Kyoto Protocol: results of the year

Subscribe

MOSCOW. (Viktor Danilov-Danilyan for RIA Novosti.) - The Kyoto Protocol came into force a year ago, and in this connection, I would like to dwell on the essence of this extraordinary international document, which united more than 150 nations searching for a solution of a major problem.

People have divided continents and established land and sea borders. But nobody can delimitate the atmosphere. It is inseparable, to be shared by all. Economic development and demographic growth have increased the concentration of greenhouse gases, which have started to affect the climate. Something had to be done, and humankind displayed common sense by drafting and adopting the Kyoto Protocol designed to limit greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere.

After a difficult struggle with its opponents, this major international project was launched on February 16, 2005. What has been done in the past year? The main achievement is that the final decisions on the Marrakech Accords were made in Montreal in December 2005. They are now part and parcel of the Kyoto Protocol. For Russia the main point is that forests are massive carbon dioxide sinks, which is recognized as a major positive climate-changing factor, and measures to increase them are qualified as a nation's emission reduction commitment.

Many people question the effect of the measures outlined by the Kyoto Protocol on the climate. Today, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is approximately 370 PPM (units of these gases per million units of the air). In 2012, as compared with the base year of 1990, their concentration will increase by 18 PPM, if the Kyoto measures are not carried out, or by 16-17 PPM, if they are implemented. It transpires that the effect of these measures on the climate is a mere 1-2 PPM. This fact allows the critics of the Kyoto Protocol to describe it as ineffective. But experts maintain that a reduction by even 1 PPM is quite good, considering that the task of stabilizing greenhouse emissions in the atmosphere has been set for a hundred years, not for five.

The main goal of the participants of the project at the first stage is to learn to reach similar goals and to validate the instruments of international cooperation, which will allow them to achieve the desired effect with time. It is necessary to test in practice the measures outlined in the document: joint projects, trade in quotas for emissions or their reduction, and a mechanism of clean development - for relations between industrialized and developing nations. Incidentally, all these mechanisms are already at work, although the results have been modest so far.

Industrialized countries are certain to fulfill their combined commitment under the Kyoto Protocol (to cut emissions by five percent by 2012 as against 1990). The United States has refused to take part in this joint effort, and I consider this a manifestation of its typical egotism. Regrettably, the Americans are placing their own interests above those of humankind. They claim that the Kyoto Protocol is unfair because not all countries have taken on commitments. They are pointing at India and China, which account for a huge share of global emissions. But the Kyoto Protocol fully conforms to the UN principle of common but differentiated responsibility. In the first budget period the developing nations do not commit to ensuring emission cuts, but they will assume them later on. The Americans also say that this will cost too much for their economy, which will not be able to function under such pressure. But the U.S. has the strongest economy in the world and it should not cry poverty.

In reality, the Americans are seriously worried that their participation in the Kyoto Protocol would increase the demand for energy-saving technologies, in which case they will start losing the competition for these technologies to the Europeans and the Japanese. The second motive is oil. The Bush Administration is afraid that implementation of the Kyoto Protocol will reduce the demand for oil and its prices, thereby prejudicing the profits of oil corporations.

Europeans are ready for vigorous cooperation with Russia on the Kyoto Protocol. They want to buy quotas and work on joint projects. But the absence of relevant legislation in Russia is a stumbling block. During one year's operation of the Kyoto Protocol nothing has been done on this score. Last summer, RAO UES of Russia energy holding signed tentative contracts with Danish companies. A law, or at least a government resolution is required to validate these contracts. But nothing has happened and the sides had to extend the waiting period.

Russia is genuinely interested in joint projects. The sale of quotas is another story. I am not sure that Russia should sell quotas, even if the price is right - 10 euros for a ton of emissions (in terms of carbon). Russia is not short of money. Our Stabilization Fund is bursting with petrorubles. Under the circumstances, it makes sense to keep the quotas for the time being. I would like to hope that Russia would receive the proper legal foundation for the Kyoto Protocol and the road to joint projects would be open.

What the market fails to observe or assess correctly is called external effects or externalities. The great English economist Pigou wrote about them almost a hundred years ago. He introduced the notion and suggested two ways of making the market react to externalities. A typical example is payment for environmental pollution and the use of natural resources. The second option is compensation to those who suffer from an external effect, for instance, the deterioration of the environment. The Kyoto Protocol shows how to internalize such externalities as anthropogenic impacts on the climate.

A state which has assumed a commitment to cutting down or limiting emissions projects it onto its economic structures. Under this pressure they start to react by buying new equipment, changing the range of products, etc. This means that the market starts working. The Kyoto Protocol makes it possible to streamline measures for internalizing the externalities on the climatic system.

Recent bouts of cold weather have been described as an argument against global warming. This is completely wrong. To begin with, global warming is not a steady process. It is a trend rather than a monotonous rise in temperatures. Moreover, some regions simply may not have this trend. I wrote about the growing climatic imbalance way back in 2001. The greenhouse effect is not to blame for everything. Other achievements of civilization include destruction of half of all forests on the globe, the ploughing up of steppes and meadows and the drainage of marshlands. Today, it is obvious to everyone that the climate is behaving like a nervous wreck. This is one more argument in favor of the Kyoto Protocol.

Viktor Danilov-Danilyan is corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Sciences and director of the RAS' Institute of Water Problems.

The opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and may not necessarily represent the opinions of the editorial board.

Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала