The Kyoto Protocol

In 1992, countries joined an international treaty, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change UN-FCCC), to agree on what they could do to address climate change, and to cope with whatever impacts were, by then, inevitable.  In 1997, the meet again in Kyoto, Japan and crafted what we now know as the Kyoto Protocol, and international treaty which sets legally binding targets of limitations and reductions in their total country emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) between 2008 and 2012.  We have discussed in previous write-ups that these mainly refer to carbon dioxide, measured in tons of CO2-equivalent.

There's more to mainly agreeing that indeed there is an increase in anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of GHGs.  The countries and the protocol agreed that the "developed countries" are principally responsible for the increasing levels of GHGs, and they attributed this to the industrialization in the last 150 years.  We wrote in the previous instalments that the industrial revolution was caused by the invention of both internal combustion engines and the production and use of electricity using fossil fuel (coal, petroleum, gasoline, etc.).  Carbon dioxide emissions per capita in developed countries are three times those in developing ones.

Thus, the Protocol segregated countries between those listed in Annex 1 - developed countries who shall cap their emissions with a binding target, and non-Annex 1 countries, which do not have binding targets but which were committed to reduce their emissions.  It's important to note that as early as 1997, the countries in the world have already distinguished between the large emitters, both in absolute terms and per capita, as what we have discussed last Sunday, and that a commitment period was set.  It would be largely ineffectual to agree to reduce emissions, and then not put a timeframe to it.  2008-2012 was the first term.

But we have to note the significant issues about the individual country commitments because these are not absolute.  Firstly, signing only becomes effective when the country ratifies their commitment.  The United States of America, significantly, up to this date, has not ratified the Protocol, and Canada withdrew from the Protocol.  There are 192 parties to the convention which took effect in 2005.  The Protocol was amended in 2012 to include a second commitment period - 2013 to 2020, but until last year, this has not been legally enforced.

What do the countries do under the Kyoto Protocol, both those which belong to Annex-1 and the non-Annex-1 countries?  Well, they initiate programs to reduce their GHG (mainly carbon dioxide) emissions.  You do this by going into programs of reducing dependency on fossil fuel combustion.  That's why vehicle fuels are developed and upgraded so that they will have less emission to produce the same amount of work.  We hear of such terms as Euro-2 and Euro-4 standards of fuel as well as the vehicles that use them.  Presumably, the higher the number, the cleaner the fuel.  These are European emission standards, and it is rumoured that Euro-6 will be established by September 2014.

Then there's the move towards renewable energy - power not generated by the combustion of fossil fuel but produced by the sun, wind, rain, water, geothermal sources, etc.  We even have a Renewable Energy Act, which seems not to have gained popular support, or may just lack the advocacy and public support.  We ventured into biofuel production - bio-diesel, biogas, and other bio-plants, changing the hinterland landscape by producing Jetropha.  Unfortunately, even the latter has been tagged as one of the projects associated with the ongoing PDAF scam controversy.  We also see a lot of windmills sprouting around.

Reducing deforestation is also one way of reducing GHGs.  But this takes a lot of political will which hopefully we can attain.  The other easier way, really is to promote energy efficiency.  That's why we turned to fluorescent lights from incandescent bulbs but are now replacing these with LED lights.  More expensive but their energy consumption is only a fraction of the old lights.  It's good for the pocket, too, lesser electricity bill, and you contribute to the whole idea of combating climate change.

Was the Kyoto Protocol a success, or is it still worth pursuing?  We still have those international conferences, right?  What were the mechanisms which helped the protocol?  These we need to know in order to understand how the developed countries cope with the demands of their binding targets, and how the developing countries could benefit from it.  Thus, also included in the Kyoto Protocol, is the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).  (To be continued)