The 6th Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change
The Hague, Netherlands, 13 Nov - 25 Nov, 2000
By Henry Lamb
Thousands of delegates and NGO (non-government organization) observers are gathering in the Hague, Netherlands, November 13 - 25, to try, once again, to reach final agreement on the Kyoto Protocol. This meeting is the 6th Conference of the Parties (COP 6) to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.
When the Protocol was adopted in Kyoto, Japan (COP 3) in 1997, scores of questions remained unanswered. Two years of intense negotiations are now expected to produce agreement at COP 6,k on most of the outstanding issues.
Advocates of the Protocol want desparately to have the Protocol in force by 2002, to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the 1992 Earth Summit II at which the treaty was adopted.
Agreement will not be achieved easily. Among the most contentious issues to be resolved, is the penalty for non-compliance, and many questions related to Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF).
Compliance
For the most part, this issue has been negotiated behind closed doors. But the options being considered have not remained secret. There are not that many options. Since Kyoto in 1997, the World Trade Organization has been whispered as the U.N. entity most capable of enforcing the Kyoto requirements. It is the only U.N. entity that has the power to impose sanctions on sovereign nations.
There has been some discussion about creating an enforcement mechanism within the Convention on Climate Change, empowered to impose financial penalties. This discussion has not met broad acceptance.
A significant number of delegates want no financial penalties - yet. Instead, their scheme would allow nations not in compliance by the end of the first phase (2008-2012) to increase their second-phase target by the amount they missed their phase-one target.
Sound complicated? It is, especially in view of the confusion surrounding the methods of measuring and reporting reductions.
The Kyoto Protocol requires the United States to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions to a level seven percent below 1990 levels, by the period 2008-2012, phase-one. According to many analysts, this is an impossible target, since emissions have increased 10 to 12 percent since 1990.
This increase has occurred despite a general reduction of emissions per unit of GDP (gross domestic product). In other words, we are producing less emission from each source, but because our economy is expanding, our overall emissions are still inceasing. Should our economy continue to expand, our emissions will continue to increase. To comply with Kyoto by the first reporting period, our emissions would have to be cut by about 20 percent from today's levels, and by about 25 percent by 2008.
This is an unrealistic target. To push a compliance shortfall into the next reporting period, makes the second phase targets a joke, even before they are established.
The discussion about a second phase will come as a shock to some people. The public discussion about Kyoto has been limited to only phase one targets. From the outset, however, way back in 1996 at COP 2, the negotiators have been planning a series of target periods, designed to eventually end the use of fossil fuels. The Protocol has been compared to the "globally coordinated plan" to eliminate the internal combustion engine as described in Al Gore's Earth in the Balance.
LULUCF
LULUCF is the acronym for "Land use, land use change, and forestry." This is a two-edged sword. On the one hand, U.S. delegates want the carbon dioxide sequestered by forests to be counted as emissions reductions, which would lessen the reduction of fossil fuel use that would otherwise be required. On the other hand, should this idea be accepted by the delegates, the federal government could add the Kyoto Protocol to the list of other "international obligations" to justify federal control of how land is used. Such land, reserved for carbon sequestration, is called "Kyoto Land."
Delegates from other nations are bitterly opposed to the U.S. position on LULUCF. NGOs, such as the Climate Action Network and Greenpeace, openly ridicule the U.S., claiming that the U.S. is just looking for a way to not take the harsh steps necessary to reach the Kyoto targets.
Other issues
Perhaps the most contentious issue for Americans is the fact that only 38 developed nations are bound by the Protocol. China, Mexico, Brazil, Korea, Indonesia, about 150 nations in all, are not required to reduce emissions. The result, fully acknowledged by the U.N., would be a shift of emissions from the developed world to the developing world.
This is the unspoken objective of the Kyoto Protocol: to reduce the industrial capacity of developed nations while increasing the industrial capacity of developing nations. Put differently: to redistribute the wealth of the world.
The U.S. Senate adopted a resolution unanimously, which said no Protocol would be ratified that exempted the rest of the world. The delegates in Kyoto knew of the Senate Resolution before they adopted the Protocol in 1997. They discussed the issue and deliberately chose to ignore the Senate, and exclude 150 developing nations. At COP 4 in Buenos Aires, the issues was no longer discussed. The issues was not even raised at COP 5 in Bonn. The delegates at COP 6 will not consider the question either. It has been resolved, despite what the United States may want.
Why the hurry?
There are growing signs of desparation among the Kyoto advocates. Executive Secretary, Zammit Cutijar, has said the entire process could unravel unless agreement is reached on the most contentious issues at COP 6.
The U.N. has significantly upgraded the "threat" of global warming, suggesting all manner of doom and gloom unless action is taken now. The new urgency has less to do with new scientific findings, however, than with political reality.
Since the policy makers "leaked" the Executive Summary of the Third Assessment Report (two weeks before the election), scientists around the world have protested the Summary, claiming that it misrepresents the findings contained in the 2,000-page report.
The uncertainties surrounding the U.S. elections add still another degree of urgency. The U.S. delegates at COP 6 are appointees of Bill Clinton, who would be expected to continue under a Gore administration. But since the Presidential election will not be conclusive until after COP 6 ends, the Clinton delegates could abandon their concerns and agree to everything, in order to get the Protocol in force.
This is an extremely important meeting. Sovereignty International will be reporting daily from the Hague on its web site, and on several popular radio talk shows. Watch the events unfold.