Chapter 6
Sealing the Deal to Save the Climate
The accumulation of these waste gases over the decades, is overwhelming the
planet’s energy balance and heating up the earth’s surface.
Saving the global climate and protecting ecosystems in a warming world must
become a national interest for each of nearly 200 independent states.
As the world grows by 78 million people each year, the difference in the emission
levels are increasing because of the number of developing countries and to solve the
climate problem it will actually require a real sacrifice.
Most of the world’s governments have been meeting regularly since about 1980 to
come up with way in which all countries can agree to stop changing the planet’s
climate.
The Kyoto Protocol went into effect in 2005.
Most nations ratified the international climate agreement except the United States.
This agreement requires industrial countries to control emissions of carbon dioxide
and five other key greenhouse gases to level somewhat below those recorded in
1990.
Equity and the Response to a
Changing Climate
• Many scientists believe that poor countries with little
responsibility for today’s climate instability will be hit
hard by the climate change.
• The Kyoto Protocol is based on the principles of
“common but differentiated responsibilities” that
recognizes that there are different economic and
emissions positions.
• Two questions were asked. How should rights to emit
greenhouse gases be allocated?
• And who should bear the cost of emissions reductions
and adaptation to climate change?
For emission rights they came up with two different
principles:
The Egalitarian Principle states that every person worldwide
should have the same emission allowance. This principle
gives populous countries the greatest number of emissions
rights. India for example has 3 times as many people as the
US so they would be entitled to 3 times as much emissions
than the US.
The Sovereignty Principle argues that all nations should
reduce their emissions by the same percentage amount.
Large emitters would make large reductions of greenhouse
gases while low volume emitters would make smaller
reductions. An agreement to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide by 10% US 579 million tons and India by 141 million
tons.
Two other principles that deal with costs
The Polluter Pays Principle asserts that climate related
economic burdens should be borne by nations according to
their contribution of greenhouse gases over the years. Since
1950 the US has emitted about 10 times as much CO2 as India.
The US bill for dealign with climate costs should be about 10
times greater.
The Ability to Pay Principle argues that the burden should be
borne by nations according to their level of wealth. If they went
by gross domestic product figures to determine how much each
country pays. The US would pay 12 times more than India.
WHAT WILL IT COST?
• The leading economy in this greenhouse market designed to reduce CO2
emissions is China. China is the world’s most populated country. The govt.
there has given priority to the development of renewable energy and has
committed to reducing the carbon-dioxide emissions from electric power
generation since 2000.
• The United States and other industrial countries account for an estimated
76 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions form 1850 to 2002. New forest
and the conversion of most of the world’s farms to practices that allow
soil to capture and store atmospheric carbon could remove some excess
carbon dioxide.
• To prevent as many future emissions as possible the world’s wealthier
countries will need to finance much or even most of the reduction needed
in poorer countries.
• These reductions can be from avoid deforestation, land degradation or
making wind turbines instead of coal-fired power plant.
Continued
• The 19.5 billion provide in 2006 and 2007 by a few industrial countries for
emissions reductions in a few developing countries helps start us in the
right direction.
• Industrial countries need to invest in energy efficiency at home, shift from
fossil fuels and develop climate-friendly ways to produce food, goods, and
services.
•
• Things are probably not going to be done unless more and more people
have a rallies about climate change so they can persuade people to make a
difference. And this most likely won’t happen until the damage is more
severe and by waiting longer it could be harder to stop or stabilize the
environment.
• With uncertain benefits, the upfront costs of effective prevention still are
big and that why people are more hesitant to spend the money to
eventually reap the benefits.
Who will Emit?
• The U.N development Programme and other suggest that the risk of
climate catastrophe approaches an intolerable level if the worlds average
temperature fails to stay within 2 degrees Celsius of the preindustrial
global average.
• Significant climate risks may lurk even in more-modest temperature
increases.
• Humanity needs eventually to shrink net GHG emissions to zero.
• All combustion releases heat- trapping CO₂ into the air.
• All molecules of more than two atoms – from water vapor to methane to
the polyatomic industrial gases used in refrigeration and air conditioners.
• The vast majority of GHG emissions now come from the countries and
regions that are demographic and economic giants countries such as The
U.S Russia, Japan among the industrial countries China, India, Brazil and
developing countries.
Lessons learned, Time Lost
• More than two decades have passed since scientist first began
calling news and public attention to the growing urgency of
the problem.
• By 1994 most of the world’s nations including the U.S , had
ratified and put into force the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change , First agreed to at the United
Nations conference on Environment and Developing in 1992
• The Kyoto Protocol aimed to drive down the GHG emissions of
industrial countries as a first step in what was planned to be a
two-phase process
State of Play
• Despite the absence of the U.S, parties to the
protocol continue to strengthen its provisions
and have committed to improving and
expanding the carbon trading, Clean
Development Mechanism, and other emissions
reducing tools to which it gave birth.
• Japan, Canada, And New Zealand also
participate in Kyoto Protocol- based carbon
trading.
One of the Bali Action plan was to
continue focus on global climate
negotiation on four main areas:
• Mitigation, a term covering efforts to reduce emissions below
what they would be.
• Adaptation to the climate change that is already on the way.
• Technology transfer from industrial to developing countries to
facilitate and help pay for these in countries that otherwise
may not be able to afford them.
• Financing for poorer countries provided by wealthier ones
and potentially a pool of all nations.
New Directions
• “Hard” emission caps after 2012
– This has become easier through things such as the
Clean Development Mechanism
• To ensure warming increases no more than
2.4 degrees Celsius the world must reduce
CO2 emissions 50-85% of the year 2000 levels
by the middle of this century
– Industrial nations need to reduce emissions 2540% by 2020
Government Proposals for Climate
Change
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
China and the Group of 77
Mexico
Switzerland
India
South Africa
European Union
Norway
Brazil
The Real Deal
• Greenhouse gas emissions need to be capped
and then steadily reduced world wide.
• What is the fairest way to do this?
• Many observers think that emissions should be
controlled on a per capita basis.
• However, other suggestions have been made.
India and Germany Suggest
• Have suggested allowing developing countries
emission levels to rise until they are equal to the
emission levels of industrialized countries.
• These industrialized countries would presumably be
decreasing their emission levels rapidly
• At the point when their emission levels are equal,
both groups could reduce their per capita emissions
together
Brazil’s Proposal
• Since industrialized countries are responsible for
most of the buildup of GHGs, would reducing
emissions on a per capita basis be fair?
• They proposed making country responsibilities
proportional to their historical contribution to the
problem.
• This suggestion made no headway on the
international stage.
Greenhouse Development Rights
• An increasingly popular plan to reduce emissions that was developed by a
U.S. group, EcoEquity, and the Stockholm Environment Institute
• Responsibility would be based on a country’s cumulative per capita GHG
emissions from a specific date, perhaps 1990.
• Would also take in to account, a country’s ability to help deal with the
problem without sacrificing necessities.
• A country’s capacity would not count people/families below a
“development threshold” of $7500 per person
• This would shield the poor from potentially high costs of reducing
emissions.