Another Meeting, Another Delay

Another COP meeting has come and gone and another delay on Post-Kyoto negotiations looms. Not that anyone is surprised by this continuing impasse, but GHG emissions continue to rise unabated. Yes, promises were made to review Kyoto in 2008. And how long will the review process take? It took 5 years before the sketch Kyoto agreement was made available for signature in 1997 and almost a decade before it came into force. Scientists say that we could reach the point of no return on emissions in as little as ten years. Even if strict policies were enacted tomorrow for both developed and developing countries it would be almost impossible to turn this ship around in such a short period of time. What are these policymakers thinking?

It is clear what must be done. We cannot wait for the powers that be to start taking action. We need to start doing what we can as individuals to change this state of affairs.

Nairobi Meeting a Dud?

In early November 2006, the world’s leaders came together in Nairobi, Kenya for the second Conference of the Parties serving as the Meeting of Parties to the Kyoto Protocol (COP/MOP 2) and the twelfth Conference of the Parties (COP 12) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). There has been much anticipation that this meeting may accelerate the process towards developing a more robust post-2012 Kyoto Protocol climate change regime. Delegates also anticipate a change in U.S. climate change policy following the 2006 midterm elections during which the Democratic Party retook control of both the House and Senate. Unfortunately, it is not likely that either event will really bring the types of aggressive policy changes needed to stabilize greenhouse gasses.

The Nairobi agenda is largely dominated by ‘housekeeping issues’ such as improving implementation of existing programs such as the Clean Development Mechanism and Joint Implementation. Also, the whole policymaking process is paralyzed by an inability of the scientific community, namely the International Panel on Climate Change, to provide timely information about the current state of climate change research. The last time they issued a consensus report was in 2001. We need that information now in order to mobilize support for real change.

Second, if you are hoping that the Democrats will magically fix U.S. climate change policy when they come to power in January, think again. President Bill Clinton was in power for 8 years but the U.S. made little progress in developing a comprehensive climate change strategy. In fact, the U.S. delegation did whatever could to water down U.S. obligations under the Kyoto Protocol. The new Democratic leadership has proposed a series of high priority initiatives that it plans to tackle in January. Climate change policy was way down the list.

Global Responsibility for GHG emissions 1850-2000

Many people believe that countries that are the biggest GHG emitters have some historical responsibility to help other countries to respond to the negative effects of climate change. If you poured toxic waste on your neighbor's yard for years and their health was adversely affected by your actions, it is almost certain that you would be found legally liable. So, why shouldn't people in developed states provide compensation to GHG damage in developing countries?

Cumulative Emissions from 1850 to 2000
Source: World Resource Institute 2005
	C02 (energy)
Country	MtC	Rank	% of World Total	Tons C Per Person	Rank
United States of America	81,969.40	1	29.78%	283.2	3
European Union (25)	74,827.10	2	27.18%	165.3	11
Russian Federation	22,711.00	3	8.25%	156.9	14
Germany	20,599.20	4	7.48%	250.2	6
China	20,047.80	5	7.28%	15.8	89
United Kingdom	17,920.60	6	6.51%	303.5	2
Japan	11,258.70	7	4.09%	88.6	37
France	8,216.20	8	2.98%	138.8	19
Ukraine	6,235.70	9	2.27%	127	22
Canada	5,902.90	10	2.14%	189.9	8
Poland	5,804.20	11	2.11%	150.2	15
India	5,576.00	12	2.03%	5.4	121
Italy	4,442.10	13	1.61%	77	42
South Africa	3,181.80	14	1.16%	71	44
Australia	2,899.50	15	1.05%	149.4	16
Belgium	2,757.50	16	1.00%	268.1	4