Protocol Covers Emissions Of 6 Gases example essay topic

Table of context TABLE OF CONTEXT 1 INTRODUCTION 2 HISTORY 2 FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE 2 THE KYOTO PROTOCOL'S SEEDS 3 KYOTO PROTOCOL 5 COMMITMENTS TO THE PROTOCOL 5 POLICIES AND MEASURES 6 'BUBBLING' AND THE EU REDISTRIBUTION OF EMISSION COMMITMENTS 6 THE FLEXIBILITY MECHANISM 6 Emissions Trading 7 Joint Implementation (JI) within Annex I 7 Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) 8 INTERNATIONAL PROSPECTIVE 8 US 8 EUROPEAN UNION 9 AUSTRALIA 9 CANADA 10 ENVIRONMENTAL AND ECONOMIC IMPLICATIONS OF THE KYOTO COMMITMENTS 10 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 10 ECONOMIC COSTS OF THE KYOTO COMMITMENTS 11 PROSPECTS FOR KYOTO 11 CONCLUSION 12 Appendix 13 BIBLIOGRAPHY 15 KYOTO PROTOCOL 1997 - web 15 Introduction Global warming is one of the biggest environmental challenges now facing the world. And although the adverse effect of global warming have been known to scientists for over a century, it became a matter of international environmental concern rather later then other concerns over the climate change such as the problem of ozone layer depletion and air pollution. The concern over the greenhouse effect is that various gases generated by nature and man's activity are trapping an increasing amount of the sun's heat in the lower atmosphere, stopping it form escaping back to space, with the consequence of meteorological instability, rise in temperature and sea levels at a rate with which mankind may not be able to cope. A 1-3% increase in temperature over the next hundred years would have potential dramatic effect on, inter alia, industrial, economic, and agricultural sectors of society. But the most vulnerable to such a change will be the developing countries, peoples of which are directly reliant on the environment for the basic needs.

It is the purpose of this essay to explore the role of the international law in relation to the environmental protection by exploring the existing laws related to the problem of global warming, objectives of such laws, critically evaluating their implementation, applicability and succession. History Since the First World Climate Conference took place in 1979, climatologists have been stressing the potential threat of global warming. However, the first official action, the establishment, by the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) and World Meteorological Organization (WMO), of the Inter-government Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was in 1988. The IPCC formulated different Working Groups to carry out a scientific assessment of the likelihood of anthropogenic climate change, study its potential impacts and identify strategies to prevent and adapt to the impacts of climate change. The IPCC was given task to report to the Second World Climate Conference (SWC C) in Geneva in November 1990. From this activity the United Nations International Negotiating Committee on Climate Change, containing 105 countries, was formed in 1991.

Framework Convention on Climate Change A year of negotiation culminated in the first step towards a substantive international agreement to control the causes of greenhouse warming, when 155 countries signed the Framework Convention on Climate Change (F ) at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992. The intention of this convention was to stabilize the greenhouse gases ' at a level that would prevent dangerous interference with the climate system', although there was also recognition that some climate change was inevitable and that adoptions measures were also essential. Article 4 (1) stated that all states where to develop national inventories of 'anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks' and formulate programs to start to tackle the problem including measures to mitigate climate change'. The parties were to aim to return to their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, with those developed country parties requiring to provide 'new and additional' financial resources in order to allow developing country parties to meet the 'agreed full incremental cost of implementing the measures necessary to fulfil their general obligation', including incremental costs of the purchase of environmentally sound technologies. The structure of the F are part of an important progression from past international environment co-operation, which has tended to be regional or bilateral, to a truly global regime, in fact from 1973 to 1989 only 37 per cent of international environmental treaties contained more than sixteen parties. The slow progress of the international environmental law development has been seen today with 170 countries ratifying the F including the EU.

