The Kyoto Protocol
Objectives
On December of 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, representatives of 39 governments
created and signed a protocol. Once it was ratified by a sufficient number
of countries – whose combined emission of CO2 would be equivalent
or superior to 55% of global emissions -, these countries would be obliged
to achieve, between 2008 and 2012, a reduction of 5% in the total emission
of CO2 compared to the levels emitted in 1990. The treaty has been ratified
by the European Union but not the United States. Now that the government
of Russia has decided to sign it (having finally reached, within the signing
members, 55% of global emissions), the protocol will go in effect on February
of 2005.
The objectives to fulfill in the original treaty are different for each
country. Thus, the European Union countries are permitted to distribute
among them the reduction quota, in order to reach a total drop of 8% in
CO2 production. That partitioning allows states of that group, such as
Spain, to increase their emission by 18%. But for that country at the
end of 2002 the emissions were already 30% higher than in 1990. The new
socialist government in Spain expects to reduce the emissions, and reach
a relative increase of 24% by 2012, by achieving a 2% reduction by reforestation
and by purchasing emission rights from other countries for the remaining
4%.
Although some European countries will have difficulty fulfilling the pact,
it is quite possible that the European Union as a whole will indeed achieve
it, without need to apply new policies, or introduce new costs (although
the emissions in the transportation sector have already increased by 20%
between 1990 and 2001). That is why some of the countries in Europe are
founding supporters of the treaty since it is easy to sign something when
there is not much to sacrifice. As a point in fact Germany, thanks to
the closure of some heavy industry after reunification with its eastern
counterpart, reduced the per capita emissions from 14.8 tons/year in 1990
to 11.8 tons/year in 1999. The United Kingdom, after shifting reliance
for energy production from coal to natural gas and nuclear energy during
the times of the conservative Thatcher, dropped from 13.0 tons/year per
capita in 1990 to 10.8 tons/year in 1999. Finally, France, thanks to its
heavy dependence on nuclear power (80% of produced energy) went from 1990
per capita CO2 emissions of 8.7 tons/year to 8.2 tons/year in 1999. The
per capita emission in Spain are 9.7 tons/year.
Behind the rigs of support from European states to the Kyoto Protocol is the European policy of dropping carbon as an electric energy source, in favor of nuclear and methane power stations. Indeed, burning of natural gas (methane) to move the electrical energy producing turbines, puts out 370 grams of CO2 per kWh of electrical output, compared to 750 grams per kWh from carbon. For that reason the advantages of carbon, an inexpensive and abundant fuel, are smudged and it is presented to the public as unclean and antiquated. There is hardly any mention of the motive of the lack of competitiveness of European carbon compared to carbon from other countries that even have open air mines of much easier exploitation.
Emissions of Carbon in the form of CO2 during the years 1980 to 2000 in some regions of the world. A reduction is observed in developed Europe, and an important increase in the USA, but mostly in Asia that will exceed the other continents before 2020.
Nevertheless,
the problem with the United States is different, a country requested to
achieve a reduction of 7%. In the year 2000, when the USA decided to definitely
not ratify the treaty, its emissions were already 18% higher than in 1990.
This is largely explained by the low taxation on fuel in the US, particularly
gasoline, and also because it still relies on carbon as the main energy
source for production of electricity (to a 54% in 2000).
Exempt from reduction obligations, although they also sign the treaty,
remain China and India, Brazil and Mexico. Those countries are the ones
that will increase the most their carbon emissions in the coming years,
besides modernization of their industry, due to the expected heavy increase
in public and private transportation.
Both the United States as well as Australia, where also carbon is very
important (Australia produces 85% of its electricity using coal and coal
is also its first export), there are currently ongoing costly research
projects (FutureGen and Coal21) with the purpose of obtaining low atmospheric
emissions of CO2 without renouncing its use in thermal power plants.
Besides the controversy and the difficulties in applying it, the Kyoto
protocol as such will have minor consequences. In fact, if the initial
approved reduction was to be carried out in the next years, the climate
models estimate that solely a rise of less than 1/10 of a degree would
be avoided with respect to that predicted if no measure was taken at all.
