Climate Talks Hinge on US Elections
Posted
10th November 2000
By
Marcela Valente
The United States has been the key actor in preparatory negotiations
leading up to the climate change conference to be held at The Hague
this month, leading many to fear that US presidential elections
crisis will mean the enactment of the conference's resolutions will
be put on hold. There are also those who suggest that the 175 countries
participating in the Nov 13 to 24 meeting, in which delegates are
to hammer out ways to meet the goals set for reducing emissions
of climate-changing greenhouse gases, will not adopt any decisions
before January, when the new US president takes office. The date
of this Sixth Conference of Parties (COP6) to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) 'was poorly chosen,
because it falls so close to the elections in the United States,''
said Ra£l Estrada Oyuela, head of the Argentine delegation and one
of the chief international negotiators on climate change. 'It is
highly doubtful that the European Union (EU) will yield from its
position on key issues knowing that in a few months there will be
a new administration in the United States, and many of us believe
that The Hague agenda should be left open until a new date, such
as a meeting in June 2001, '' Estrada Oyuela told IPS. Scientists
worldwide are urging nations to reduce emissions of various types
of gases, especially carbon dioxide, that accumulate in the earth's
atmosphere and cause the so-called greenhouse effect. In other words,
these gases trap solar radiation, which leads to global warming.
This warming causes polar ice to melt and sea levels to rise, which
in turn produces flooding. The process also provokes extreme weather
phenomena, such as droughts and hurricanes, and contributes to the
spread of warm-climate diseases like malaria, and to the extinction
of plant and animal species. The concentration of emissions produced
by human activities has meant that the average temperature increase
over the last decade was the highest of the millennium, say experts
in climate change research. The weight of US participation in the
talks is underscored by the fact that it is responsible for 40 percent
of the industrialised nations' emissions of these gases, and for
25 percent of emissions worldwide, according to the secretariat
of the Convention on Climate Change. The US State Department's Under-Secretary
for Global Affairs, Frank E. Loy, admitted as much in September
in a speech before the US Senate when he said, ''any agreement that
excludes the United States will not control global warming. European
businesses may wonder why they are asked to assume significant new
climate change obligations if their US competitors are not going
to be subject to roughly the same rules.'' But beyond that consideration,
Washington assures that polluting gas emissions in the United States
have fallen with respect to the rise of the country's gross domestic
product (GDP). Official data indicate the economy grew four percent
in 1999, while carbon dioxide emissions rose just one percent. The
United States has pressed for the flexibilisation of abatement commitments
since negotiations began, and won the inclusion of mechanisms that
environmental organisations consider highly questionable. Loy, however,
sees the mechanisms as ''a victory'' for his country that will permit
it ''to dramatically lower the costs of emissions reduction.'' Juan
Carlos Villalonga, in charge of energy affairs for the Argentine
office of Greenpeace, the international environmental watchdog,
told IPS ''the discussion now is to define whether we want the United
States excluded from a good environmental accord, or included in
one that is tarnished in spirit due to the concessions made.'' T
he
objective of COP6 is to push for compliance with commitments to
curtail greenhouse gas emissions that were agreed in a series of
meetings that began in 1995 in Berlin. The UNFCCC was approved in
1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, and entered into force
in 1994. One year later, a series of annual meetings began with
the participation of the Convention's signatories. In 1997, increasingly
aware that gas emissions were on the rise despite international
warnings, the third Conference of the Parties, held in Kyoto, Japan,
wrote up a new document with additional commitments and quantified
targets for reduction of the greenhouse gases emitted in the industrialised
North. Environmentalists believe what is now known as the Kyoto
Protocol, which has yet to be ratified by any industrialised nation,
conceded too much to the United States. Estrada Oyuela, who presided
over the commission that drafted the text, says ''the Protocol is
not ideal, but is what we were able to do to prevent the United
States - the world's chief polluter - from leaving'' the negotiating
table. And Washington continues trying to impose its points of view
on the negotiations. According to Loy's speech before the Senate,
the principal duty of President Bill Clinton's administration on
this matter was to ensure that the Kyoto Protocol included the most
cost-effective mechanisms for complying with emissions reduction
targets. In other words, the investment of industrialised nations
in research and development of clean and renewable technologies
would be compensated by reducing costs through mechanisms ultimately
included in the Protocol: emissions trading, clean development and
joint implementation.
The
first, emissions trading, allows the North to exceed the emissions
quotas established under the accord by purchasing credits from a
developing country that has reduced emissions through cleaner industrial
production or a decline in economic activity, as has occurred in
Eastern Europe and Russia. Clean development, meanwhile, allows
an industrialised country to surpass its greenhouse gas limits if
it aids in carbon-trapping forestry projects, for example, in developing
countries. This mechanism continues to spur a great deal of criticism
and its implementation is to be discussed at The Hague. Joint implementation
means that a wealthy nation that exceeds its emissions limits must
assist in curbing greenhouse gas output in another country of the
North so that their average emissions volumes meet targets set by
the Protocol. ''Some have expressed concern that our approach could
undermine the environmental integrity of the agreement,'' Loy told
the Senate. ''We, too, want a strong agreementŠbut not one that
is more expensive and painful than necessary.'' The US official
predicted that two groups would clash at The Hague conference. One
is the EU, which according to Greenpeace has positions that approach
those held by environmental groups, and the other side, an ''umbrella
group,'' would be made up of the United States, Australia, Canada,
Japan, Norway and Russia. ''The European Union and the umbrella
group share the same major objective: to create a climate protection
regime with great enviromental integrity... In contrast, the EU
and the umbrella group's approaches to the question of the Protocol's
costs are quite different,'' Loy pointed out. ''Some in Europe think
that we have a moral obligation to change our lifestyle as quickly
and radically as possible,'' he explained, but we believe ''that
the most cost effective and affordable solutions will build the
broadest public support for action and stretch our dollars to achieve
the maximum enviromental protection.''
The
United States and Europe are clearly at odds on certain items of
the COP6 agenda, such as ''supplementarity.'' The Kyoto Protocol
establishes that the mechanisms included are to be supplemental
to the efforts of each country to curb greenhouse gas emissions,
though the document does not specify percentage. For the United
States it is ''arbitrary and distorting'' to put a cap on the ability
of industrialised nations to use the mechanisms, while the EU says
countries that have cut domestic emissions by 50 percent should
be the only ones allowed to implement the supplemental measures.
Estrada Oyuela and Villalonga believe Washington is attempting to
count emissions trading and other mechanisms towards its abatement
target in order to avoid the budgetary requirements of investing
in clean technologies. But Loy stressed at a London meeting that
Clinton had already convinced the US Congress to earmark one billion
dollars for a development fund for the climate change issue, and
this year asked the lawmakers to boost the amount to four billion
dollars. Another divisive issue is the US assertion that there should
be no punishment for countries that do not meet their Kyoto goals.
The EU, however, says there should be a system of fines for non-
compliance. Also on the negotiating table is Washington's proposal
that the countries of the developing South must join the North and
commit themselves to emissions abatement targets. Loy said that,
even though the greater responsibility for curbing emissions falls
to the industrialised North, it must not be forgotten that developing
countries already produce 44 percent of fossil fuels, which are
at the top of the list as atmospheric polluters. The problem is
that the United States does not want limits and, instead, is pressuring
the South to be an ally in the implementation of the flexible mechanisms,
which today have transformed into business opportunities for countries
hungry for investment, maintains Greenpeace's Villalonga.
|