NEWS
ENVIRONMENTAL
Kyoto treaty sets precedent for emissions trading program
T
he historic agreement calling on developed countries to reduce greenhouse gases, reached in Kyoto, Japan, last December, sets down specific reduction targets and a timetable for six greenhouse gases. The protocol incorporates implementation flexibility, ,ncluding a aommitment to develop an international greenhouse gas emissions trading program. But coolness toward the trading scheme in Europe and among developing countries has left the establishment of a market-based trading program far from complete The Kyoto Protocol, agreed to by negotiators from 159 countries in the early hours of Dec. 11, sets a reduction target for each country for emissions of nitrous oxide; carbon dioxide; methane; and three ozone-depleting substances: hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. The reductions can be averaged
over a five-year period beginning in 2008. The protocol won't take effect until two goals are achieved: It must be ratified by at least 55 countries, and those ratifying countries must together contribute 55% of the world's emissions reductions. Although technically the treaty can become effective without U.S. ratification, most analysts predict that the other developed countries won't allow the treaty to go into force without U.S. participation. The key issue for Senate ratification, that developing countries be assigned emission reductions is still being negotiated Each developed country has an emissions budget in the protocol, which includes the sum total of the six greenhouse gases, calculated in carbon equivalent terms, it can emit from 2008 to 2012. The trading plan, conceived by U.S. negotiators to assist countries in reducing the cost of emis-
Greenhouse gas reduction targets Under the Kyoto Protocol, each developed country has been assigned a reduction target for six greenhouse gases so that the combined commitment by all countries is a 5% reduction. The targets are based on 1990 baseline emissions for nitrous oxide, carbon dioxide, and methane, and on 1995 emissions for hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Country
Australia Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czech Republic Estonia European C o m m u n i t y * Hungary Iceland Japan Latvia Liechtenstein
Target (%)
+8 -8 -6 -5 -8 -8 -8 -6 +10 -6 -8 -8
Country
Lithuania Monaco New Zealand Norway Poland Romania Russian Federation Slovakia Slovenia Switzerland Ukraine United States
* All 15 European Union member states
7 4 A • FEB. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
Target (%)
-8 -8 0 +1 -6 -8 0 -8 -8 -8 .'•0
-7
•
sion controls, is viewed with suspicion by many developing countries and the U.S. fossil fuel industry, and it was almost removed from the pact in the last few hours of the conference. Developing countries view the trading plan with skepticism and worry that the larger C0 2 emitters will avoid reducing emissions within their own borders and instead focus on buying emission credits. "I think those officials worried about allowing the trading programs to begin without having specific language in place," said Seth Dunn, who attended the Kyoto conference for the Worldwatch Institute. The trading scheme is also considered suspect by most European countries, said Michael Toman, director of Resources For the Future's climate change policy project. "People in Europe have told me how frosty the reaction to trading is," said Toman. "The Europeans would much rather prefer technology strategies, and common reduction measures, to achieve their goals." The world marketplace envisioned by trading advocates is what bothers U.S. opponents of the idea. The trading scheme is likely to send jobs and innovative technologies overseas, said Fred Palmer, chief executive officer of the Western Fuels Association, whose members supply coal to power plants. "The idea is that you have to buy permits to grow the ceonomy and that will drive the market towards nonfossil fuels " Palmer laments. Not all business groups oppose the trading idea. Although many companies are still lobbying Congress to prevent ratification of the protocol, if it is approved, most businesses would prefer flexibility, in any form. "By failing to provide for a realistic emission trading plan, [the protocol] gives us no flexibility in reducing globs! emissions in a.
