Copenhagen Climate Conference vs. Kyoto Protocol
American President Will Not Speak at Global Warming Symposium
Nov 14, 2009
Amid stalled negotiations and a stubborn 111th U.S. Congress, real progress on world carbon emissions is highly unlikely in the next month. In an attempt to avoid appearing as the American Bad-Guy and causing the failure of Copenhagen, the U.S. administration may be ready to sign a political agreement in lieu of a legally binding one. Former vice president, Nobel peace prize winner and climate activist Al Gore said in Friday’s Washington Post, “What’s important is that what emerges from Copenhagen is perceived as an important step forward.”
Kyoto Protocol
Kyoto was to set the limits that were not discussed in the 1992 United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change. UNFCCC was signed by most nations including the U.S.; however, the U.S. would not ratify Kyoto. That protocol gave 38 developed nations binding targets on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; while not obligating developing countries, like China and India, to accept any targets. Some consider these facts as the problem with Kyoto.
- The U.S. – the world's largest economy and GHG emitter since Kyoto was signed increased emissions 17% above the Protocol standard. By refusing to sign, the U.S. became the dominate nation not adhering to the Protocol. In 1997 the U.S. Senate was so adamantly against the requirements that it passed a resolution to reject any international climate treaty that did not include binding targets for developing nations.
- Developing nations – the Protocol used 1990 standards and failed to take into account the rising treat caused by the developing nations. Since the signing, China alone saw a 153% GHG emission increase and is now arguably the world’s largest emitter.
Climate change is expected to be one of the main topics in discussions between U.S. President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao during Obama's Nov. 15 visit. While both nations have converging goals, they are still far apart and even further from the Kyoto targets.
President Hu promised in September that China would cut carbon dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product by 2020 from 2005 levels. This is far from the target levels of 1990 giving China a higher benchmark. This most likely will become unacceptable to the American congress. Secondly, Hu was quite specific when mentioning carbon dioxide emissions and not all GHG emissions. Of course CO2 is a large part of China’s gases coming from her coal power plants; however, methane and carbon tetra-fluoride combined are a large part of China’s GHG footprint.
President Obama said he wants to cut U.S. emissions back to the Kyoto standard 1990 level by 2020. While in line with the premise of Kyoto, the U.S. Congress does not place climate legislation high on their agenda. This slow movement may signal to smaller and higher-emitting countries, that the U.S. does not mean business. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the president’s broad rhetoric could negotiate complex regulatory policy in this environment.
COP15 Copenhagen Conference 2009
A 2007 declaration proposed a road map for a new treaty in Copenhagen. With the likelihood that little will come from November’s Sino-US meeting, and Kyoto fresh in everyone’s mind, sponsors of the conference are already looking for ways of making it appear as a success. Dr. Qi Ye, a Tsinghua University climate policy expert said on Nov.14, 2009 in China View News, "It takes time to agree a new treaty….[But] first it has to be certain that the Copenhagen talks won't collapse,"
But how can Copenhagen succeed? On July 30 the Guardian newspaper reported on a World Public Opinion poll that 73% of the world’s population wanted their governments to place climate change as a higher priority. However, “the U.S. ranked dead last…[since] only 44% of Americans thought climate change should be a major preoccupation for the Obama administration.” Citing scheduling conflicts with the Nobel Prize awards, the President can conveniently remain out of the climate spotlight in Denmark.
Dr. Bill Chameides, Dean of the Nicholas School of Environment at prestigious Duke University, said in an Oct. 12 university posting. “Now, some Americans argue against national climate legislation and international treaties by pointing to Kyoto’s ‘failure,’ but I find such an argument a little ironic…when one of the factors that undermined Kyoto was the ‘failure’ of the United States to ratify the treaty in the first place.”
 |