Sinks
A controversial aspect of the Kyoto treaty is that it accepts an increase
in the permitted emission quota for countries that carry our a reforestation
policy, calculating the amount of CO2 absorbed by the new forests supposedly
acting as sinks (not a simple calculation at all, since it depends on
several factors). Australia after a diplomatic negotiation came out with
permission to emit 8% more in 2012, compared to 1990, in exchange for
its reforestation policies. This is besides the fact that this country
heads the world list of CO2 per capita emissions. In any case, Australia
has still not ratified the protocol.
Still more difficult to calculate is the absorption of CO2 as a result of changes in soil usage. A likely contradiction, were a policy of reforestation to be carried out, is that a forest landscape is one with reduced albedo, i.e. less reflecting. Therefore, it is possible that the drop in albedo induced by the new forests at high latitudes –that would also increase the temperature at the surface – could counteract the cooling effect of increased CO2 absorption.
Global anthropogenic CO2 emission in petagrams of carbon per year. Solely one part of CO2 emitted (approximately half) is accumulated in the atmosphere (blue shaded area) since the part absorbed by oceanic plankton and earth vegetation photosynthesis is considerable (green area), with a concomitant increase in terrestrial biomass (reference: Quay P., 2002, Ups and Downs of CO2 uptake, Science, 298, 2344).
Emission
credit allowances
In the Kyoto protocol, it is also accepted that emission credit trading takes place between governments, depending on the emission credit set for each country in the Protocol. In this manner, after distributing the emission credit, a country intending to exceed its own could purchase part of the quota attributed, for example, to Russia or some East European countries, and in this manner emit more than what that country was initially assigned. The particular example is mentioned since Russia, because of its high emissions in 1990 linked to endurance of low energy efficiency industry there, would be attributed a higher quota than it would need in the near future with the introduction of improved technology in its industry. (“Officially” its emissions for 2000 were almost 40% less than those of 1990 already, and in the protocol Russia is allowed emissions for 2012 equal to 100% of 1990.) Actually, Russia continuous to be only second in emissions, after the United States. Were its low current emissions correct (subject to doubt) Russia would be the country standing to benefit economically the most if the purchase of emission credit were to be effected. But the United States has not entered the pact and it does not seem that Europe is willing to buy either. That is why Russia, in economic expansion and exporting natural gas and petroleum, has deliberated at length before signing a treaty that would not be beneficial to it climatically .
January average temperature
In
any case, there is (sufficient) opinion that it is very optimistic to
think that the high CO2 emitting states will in practice accept to make
such, more or less arbitrary, payments for emission credit towards countries
selling it, and much less so, if their the true emissions are not known
with precision, as is the case of Russia.
On the other hand, in Europe, there is an ongoing effort to distribute
internally industrial CO2 quota, without altering the taxation on gasoline
or diesel for transportation (a move that would result politically very
costly).
Bartering
Another complication of the Kyoto protocol is the permission to the signing
countries that reduction of other greenhouse gases could also serve as
credit, exchangeable for equivalent emission of CO2. These gases are:
methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), hydrogenous
fluorocarbons (HFCs) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
The equivalence is not easy to determine, due mostly to the different
duration half life of the gases in the atmosphere. For example the global
warming potential (GWP) of methane is 56 with respect to CO2 (GWP of CO2
= 1) in a 20 year horizon, but it is 21 in a 100 year horizon (that is
what is currently used in emission bartering). Actually, methane has a
half-life in the atmosphere of short duration (some 12 years), so its
GWP depends highly on the time that has passed since its emission.
Other aspects still more complicated were not covered in the Protocol,
such as the direct or indirect reactions among greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere, which alter in a complex manner their half lives and therefore
their respective GWP’s.
Conclusion
Finally, there has not been established any form of international control
of national emissions, so application of the Protocol is even more doubtful.
In Kyoto, the initiation of a very complex treaty was reached, useful
for many as a political slogan, but too vague and at all pragmatic, and
also one where most signing countries had very little to loose.
Perhaps what is most paradoxical is that, in spite of all the hassle and bustle surrounding the Protocol, it is not clear whether the temperature, in the last 15 years, has increased.
(source: John Christy & Roy Spencer, University of Alabama, Huntsville,
Alabama, USA)
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/data/update/gistemp/graphs/
(Spanish)