Developing world balks on climate treaty

Expections remained low at presstime last week that the global warming talks in Buenos Aires would bring significant changes to the Kyoto climate change treaty.

The Kyoto Protocol negotiated last year would require developed nations to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by an average 5.2% from 1990 levels by around 2010 (OGJ, Nov. 2, 1998, p. 27). It will become international law if ratified by 55 countries, representing 55% of 1990 developed world emissions.

Developing nations balk

Last week, China, India, and other developing countries blocked a proposal that the Nov. 2-13 talks include a debate on whether these nations should commit themselves to voluntary greenhouse gas emissions limits.

China and other members of the G-77 group of developing nations argued that industralized countries emit most greenhouse gases and should reduce them the most.

The developing nations also supported compensation for the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, whose members face oil revenue losses if the Kyoto treaty reduces fossil fuel use. The U.S. has said developing nations must agree to "meaningful participation" in emissions reductions before it will consider ratifying the pact. The U.S. accounts for about 25% of global CO2 emissions, and its participation is considered necessary for the success of the treaty.

The U.S. said it will continue talks with developing nations to secure commitments for reductions.

Emissions trading

The Buenos Aires talks then shifted to the issue of establishing a global emissions trading program, the Clean Development Mechanism, which would allow developed nations to reduce greenhouse emissions in developing countries in order to earn credits against their own limits.

The U.S., Japan, and Russia have opposed any caps on international trading of emissions credits, arguing that it could allow emissions gains at the lowest possible cost.

U.S. delegation head Melinda Kimble said, "Around 80% of investment in new plants and equipment in the energy sector will take place in the developing world over the next 20 years," and industrialized countries have the money and technology to reduce emissioins from those plants.

But the European Union opposes allowing developed countries to meet more than half their own reduction goals through emissions trading credits. The EU contends that could result in "climate fraud," allowing countries to avoid making domestic reductions.

Ritt Bjerregaard, EU environment commissioner, said, "The use of flexible mechanisms must never be an excuse for neglecting obligations back home."

Meanwhile, India and other developing nations argued for a system of entitlements that would encourage richer nations to invest in clean technologies in the developing world as a way to cut emissions.

Industrialized nations responded that the emissions-trading and technological aid programs should work in tandem, but the Kyoto treaty should not be transformed into a foreign aid program aimed mainly at helping poorer countries.

Separately, the World Bank said it would propose ways that the world's forests could be both preserved and commercially exploited in the battle against purported climate change. Working with scientific and environmental groups, the bank is developing investment/forestry mechanisms that would harness forests' ability to absorb CO₂.

Meanwhile, Japan and Russia said they are negotiating an emissions trading pact.

Japan must cut its emissions by 6%, but Russia's 1994 emissions are 30% below 1990 levels due to its economic crisis.

Japan would repair Russian gas pipelines, refurbish and update refineries, and build gas-fired power plants.

The Buenos Aires conference appeared likely to schedule a meeting next year in Morocco or Jordan, at which nations would consider a 2001 deadline for decisions on international methods for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

U.S. reactions

The U.S. delegation was focused on speculation that President Bill Clinton would soon order U.S. officials to sign the Kyoto treaty as a gesture of support for the global warming talks.

The deadline for a signature is Mar. 15, 1999. After the U.S. signs, the Senate would have to ratify the pact before it could become binding on the U.S.

Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) warned Clinton not to sign the treaty. He said the Senate would not approve a pact without developing country commitments, and signing it could undermine U.S. leverage in the negotiations.

Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) agreed that the Senate is "overwhelmingly opposed" to the treaty. He was a cosponsor of the 1997 Byrd-Hagel resolution, approved by the Senate 97-0, which opposes any global warming treaty that harms the U.S. economy or exempts developing nations from legally binding emissions limits.

Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) said, "By characterizing signing the protocol as 'symbolic,' the administration is attempting to tell the American people, who are concerned about soaring energy prices and the loss of jobs: Don't worry, signing this document doesn't mean anything."

Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) disagreed. He said, "It is critical that the U.S. be a full player at the table in order to influence the important decisions that will be made about emissions trading and other market-based programs which the U.S. fought hard to include in the treaty."

Meanwhile, the Global Climate Coalition said a poll of Americans who voted in the Nov. 3 elections shows that 68% were opposed to implementing the Kyoto Protocol, because of the high costs it would impose on the U.S.

In the sampling of 1,008 voters, 71% supported accelerated voluntary efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

Copyright 1998 Oil & Gas Journal. All Rights Reserved.