• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Climate Change Convention -- Will US be only a fair-weather friend?

S. Gopikrishna Warrier

WHEN THE high-level delegations from the countries that are members of the Climate Change Convention meet at Bonn this week, all attention would be focussed on the team from the US.

Since the Sixth Conference of Parties to the Convention -- to finalise the Kyoto Protocol -- was abandoned at The Hague in November 2000, the new US Government has moved further away from making any commitments on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The Bonn conference, which will be on till July 27, is supposed to re-start the process of negotiations abandoned at the Hague. The November negotiations mainly broke down due to differences between the US and the EU over the issue of carbon sinks. While the US had wanted to use forests and plantations to meet emission reduction targets, the EU had argued against it saying that there were too many unresolved questions related to carbon sinks.

After The Hague conference it was not just the issue of sinks that had disturbed the US position vis-a-vis the Protocol. The new US Administration, headed by the President, Mr George W. Bush, did not want to be a part of the Protocol itself. On March 28, it rejected the Protocol saying that it would harm the US economy and the science surrounding global warming was inconclusive.

This US decision has endangered the very existence of the Protocol, which was drawn up after much international negotiations. The Protocol mandates that the developed countries jointly reduce their GHG emission by 5 per cent by 2008-2012 from what they e mitted in 1990. To achieve this target, the countries can also use the flexible instruments of Joint Implementation, Emissions Trading and Clean Development Mechanism.

The Protocol has not come into effect. For this to happen it needs to be ratified by at least 55 parties, with developed countries forming at least 55 per cent of this. Till date, 34 countries have ratified, with only Romania representing the developed c ountries. If the US, which is responsible for 22.2 per cent of the global carbon-dioxide (the prime GHG) emissions, decides to stay away, the Protocol may lose its strength as an instrument for emission reduction.

It is in this context that the Bonn conference attains tremendous international significance. It will be a continuation of the process initiated at The Hague to get down to the brasstacks of enforcing the Protocol. It is as important as the COP held in K yoto in December 1997, which had an agenda to develop the Protocol.

The international attention is also due to the fact that the decisions of the conference will affect the energy future of almost all the countries. This includes developing countries such as India, which do not have emission-reduction targets in the Prot ocol, but are being pressured to take on voluntary standards. For the small island nations, the conference is literally a `do or drown' opportunity.

Will the US take a position that is for the larger good, is the question that is likely to be asked. In its pre-conference statement, Washington seems to be hiding behind words that seem to signify very little: ``The United States takes the issue of clim ate change seriously, and will work constructively under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The United States is working with our allies to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing global climate change.''

However, there is already enough science on the subject. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had, in its recent report, stated that the increase in global temperature could be between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees centigrade between 1990 and 2100. ``The projected rate or warming is much larger than the observed changes during the 20th Century and is very likely to be without precedent during the last 10,000 years, based on palaeoclimate data,'' it adds.

The IPCC report also projects an increase of carbon-dioxide emission in the coming years. ``Emission of carbon-dioxide due to fossil fuel burning are virtually certain to be the dominant influence in the trends in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration during the 21st Century.''

The White House had commissioned the US National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the IPCC findings. The NAS Committee supported the IPCC findings, though with a caveat. It said that the IPCC conclusion -- the global warming that has occurred in the l ast 50 years is likely due to an increase in GHGs -- accurately reflects the current thinking in the scientific community. However, it raised two points in caution:

* Uncertainties about the conclusion remain because of climate variability occurring in nature over time.

* There are limitations to the ability of computer models to simulate natural variability.

Despite the scientific reports advocating a reduction in the emission of GHGs, the political position need not necessarily reflect this thinking. It has to be seen what are the cards that the Bush Administration will lay on the table at Bonn.

The Energy Policy, recently released by the US Administration, could provide some pointers. It consistently avoids any mention on emission-reduction targets, but talks about advancing ``environment friendly technologies to increase energy supplies and en courage cleaner, more efficient energy use.'' Though it talks about moving away from the presently predominant coal-fired systems, the policy wants setting up of a 1,300 to 1,900 new electric plants to meet projected demand over the next two decades.

``Much of this new generation will be fueled by natural gas,'' it states. ``However, existing and new technologies offer us the opportunity to expand nuclear generation as well. Nuclear power today accounts for 20 per cent of our country's electricity. T his power source, which cause no greenhouse gas emissions can play an expanding part in our energy future.''

The American energy needs will also be met from outside. ``Energy security must be a priority of the US trade and foreign policy.'' This will involve building strong relationship with energy producing nations and improving the outlook for trade, investme nt and reliable supplies.

The core point that the policy seems to make is that there will not be much effort on demand side management. Instead, the focus will be on bridging the demand-supply gap by setting up a huge battery of power plants, and even looking outside to keep the country's energy security.

Certainly, when the larger goal points in this direction, even the best of technology and fuel options could lead to meeting the emission reduction targets of the Protocol. But it also looks that the US wants to have the cake and eat it too. While announ cing his decision to quit the Kyoto Protocol, Mr Bush had said that his Administration will work with allies to reduce GHGs, but will not accept a plan that will harm the US economy and hurt American workers. Perhaps, this was an indication that the US wanted to keep alive the flexible mechanism of emission trading alive, without necessarily submitting to binding reduction targets.

By the end of the Bonn Conference it will be known whether there is a future for any effort to hold back global warming.