Blog
14.December 2005 - 00:00
No progress in Montreal
The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal has been described publicly as a victory for the common sense and a step forward. By monitoring the results, however, there is not much reason to celebrate. To put it short, not a single step forward was taken in Montreal.
It is true, however, that more decisions were made in the conference than ever before.
The possibilities allowed by new technologies were also considered more openly, the Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) being most interesting of these. Giving more regard to the adaptation of the impacts of climate change is important as well. But still, there is yet no implication that the mitigation front would be widened: with the Kyoto protocol, only one fourth of the global emissions are controlled.
The most important topic of the Climate Conference was what will the climate policy look like after year 2012, which marks the end of the present Kyoto period. A decision was taken to continue on the two so-called "tracks":
The first track means post-2012-negotiations according the Kyoto Protocol article 3.9, which concerns countries that have ratified the protocol. In other words, it means that the US and Australia are outside of these negotiations. According to this article, the object of negotiations would only be the so-called Annex 1-countries, meaning the developed countries. Developing countries would still not be offered obligations, but are only included in a voluntary dialogue. Theoretically, the only possibility for have obligations for the developing countries would be by revision of the protocol (art 9), but this is not expected to take place. The negotiations are due to start in May and are expected to be completed in time in order not to allow a time period post 2012 that would be free from reduction targets.
The second track means post-2012 negotiations on the grounds of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This would be a voluntary dialogue on controlling climate change, sharing technology development and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. This would be a comprehensive dialogue including also the developing countries and the US. However, in accordance with this second track, the US was against all formulations indicating binding emission targets now or in the future. Therefore the end result is only a series of conferences organized around the topics.
On the basis of the Montreal results it is evident the US will not accept any emission limit obligations neither through the UN Climate Convention nor the Kyoto Protocol. It also seems that the developing countries will not give up the privilege of being part of Kyoto without the obligations attached to it. While the developing countries are responsible for roughly half of all emissions and the US for one quarter, the consequence is that three quarters of the world's emissions are outside all emission negotiations.
What should then be done? My conclusion is that there is no sense in keeping up the prestige of Kyoto artificially. It is due time to admit the Kyoto track is not a path worth taking. The developing countries will protect their privileges and will not come within the sphere of emission restrictions in time. This in turn gives the US a reason to stay out as well. What we need is an international carbon economy where emissions have a price wherever they are discharged. Our atmosphere is mutual and the time to stop climate change is now.
The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Montreal has been described publicly as a victory for the common sense and a step forward. By monitoring the results, however, there is not much reason to celebrate. To put it short, not a single step forward was taken in Montreal.
It is true, however, that more decisions were made in the conference than ever before.
The possibilities allowed by new technologies were also considered more openly, the Carbon Capture & Storage (CCS) being most interesting of these. Giving more regard to the adaptation of the impacts of climate change is important as well. But still, there is yet no implication that the mitigation front would be widened: with the Kyoto protocol, only one fourth of the global emissions are controlled.
The most important topic of the Climate Conference was what will the climate policy look like after year 2012, which marks the end of the present Kyoto period. A decision was taken to continue on the two so-called "tracks":
The first track means post-2012-negotiations according the Kyoto Protocol article 3.9, which concerns countries that have ratified the protocol. In other words, it means that the US and Australia are outside of these negotiations. According to this article, the object of negotiations would only be the so-called Annex 1-countries, meaning the developed countries. Developing countries would still not be offered obligations, but are only included in a voluntary dialogue. Theoretically, the only possibility for have obligations for the developing countries would be by revision of the protocol (art 9), but this is not expected to take place. The negotiations are due to start in May and are expected to be completed in time in order not to allow a time period post 2012 that would be free from reduction targets.
The second track means post-2012 negotiations on the grounds of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). This would be a voluntary dialogue on controlling climate change, sharing technology development and adaptation to the impacts of climate change. This would be a comprehensive dialogue including also the developing countries and the US. However, in accordance with this second track, the US was against all formulations indicating binding emission targets now or in the future. Therefore the end result is only a series of conferences organized around the topics.
On the basis of the Montreal results it is evident the US will not accept any emission limit obligations neither through the UN Climate Convention nor the Kyoto Protocol. It also seems that the developing countries will not give up the privilege of being part of Kyoto without the obligations attached to it. While the developing countries are responsible for roughly half of all emissions and the US for one quarter, the consequence is that three quarters of the world's emissions are outside all emission negotiations.
What should then be done? My conclusion is that there is no sense in keeping up the prestige of Kyoto artificially. It is due time to admit the Kyoto track is not a path worth taking. The developing countries will protect their privileges and will not come within the sphere of emission restrictions in time. This in turn gives the US a reason to stay out as well. What we need is an international carbon economy where emissions have a price wherever they are discharged. Our atmosphere is mutual and the time to stop climate change is now.