After Bali

Corporates hunt for profits as the climate change crisis builds

(December, 22, Paris, Sri Lanka Guardian) Most scientists now agree that unless we limit greenhouse gas emissions, the planet could heat up by between 1.4ºC and 5.8ºC by the end of the century, with catastrophic consequences.

Governments acknowledged the problem by signing the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) at the second Earth Summit held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. Since then there have been regular negotiations at both international and national levels.

Under the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the international community accepted the concept of “common but differentiated responsibilities” and agreed targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Thirty industrialised nations signed up; developing countries took part in the negotiations but were exempted from specific reduction goals. Opposition from the planet’s leading polluter, the United States, which was required to reduce emissions by 7%, delayed the implementation of the protocol until February 2005. But 168 states have now ratified it – an indication of its importance.

But as new economic powers like China and India emerge, energy use continues to increase. More than ever, looking beyond the Kyoto Protocol, the campaign to combat wastage, to increase energy efficiency and to replace fossil fuels with renewable resources is absolutely crucial.

The first phase of the Kyoto Protocol is due to end soon, in 2012. The aim of December’s Bali conference was to set an agenda for negotiations on a global agreement on new methods of application to extend Kyoto beyond 2012. But contradictions remain. Developing countries from the Group of 77 have reminded the industrialised nations of their historic responsibility and want them to lead the way in cutting pollution. In September President George Bush organised a meeting of the world’s 17 leading polluters in Washington, at the end of which the US administration maintained its opposition to mandatory limits on carbon output. In a more positive development, China gave its support to the protocol as “the basis for any future international agreement on climate change”.

Although it is inconceivable that there should be no agreement to cover the period after 2012, it would be stupid to regard Kyoto as the miracle solution. The protocol’s positive achievements are undermined by perverse effects. Some of its “flexible mechanisms” do nothing to help the structural reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. While defending Kyoto, we must also ask some very serious questions.

(Courtesy- Le Monde Diplomatique)