The Kyoto Protocol's Seeds The seeds of Kyoto process can be found in the Convention, where Article 4 (2) (d) states that 'the Conference of the Parties shall, at its first session, review the adequacy of' the commitments of the parties in order to ensure that the Convention is achieved'. The first session took place in Bonn in 1995 where the Conference of the parties at Decision adopted the Berlin Mandate - a mechanism that would negotiate binding reduction and limitation obligations. The parties, intended that these negotiations to be conducted by an ad hoc group open to all parties and concluded by the third session of the Conference of the Parties to be held in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997 and result in a protocol or another legal instrument. The Berlin Mandate laid out the considerations, which were to guide the negotiations, many being taken straight from the text of the Convention. In particular, it mentioned Article 3 (1), which stated that: ' The parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof'.

Berlin Mandate explicitly stated that no new commitments would be introduced for developing country parties. But for the developed ones, quantified limitation and reduction objectives (QUEL ROs) would be set, together with deadlines for their fulfillment. The reference in the Mandate to the need ' to maintain strong and sustainable economic growth' being seen as jeopardizing the industrial base upon which the developed countries depend. The US in particular, has been reticent about the Mandate, fearing that the US economy might be threatened.

Two years was the time allocated by the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties for theses issues to be discussed, however, no text has been agreed by the third meeting of the Parties at Kyoto. In 1997, at the Third Conference of the Parties, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted stating that industrialized countries should reduce their emissions of six greenhouse gases, as expressed in CO 2 equivalents, by an overall 5% of 1990 levels by 2008-2012. The EU signed it relatively early, the US too, but the ratification process is still underway. To become binding international law, the Protocol has to be ratified by 55 parties to the UN F and Annex I parties ratifying it have to account for 55% of the 1990 CO 2 emissions. This mechanism gives strong parties a blocking position, however, the US or EU alone cannot block its entry into force.

So far, only 40 countries ratified the Protocol, including one industrialized country. Kyoto Protocol Commitments to the Protocol In its central provisions, the Kyoto Protocol defines allowable greenhouse gas emissions for each industrialized country Party in terms of assigned amounts for the commitment period 2008-12. The commitments apply to the industrialized countries in Annex I of the Convention, and the numerical commitments are listed in Annex B of the Protocol. Specifically, the latter covers those Annex I countries that had ratified the Convention by the time of Kyoto, plus those whose application to Annex I was accepted during the Kyoto Conference.

The overall commitment is summarized in the first paragraph of Article 3 that adds up to the reduction of 5.2% below 1990 levels. The specific commitments for 2008-12 to each State are set out in Table 1. They serve as the engine for almost everything else in the Protocol. There is no earlier commitment period, though Article 3.2 states that ' each Party shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments under this Protocol. ' The Protocol covers emissions of 6 gases that together account for almost all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions in the industrialized world. The gases are taken together as a 'basket' compared on the basis of the 100-yer GWP estimates in the IPCC's Second Assessment Report for the first commitment period.

There is however, a concern over the statistics mix of gases in different countries. In general, the New World countries have much higher % of non-CO 2 gases in their base year emissions, so they tend to benefit more from the move to comprehensive gas coverage. For example, EU has a higher proportion than the US, due to the combination of the relatively low CO 2 emissions from its energy sector and high non-CO 2 emissions for Scandinavian countries, compared to high US CO 2 emissions. To minimize the problems arising from uncertainties, countries submit national reports on emission inventories for technical review and have them accepted by the technical bodies to the Convention. Thus, countries have to gain technical and political acceptance for their emission estimates in order to participate, for example, in emission trading. Policies and Measures Article 2 of the Protocol fulfils the first item of the Berlin Mandate, which was itself developed from parts of Article 4 of the F. It sets out a number of activities which parties are encouraged to adopt in order to achieve their commitments under Article 3.

The EU argued for a long and detailed menu of policy options, whereas the US adopted a far more laissez-faire position, arguing against any particular direction in policy choice. Developing countries also joined the debate seeking to ensure that any measures included into the final agreement would not harm their own economies and exports. As a result, Article 2 consists of four main paragraphs that reflect a measure of compromise between these various positions with the US approach winning to a larger degree. 'Bubbling' and the EU redistribution of emission commitments Article 4 enables a group of countries, during the ratification, to redistribute their emission commitments in ways that preserve the collective total. It also establishes legal responsibilities in the event of the collective commitment not being achieved. Article 4.1 establishes safeguards to the joint commitments set under Article 3.

It requires the Parties to set the respective emissions levels allocated to each one of them in to the agreement. Article 4.3 goes on to establish that 'any such an agreement shall remain in operation for the duration of the commitment period', meaning that it cannot be modified after submission with an instrument of ratification. Furthermore, it states that the commitment will then apply irrespective of any changes in the composition of that organization. Finally, the Article sets out the responsibilities in the event of failure to achieve joint and several liability commitments, which will enforce each country to be 'responsible for its level of emission set out in the agreement'. The Flexibility Mechanism The 'flexibility mechanisms' introduced in the Kyoto, which are aimed at reducing the overall costs of GHG reduction by allowing the use of the comparative advantage of different countries. Russian Federation, for example, is prepared to sell licenses resulting for its economic breakdown since 1990 and the related decrease in CO 2 emissions.

The flexibility mechanisms are: - Emissions trading among industrialized (Annex I) countries; - Joint implementation among industrialized countries; and - Co-operation between industrialized and developing countries in a 'clean development mechanism'. These mechanisms are designed to allow the states to pollute more by buying or selling credits on an international financial market or to reduce their quota by expanding forests and farmland. For example, Canada, under such plan, would get credits for exports of "clean energy" such as natural gases because they would displace dirtier energy sources such as coal and oil, which release more greenhouse gases. Emissions Trading Emission trading is one of the most controversial aspects of the Protocol for the implementation of reduction objectives. It enables any two parties to the Protocol to exchange part of their emission commitment, in effect redistributing the division of allowed emissions between them, at any time. Many economists and developed states see great potential in emissions trading - an effective means of cutting emissions whilst maintaining economic growth.

However, the emissions' trading remains one of the most controversial aspects of future negotiations. The legal scientific and technical problems associated with determining the size of quotas, the trading of quotas, and ensuring compliance are likely to prove difficult issues to resolve. There is also a problem that if emissions trading included the countries with economies in transition, such as Russia whose present emissions of greenhouse gases is below its 1990 level, they would be able to sell a significant part of their quota to other more developed countries permitting the later to continue emitting such gases. Joint Implementation (JI) within Annex I Article 6 of the Protocol enables emission savings or sink enhancement arising from cross-border investments between Annex I Parties to be transferred between them - so called joint implementation.

Since the trading occurs between countries that are both subject to legally binding constraints, it does not carry many of the political and technical complexities. The Article establishes that JI projects between industries within Annex I may proceed and generate 'emission reduction units'. This involves private investment that has to be sanctioned by the governments of the participating industries. Agreement must be reached on the emissions saved by the investment and at this point the emission savings agreed between the parties become equivalent to an international emission trade, being deducted from the allowed emissions of the host country, and added to the allowed emissions of the investing one.

This method was successfully used by Japan and Russia a month after the Kyoto. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) Article 12 of the Protocol established the clean development mechanism to help developing countries achieve emission reductions. Its purpose is 'to assist Parties not to include in Annex I in achieving sustainable development and in contributing to the ultimate objective of the Convention, and to assist Parties including in Annex I in achieving compliance with their quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under article 3' The CDM seeks to assist developing countries in meeting the objectives of sustainable development and simultaneously allow the Annex B parties to obtain credit for 'certified emission reductions'. The details are being deliberate at the national and international levels, including the COP.

In principle, the CDM encourages partnership between the North and South, and also between private and public sectors via technology and resource transfer. Two main features distinguish CDM form JI. The first is the strengths of multilateral control over the process, and second is that 'a share of the proceeds from certified project activities's hall be used to cover administrative expenses as well as to assist particularly vulnerable developing countries to meet the costs of adapting to climate change. International prospective US The US plays the most significant role in the global negotiations on climate change. Its emissions comprise almost 25% of the global total, which makes the agreement without the US meaningless.