0013-936X/98/0932-74A$15.00/0 © 1998 American Chemical Society
cost-effective way," said Jerry Jasinowski, president of the National Association of Manufacturers. "We support market-based approaches and read the omission of a meaningful program as a bad omen for our already limited implementation choices." In concept, the trades will allow a country to meet its greenhouse gas emissions budget by selling any emissions credits (measured in tons) it has after controlling below its budget. Another country could emit above its budget by buying credits from a country that has met its reduction target. In the beginning stages, emissions trading is more likely to occur between nations, and later it will move to private industry, said David Doniger of EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. "We imagine
that system would be used domestically for at least a large part of the compliance obligation in the U.S. Then if other countries do the same, the U.S. could trade across the border in Canada, Russia, and other countries." The trading could pump cash into the Russian and Ukrainian economies, for example, both of which must stabilize emissions only to 1990 levels, and into Australia and Iceland, which will be allowed to increase emissions by 8% and 10% respectively, Doniger said. Once it is embraced by the private sector, "companies could do direct negations, or they might have a co-venture or partnership that includes greenhouse gas reductions as a side deal, or they may go through a third-party bro-
ker whose function it is to put buyers and sellers together," said Dan Dudeck of the Environmental Defense Fund, who has studied pollution trading programs for the past decade. The sulfur dioxide trading program for utilities has helped reduce acid rain and kept control costs down in the United States. Still, no advocate of a greenhouse gas trading program believes it will be easy to develop or operate. Now that the commitment to develop a program is in place, negotiators will begin a new round of discussions to flesh out the rules for an international emissions trading market, which will culminate in the next meeting of the parties to the protocol in November in Buenos Aires, Argentina. —CATHERINE M. COONEY
Risk-based cleanup methods undergoing major scientific review At the request of the U.S. Navy, the National Research Council has begun the first major evaluation of risk-based approaches to contaminated site cleanup, including the popular standard published by the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). The Navy is seeking a uniform, scientifically defensible cleanup standard to use at its sites around the country. Interest in risk-based approaches, especially ASTM's "riskbased corrective action" (RBCA) standards, has grown dramatically in recent years. "There has been a great rush to adopt risk-based methods," said Steven Eikenberry, director of environmental restoration at the Navy Engineering Service Center in Port Hueneme, Calif. "We want to set a standard with the common denominator of a firm scientific basis." "I hope that this will be the first serious look at risk-based assessment," said Committee Chair Edward Bouwer of Johns Hopkins University, who specializes in bioremediation and remediation technology. Bouwer believes the study, which focuses on Navy sites, will also be relevant nationwide. The 18-member panel is made up of experts in remediation, groundwater moni-
toring, fate and transport modeling, environmental health, risk assessment, and environmental law. The committee's review is due to be completed this fall. Two issues it will consider are the use of uncertainty in risk-based models and the impact of risk-based assessments on liability. "There are many arguments in favor of a risk-based method," said Bouwer, "but often, people are looking at it as a way to close sites. How do you maintain some liability while still prioritizing cleanups?" Risk-based approaches are seen as a way of identifying which sites pose the greatest risk to human health or the environment. In some cases, such as when underground contamination is biodegradable but does not affect drinking water sources, a risk-based remediation decision may be to let the contamination stay in place. Advocates argue that risk-based methods can be protective while providing a sound basis for efficient use of limited cleanup funds But this approach ignores the importance of resource conservation, according to panel member Francis Chapelle, a U.S. Geological Survey microbiologist in Columbia, S.C. The major contaminated site cleanup laws were
conceived to protect and restore resources such as groundwater, said Chapelle, who believes that there has been a covert shift in philosophy from resource conservation to risk assessment. "Reasonable people know that there just isn't enough money to clean up everything," Chapelle said. "This committee can identify a middle ground between pure resource conservation and pure risk-based assessment," he said. The committee will focus on the widely used RBCA standards for petroleum-contaminated sites, which many states have adopted. "The standards may just work for petroleum hydrocarbons that naturally degrade in the environment," said Chapelle. "But if we are concerned about future use of groundwater resources, about contamination that is left in the ground, then it is hard to see how a purely riskbased approach is appropriate." According to 1996 data, the Navy has identified 4433 contaminated sites. Of these, 2549 sites were being evaluated, 502 were being cleaned up, and remediation at the rest has been completed. The Navy spent $585 million on contaminated site cleanup in 1996, according to the department's environmental restoration plan. —REBECCA RENNER
FEB. 1, 1998 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 7 5 A
