Viewpoint M
his July, negotiators will gather in Bonn to continue negotiations on implementing the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC or Climate Change Convention). (See box on page 206A for helpful Web links.) With the Bush administration reportedly seeking to undo the United States’ signature on the Kyoto Protocol, this meeting—COP-6.5—may be the swan song for the Kyoto Protocol. But it will not be the end of the international effort to combat climate change, which even the Bush administration seems to acknowledge. At this point it is difficult to predict what might happen at the July meeting. What kind of proposal will the Bush administration present? What counterproposals might other countries put forth? Rather than trying to forecast the script for Bonn, instead
No matter what happens at the upcoming U.N. framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in Bonn, it will be the end of the international effort to combat climate change
204 A
I
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / MAY 1, 2001
© 2001 American Chemical Society
MICK WIGGINS
AMY ROYDEN
I’d like to describe the players and their general positions and offer just one suggestion to the new U.S. administration, which should hopefully set the stage for COP-6.5. There are four key negotiating groups: the European Union, the Umbrella Group, the Economies in Transition, and G-77/China. The European Union (EU) advocates limiting the use of mechanisms such as emissions trading among countries and crediting sinks (carbon sequestration), so that parties obtain most of their emissions reduc-
tions through domestic measures that curb industrial emissions. Although these positions are lauded as being “green”, they also benefit the EU. The EU can oppose the use of emissions trading by others because its members agreed to a collective target (the “bubble”) and thus, in essence, can trade among themselves. EU countries do not have much carbon stock that could be credited anyway. Environment ministers, rather than foreign affairs or energy ministers, participate in the negotiations, and they often feel free to take very “green” positions that other parts
MAY 1, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
I
205 A
eastern European countries, and the Group of Nine, comprising Central Asia and Caucasus regional countries and Moldova. All of these countries want to be eligible for financial aid from the Global Environment Facility for capacity building, technology transfer, and adaptation. They also stood to benefit (especially Russia) under Kyoto from selling excess emissions reductions credits (called “hot air” by critics), which came about in large part due to the collapse of Communist economies after 1990. Look for these countries to urge sticking to a 1990 date for calculatof their governments might not advocate. Because it ing targets. doesn’t look like the EU is on track to meet its reducThe G-77/China group seeks to make the develtion targets with domestic actions alone, one wonders oped countries’ commitment to reduce emissions how long this rigid position will last. binding and to make progress on implementing the The Umbrella Group, which includes the United Climate Change Convention commitments on techStates, Russia, Japan, Canada, and Australia, has supnology transfer and funding. This group is also susported emissions trading and crediting emissions repicious of whether market mechanisms will work and ductions projects abroad (the so-called market believes that there is really a way for developed counmechanisms) to promote cost-effectiveness, and this tries to avoid taking concrete steps to reduce emisgroup also has been the strongest advocate for insions at home. Although this group has negotiated as cluding sinks. Critics claim this group is trying to exa single entity, there are different factions within it. ploit “loopholes” and not make any “real” changes at The Grupo Iniciativa Latinoamericana (GRILA) home. Whether or not the United States believes the group includes the Latin American countries, which, Kyoto Protocol is the right mechanism for dealing because of their large forest resources, have a special with global warming, it will certainly continue to supinterest in whether and how sink projects in develport cost-effective action and the use of sinks, espeoping countries are permitted as a way for developed cially because getting credit for carbon sequestration countries to meet any targets. on agricultural lands is popular with Midwestern senThe growing economic giants of India and China ators. This group is in jeopardy of collapsing followare particularly concerned about calls for emissions ing the Bush administration’s backing away from the reduction commitments for developing countries. With large coal resources and growing local air pollution, they are very interested in clean coal technology. Helpful Web links The Alliance of Small Island States includes The U.S. State Department OES Web site offers a treasure trove of information developing countries that could disappear about climate change (including COP-6 information) and can be accessed at with rising sea levels. They have the most inwww.state.gov/www/global/global_issues/climate/index.html. Material released terest in speeding up emission reductions. after January 20, 2001, can be accessed at www.state.gov/g/oes. The OPEC countries include some of the wealthiest nations in the G-77/China At the UNFCC Web site (www.unfccc.de), the shortcut dialogue box can take you group. They advocate obtaining compenmost places you want to go (e.g., text of UNFCCC, Kyoto Protocol, schedule of nesation for lost oil revenue and for the