Today, one of the most controversial treaties in decades becomes part of international law. It has been heralded as a breakthrough in the fight against dangerous climate change and a triumph for international diplomacy -- despite the fact that the US, the world's greatest emitter of greenhouse gases, refuses to take part.
The protocol, an addition to the Climate Change Convention negotiated at the Earth Summit in 1992, is the first legally binding international treaty on the environment. The convention placed an obligation on every country that signed it to reduce man-made greenhouse gas emissions but did not give any targets -- so everyone agreed another agreement was needed.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Kyoto gives each of the industrialized countries of the world an individual limit to the greenhouse gas emissions they can make. The reductions overall are tiny compared with the cuts that scientists say are necessary to stabilize the climate. So will Kyoto really make a difference to whether global warming is contained? Can it save the planet from the potential of runaway global warming?
Here we explain the nuts and bolts of Kyoto, how it works, and what it does.
One, what is Kyoto designed to reduce?
Six gases: Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels is the biggest factor in climate change but methane from agriculture and landfill, nitrous oxide from vehicles, and hydofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride from other industrial processes are included.
Two, why do different countries have different targets?
In 1997, in Kyoto, a protocol or addition to the original treaty was negotiated after many tortuous sessions in special case, and so the idea of differential responsibilities was born.
The first major difference in responsibilities was between industrial countries and developing countries. It was felt that industrial countries, which had gained most from the industrial revolution were also most to blame for the greenhouse effect. It was therefore agreed that the first round of reductions should be from them and the countries, such as the US and Japan, which are now burning most fossil fuels.
There were 34 industrial countries which agreed to targets, most of them in Europe. Some, such as Spain and Portugal, which were still developing, were allowed large increases in emissions and others, such as Germany, agreed to large cuts, partly because its heavy industry was shutting down but mainly because the government felt that it had to give a lead. Each country can discover how much CO2 it emits by calculating the volume of fossil fuels it burns, usually through imports and the tax system.
Three, what difference does the US make?
The treaty immediately hit a snag because politicians in the US, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, passed a vote in the US Senate refusing to ratify the protocol. This was because they felt that China and other developing countries would gain a competitive advantage over them, because they would not have the costs of reducing emissions.
The snag could have been devastating because, under the rules negotiated in Kyoto, industrialized countries responsible for 55 percent of the emissions had to have their national parliaments ratify the convention before it could come into force. Since the US is responsible for 36 percent of the greenhouse gases from the industrialized world it meant that almost all the other countries which had agreed targets had to ratify the protocol before it could come into force.
Russia had doubts that the treaty was worthwhile without the US, but without Moscow's agreement the treaty could not reach the 55 percent of emissions threshold. After two years of delays Russia ratified last December, bringing the emission total to 61 percent.
Ninety days later -- today -- it comes into legal force. Only four of the original 34 nations have refused to take part: the US (36.1 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions of the industrialized world), Australia (2.1 percent), Liechtenstein (.001 percent) and Monaco (.001 percent).
Four, how do the targets work?
In the intervening years countries have been working to reduce emissions. The measurements are generally taken from a starting date of 1990, and the targets for each country must be reached by the period 2008 to 2012. Some former communist countries, known in the jargon as "countries in transition," were allowed to chose a different date because after the collapse of communism many closed heavy industries.
Unlike the rest of the world, the former Eastern Bloc countries had a slump in emissions. This has become important to the workings of the treaty.
Under the treaty, each country has to report to the secretariat of the United National Climate Change Convention each year what its emissions are and how it is progressing to its target. Each country also has to show what it is doing to reduce emissions and, if it is not reaching the target, what further measures are proposed.
One of the anomalies negotiated at Kyoto was that the EU, then consisting of only 15 countries, negotiated a single target for itself of an 8 percent reduction over 1990 levels. This was because some countries had more advanced economies than others. But in Ireland, which was allowed a 13 percent rise, the economic boom which has been enjoyed there means emissions are already up by 29 percent -- so wildly over target that the Dublin government is under heavy pressure to act to reduce the growth.
The UK agreed to a reduction of 12.5 percent, confident that with the switch from coal generation of electricity to gas it was already reducing CO2 emissions. (Gas produces about one-third less CO2 per unit of electricity than a coal-fired station.) But since the Labour government came to power in the UK in 1997, CO2 emissions have grown and new measures to reduce them are being considered. One of the problems is that the government has failed in its promise to reduce traffic, and the price of gas has increased so some electricity generators are burning more coal.
Five, how does Kyoto affect the UK?
Among the measures the Blair government has taken is pouring money into renewables to reach a 10 percent target by 2010, and force electricity distributors to buy electricity from "green power," even though it is more expensive than that produced by fossil fuels. This has given consumers the option to buy green electricity. There are also a range of products on the market such as gas-condensing boilers, long-life lightbulbs and schemes to insulate people's homes, which save a lot of electricity. There are a lot of cash incentives and subsidies for such schemes, but none are compulsory.
One other way in which our lives have changed because of Kyoto, without us noticing, is that car engines have become more efficient.
Many people do not take advantage of this and buy fashionable 4x4s which are heavy on fuel. The British government introduced a fuel escalator to reduce emissions from vehicles, but gave up after protests, leading directly to a rise in greenhouse gases. The UK is still under its 12.5 percent target, but only just.
The EU has also brought in a number of measures. The UK's current boom in recycling is a direct result of an EU scheme to increase recycling of biodegradeable rubbish. This is the rubbish such as paper and organics that, when piled into landfills, produces methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.
Six, what else does Kyoto encourage countries to do?
There are three other ways that countries can reduce emissions, apart from measures at home. The first two involve working with other countries to reduce their emissions. The reasoning behind this is that the atmosphere does not care in which country the reductions are made -- what it needs is a reduction in greenhouse gases.
There are two categories in which two countries can jointly reduce emissions, depending on the type of country. If they are both developed countries and both have to make reductions it is called a joint implementation scheme, and if one is a developing country then a clean development mechanism.
In this first case -- if British money is spent in Poland making a power plant more efficient -- it saves more CO2 than if the same money was spent on making an already efficient plant in England slightly better.
The second method involves installing a clean method of producing electricity such as solar power in a developing country as an alternative to a CO2 -producing method like coal. In this case, the developed country claims all the carbon credit.
The third method is carbon trading. This greatly benefits the former communist countries which, because of the closure of their heavy industries since 1990, have saved thousands of tonnes of emissions.
Having lived through former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s tumultuous and scandal-ridden administration, the last place I had expected to come face-to-face with “Mr Brexit” was in a hotel ballroom in Taipei. Should I have been so surprised? Over the past few years, Taiwan has unfortunately become the destination of choice for washed-up Western politicians to turn up long after their political careers have ended, making grandiose speeches in exchange for extraordinarily large paychecks far exceeding the annual salary of all but the wealthiest of Taiwan’s business tycoons. Taiwan’s pursuit of bygone politicians with little to no influence in their home
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS