Transcript Y11GeUC7.8 Kyoto PPwk18

The Kyoto Protocol
Reaching Global Agreements 1997
1
Key Idea – only the one
• Environmental abuse has serious
consequences. Its causes need to be tackled
to ensure a more sustainable future.
• But there are still 3 sections to study …..
2
Section 3 (new)
• Managing the causes (anti-pollution legislation,
alternative energy sources, international
cooperation) and adapting to the
consequences of global warming and climate
change.
• A case study of attempts to tackle the problems of
global warming and climate change (eg UN
conference at Rio de Janeiro, Kyoto Protocol and its
successor).
3
What is the Kyoto Protocol?
• A global Agreement that set targets for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions
• 175 countries signed up
4
• Participation in the Kyoto Protocol, as of June 2009,
where dark green indicates the countries that have
signed and ratified the treaty, grey is not yet decided and
red is no intention to ratify
5
Kyoto Protocol Aims:
• Kyoto Protocol is a protocol to the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UNFCCC), aimed at combating global warming.
• The aim of the treaty was "stabilization of
greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere
at a level that would prevent dangerous human
interference with the climate system."
• The Protocol was initially adopted on 11
December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and entered into
force on 16 February 2005
6
• Under the Protocol, 37 industrialized
countries (called "Annex I countries")
commit themselves to a reduction of four
greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide,
methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur
hexafluoride) and also fluorine gas
compounds.
• Annex I countries agreed to reduce their
collective greenhouse gas emissions by
5.2% from the 1990 level. Emission limits
do not include emissions by international
aviation and shipping (in the too-hard box)
7
There were a number of ‘Articles’ that set
out to achieve this
• Article 2: ways to fight GHG
• 2.1.a.i Enhance energy efficiency
• 2.1.a.ii Protect and enhance the sinks
– A carbon sink is anything that absorbs more carbon that
it releases whilst a carbon source is anything that
releases more carbon than they absorb.
• 2.1.a.iii Promote sustainable agriculture – by
promoting farming methods that produce less GHG,
especially in developing countries
• 2.1.a.iv Research and promote renewable energy
sources (wind, water, solar, biomass)
8
Article 2.1.a.v
Phase out any incentives for ‘bad
practice’
In some countries government policies or loopholes in subsidy regulations
actually promote 'bad practice' in GHG emissions. Phase these out will push
business and industry towards less polluting practices.
Article 2.1.a.vii
Limit GHG from transport
GHG from transport is a big problem and getting bigger. Several
government initiatives around the world have already arisen from Kyoto to
cut transport GHG emissions.
The development of dual fuel and electric
vehicle technologies holds a great
potential for cutting down this source of
GHG. Some American states have set
targets for clean fuel vehicles.
9
Article 2.1.a.viii
Limit methane emissions through
recovery and use
Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, having about 20 times the climate
forcing effect of carbon dioxide. Big man-made producers of methane are
landfill sites
Large landfill sites now
commonly have these methane
power stations which have the
double attraction of producing
energy and getting rid of the
methane, albeit a carbon
dioxide. Solid waste energy
plants already operate
successfully in the UK, using the
methane generated from
chicken manure to create power
10
Article 2.1.b
Cooperate
A theme which runs through much of the Kyoto protocol is for countries to
cooperate. Sharing both advances in GHG technology and science. the
greatest achievement of the protocol so far is to get so many countries
together and talking on a central issue.
Article 2.2.
Cut GHG from aviation
This one was never implemented as no-one could decide who would
monitor it as international travel made an agreement to hard to reach.
11
Article 2.3.
Be careful of wider impact - avoid adverse
effects
A cautionary note in Kyoto is to be careful of the wider impacts GHG
reduction schemes may have. Some may be too costly to maintain for the
benefit they provide, others may cause an unreasonable degree of disruption
to the populace, industry etc.
Hydroelectric dams are a good example of this. At
first sight they seem to be all to the good as far as
reducing GHG goes. However, not only does their
construction often mean the loss of much land,and
the displacement of its animals and humans, it can
also end it up to be quite a big GHG emitter. Much of
the organic matter washed into the lake behind the
dam decays anaerobically in the depths, rather than
aerobically as it would have done in the original river.
