crucial to halt global warming. The US argues that the agreement would prove too expensive for its polluting industries and would cost millions of US jobs. It also complains that it is unfair because poor countries are not bound to cut carbon emissions.

WHAT NEXT?

Kyoto will only come into legal force when it is ratified by the governments of at least 55 countries representing 55 percent of 1990 CO2 emissions. The fate of the Kyoto Protocol has been hanging in the balance since U.S. president George W. Bush pulled out of the treaty, saying that it was flawed. Australia followed suit. As of August 31, 2002, 89 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, including countries which account for 37.1 percent of carbon dioxide emissions. The Russian Federation, which has recently announced to ratify the treaty, contributes 17.4 percent of the world’s emissions, leaving only 0.5 percent before the treaty can come into full force.

The EU countries and Japan have ratified the treaty [ L I N K  EU Nations Ratify Global Warming Pact; Reuters news story, May 31 ]. It is critical that Australia and Russia ratify to make up the numbers -- without the US. If they do not, Kyoto will collapse. NGOs are calling on governments to pressure the United States with regard to its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol and at the same time urge their own countries to ratify soon.

Ratifying the treaty does not save the climate. Governments now need to push the Protocol's entering into force, but also look ahead and do more. In consecutive budget periods, its targets should be strengthened step by step, new countries should join its commitments and and the United States re-engage to limit and consequently reduce emissions, and common and co-ordinated measures should be approved. The Kyoto Protocol is a work in progress, that is in its current state unable to meet the needs to avert climate change, but it is the only game in town.