The Kyoto Protocol would require the US to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 7% from 1990 levels by 2012. Its emissions in 2000, however, were 14% above the 1990 level. The US economy grows seemingly on the cheap fossil fuel resources, and the cost of reducing the CO 2 emissions seemed to the US to high influenced Bush to announce his new approach to the problem. 'I'm confident that the environmental path that I announce will benefit the entire world. This new approach is based on this common-sense idea: that economic growth is key to environmental progress, because it is growth that provides the resources for investment in clean technologies. ' According to Bush the new approach America intends to cut sulfur dioxide emissions by 73 percent from current levels.

Cut nitrogen oxide emissions by 67 percent. And, for the first time ever, cap emissions of mercury, cutting them by 69 percent. These cuts will be completed over two measured phases, with one set of emission limits for 2010 and for the other for 2018. This legislation will constitute the most significant step America has ever taken to cut power plant emissions that contribute to urban smog, acid rain and numerous health problems. However, green countries such as Japan and UK also criticized the American plan for voluntary cuts by companies. It is expected that by 2010 US emission will have risen by 31% on 1990 levels, compared with the 7% drop the US originally agreed under the Kyoto proposals before pulling out, claiming that the cut was unfair.

European Union The Community has, with its member states, adhered to the New York Convention in 1992. It regulatory reports on Community strategies and measures to fight global warming. In 1998 the EU committed to a reduction of 8% below the 1990 level in the period of 2008-12 by agreeing to the Kyoto Protocol. The EU has been successful in lowering its emissions to the required level, and in order to do so there have been new laws introduced into it's Member States legal systems. For example, the UK's government, in order to meet the UK's targets for the reduction of the main greenhouse gases specified in the Kyoto Protocol, has introduced a new tax in the Finance Act 2000, known as ' climate change levy'. Australia Australia, the world's largest coal exporter, won the right to increase its emissions by eight percent above 1990 levels.

But Australian opposition politicians and environmentalists said the Australia-U.S. partnership was another example of Australia's unwillingness to crack down on its own rising greenhouse gas emissions. Greenpeace spokeswoman Frances Mcguire said that "Australia's greenhouse gas emissions are rising and the government doesn't want to take serious action to deal with that and is just trying to hide behind Bush's coat tails,"The partnership has nothing very concrete on actually bringing about real emission reductions", . While several developed nations have slammed the U.S. leader's rejection of the Kyoto protocol and his proposed alternative announced two weeks ago Australia welcomed Bush's plan and had signed a partnership with Washington to find practical approaches to dealing with climate change. The prime minister Kemp said the U.S. -Australia partnership would focus on harmonizing industry regimes and developing systems for carbon accounting and the trading of renewable energy credits. "Kyoto unfortunately is not a proposal which is going to involve all countries. We need to recognize that if we " re going to get global action, we need to see action obviously on the part of the United States and action on the part of developing countries", .

Canada Under the Kyoto protocol, Canada agreed to bring its emissions of greenhouse gases down to 6 per cent below what they were in 1990 by 2008-2012. However, there are serious fears that such actions will put Canada at a competitive disadvantage against America, which hinder ratification process. Canadian government, under heavy pressure from energy producers to follow Washington's lead and abandon the 1997 protocol, last year persuaded its partners to change Kyoto to give Ottawa credit for carbon dioxide absorbed by forests. once again, at the meeting of Group of Eight environment ministers in Banff, Canadian Environment Minister said that Ottawa wanted another change to give it credit for clean energy exports to the United States. The EU did not support this proposal and Canada accused the EU of behaving bizarrely by rejecting Ottawa's plea for a further dilution of the already troubled Kyoto protocol on global warming. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association says Canada's economy would be only 27 per cent larger in 2010, rather than 30 per cent if the Kyoto works.

