Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol

Notes for a talk at Harvard University - 2002-12-11

Of all environmental problems, climate change has long had pride of place. The British Prime Minister said recently it was the biggest single threat to the world environment.

What are the essential issues?

We must distinguish natural from human driven change:

• natural change
• roller coaster of natural variations during the past 60 million years; wobbles during the last relatively stable 10,000 years: farming in Greenland in 10th century, extreme cold in New England in the 16th century, rising temperatures since 1880.
• until recently we believed that all climatic change was slow; now we know otherwise: evidence of cores from Greenland and Antarctic ice caps.
• human-driven change.
• Environmental change is accelerating because the human foot is on the accelerator. A periodical visitor from outer space would find more change in the surface of the earth in the last 20 years than he would have found in the last 200, and in the last 200 more than in the last 2,000.
• Since the industrial revolution we have been using the sky as a waste unit. As a result carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has now reached its highest level in 400,000 years, and is at a third higher than in pre-industrial times.
• Methane, a less abundant but far more effective greenhouse gas has seen its concentration more than double since pre-industrial times.
• The science of the carbon cycle is imperfectly understood, but there is a clear relationship between atmospheric carbon and global surface temperature.

It is notoriously difficult to distinguish natural from man made processes, but there is a growing consensus, expressed in successive reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, that the human contribution is now having a significant if not decisive effect. Working Group I (Science) of the Intergovernmental Panel concluded in 2001 that:

"… in the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the [human-induced] increase in greenhouse gas concentrations".

The Leading National Academics of Science have endorsed the IPCC's conclusions in general terms. According to the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000 was the 6th hottest year on record being 0.39C above the long-term (1880-1999) average. The only hotter years were in the last decade of the 1990s.

What would a warmer world look like? Here the uncertainties, region by region, multiply. Efforts have been made by Working Group II (Impacts) of the Intergovernmental Panel to assess possible impacts by continent, but the results are inevitably sketchy. However interpreted, they suggest a different world and a correspondingly different distribution of human activity as people and the living organisms on which they depend try to adapt to change. Such change includes new patterns of rainfall and drought, more extreme events, and rising sea levels.

On a global scale effects include:

• Impacts on all natural ecosystems.
• Impacts on water resources, and in particular increased stresses in many poor countries.
• Impacts on food supplies. There will be increased crop yields in high and mid-latitudes countries, but decreased yields in lower latitudes.
• Impacts on human health. Micro-organisms respond rapidly to changes in temperature and moisture. Old diseases such as malaria could return and new diseases could arise.

Then there are the jokers in the pack. There is the possibility of weakening of the Atlantic climate system, which could bring renewed glaciation as during the Younger Dryas. On the other hand there is the possibility of a runaway greenhouse effect, as at earlier times in the earth's history, such as the end of the Palaeocene. Such short term events as the Nino and Nina switches of ocean current offer just the smallest glimpse of the havoc that variations in climate can bring about.

Not surprisingly, the scale of such changes have brought the world together as no other environmental hazard could have done. Governments have realised the need to work together in a succession of events:

• World Climate Conferences 1979 and 1990
• Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports of 1990, 1995, and 2001.
• Its Fourth Assessment Report is due in 2007.

Following from the work of the IPCC, one of the main achievements of the Rio Conference was the Framework Convention on Climate Change. Its broad objective was to stabilize "greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

How this should be done has been discussed at eight successive meetings of the parties to the Convention. Recent meetings have concentrated on the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol agreed in December 1997. This committed thirty-eight industrial countries, including the United States, to a global carbon dioxide emissions reduction target of 5.2% by 2008-2012. It should come into force later this year with ratification due by Russia, Australia and Canada

The sixth meeting or Conference of the Parties in Bonn reached agreement on the ratification of a watered down Kyoto Protocol, but now without the United States. The seventh at Delhi settled some of the details of the implementation mechanisms. On that occasion at the end of October, not much was achieved, but a start was made on the thorny issues of the second commitment period beyond 2008-2012 and emission reduction targets for poorer countries.

