Blog
21.February 2005 - 00:00
Kyoto : Not All it´s Cracked Up to Be
The Kyoto Protocol enters into force on the 16th February and the EU's internal Emissions Trading Scheme started on January. At the same time the Kyoto Protocol has reached its first serious blind-alley, as no unanimity exists regarding the future.
The EU is also preparing future plans whilst at the same time the commission being more and more dividend with regards to an effective climate strategy.
It is due time to analyse the weaknesses relating to Kyoto and to find it partly incapable as a way to solve the problem of climate warming, writes Eija-Riitta Korhola
After a long period of persuasion, Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol in November, thus filling the criteria for the protocol coming into force. The Protocol provides binding emissions targets for the industrialized countries for the period 2008-12. The restrictions do not concern the developing countries.
The US stubbornness not to join and the role of the developing countries in the Kyoto Protocol were hence the most important reasons that led to the unavoidable blind-alley in the Climate Conference in Buenos Aires on December.
The strongly increasing emissions of China are a clear bottleneck when discussing the future actions in climate policies. Even in the mildest scenarios China's emissions are estimated to double by the year 2030, which means an increase of 60% in the global energy consumption from today's level. Two thirds of that increase in energy consumption takes place in the developing countries.
EU wanted to start the so-called post-Kyoto discussions, meaning the time after 2012, but US opposed to them as being premature and confirmed that they will not join Kyoto. Most of the developing countries were against all of the emissions restrictions to be laid on them in the future. Italy stated that without the US and the developing countries, participation in the future would be useless. EU put forward a request that it would be desirable to include all the most significant emitters in the post-2012 framework. At the same time EU is even prepared to act alone if necessary.
It is politically important to stand in the frontline and to show a good example. But what makes it challenging is the effect one-sided efforts have on the markets. Finland is a good example in this: it production of steel and paper is the cleanest in the world, but due to the strict national target its manufacturing establishments are forced into a difficult situation, contrary to expectations. In the global markets this means giving competitive advantage for the polluter, as the costs of the environmental investments and emissions rights can't be included in the prices. This arrangement threatens to change the principle of "polluter pays" into "pay the polluter" policy.
This is illustrated also in the EU internal emissions trading scheme, where the biggest seller of emissions rights will be Poland. It is not because of Poland's superiority, but the fact that it can sell the so-called hot air: the emissions rights are determined by the high emissions level of the earlier years. The rights to be sold are not gained through genuine savings measures.
EU internal emissions trading scheme, intended to prepare for Kyoto started at the beginning of this year. It has already become evident that the system tempts in delaying the emissions reductions and to time them during the stages where reductions won't risk the generosity of emissions rights for the next emission periods. Many companies used this delaying method when waiting also for the beginning of this present period.
This is one of the problems the Kyoto Protocol and EU emissions trading scheme includes. Some of the parties which already have taken actions to curb their emissions early on have had to regret their early actions because the system does not sufficiently reward them.
It was clear from the beginning that Kyoto would not sufficiently sustain the climate warming. In fact, the intention was to initiate a process that would eventually lead to efficient actions. But now it is reasonable to ask, whether Kyoto is a beginning into the right direction for efficient climate actions? Even though the ratification of the protocol is important and welcomed as a political symbol, its impact in terms of climate targets is uncertain. That is why it is due time to analyze the weaknesses relating to Kyoto and to find it partly incapable as a way of solving the problem of climate warming.
The Kyoto mechanisms have proven to be an ever more complex directing measure, which produces unwished for and with regards to the climate and sustainable development, wrong direction leading impacts. The worst of these is the carbon leakage, which is assumed to strengthen the China-phenomenon: the international capital of the global markets invests rather somewhere, where there are neither emissions restrictions, nor environmental norms. If production will be transferred in the areas with looser emission norms, the emissions as a whole increase. Neither does Kyoto sufficiently tackle the biggest problem, the increasing emission levels of traffic.
It seems now that the starting point created in Kyoto is unfortunate. Country specific reduction targets stuck the member states into a fight for their own benefits. That way a rewarding system can not be created that would encourage into emissions reductions. Instead, a global binding carbon economy is needed, which realistically takes into account also those quarters where emissions are threatening to increase.
Country specific reductions should be replaced by industrial sector specific examinations that would be based on efficiency, in other words defining the theoretical minimum of emissions for a ton of production. This would provide a genuine incentive for real emission reductions anywhere and without delays, as this system would reward the actor with the lowest emissions. The emissions trading scheme linked up together with this kind of a BAT-approach (best available technology) wouldn't distort the markets nor give a competitive advantage for the polluter.
The main emphasis of UN post-2012 framework model should be on energy savings and eco-efficiency, low-emitting technology and its development. Individual consumers should be included in the emission reductions by further developing emissions trading scheme in the traffic sector, which is the strongest growing source of emissions. If it was known, that low emissions would also be the basis for the developing countries in the next Kyoto period, it would already now affect the investments made in those countries. Developing countries deserve the growth, but through clean technology.
