Politicians and policy-makers from more than 150 countries meet in Kyoto, Japan, this month to set legally binding targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
The cuts will be needed to offset global warming, which scientists believe has already caused the Earth’s mean surface temperature to rise by 0-3-0.6 oC since the late 19th century. They warn that if no action is taken, the planet will warm by a further 1-3.5 oC by 2100. This could reduce biological diversity, spread disease and play havoc with agriculture. Rising sea-levels could also submerge islands and low-lying coastal areas.
The Kyoto conference aims to strengthen the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which was launched at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro (see figure). Politicians at Rio called for the emissions of greenhouse gases to return to 1990 levels by 2000. But global levels of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, have already risen by 6% since 1990 and only the UK, Germany and Russia are expected to meet the Rio target.
Politics will play an important role at Kyoto, and governments have spent the last few months spelling out their positions. The EU is calling for a 15% reduction in the emissions of carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and methane by 2010, with an intermediate reduction of 7.5% by 2005. The UK has gone a step further, and pledges to cut emissions of carbon dioxide by 20% by 2010 – if other countries agree to similar cuts. Japan proposes a 5% reduction by 2010, but the US is only prepared to stabilize emissions at 1990 levels by 2008-2012, and is not prepared to make any cuts until 2017.
The US position occupies the middle ground between much stricter targets proposed by environmentalists and the less stringent wishes of US industry. Moreover, the US is only prepared to make cuts if developing nations agree to do so as well, which goes against the terms of the UNFCCC. The American stance is unlikely to impress the developing nations, who believe that rising greenhouse gas levels are the fault of industrialized nations. Poorer countries fail to see why they should have to reduce their own emissions.
Sir John Houghton, chairman of the climate science working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), believes that cutting greenhouse gas emissions is perfectly feasible. “There is no scientific and technical reason why the world cannot go substantially below 1990 levels, ” he told Physics World. “Reducing emissions would take a lot of concerted effort, but it could be a great opportunity for industry.” Houghton believes that a lot can be done without damaging the economies of developed nations, and that tackling climate change would actually create jobs. “There’s a tremendous need for new research into renewable energy sources and energy efficient products, ” he adds.
His views echo those of the EU, which argues that cutting emissions by 15% is “technically feasible and economically manageable” – provided that all industrialized nations make similar efforts. Improved rail transport, reduced car emissions and a doubling of renewable energy are among the measures the EU proposes.
The US, however, wants any cuts to be largely voluntary until 2008. It plans to reduce its own emissions through increased competition in the electricity markets, tax credits for industries that act before 2008, and increased spending on energy research. The US also calls for an international market-based “emissions trading” system to start in 2008. This would allow countries that emit too much carbon dioxide to buy emissions rights from nations who have managed to emit less than planned.
So what is the likely outcome of the conference? Klaus Hasselmann, a climate researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, Germany, would like emissions to be cut steeply straight away, but admits that is probably unrealistic. “They will probably go for a compromise between the US and European positions, ” he says.
Bert Bolin, former chairman of the IPCC, is more pessimistic. “The likely outcome is very unclear, even though most countries have accepted the views of the IPCC that global warming is real, ” he says. Bolin thinks that there will be major opposition to the EU’s proposal that different countries within the EU should be allowed to have different responsibilities.
Meanwhile, a group of 600 European climate researchers have a signed a letter to negotiators at Kyoto, calling for nations to “agree to substantive action for controlling the growth of greenhouse gas emissions”. They emphasize that such action “is needed now” and rebut the economic arguments put forward in favour of postponing emission reductions. They say that any delay “could shift an unfair burden onto future generations”, which would make it “more difficult to prevent future climate change when action is finally taken”.
Hasselmann stresses the importance for politicians at Kyoto to give a clear signal that global warming is real. “They need to show a commitment to tackling climate change so that industry can begin taking action on developing alternative technologies.” And Bolin adds that any deal at Kyoto must be just the first step. “The important thing is for the politicians to agree how to pursue negotiations after the Kyoto Summit, since the agreements in Kyoto will be inadequate.”
