SERIOUS DANGERS FOR THE GLOBAL CLIMATE

The climate is facing three main problems:

- The global CO2 emissions are increasing despite all agreements made.

- The current agreements are far to weak to prevent climate change.

- Developed countries try to scupper those agreements or water them down.

TARGETS: INADEQUATE AND INEQUITABLE

The targets agreed in Kyoto will not save the global climate. They are environmentally inadequate and represent a political deal rather than an equitable solution to climate change:

Even if Parties achieved their targets fully, this would only slow the projected rise in global temperatures by a fraction of a °C - not enough to really halt climate change.
The levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, projected to be up 8% above 1990 levels by 2010, will only be about 0.4 % lower if all the Kyoto targets met.
With or without the Protocol, after 2012, citizens in USA, Canada or the EU will still emit much more than citizens in poorer countries such as India or Mozambique.

-- Friends of the Earth calls for longer term targets based on equity - equal rights to the atmosphere for everyone within the boundaries of what the environment can bear. That is the only way towards a fair and sustainable climate change treaty. --

AVOID ACTION BY NOT RATIFYING

For an international treaty to bind countries, they have to sign and ratify it, which means usually that national parliaments have to give their consent.

In order to enter into force the Protocol must be ratified by 55 Parties, including Annex 1 Parties accounting for 55% of CO2 emissions in 1990. Many Parties (including the EU) wish to bring the Protocol into force by 2002, in time for the tenth anniversary of the Earth Summit in Rio. The USA, Canada and other countries threaten not to ratify the Protocol, if the rules adopted at COP6 do not suit them. This could mean that the Protocol never enters into force. This (or even a long delay) is not an option and an irresponsible threat because the atmosphere needs global action on climate change now. So far, 84 countries have signed the Protocol and 22 have ratified it. No Annex 1 Party has yet ratified it but some like France and New Zealand are getting ready to ratify as soon as possible after COP6.

ACHIEVE TARGETS WITH QUESTIONABLE MEASURES

To avoid real action at CO2 producing economies at home, the industrialised countries have come up with other ideas how to decrease global CO2, e.g. by reducing CO2 elsewhere or declaring forests as 'carbon sinks' to reduce CO2 concentraion in the atmosphere. In the end, many of these ideas are mere dodgy activities. Summarised, these ideas include:

Dodgy Activity No. 1: Buying Emission Credits -- You don't want to reduce emissions at home by cutting back on energy use in transport, housing and industry? Just pay for your reduction abroad - maybe in a country that still favours nuclear power or has CO2 credits on offer because their production broke down due to political changes in Eastern Europe

Dodgy Activity No. 2: Cutting trees and planting them anew -- 'Carbon Sinks' reduce CO2 not by cutting emissions but by soaking it up: Grow a big forest and get rid of tons of carbon bound in the trees. But this CO2 could anytime be released again if the trees are burnt or cut down. Even worse, naturally grown forests, rich in biodiversity, might be replaced by monoculture plantations, which appear to be more effective in soaking up CO2.

Dodgy Activity No. 3: Investing in developing countries to sneak around CO2 reductions at home -- While this might be cheaper in some cases or result in some useful projects, it will be often be misused for not doing anything in the rich countries. Those will thus not only avoid CO2 reduction but also the development of innovative and sustainable technologies.

Dodgy Activity No. 4: Trust us; we will do our homework, honestly -- Some countries like Japan refuse to agree on a strong controlling and sanction system for those countries that do not meet their reduction targets. Instead, they want the international community simply to trust them. With regard to what these countries have done so far in CO2 reduction (=zero), you can easily guess what's behind that idea.

THE PROBLEM WITH SINKS

Sinks are the reverse of emission sources, i.e. systems that store carbon, the main greenhouse gas. The inclusion of sinks in the Protocol makes sense in way because the biosphere and the oceans do store and release carbon and are part of the global carbon cycle.

However, planting trees rather than reducing emissions from fossil fuels will not save the global climate cannot be saved. For one thing, it is scientifically proven that the biosphere cannot store all the carbon we could release, which is currently underground in the form of oil, gas and coal ("saturation"). Also, there are huge uncertainties and accounting problems involved with the use of sinks to meet the targets. And if, as science indicates, forests globally will become sources of greenhouse gases rather than sinks - how can we be sure that a forest project will actually reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere in the long run? Planting trees is also not necessarily environmentally friendly: a monoculture plantation soaks up much more carbon than an old-growth forest but might destroy biodiversity. In the long term, we cannot rely on trees and soil to soak up carbon, but we must stop burning fossil fuels.

-- Friends of the Earth opposed the inclusion of sinks in the Protocol. As they are included now, we argue for accounting rules that will make it impossible for Parties to count activities such as normal forest harvesting activities as climate protection measures. We must make sure that reducing fossil fuel emissions remains the main focus of the treaty. --

A compilation of testimonies on the negative impact of large-scale monoculture tree plantations prepared for the COP6 can be found here.

