FEATURE
Nations Seek "Fair" Greenhouse Gas Treaty in Kyoto World leaders meeting next month will grapple with the sensitive issue of when developing nations should begin emission reductions. CATHERINE M. COONEY
t the first Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, the leaders of 154 nations agreed to voluntarily reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases below 1990 levels by 2000. Since the signing of that agreement— the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change—only Great Britain and Germany have managed to meet this goal. Now world leaders are planning to meet next month in Kyoto, Japan, to sign a new global warming treaty that will move the goal of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions from the realm of voluntary programs to legal commitments. Despite two years of negotiations, no consensus has yet emerged on reduction goals or on how these nations should implement such an agreement. Even as each country struggles to formulate a policy on emission reductions, disagreement over when developing countries should begin reducing their emissions could cause discussions to break down. In 1995, the signatories to the convention on climate change met in Bonn, Germany, at their first post-Rio climate change meeting. It was acknowledged then that the Rio goal would not be met. The Berlin Mandate, signed at the Bonn meeting, moved the target date for beginning emission reductions to after 2000. It also launched a negotiating process that was expected to culminate two years later in Kyoto with a new document setting legal emission limits for industrialized nations. The first formal proposal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions came in March from the European Union (EU), which endorsed a 15% reduction in three gases—carbon dioxide (C02), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N20)—from 1990 levels by 2010. Other gases would be added later, the EU proposed. Japan announced its position in October: Developed countries should cut greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5% below 1990 levels by 2012. Japan's proposal incorporated the concept of "differential treatment," suggesting each country set its own targets, based on gross domestic product, per capita emissions, or population. Under this scheme, Japan, and possibly the United States, would reduce its emissions by 2.5% below 1990 levels over the next 15 years. Clinton administration officials were expected to announce their proposal in early fall, and U.S. policy makers were considering stabilizing greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by 2010,2020, or 2030. Such a move, however, would establish a proposal from the United States—the largest emitter of greenhouse gases—that is weaker than the Japanese plan. Leaders from developing countries, for their part, are holding firm to their call that industrialized countries commit to reductions before they are required to do so.
A
5 1 6 A • VOL. 31, NO. 11, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
0013-936X/97/0931-516A$14.00/0 © 1997 American Chemical Society
Of the several greenhouse gases, C0 2 from the burning of fossil fuels is the largest single source of greenhouse gas emissions. Fossil fuel use accounts for about three-quarters of anthropogenic C0 2 emissions, which in 1992 was equal to approximately 5.9 billion metric tons of carbon. Fossil fuels are also the source of one-fifth of methane emissions and a "significant" quantity of nitrous oxide emissions (2). Carbon emissions are on the rise Although world leaders agreed at Rio to voluntarily reduce these gases, worldwide emissions of carbon have been steadily on the rise, reaching 6.25 billion metric tons in 1996. This increase, 2.8% higher than 1995 levels, is the largest yearly increase since 1988 (2). The United States leads in carbon output, with nearly 23% of the world's emissions, whereas China, the second largest emitter of carbon, contributes some 14% of the total; Japan, at 5%, is the third largest contributor. However, the yearly per capita output of China and Japan is well below that of the United States: China produces 2.27 metric tons of carbon per capita, Japan 8.79, and the United States 19.13 (3). If carbon emissions of developing nations are left to increase without controls, they are expected to outstrip those of industrialized countries. If energy consumption and pricing are left unchanged, China will surpass the United States in carbon emissions by 2015 and contribute 19% of worldwide emissions. Assuming that none of the developing nations implements steps to reduce energy use or control emissions, total carbon emissions from developing nations will comprise 44% of the world's emissions by 2015. As part of the Rio pact, the country leaders, recognizing the great disparity between the economies of developing and industrialized nations, agreed to "common but differential responsibilities" from the developing nations. Therefore, they called on developing nations to adopt policies for sustainable development, including energy efficiency programs. But they also agreed that these nations would need financial assistance and technology transfer from industrialized nations to control emissions without sacrificing economic development, said Walter Reid, vicepresident of the World Resources Institute, who attends the international meetings as a nonvoting party. The Rio convention included an agreement by industrialized countries to provide funds to help developing countries meet their commitments. In addition to admitting that most of the greenhouse gases have been generated by sources in industrialized nations, participants at the Rio convention realized that the increase in fossil fuel use in developing nations is tied to fulfilling basic human needs, said Reid. He added, "That is one of the points being made by the negotiators: The idea that [developing nations] will stop the rate of energy use at the same rate as the developed nations really does not factor in where these nations are." The leaders of developing nations, including coalrich China and Korea as well as Brazil, India, and Mexico, argue that the first step toward controlling emissions globally should be made by those nations that have created the problem. "In developing nations, they are saying, 'We didn't create the problem, and if those nations that did don't take steps to reduce their emis-
FIGURE 1 A steady rise in world carbon emissions Worldwide carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels rose to 6.25 billion metric tons in 1996 and have nearly quadrupled since 1950.
Source: Reference 2.
FIGURE 2 Emissions: developed vs. developing nations In the early 1990s, carbon emissions decreased in industrialized countries but steadily increased in developing countries. In the rapidly industrializing countries of Brazil, India, and Indonesia, emissions increased 20, 28, and 40%, respectively, between 1990 and 1995. In former Eastern Bloc countries, emissions have begun to level off after dramatic declines between 1990 and 1995: In reunited Germany, emissions fell more than 10%, in Poland more than 10%, and in Russia 28%.