Published on the EU-reporter
The Kyoto Protocol enters into force on the 16th February and the EU's internal Emissions Trading Scheme started on January. At the same time the Kyoto Protocol has reached its first serious blind-alley, as no unanimity exists regarding the future.
The EU is also preparing future plans whilst at the same time the commission being more and more dividend with regards to an effective climate strategy.
It is due time to analyse the weaknesses relating to Kyoto and to find it partly incapable as a way to solve the problem of climate warming, writes Eija-Riitta Korhola
After a long period of persuasion, Russia ratified the Kyoto Protocol in November, thus filling the criteria for the protocol coming into force. The Protocol provides binding emissions targets for the industrialized countries for the period 2008-12. The restrictions do not concern the developing countries.
The US stubbornness not to join and the role of the developing countries in the Kyoto Protocol were hence the most important reasons that led to the unavoidable blind-alley in the Climate Conference in Buenos Aires on December.
The strongly increasing emissions of China are a clear bottleneck when discussing the future actions in climate policies. Even in the mildest scenarios China's emissions are estimated to double by the year 2030, which means an increase of 60% in the global energy consumption from today's level. Two thirds of that increase in energy consumption takes place in the developing countries.
EU wanted to start the so-called post-Kyoto discussions, meaning the time after 2012, but US opposed to them as being premature and confirmed that they will not join Kyoto. Most of the developing countries were against all of the emissions restrictions to be laid on them in the future. Italy stated that without the US and the developing countries, participation in the future would be useless. EU put forward a request that it would be desirable to include all the most significant emitters in the post-2012 framework. At the same time EU is even prepared to act alone if necessary.
It is politically important to stand in the frontline and to show a good example. But what makes it challenging is the effect one-sided efforts have on the markets. Finland is a good example in this: it production of steel and paper is the cleanest in the world, but due to the strict national target its manufacturing establishments are forced into a difficult situation, contrary to expectations. In the global markets this means giving competitive advantage for the polluter, as the costs of the environmental investments and emissions rights can't be included in the prices. This arrangement threatens to change the principle of "polluter pays" into "pay the polluter" policy.
This is illustrated also in the EU internal emissions trading scheme, where the biggest seller of emissions rights will be Poland. It is not because of Poland's superiority, but the fact that it can sell the so-called hot air: the emissions rights are determined by the high emissions level of the earlier years. The rights to be sold are not gained through genuine savings measures.
EU internal emissions trading scheme, intended to prepare for Kyoto started at the beginning of this year. It has already become evident that the system tempts in delaying the emissions reductions and to time them during the stages where reductions won't risk the generosity of emissions rights for the next emission periods. Many companies used this delaying method when waiting also for the beginning of this present period.
This is one of the problems the Kyoto Protocol and EU emissions trading scheme includes. Some of the parties which already have taken actions to curb their emissions early on have had to regret their early actions because the system does not sufficiently reward them.
It was clear from the beginning that Kyoto would not sufficiently sustain the climate warming. In fact, the intention was to initiate a process that would eventually lead to efficient actions. But now it is reasonable to ask, whether Kyoto is a beginning into the right direction for efficient climate actions? Even though the ratification of the protocol is important and welcomed as a political symbol, its impact in terms of climate targets is uncertain. That is why it is due time to analyze the weaknesses relating to Kyoto and to find it partly incapable as a way of solving the problem of climate warming.
The Kyoto mechanisms have proven to be an ever more complex directing measure, which produces unwished for and with regards to the climate and sustainable development, wrong direction leading impacts. The worst of these is the carbon leakage, which is assumed to strengthen the China-phenomenon: the international capital of the global markets invests rather somewhere, where there are neither emissions restrictions, nor environmental norms. If production will be transferred in the areas with looser emission norms, the emissions as a whole increase. Neither does Kyoto sufficiently tackle the biggest problem, the increasing emission levels of traffic.
It seems now that the starting point created in Kyoto is unfortunate. Country specific reduction targets stuck the member states into a fight for their own benefits. That way a rewarding system can not be created that would encourage into emissions reductions. Instead, a global binding carbon economy is needed, which realistically takes into account also those quarters where emissions are threatening to increase.
Country specific reductions should be replaced by industrial sector specific examinations that would be based on efficiency, in other words defining the theoretical minimum of emissions for a ton of production. This would provide a genuine incentive for real emission reductions anywhere and without delays, as this system would reward the actor with the lowest emissions. The emissions trading scheme linked up together with this kind of a BAT-approach (best available technology) wouldn't distort the markets nor give a competitive advantage for the polluter.
The main emphasis of UN post-2012 framework model should be on energy savings and eco-efficiency, low-emitting technology and its development. Individual consumers should be included in the emission reductions by further developing emissions trading scheme in the traffic sector, which is the strongest growing source of emissions. If it was known, that low emissions would also be the basis for the developing countries in the next Kyoto period, it would already now affect the investments made in those countries. Developing countries deserve the growth, but through clean technology.
Published on the EU-reporter