THE FLEXIBLE MECHANISMS

The so-called 'flexible mechanisms' were created to enable industrialised countries to achieve or buy emission credits elsewhere. The main argument was that climate change is a global problem and that it therefore does not matter in which country emissions are cut. There are three of these mechanisms: Joint implementation (JI), the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and International Emissions Trading (IET).

JI involves a project to reduce emissions in another developed country (between Annex 1 countries) , while the CDM allows for similar projects in developing countries (Annex 1 with non-Annex1 countries). Both those will enable Annex 1 countries to claim emission credits. Emissions trading will allow Annex 1 countries that have achieved emissions reductions over-and-above those required by their Kyoto target to 'sell' the excess to countries finding it more difficult or expensive to meet their commitments.

The purpose of these mechanisms is to reduce the costs incurred by Annex I countries in meeting their targets. At Kyoto, these market-based mechanisms (as opposed to action at home) were the only way to make the US and other negligent countries agree to binding targets. But since then, they have halted real action to stop climate change as Parties have become completely caught up in the complex and almost incomprehensible detail of these mechanisms. The US, Canada and others argue for maximum use of emissions trading - "unfettered trading". They argue that to limit its use will undermine the effectiveness of emission cuts by increasing costs. In contrast the EU has proposed a "concrete ceiling" to the use of the Kyoto mechanisms - a complicated system which would mean that countries meet at least 50 per cent of their emissions reductions at home while having the option to use the flexible mechanisms for the remainder.

-- Friends of the Earth argues that the overwhelming majority of reductions must be made at home in industrialised countries. This means that Annex 1 countries should only be allowed to use the mechanisms for max. 20% of their reduction target. Otherwise, sustainable development and equitable use of the atmosphere for all the people in this world will never become a reality. --

JOINT IMPLEMENTATION (JI)

In accordance with Article 6 of the Kyoto Protocol, Annex I countries (and in fact private companies) can engage in projects aimed at either reducing emissions of GHGs in the atmosphere or removing these gases from it through the enhancement of natural sinks (e.g. sequestering carbon dioxide by planting trees, an example of using sinks).

These projects must save emissions compared to what would have happened otherwise (additionality). These savings are then called emissions reduction units (ERUs) and they can be used to meet Annex I countries targets. In a typical example, a UK company may invest in a coal-intensive East European economy to build a gas-fired power station. In the absence of the investment by the UK company, the normal course of action for the Eastern European country would be to build a coal-fired power station. Expressed in tons of CO2, the reduction in emissions resulting from producing energy by using cleaner gas instead of carbon-intensive coal provides the basis for the calculation of the allowances (ERUs) to be transferred to the UK company.

-- Friends of the Earth argues that only clean technologies such as renewables and energy efficiency should be allowed as JI projects. Nuclear in particular must be excluded and the use of sinks projects must be restricted. Stringent criteria for the preservation of biodiversity must be adopted by the Parties before any sink JI project receives credits. All projects must ensure public participation and transparency. Under these conditions, Parties could start implementing good projects now ("Early Start"). --

CLEAN DEVELOPMENT MECHANISMS (CDM)

In accordance with Article 12 of the Kyoto Protocol, an Annex I country can engage in projects in non-Annex I countries. The principle is pretty much the same as with JI, but the projects must: i) reduce emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) into the atmosphere and ii) help non-Annex I countries to achieve sustainable development.

The savings generated through CDM projects are called certified emissions reductions (CERs) and can be used to meet the Kyoto targets. An example of a CDM project would be to replace GHG-producing diesel generators with GHG-free photovoltaic cells for the provision of electricity to a rural village in a developing country. The Protocol allows CDM projects to go ahead from the year 2000 and the CER generated can be "banked" by the Annex 1 countries. The main difference between JI and the CDM is that CDM host countries do not have any reduction target. The Kyoto targets are calculated on the basis of Annex 1 emissions and there is a "budget" for maximum emissions, which is basically the Annex 1 emissions in 1990 minus the reduction targets (this is called assigned amount). But every CER generated in a non-Annex 1 country will be practically added to the overall Annex 1 budget and will increase the overall amount of greenhouse gases that may be emitted in the commitment period there. Simply speaking, every ton of carbon reduced under the CDM might mean another ton of carbon emitted in the Annex 1 countries. This is called the inflation of the Annex 1 country budget.