Source: Reference 2.
sions, then we aren't going to play.' That is the level of debate that is going on there," said Reid. Several developing countries facing energy shortages are already taking steps to reduce energy use and, consequendy, emissions, said Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute. China, India, Mexico, South Africa, and Brazil have significantly cut subsidies for fossil fuel producers—a move that has led to higher fuel prices and reduced fuel consumption. China instituted energy pricing reforms in the 1980s, which led to energy efficiency practices such as the introduction of cogeneration at manufacturing facilities. With these reforms in place, annual carbon emissions were held down by 155 million metric tons of carbon, which amounted to more than 20% of China's 1990 emissions (4). Brazil has in place a program to use ethanol from sugar cane in automobiles, which has overall carbon emissions by 15%, Reid said. VOL. 3 1 , NO. 11, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 5 1 7 A
In the United States, however, the premise in the Rio agreement of common but differential commitments for developing nations is being challenged. In Congress, bipartisan opposition to a new treaty that does not include restrictions oh emissions from developing nations led the Senate in July to approve, 95-0, a nonbinding resolution calling on U.S. leaders not to sign an agreement unless it also mandates specific scheduled commitments for developing nations. Business groups have weighed in, too: An alliance of industrial trade groups sponsored a media campaign against the treaty, including a television ad claiming that developing countries would not have to take any steps to cut their emissions.
Businesses call for a level playing field U.S. companies argue that if industrialized countries are required to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions right away while developing nations are allowed to put off controls, the U.S. economy will suffer. Groups such as the American Farm Bureau Federation, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the National Mining Associ"The idea that ation are working to persuade Clinton administration to [developing nations] the take a more business-friendly will stop the rate approach in Kyoto. These groups maintain of energy use at the that if the industrialized countries act first to control same rate as the emissions, they will lose their market share for goods proindustrialized nations duced by developing countries. The Business Roundreally does not factor table, a coalition of CEOs major U.S. corporations in where these from urging treaty negotiators to nations are." immediately include binding targets for developing countries, estimates that sta- W a l t e r Reid, bilizing carbon in the United World Resources Institute States to 1990 levels by 2010 would reduce the gross national product by more than 4%, or $350 billion, annually; decrease household disposable income by 1.2%; and double energy prices. The National Mining Association predicts a 25% job loss in the coal industry. A July report from the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Argonne National Laboratory highlighted the potential negative effects from higher energy prices on six energy-intensive industries—aluminum, paper, iron and steel, petroleum refining, cement, and basic chemicals—and outlined alternatives to control carbon emissions (5). The report concluded that an increase in energy prices could have ruinous effects on these industries; for example, it estimated that about 20-30% of the basic chemical industry would move to developing countries over 15-30 years. When Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth called last summer for legally binding emission limits for greenhouse gases (6), he toughened the U.S. position, taken in Rio by former president George Bush, that reductions should be voluntary. But Wirth's comments this summer, pledging that the United States will support emission reduction targets for developing nations by 2005 in Kyoto, signals a step 5 1 8 A • VOL.31, NO. 11, 1997 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
back from the Rio agreement, environmental groups say. The Berlin Mandate makes it very clear that industrialized countries would take the first steps to reduce emissions, environmentalists say. "For Clinton now to do an about-face is clear evidence of the effect that industry is having on the administration. We are faced with the possibility that the negotiations could fall apart because it runs counter to the agreement that already exists," said Kalee Kreider, director of the Greenpeace climate change campaign. The Clinton administration is also considering a plan it hopes will help bridge the gap between developing and industrialized countries. Under this scheme, known as joint implementation, richer countries could fund projects in developing nations to reduce carbon emissions. The investing partner would provide most of the technology and financing; the host country would provide the site and the staff to launch and operate the project. For example, Great Britain might pay to build a natural gas plant in Venezuela, and a portion of the drop in carbon emissions would be credited to Britain's overall carbon emissions output. If successful, joint implementation projects could promote the codevelopment of advanced technologies and their transfer from developed countries to other parts of the world. But the EU countries are wary of joint implementation outside their borders. Other critics, including some from developing countries, worry about how to structure the reporting of emissions, said Joe Goffman of the Environmental Defense Fund. And some skeptics of joint implementation argue that the projects will, contrary to the "spirit" of the Rio convention, shift the immediate responsibility for reducing emissions from industrialized to developing nations (i). Most people agree that an effective reduction strategy will eventually require the participation of all nations. The question of how much responsibility developing nations should be required to carry immediately may bog down negotiations and result in targets and timetables less binding than originally expected. Climate change policies, unlike trade, are new to world negotiators, and countries "are still feeling their way," writes Michael Zammit Cutajar, executive secretary of the Secretariat of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (7). Although Kyoto won't be the last stop in the worldwide deliberations over controlling greenhouse gas emissions, it is certain to be a major milestone.
References (1) United Nations Environment Programme. Climate Change Information Sheets; Information Unit: Geneva, Switzerland, 1997. (2) Dunn, S. In Vital Signs 1997; Starke, L., Ed.; W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 1997; p. 58. (3) World Resources 1996-97; Roberts, L. et al., Eds.; Oxford University Press: New York, 1996. (4) Zhang, Z. X, Integrated Economy-Energy-Environment Policy Analysis: A Case Studyfor the People's Republic of China; Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Wageninen, The Netherlands, 1996. (5) U.S. Department of Energy. Impact ofHigh Energy Price Scenarios on Energy-Intensive Sectors: Perspectives from Industry Workshops; Argonne National Laboratory: Washington, DC, 1997; NTIS Accession No.: PB97-181556/XAB. (6) Environ. Sci. Technol. 1996, 30(10), 435A. (7) Cutajar, M. Z. Climate Change Bulletin 1997, 14, 2. Catherine M. Cooney is an Associate Editor with ES&T.