Until recently the rest of the world, including India and China, regarded the problem as one for the industrial countries. But increasingly such countries realize how much their own future welfare is involved:

• The Indians fear for the regularity of their monsoon, but even before the Delhi talks their Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee still stated that economic growth was their priority.
• Others, such as Brazil, are being more proactive. The well-respected Pew Centre has suggested that Brazil's emissions are 10 percent lower than they would be because of its aggressive biofuels and energy efficiency programme.
• China, with its massive population is predicted to overtake the United States as the world's largest CO2 emitter. The Chinese claim to have reduced their carbon emissions in real terms over the last ten years. Many accuse China of overstating the reduction, but even research funded by the US Department of Energy has found that due to a combination of the restructuring of Chinese industry, improvements in efficiency and other environmental measures there has been a genuine decrease in emissions.

All this may look positive. But even if the Kyoto commitments were met (itself highly doubtful), greenhouse gas emissions would still be some 30% up on 1990 by 2010. Thus it is no more than a first step. But even that has not been taken by the biggest polluter of all. The United States, with less than 5% of the world's population but around 24% of its greenhouse gas emissions, is the villain of the piece. Its unwillingness to accept binding treaty obligations is not new. With American society being based on cheap energy (gasoline prices are still lower than bottled water;) and vested interests being close to the heart of the current US Administration it is no surprise that President Bush refused to ratify the Protocol. The Clinton Administration, whose representatives watered down the Kyoto draft, was not much better.

More galling is that one excuse given by the Bush Administration for its failure to ratify was that poorer countries had not accepted targets. Yet at the Delhi Conference they used their observer status actively to urge these poorer countries not to accept targets.

As someone close to the Thatcher government's environmental policymaking, what can he tell us about his personal experience of the "greening" of that government and its specific attitudes toward climate change? What about the current Labour government? Is it more or less environmental, and in what respects?

Current British Government Actions

Although Britain has done well I do not want to suggest that we are a paragon of virtue. The most recent future climate scenarios of the UK Climate Impacts Programme paint an increasingly worrying picture about the problems we face. In the face of this daunting prospect the British Government has adopted a legally binding target of reducing its emissions by 12.5% below 1990 levels during the period 2008-2012. But experts believe that global warming is proceeding even faster than was first thought when the Kyoto Protocol was first signed. Thus the Government has also adopted a voluntary target of a 23% reduction by 2010.

Means by which this will be achieved include:

• A climate change levy to encourage business to use energy more efficiently. This entered into force on 1st April 2001.
• A target to double energy generation through Combined Heat and Power of at least 10,000MW by 2010.
• Increase in public money available for energy efficiency and fuel poverty programmes.
• A requirement for electricity suppliers to meet a target of delivering 10% of supply from renewable sources by 2010.
• An integrated transport policy using, for example, road user charging and workplace parking levies.
• A new waste strategy to reduce reliance on landfill and cut methane emissions.
• A voluntary carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme launched in London on 2 April. So far 34 companies have joined the scheme, but it is too early to say whether any significant reduction in emissions will be achieved.

All this looks good on paper. Indications are that the Government will achieve at least its mandatory target of 12.5. It will also have to work out a coherent and tough transport policy. To achieve its targets the Government will have to ensure wider public understanding and support for its actions. It will also need greater resolve than it showed during the fuel protests of 2000.

The European Union position

Is there a European position on climate change, as distinct from the US position, or is "Europe" itself a grab bag of disparate national positions?

The European Union countries, including Britain, ratified the Protocol in New York on 31 May 2002. This event, which will have important consequences for all concerned, went virtually unnoticed. As a top environmental journalist recently commented to me: "Agreement isn't news". What we must beware is the belief that governments have reached agreement and so the problem is being solved.

The European Union has an overall emissions reduction target of 8% by 2008-2012. This breaks down into the following individual country targets which are based on Member States needs and scope for reduction :

European Union % reduction commitment by country: Austria 13%; Belgium 7.5%; Denmark 21%; Finland 0%; France 0%; Germany 21%; Greece 25% increase; Ireland 13% increase; Italy 6.5%; Luxembourg 28%; Netherlands 6%; Portugal 27% increase; Spain 15% increase; Sweden 4% increase; United Kingdom 12.5%.