Because of this, it is very important that only clean and "safe" projects come under the CDM. If money is invested in renewables in a non-Annex 1 country, it provides "safe" emission reductions for decades to come. But at the moment, Parties are still talking about allowing non-sustainable projects under the CDM such as coal fired power plants and nuclear, and - very problematicly - sinks projects. The problem with sinks projects is not only that they will potentially be so cheap that no one invests in renewables, but that the best carbon sinks are not the best habitats for wildlife. In addition, it is very difficult to prove how much carbon a project actually saves (stores) and - more importantly - whether the carbon will remain stored. Sinks are not a safe option for meeting the Kyoto targets. And every dollar invested in such projects will mean more emissions from fossil fuels in Annex 1 countries. This will keep us locked in dependency on fossil fuels and it is not fair to the people in the South who are often deprived of land and are then expected to soak up the excess carbon the North produces.

-- Friends of the Earth argues that Annex 1 Parties should not be allowed to achieve more that 3% of their overall target through CDM projects. We also oppose sinks (forest) projects under the CDM. The CDM should be used to kick-start renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies only. --

EMISSION TRADING (ET)

Article 17 of the Protocol allows industrialised countries and economies in transition to participate in emissions trading. The idea is that Country A can buy credits from Country B to count against its target and vice versa. This mechanism may involve private companies, which could trade amongst each other.

Two countries likely to have credits for sale are Russia and Ukraine, whose economies have contracted since 1990. Put simply, they have fewer factories burning less fossil fuel. These emission savings are called "hot air" as they do not stem from real improvements in the economy. Thus, the USA could buy reductions from Russia that would never have occurred anyway. Developing Countries such as Argentina are starting to show an interest in participating in the trading regime. However, such participation could result in so-called "tropical hot air" - these countries may end up selling fictitious emissions reductions because their emission inventories are not clear. The main problem with this mechanism is that it will work on an inequitable basis. So far, there is no commitment to cut aggregate global emissions by the 60-80% that most climate scientists agree is necessary. Trading could then be used to bridge the time until the North has brought down its emissions to sustainable levels. But unless it is conducted within a universally agreed framework of meaningful reductions, a carbon market alone cannot function to stop dangerous climate change. It just means that another inequitable global market is established.

-- Friends of the Earth argues for an exclusion of "hot air" from trading. Only countries with sound emission inventories and proper national systems to deal with trading should be allowed to participate. Emission trading is only one instrument to reduce emissions - and this will most likely only involve one sector - energy supply and manufacturing industry. Therefore countries should not be able to meet more than 20% of their target through international trading - the rest must come from action at home. Countries that do not agree to strong compliance rules and financial penalties in the case of non-compliance should be excluded from trading per se. --

COMLPIANCE: SERIOUS COMMITMENTS?

Tackling climate change means changing the way we produce and use energy. There is resistance amongst Parties to come up with a system that can monitor compliance and punish parties should they not meet their targets (compliance system).

There is a need for binding, legal consequences of non-compliance with the requirements and emission targets and there needs to be a strong institution to sanction Parties should they not meet their targets. Some Parties have suggested that if they do not meet their targets this time, they will in the next period. So they would just add the tons they have not saved to future targets. This is called banking and it is another example of Parties not seeing the light.

Another problem here is that we probably won't be able to say whether or not a country has met its targets before 2015. This is due to the complexity of reporting and accounting, in particular for the transfer of credits under the mechanisms and accounting for sinks activities. It takes years until the emission data has been reported and reviewed. The Protocol asks Parties to show that they have made "demonstrable progress" by 2005. This is a clear signal that countries should show that they are actually reducing emissions soon. But countries like the USA, Canada and Australia do not even want to discuss this issue seriously. Again - these Parties want the international community to trust them, but why should we? We have not seen any serious action yet.

-- Friends of the Earth is in favour of a strong compliance system with financial penalties for countries that do not meet their targets. There should be an international forum sanctioning these Parties, comprised of all Parties equally. 2015 is too late to determine whether action is really being taken to combat climate change. Therefore, Parties must come up with a system to show that emissions are falling by 2005 at the latest. --

TO SUM IT UP: BAD GUYS AND GOOD GUYS

In the Climate Change process countries group together in order to have more political clout.

The countries which usually try to prevent a good deal for the climate, being more concerned about the interests of their oil, coal and auto industry are the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, Norway etc., called the JUSCANNZ group. After COP3, Russia and the Ukraine joined these countries. Jointly, they are called the "Umbrella Group".

Developing countries try to coordinate their interests in the "Group 77 +China" (G77) even though a common interest is often hard to detect. For example, oil exporting countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela usually try to halt progress while small island States such as Samoa and the Marshall Islands are among the most progressive forces in the whole FCCC. The latter have their own group, called AOSIS, the Alliance of Small Island States. Finally, there is the EU, trying to coordinate with some eastern European countries like Poland and Hungary, which have applied for EU Membership. The EU has been trying to get a fair deal for the climate in the past, but even its position has weakened and been fudged.

Last year's disasters

International action against climate change

Friends of the Earth's call for action at COP 6

How governments try to wreck the Kyoto Protocol

The UNFCCC

The Kyoto Protocol

| back | home | top |