Kyoto Is Saved Again ? But Will It Save the Earth?

ROME — Russian President Vladimir Putin's decision to ask parliament to ratify the Kyoto Protocol should belatedly allow the anti-global-warming treaty to come into force, but it's far from saving the climate.

While Putin, who once joked that the chilly regions of Russia could benefit from global warming, basks in the praise of environmentalists, climate experts say that even with the treaty in place, the world has barely started to tackle climate change.

Scientists say a reduction of at least 70 percent of greenhouse emissions over this century is necessary to curb the worst effects of climate change, which could include rising sea levels, flooding, and more frequent chaotic weather events such as hurricanes and droughts.

The pact requires developed countries to reduce greenhouse emissions by 5.2 percent of 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012.

But without the United States — which withdrew in 2001 — and with loopholes designed to entice Russia and Japan into ratifying, Kyoto may ultimately only cut emissions by as little as 1 percent, some analysts say.

"The 5-percent reduction was a baby step; this is an even more baby step," said Greenpeace's Steve Sawyer.

Galvanizing

Despite that, environmentalists are still delighted at the prospect of Russian ratification. It will mean that nations accounting for more than 55 percent of developed countries' carbon dioxide emissions are on board, the last requirement for the treaty to become binding.

"I hope other nations ... will now join us in this truly global endeavor," said Klaus Toepfer, head of the U.N. Environment Program, with a nod to Australia and perhaps the United States.

The Australian general election next week pits an anti-Kyoto government against a pro-Kyoto opposition.

In the United States, Democratic challenger Sen. John Kerry has said Washington should take a lead in confronting global warming — although he also says it is too late to sign up for Kyoto, which runs until 2012 and which the incumbent George W. Bush withdrew from.

Kyoto's supporters say the Russian decision will also galvanize support for sometimes painful and costly emission reduction measures in countries that were starting to waver.

Loyola de Palacio, head of transport and energy policy at the European Commission — which fought to keep Kyoto afloat after Bush's pullout — said last week the E.U. should rethink its own climate policy if Russia did not ratify.

The E.U. is set to launch the world's first international greenhouse gas emissions trading system in January, allowing countries and firms that cannot reach their targets to buy "credits" from neighbors who have made greater cuts.

Russia, which will have a surplus of credits due to the collapse of much of its Soviet-era industry since 1990, will be a net seller. The emissions trading data firm Point Carbon said Russia could make US$10 billion in this way by 2012.

Influence

The emergence of emissions trading could be a way for the United States to return to the global climate effort.

"The United States is in a difficult position because they are now isolated and they don't like to sit at the back of the room and have no influence," said Dirk Forrister, a former U.S. climate change negotiator who is now managing director of the emissions trading firm Natsource Europe. "There will be increased pressure on the United States from the international community to do a parallel program of some kind. That's true, whatever party wins the next election."

With Kyoto now apparently brought back to life, negotiations can begin again on new, tougher targets for after 2012 and the possibility of getting fast-developing nations to accept curbs. Those talks could start at a U.N. climate change meeting in Buenos Aires in December.

By 2012, environmentalists hope the United States might rejoin the system. "We might need to change its name," said Greenpeace's Sawyer. "People in Washington come out in a rash when you mention Kyoto."

Source: Reuters

[roen]

It might not save the planet but what's the alternative? Leave things to Bush? We have to do something.

[MarkuisMellvile]

Kyoto alone won't save the planet, but if we allow it to fail the chances of agreeing a workable strategy to rectify the damage humankind is doing is unlikely to happen in our lifetimes - after which it may be too late.

Kyoto was never expected to be an all-in-one solution to climate change, but it is a welcome first step towards international co-operation on the issue.

If Kyoto comes into force, and at least contributes to minimising our impact, we can all applaud the world leaders who signed their names in 1997.

The future looks even more bleak without immediate progress in the form of returning to 1990 emissions leves by 2012.

[tom]

Kyoto is all well and good but no one really knows whether mankind is causing global warming or whether it is a natural occurence.

If its the latter then surely the money being spent on Kyoto would be better spent on minimising the damge caused by climate change.

[MarkuisMellvile]

Originally Posted by tom

Kyoto is all well and good but no one really knows whether mankind is causing global warming or whether it is a natural occurence.

The evidence is described many times over in every climate change thread

We all know we are emerging from an ice-age, so the globe is steadily warming of its own accord, but since 1950 the increase in carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has accelerated beyond anything seen in the last million years.

The greenhouse effect is a natural and necessary phenomenon, without which life on Earth would not exist in its present form. What anthropogenic emissions are doing to the planet is adding to the warming effect by a measurable quantity that is increasing with time.

Originally Posted by tom

If its the latter then surely the money being spent on Kyoto would be better spent on minimising the damge caused by climate change.

The atmosphere is such a vast reservoir of heat that it takes hundreds of years to reach equilibrium. The best way we can spend money is in minimising our impact on the warming process, as no amount of billions spent sequestering greenhouse gases will succeed in the long-term.

Emptying financial reseves to build bigger flood defences along every watercourse on Earth hardly seems like a worthwhile strategy either now does it?!

Without international cooperation on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, all other expenditure on coping with climate change (population displacement, extreme weather events, resource-centred conflicts, biodiversity losses etc.) is like pouring scarce money down a bottomless pit!