According to the European Environment Agency the good progress made up to 1999 has slowed so that in 2000 the EU was still only 3.5% below 1990 levels.

In March 2000 the European Union set up its European Climate Change Programme. In October 2001 the Commission of the European Union, which is the initiator of most EU policy, set out the Programme's package of emission reduction measures which is divided into four sections:

1. Cross-cutting
   • Promoting effective implementation of the Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control Directive
   • Proposal for a directive on Linking Project-based Mechanisms (including Joint Implementation and Clean Development Mechanism to a European Union Emissions Trading Scheme. It is hoped that the emissions trading scheme will be in operation by 2005.
   • Proposal for a Review of the EU's greenhouse gas and sinks Monitoring Mechanism to make provision for the extended reporting requirements under the Kyoto Protocol.
2. Energy Issues
   • Proposal for a framework directive for minimum efficiency requirements for end-use equipment for items such as domestic appliances, lighting equipment, compressors, pumps, heating and hot water boilers and air conditioners etc.
   • Proposal for a Directive on Energy Demand Management. Member States will be required to set targets to promote and support energy demand management with efficient technology news services and programmes, especially for smaller energy consumers such as households and small and medium enterprises. It will also set minimum levels for investment energy efficiency and demand management.
   • Proposal for a Directive for the promotion of combined heat and power
   • Initiatives on increased energy-efficient public procurement
   • Public awareness campaigns
3. Transport Issues
   • A proposal for shifting the balance between modes of transport, mainly shifting from road and air to railways and waterways.
   • Proposal for improvements in infrastructure use and charging, with the aim for easing congestion as this reduces the time and energy efficiency of transport.
   • Promotion of the use of biofuels for transport
4. Industry Issues
   • Proposal for a framework directive on fluorinated gases

While these measures are believed to be cost effective, in October 2001 the European Commission admitted that alone they would not be enough to meet the European Union's 8% emission reduction target. It will select further measures from a list of 42 which include:

• the promotion of heat production from renewable energy sources,
• long term agreements with energy intensive industries,
• fiscal measures for passenger cars,
• a voluntary agreement with the car industry on light commercial vehicles
• further technological improvements for vehicles and fuels.

However, given the slow pace of European Union law-making it is doubtful that many of these will be in force much before the beginning of the first Kyoto Commitment period of 2008, and overall the European Union is not expected to meet its Kyoto target by that year. Thereafter the pace should quicken, and the Union should meet its obligations by 2012.

Looking at the wider context, policy responses have also been inconsistent. On the one hand there was the European Union's admirable stance on renewable energy at Johannesburg, on the other are continuing perverse subsidies to the energy industry, far in excess of those offered to less polluting technologies.

How are the EU Member States faring individually?

• The United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden and Germany are doing well. France is still on target but heavily dependent on nuclear power. Other countries, especially Spain which has been allowed to increase its emissions by 15%, are not.
• The need to meet Kyoto targets has also reopened the nuclear debate, especially in the Britain, Germany and Sweden. For instance all but one of Britain's nuclear power stations are expected to close within the next three years. The carbon free energy they supply will have to be found from elsewhere.
• On the horizon is the issue of EU enlargement. Most of the non-EU European countries are members of the former Communist bloc and are either short, or long term candidates for membership of the European Union. With the collapse of Soviet Union and its empire in 1990 and the subsequent changes in their economies, production fell across this region and their green house gas emissions with it. Thus their targets may be too soft and there should be some discussion of what to do with the "hot air" some of the new eastern European partners may bring with them.

Non-European Union Kyoto Protocol Emission Reduction Targets

Bulgaria 8%; Croatia 5%; Czech Republic 8%; Estonia 8%; Hungary 6%; Latvia 8%; Liechtenstein 8%; Lithuania 8%; Monaco 8%; Norway 1% increase; Poland 6%; Romania 6%; Russian Federation 0%; Slovakia 8%; Slovenia 8%; Switzerland 8%; Ukraine 0%.

The Precautionary Principle