| RFF's Billy Pizer reports from the world conference to address the greenhouse gas emissions that are contributing to global warming. Held in Buenos Aires from Dec. 6 through 18, it was the tenth conference of the parties (COP-10) of the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change.
The Kyoto Protocol, designed to give the Framework Convention teeth, will go into force Feb. 16 2005, imposing mandatory emissions limits--in most cases, cuts--on three dozen industrial countries. The United States has dropped out of Kyoto, and the protocol does not extend to the developing countries, where emissions are now rising most rapidly. Kyoto's commitments run from 1208 through 2012, but the agreement assumes that the parties--nearly all of the world's countries--will negotiate further commitments before the first phase expires. |
| The hot topic of conversation at this year's COP is, what happens after the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol? Unlike past COPs, where this topic was largely confined to side events hosted by NGOs, the question is now looming in front of negotiators. Under terms of the Kyoto Protocol, consideration of commitments for subsequent periods are supposed to be initiated at least seven years before the end of the first commitment period--or in 2005. |
| It might seem that merely initiating those considerations--rather than actually negotiating the commitments--would be easy. Far from it. First, there is the fundamental question about what to do about the United States. The U.S. is not a party to the protocol, but is a party to the convention. If the basis of any meeting is commitments under the protocol, the U.S. is unlikely to participate. If the basis is the convention, the whole notion of targets and timetables established under the protocol would be given up. |
| Some people argue for going back to the convention. Otherwise, the argument goes, the likelihood of engaging the U.S. becomes more and more remote--and encouraging the U.S. must be part of the solution. Others argue for sticking to the Kyoto protocol in order to seriously tackle the problem of climate change. This argument assumes that, eventually, the U.S. will rejoin despite a prolonged absence from the process. |
| Sitting in the bullpen, developing countries are also nervous about post-Kyoto discussions that would, after tackling the U.S., set their sights on developing country actions. While NGOs and academics offer no shortage of ideas about how to ramp up developing country commitments in a variety of gentle and not-so-gentle ways, key players such as China and India have indicated little interest in strictly climate-focused policies. They believe their priority must always be development and growth. |
| Finally, it is far from clear whether the European Union, nominally the driving force in pushing the Kyoto architecture, has a common vision of what post-Kyoto actions ought to look like. With the presence of their emissions trading scheme virtually upon them, the reality of what post-2012 commitments might mean is becoming increasingly divisive within the EU. |
| All of this means there are fundamentally hard choices looming before the current COP. Ironically, the U.S. withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in many ways propelled it toward ratification in many countries and its impending entry into force. The question now is what will further propel global action--and in which direction. |
| Postscript
In the early hours of December 18, a decision was adopted to move forward with a "Seminar of Government Experts" in May 2005, where each party to the UNFCCC will have the opportunity to make a presentation on their respective domestic policies and measures supporting both the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol. The seminar will occur "without prejudices to any future negotiations, commitments, process, framework or mandate under the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol." Read the full text of the seminar decision at the UNFCCC website. |