This anaerobic break down produces lots of
methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than the
12
normal CO2.
Article 3.1
Keep to assigned amounts of GHG with
overall worldwide reduction by at least
5% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012
This article states that countries will stick to their agreed commitments, but
does not specify what the penalties will be if you don’t. The EU and others
wanted real penalties for failure, but other countries disagreed. This was
one of the sources of contention over which the EU finally gave in to at the
Bonn conference.
Article 3.2
Everyone must have shown progress by 2005
The idea of this target is to get countries actively reducing their emissions
before the first commitment period arrives (2008).
13
Article 3.3
Verifiable changes since 1990 in GHG
emissions by sources and removals by
sinks due to direct human-induced
land-use change and forestry can be
used to meet commitments
The key problem here was how to establish what changes
have occurred, again a source of much wrangling between
countries.
Although cutting emissions from fossil fuels
should be the focus of efforts to limit global
warming, forestry and land management activities
can provide part of the answer. With their being a
recognised part of Kyoto GHG balancing - tree
planting schemes like this one in Mexico could
become commonplace.
14
Article 3.4
Everyone must supply their level
of ‘carbon stocks’ in 1990 so the
change since can be estimated.
BUT what sinks, sources and
‘additional activities’ which can be
added or subtracted from GHG
reduction commitments?
15
Article 4
Countries can meet their commitments
together
Article 5
All countries will have in place, at least a year
before the first commitment period (2008), a
national system for measuring GHG emission
changes
16
The carbon budget for the earth as a whole is extremely complex, but our
best models of the system suggest an increase in carbon in the
atmosphere of about 3Gt per year. These kind of budgets need to be
17
formulated as accurately as possible for each country
Article 6
Joint implementation - Countries can work
together to meet their emission reduction
targets
This is one of the so called 'flexibility mechanisms' designed to
help rich (annexe 1) countries meet their Kyoto commitment
other than by directly cutting in their own emissions. It caused
some of the biggest arguments , but it is agreed that without
them the agreed reduction targets would have had to have
been much smaller.
Russia, currently going through economic instability but with a
range of ‘dirty’ technology has been a large recipient of
investment from the west, that then claim the savings made in
emissions to off-set their own
18
Article 7
All countries will supply the extra
information needed with the numbers it
gives i.e. perceived wider impacts
Article 8
All the information given by each country will
be reviewed by expert, independent, review
teams
19
Article 9
The protocol will be regularly reviewed in
light of the best information available at
the time
Article 10
All countries should develop national and/or
regional programmes to both limit GHG
emissions and improve the quality of GHG
data via consistent methods. Cooperate
20
Article 11
The richer countries will provide funds and
technology to developing countries to help
them better advance towards GHG reduction
21
Article 12
CDM is a
scheme
The Clean Development Mechanism
This is another 'flexibility mechanisms' designed to help rich
(annexe I) countries meet their Kyoto commitment. The clean
development mechanism allows governments or private entities
in rich countries to set up emission reduction projects in
developing countries. They get credit for these reductions as
'certified emission reductions (CER's). This system is different
form the Joint Implementation as it promotes sustainable
development on developing countries.
CDM can use afforestation (planting somewhere new) and
reforestation (replanting where there once was some), or some
other emissions reduction project like a rural electrification
project using solar panels in a developing country .
[Recall they were also going to pay for not cutting down trees but
22
that was delayed until the implementation of REDD]
Article 12.5
Some rules for
the CDM are
shown above.
(a) Voluntary participation by each
country
(b) Real, measurable, and longterm benefits related to mitigating
climate change
(c) Reductions must be additional
to those which would occur
anyway
23
Article 17
Emissions trading - countries can trade in
‘emission units’
The final flexibility mechanism. A tradable carbon credit unit
called AAU's (Assigned Amount Units) has been proposed
which would represent one tonne of CO2 emissions. The
advantages of this trading are that it drives countries to better
efficiency in their own greenhouse gas emissions. Bur there is
a worry that some rich countries will simply 'buy off' the GHG
they produce and not take any action themselves. the idea of
a 'cap on the amount of trading has been suggested, but has
produced even more argument'.