The production closures could result, in the loss of 450,000 jobs in manufacturing alone by 2010. However, there will be benefits resulting from energy efficiency and greater competitiveness. New industries such as fuel-cell energy, and renewals such as solar and wind power could develop and grow, creating jobs in the process. And "smart growth" in our city-regions could mean more public transit and less highway congestion. Environmental and economic implications of the Kyoto commitments Environmental It is suggested that the Kyoto's commitments could reduce CO 2 concentrations in the mid-21st century by about 10-25 ppm, and by 20-80 ppm by the end of the 21st century, depending on a degree of the Parties commitment. Emissions in the EU, for example, by the mid-90's where just below the 1990 levels and emissions in Its had collapsed by 15-50%, however those in the rest of the OECD were generally 6-10% up.

The history of international environmental agreements has almost entirely one of increasing the scope and strengths of commitment, and there is no fundamental reason why the future of Kyoto should be different. Still, the future is uncertain, and the Kyoto commitments themselves will entail very modest environmental consequences but they could be considered a good start. Economic costs of the Kyoto commitments The economic costs of Kyoto are hard to predict. The fundamental economic debates continue concerning ways of defining and estimating abatements costs, and accounting for factors such as technological process and secondary benefits of emission control.

According to OECD's 1998 report, the marginal cost of hitting the target tends to be the highest in Japan and Europe and somewhat lower in the US. The marginal costs reflecting modeling estimates of meeting the commitments without any international flexibility, using CO 2 taxes alone, vary in range $80-$200/tC. The total costs, expressed in terms of estimated GDP losses by the year 2010, range form 0.2 to 2%. International flexibility greatly reduces these costs to 0.5% of GDP across Annex I. Furthermore, these figures probably substantially overestimate the actual costs of implementing the protocol since most of them do not include non-CO 2 gases, sinks or the CDM. Prospects for Kyoto At the fourth session of the Conference of the Parties, the so-called "Buenos Aires Plan of Action" was adopted. This Plan set out a program of work covering both the "unfinished business" of the Kyoto and on-going implementation issues under the Convention, such as financial assistance and technology transfer.

The deadline for negotiations under the Plan of Action was set at COP 6 but, at that session, Parties were unable to agree on a balanced package of decisions. It was decided to continue their negotiations at a resumed session of COP 6. At COP 6 part II, consensus was finally reached on the "Bonn Agreements", registering political consensus on key issues under the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, including on financial assistance, technology transfer, adverse impacts of climate change and response measures on developing countries, the mechanisms, land use, land-use change and forestry and compliance, with consensus on the institutional structure of the compliance and the consequences that Parties will face if they fail to meet their emission commitments. On the 10 November 2001, the most recent Marrakech conference (COP 7), was attended by 171 governments and a total of some 4,500 participants. Parties to the UN Climate Change Convention have finalized the operational details of the Kyoto Protocol, opening the way to widespread ratification by governments and the Protocol's early entry into force. "After several years of tough negotiation, the institutions and detailed procedures of the Kyoto Protocol are now in place.

The next step is to test their effectiveness in overseeing the five-percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions by developed countries over the next decade", said Michael Zam mit Cut ajar, the Convention's Executive Secretary. The next meeting (COP 8) will be held from 23 October to 1 November 2002 where India could be the host. Hopefully, this meeting will lead to a much clearer goals and actions to combat global warming. There is a suspicion, that the Protocol will fall far short of its goals to cut greenhouse gases because of the pullout by the United States and possible foot dragging by Canada.

And although the US could eventually be brought back into the signatories of the 1997 accord as the 15 EU member states agreed in March to be legally bound by it, nevertheless it is far likely that Americans will follow the 'new proposals' by Bush. Conclusion The Kyoto protocol is a first attempt to the start of what will be a much longer process over the next 30 to 50 years to transform the way in which we produce and use energy and run our economies. The process implies radical changes in technology, new approaches to taxation and pricing and significant changes in lifestyle and behavior. The international discussions on the percentage reduction of emissions should not forget the uncertainty as to what is really needed for protecting the environment.