adgotiations, a very helpful glossary of terms, and text of negotiating documents). verse effects of climate change, and they threaten to derail negotiations if their conThe Earth Negotiations Bulletin issued a summary of COP-6; go to cerns are not addressed. Other countries www.iisd.ca/vol12/enb12163e.html. within the group are loath to cross them even if they disagree. The Pew Center on Climate Change Web page www.pewclimate.org contains reAfrican countries are concerned about ports issued by Pew Center on climate change, including developing country acthe impact of desertification on their peotion and the economics of climate change. ple and natural resources. Their governments also worry that incentives to invest in projects in developing countries may not Kyoto Protocol—Japan, in particular, is furious, bespur investment in their countries without some recause the Protocol was negotiated at a meeting it quirement of regional equity. (For example, if prohosted. jects in developing countries count toward developed The Economies in Transition group comprise the countries’ targets, African governments worry that countries of the former Soviet Union, including Russia developed countries will invest largely in Latin (which is also in the Umbrella Group). This group has America and Asia, not Africa.) not been coordinating negotiation positions, but they A recent addition is the Environmental Integrity share a common perspective because of their ComGroup, consisting of Switzerland, Mexico, Korea, and munist roots. At COP-6, two subgroups emerged: the Liechtenstein. As its name suggests, the group purCentral Group 11 (CG11), a group of 11 central and ports to advocate positions that ensure “environmental 206 A
I
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / MAY 1, 2001
The Bush administration says it takes global warming seriously, just not the Kyoto Protocol: So far, these statements appear to other countries as just U.S. “hot air”.
integrity.” At COP-6, for example, this group introduced a proposal to subtract “windfall” effects, such as from nitrogen deposition and carbon dioxide fertilization, from any carbon sequestration credits.
Where do we go from here? The COP-6 results are disappointing, and the U.S. administration’s rejection of Kyoto is an enormous setback, but efforts to take action against climate change will continue. Too many countries believe that action is needed. Media attention and environmental activism ensure that the public will continue to follow progress in this area. Moreover, the scientific consensus on global warming impacts is continuing to harden. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change science report, which was released in January, contains even stronger language warning about the impacts of climate change. A related report states that climate change could cause more than U.S.$300 billion annually in damages to the environment by 2050. Even the Bush administration seems to recognize this mountain of evidence. Although Bush has renounced the Protocol, administration officials say he is “committed to full engagement with the international community on global warming.” There are, in fact, some in the Bush administration (EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill) who support the U.S. government taking action on climate change. Some members of Bush’s own party understand the importance of the international negotiations process. At COP-6, Republican Senators Larry Craig and Chuck Hagel, while reiterating their strong opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, stated that the United States should remain engaged in the global climate process. They recognize that sink credits could help U.S. farmers obtain value for the carbon in their cropland. Reportedly the administration is seeking to propose a completely new approach from Kyoto that it will present at Bonn. How will it be received? The U.S. government’s walking away from an international agreement has damaged U.S. authority enormously. The Bush administration says it takes global warming seriously, just not the Kyoto Protocol: So far, these statements appear to other countries as just U.S. “hot air”. In order for it to have some modicum of credibility at these negotiations, the administration ought to consider taking some concrete action domestically (such as proposing a carbon dioxide emissions trading program) to show that it is committed to addressing global warming. The United States needs to demonstrate its bona fides; otherwise, the upcom-
Insurance losses due to natural hazards The costofnotaddressing globalw arming could be high,according to a reportbyM unich Re,a leading German reinsurance companythatmonitorsthe costsofnaturaldisasters.EmissionsofCO2 and othergreenhouse gasescould cause more frequenttropicalcyclones,flooding due to rising sea levels,and damage to food and w atersupplies.By2050,the company calculatesthatthe w orldw ide costofthese disasterscould top $300billion annually.
16 14 12 10
Others Flood Storm Earthquake
8 6 4 2 0 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995
ing meetings threaten to degenerate into parties assigning blame for failure—and all fingers will be pointing at the United States. Amy Royden served as special assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Oceans, Environment and Science at the Department of State until January 19, 2001, and attended the COP-6 negotiations. She would like to thank her former colleagues for their assistance, but the views expressed in this article are hers alone. She can be reached at
[email protected].
MAY 1, 2001 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
I
207 A
