Global Warming an Update from Durban

Global warming – an update from Durban

The Kyoto Protocol – the agreement that commits developed countries to reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases – runs out at the end of 2012. At the recent annual conference on climate change(this year held in Durban, South Africa) some European Union countries, along with Switzerland and Norway, suggested they were prepared to carry on with the Protocol. Japan, Russia and Canada announced that they were unwilling to undertake new emission targets beyond 2012.

Since 1992, when negotiations for the Kyoto Protocol fist began, greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 50%, and in 2010, despite a global recession, they rose by 5%.

Before the Durban conference, most countries were going to follow national targets for carbon emissions after 2012, which would be voluntary and not legally binding. At the Durban summit, the EU’s climate chief, Connie Hedegaard, suggested a continuation of the Kyoto Protocol after 2012. It is now to be extended to 2017. Developing countries have been calling for a continuation for a number of years. However, the EU wanted all economies, not just MEDCs, to sign up to a road map (to be completed by 2015) that would eventually lead to a legally binding treaty by 2020.

China (who was blamed at the 2009 summit for its stubbornness in working towards a new deal) also called for a continuation of the Protocol after 2012. China argues that although its carbon emissions are increasing, this is due to the manufactureof goods destined for MEDCs. In China’s latest five year economic plan, there are plans to reduce significantly greenhouse gas per unit of economic output. In addition, it also plans a huge increase in renewable energy.

The Durban Agreement

The Durban Agreement has reopened the debate about a legally binding global agreement. Countries now have four years to decide how far and how fast they can cut their carbon emissions. World governments, including LEDCs, have committed themselves to reaching a global agreement to reduce

greenhouse gases. This agreement would come in force from 2020. In contrast, the Kyoto Protocol only included MEDCs, and the climate change summits at Copenhagen (2009) and Cancun, Mexico (2010) were not legally binding. Legally binding treaties are more difficult for politicians to ignore.

Negotiations have been very slow – many countries have vested interests and many countries (and companies) wield considerable economic and political power. However, to avoid global warming rising over 2°C over current temperatures, carbon emissions will need to fall from c. 44billion tones in 2020 to below 35 billion tones in 2030 and below 20 billion tones by 2050.

The US special envoy for climate change, Todd Stern, said that much preparatory work would need to be done even before negotiations began. The difficulty of reaching an agreement between China, India, the USA, EU and developing countries is immense. LEDCs insist that MEDCs bear most of the blame for climate change and should bear the financial burden of addressing it.

The scale of the task is daunting. The EU will need to cut its carbon intensity (the amount of carbon dioxide released as a proportion of energy produced) by 5% a year until 2050. When France expanded its nuclear power in the 1990s, it achieved a 4% pa (per annum) reduction. The UK switch from coal to natural gas only resulted in a 3% reduction.

A controversial issue is historic emissions. MEDCs started burning fossil fuels earlier and are responsible for most of the CO2 already in the atmosphere. Some EU countries have made attempts to reduce their emissions. Another issue is that some countries have large forests capable of absorbing CO2. Another is that the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), by which MEDCs offset their carbon emissions by paying for projects that reduce carbon emissions in LEDCs, are trading near an all time low.

The Indian Environment Minister insisted that equity was vital. This would need to take into account the need of LEDCs to take people out of poverty, population size and historic emissions. Money is a big factor. LEDCs have been pledged $100 billion by 2020 to cut emissions and cope with the effects of climate change – in an era of recession and cutbacks, the $100 billion might not be readily forthcoming.

Another potential spanner in the works is if the USA elects a Republican President at the end of 2012. If so, a deal may be very difficult to negotiate. However, if Barak Obama is re-elected he may well want to achieve a global climate deal as part of his legacy.

Canada jumps

Just one day after committing to the new road map, Canada pulled out of the Kyoto Protocol altogether. Canada’s move was denounced by many countries, including China. Under Kyoto, Canada was committed to reduce its greenhouse emissions by 6% in 2012, compared with 1990 levels. However, owing to exploitation of lucrative tar sands, its emissions have risen by 30%. Its oil tar sands are the second largest oil reserve in the world and they create heavier carbon emissions than crude oil. Canada would have to pay billions in CDM to meet its Kyoto target in 2012. It would have to transfer $14 billion to buy carbon permits from other countries.

Questions

1.What is the Clean Development Mechanism?

2.How does the Durban Agreement differ from the Kyoto Protocol and from the Copenhagen and Cancun summits?

3.Why has Canada left the Kyoto Protocol?

4.In what ways do MEDCs and LEDCs blame each other for emissions of CO2?

Suggested answers

1.Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) is the process by which MEDCs offset their carbon emissions by paying for projects that reduce carbon emissions in LEDCs.

2.The Durban Agreement differs from the Kyoto Protocol in that it includes MEDCs and LEDCs rather than just MEDCs; it differs from other summits in that it is working towards a legally binding treaty.

3.Canada left the Kyoto Protocol because it was unable to fulfill its obligations. It was due to reduce its greenhouse emissions by 6% in 2012, but its emissions have risen by 30%. Canada would have to pay some $14 in CDM to meet its Kyoto target in 2012.

4.MEDCs often claim that it is rapid industrial growth in China and India, in particular, that is fueling climate change at present. In contrast, LEDCs insist that MEDCs bear most of the blame for climate change and should bear the financial burden of addressing it.