It is less than certain that the proposed reduction of emissions by 2012, under the Protocol, will stop global warming. Indicators indeed point at this not being the case. Law is, to that extent, as the service of policy, since it is not able to formulate the rights or the needs of the environment, is not of any help. Appendix 1) Countries included in Annex B to the Kyoto Protocol and their emission targets Country Target EU-15, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Monaco, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Switzerland -8% US -7% Canada, Hungary, Japan, Poland -6% Croatia -5% New Zealand, Russian Federation, Ukraine 0 Norway +1% Australia +8% Iceland +10% 2) Article 2 Each Party included in Annex I, in achieving its quantified emission limitation and reduction commitments under Article 3, in order to promote sustainable development, shall: (a) Implement and / or further elaborate policies and measures in accordance with its national circumstances, such as: (i) Enhancement of energy efficiency in relevant sectors of the national economy; (ii) Protection and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, taking into account its commitments under relevant international environmental agreements; promotion of sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation; ( ) Promotion of sustainable forms of agriculture in light of climate change considerations; (iv) Research on, and promotion, development and increased use of, new and renewable forms of energy, of carbon dioxide sequestration technologies and of advanced and innovative environmentally sound technologies; (v) Progressive reduction or phasing out of market imperfections, fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions and subsidies in all greenhouse gas emitting sectors that run counter to the objective of the Convention and application of market instruments; (vi) Encouragement of appropriate reforms in relevant sectors aimed at promoting policies and measures which limit or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol; (vii) Measures to limit and / or reduce emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol in the transport sector; (v.) Limitation and / or reduction of methane emissions through recovery and use in waste management, as well as in the production, transport and distribution of energy; (b) Cooperate with other such Parties to enhance the individual and combined effectiveness of their policies and measures adopted under this Article, pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2 (e) (i), of the Convention. To this end, these Parties shall take steps to share their experience and exchange information on such policies and measures, including developing ways of improving their comparability, transparency and effectiveness. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol shall, at its first session or as soon as practicable thereafter, consider ways to facilitate such cooperation, taking into account all relevant information.

2. The Parties included in Annex I shall pursue limitation or reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol from aviation and marine bunker fuels, working through the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization, respectively. 3. The Parties included in Annex I shall strive to implement policies and measures under this Article in such a way as to minimize adverse effects, including the adverse effects of climate change, effects on international trade, and social, environmental and economic impacts on other Parties, especially developing country Parties and in particular those identified in Article 4, paragraphs 8 and 9, of the Convention, taking into account Article 3 of the Convention. The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol may take further action, as appropriate, to promote the implementation of the provisions of this paragraph. 4.

The Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to this Protocol, if it decides that it would be beneficial to coordinate any of the policies and measures in paragraph 1 (a) above, taking into account different national circumstances and potential effects, shall consider ways and means to elaborate the coordination of such policies and measures.

Bibliography

Kyoto Protocol 1997 - web Principles of Environmental Law;
Third Edition Cavendish Publishing 2002 (by S.
Wolf, A. White and N. Stanly e) Cases & Materials on International Law Third Edition Blackstone Press Limited (by M. Dixon & R. McCorquodale) EC Environmental Law; Fourth Edition Sweet & Maxwell 2000 (by L.
Kramer) International Law and Sustainable Development; Oxford University Press Ltd New York 200 (by A. Boyle & D. Freestone) Environmental law Fifth Edition Blackstone Ltd 2001 (by S.
Bell & D. Macgillivray) The Kyoto Protocol A Guide and assessment; The Royal Institute of International Affairs 1999 (by M.
Grubb) International Environmental Law & Economics; p Blackwell 2002 (by P.
K. Rao) 'Bush accused of 'Enron-style accounting' over climate plan' ENDS International Feb 2002 Rep 325 '1997 Kyoto Protocol to the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change' JEL Vol 10.
Number 2.1998 (by D.
French) David Crane 'Count benefits, not costs, of Kyoto' Mar. 3, 2002.