24
Kyoto Protocol Aims:
• Share of CO2
Emissions in 1990
• Industrialised countries
to cut emissions to 5%
below 1990 levels by
2008/12
• Had varying targets EU
by 8% and Japan 5% (It
is a lower polluter)
• Countries like Iceland
were allowed to
increase emissions
25
26
Problems with signing up
• Some delayed in signing up to Kyoto such as
Russia who signed in 2004
• USA initially signed but then withdrew in 2001
following GW Bush’s election (USA emit 25%
of world emissions)
27
How big a problem was the American Issue?
• The US was the biggest emitter at the time (36.1%)
- it has since been overtaken by China –
• So if they were going to continue polluting, why
should other countries bother? Small countries
efforts would have little overall impact on the total
GHG.
• George W was even saying that climate change
was (a) not happening and (b) if there was some
variation it was natural.
• He did however admit that being dependent on
foreign (especially Muslim) oil supplies was a
security issue and so went full tilt into producing
biofuels from corn and soya, offering big money to
his farmers to change from food production to
biofuel production.
28
How big a problem was the American Issue?
• This forced up the world prices of food and encouraged
deforestation of the Amazon, to grow soya to feed the
beef cattle of the developed world.
• Meanwhile GW, whose ascent in politics was largely
funded by the oil companies, remained friends with the
oil barons – not an insignificant issue so far as he was
concerned.
• The Republican Party listened to its other big funders,
the transnational companies (TNCs) who could not see
the possibilities of more new business from the new
technologies, but saw only costs and problems from
having anything to do with climate change. So they were
and still are all in favour of the no-change policy that
opting out of Kyoto allowed them to follow.
29
Successes?
30
So what for the future?
• Renewable energy can only supply 10-15% of
the UK’s energy needs
• Must replace coal fired with nuclear power
stations
• Building nuclear power plants takes time
31
What is Carbon
offsetting?
• Forests and woodland cover
10% of the UK and they absorb
CO2 and store it
• Several UK and EU schemes
allow businesses to offset their
emissions by planting trees
• However there is a limit to the
amount of CO2 that they can
hold and therefore are limited in
viability
• UK woodland removes 4 million
tonnes a year
• UK emits 150 million tonnes it
would take a huge increase in
woodland to offset all of UK
emissions
32
Alternatives
Biomass fuels
 Wood fuel
 Ethanol and bio diesel
 Alcohol fermented from
sugar
 Oil extracted from
soybeans
 Methane Gas coming
from rubbish dumps
33
Problems
• Unfortunately these rely on removing plants
from the planet thus removing a carbon sink
and need to be followed by mass replanting
schemes
• Growing biofuels reduces the land available
to grow food and increases food prices as
well as leaving more people liable to an
inadequate diet
34
35
Economic Impacts
• More extreme weather leads to increased
costs equal to 1% of GDP
• 2-3oC rise in temps reducing global economic
output by 3%
• Poor countries ability to cope would be
reduced with lack of basics like water
36
Copenhagen was supposed to be the next
step
• But no protocol was signed.
• However, it is not all disaster
– The Americans are on board
– The Chinese and the Indians are both committed to
reducing the impact of their growth – this does not
mean they are cutting emissions in total but for each
unit of production, the emission will be reduced
substantially
– The Brazilians have reduced deforestation for the first
time in many years (partly due to the recession, it is
true) by 45% on last year but they are committed to
reducing deforestation by 80% by 2020.
37
Copenhagen was supposed to be the next
step but …
It may be worth looking at the stuff on Cancun
(COP 16 2010) in the blog
http://lindym.wordpress.com/2010/11/27/cancun-hopes-to-serve-ovenready-redd-deal/
and other article with Cancun – do a search – top right of
the page.
Also the Durban round in December 2011, COP
17, at
http://lindym.wordpress.com/2011/12/21/how-can-cop17-durban-beseen-as-a-success/
Also as another example of a current impact:
http://lindym.wordpress.com/2011/12/24/shock-as-retreat-of-arctic-sea-icereleases-deadly-greenhouse-gas/
38