Report 4: What is Being Done to Control Global Warming?

And Who is Doing it?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

a.If this is a global problem, what is being done globally?

 Since the late 1980's, nearly every nation on the earth has been participating in a global attack plan to reduce the production and level of global greenhouse gases.

 Through the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), 189 nations have been cooperating for nearly 14 years to develop a global plan and response to the risks of climate change.

 The main output of the UN's FCCC is the Kyoto Protocol which specifies the actions each nation is committed to.

b.How does the Kyoto Protocol work?

 Technically, the Kyoto Protocol is the implementation amendment to the UN's FCCC (see above).

 The average emission reduction targeted in the protocol is 5.2% from the Annex I countries.

 Current EU projections suggest that by 2008 the EU will be at 4.7% below 1990 levels. The US, which under Bush backed away from the Kyoto Protocol, will see a drastic increase.

 The USA, under President George W. Bush, did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. In the fourteen years since 1990, the Kyoto benchmark year, US emissions of carbon dioxide are up 18%.

c.Why didn't the US ratify the Kyoto Protocol?

 Officially, the Bush administration pointed to the exclusion of two large developing economies (China and India) as its rationale for reversing its prior position of promotion and leadership.

 In contrast, European leaders accepted the need to commit to greenhouse gas reductions now while working to bring China and India in.

 Other commentators have suggested that the administration's close alignment with the domestic energy companies may have also been a contributing factor to this reversal. Internal US State Department papers reveal that
ExxonMobil had a direct influence on the US' rejection of the Kyoto Protocol.

d.Is fighting global poverty a conflict with the global warming agenda?

 It is very important to note that the desires to alleviate global poverty and remedying global carbon emissions are linked and need to be coordinated in order to avoid one undermining the other. Only when third world development is done in environmentally intelligent ways will both critical initiatives succeed.

e.Without Bush and the US helping, is any group in the US trying to follow the Kyoto Protocol?

 Yes. Greg Nickels, Mayor of Seattle, began an initiative called the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (CPA).

 Yes. In 2005 California’s Air Resources Board adopted standards to reduce vehicular emissions by nearly 30% by 2015. Of course, the automotive industry promptly sued California. Yet ten other states are adopting policies similar to California's.

 Yes. Nine states from the Northeast have formed the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) which
establishes a cap-and-trade arrangement for electric utilities.

f.What is the private sector doing in response to global warming?

 Many private sector companies are adopting meaningful policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from their operations and business lines. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change lists 30 member companies of its Business Environment Leadership Council that have adopted specific reduction targets.

 Two leading companies have been in the news recently for their new global warming positions, Goldman Sachs and General Electric.

 In February of this year, 86 evangelical Christian leaders issued a joint statement supporting a stronger agenda to defend against further global warming.

FULL REPORT

a.If this is a global problem, what is being done globally?

 Since the late 1980's, nearly every nation on earth has been participating in a global attack plan to reduce the risk of global warming and other climate changes. Through the United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC), 189 nations have been cooperating for 13 years to develop a global plan and response to the risks of climate change. This large, multi-year framework engaged politicians, scientists, economists, and others in a highly transparent and broadly cooperative effort to research the probability and risks of global climate change, to analyze the impacts on each region (and country), and then to recommend remediation actions that can be taken. The culmination of this 5-year global effort was the drafting and adoption of the Kyoto Protocol as the first implementation step under the UN's FCCC. As of November 18, 2005, 157 countries ultimately ratified their participation under the Kyoto Protocol. The US and Australia are the only two developed countries who have rejected the Kyoto Protocol.

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

b.How does the Kyoto Protocol work?

 Technically, the Kyoto Protocol is the implementation amendment to the UN’s FCCC (see above). The Kyoto protocol was drafted in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, as a part of the annual global conference cycle under the FCCC. It entered into force on February 16th, 2005 following ratification by Russia in November 2004. It could only enter into force after at least 55 Parties of the Convention ratified it, including a sufficient number of the industrialized countries in Annex I to account for 55% of that group’s carbon dioxide emissions in 1990.

 The average emission reduction targeted in the protocol is 5.2% for the Annex I countries. Annex B (see lower chart) is the subset of Annex I and lists the 39 industrialized countries that were expected to participate in the protocol by adopting their portion of the emission reduction targets. However, the US and Australia did not ratify their emission reduction targets. The 15 (original) members of the European Community agreed to redistribute their reduction targets among themselves, forming the so-called EU-bubble. The actual implementation schedule for the emission reduction began on Feb 16, 2005 for the 37 abiding nations on Annex B.

The work to develop the Kyoto Protocol was executed by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which is a worldwide team of scientists, economists and policy analysts that has been operating since 1988. Through three working groups and one task force, the IPCC has coordinated scholars throughout the world to produce a mountainous volume of studies about every aspect of global warming and climate change.

Two important questions need to be asked about the Kyoto Protocol. First, will the targets be met? The early evidence is not encouraging. Among the EU Bubble, only three countries appear on track at this early point. Others among the 15 European countries may miss their early stage targets by 20% or more.

Second, are the targets even adequate? When you consider two points it is hard to see that these 5% reduction over 1990 level will be sufficient. First, only about half of the current greenhouse gas emissions are included under the Kyoto reduction targets. Second, the portion that is not presently included is the portion from the less-developed world, where the effort to raise the living standards will likely require great energy consumption and thereby greenhouse gas emissions. Leading scientists have suggested that overall, all emissions(not just from Annex B countries) need to be reduced by 50% over the next 50 years. James Speth, Dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, stated, “By 2010 everybody in the world is going to realize that the goals...to address global warming are too low."

Importantly, while scientists recommend that worldwide emissions need to be reduced by 50% over the next 50 years, they suggest that unrestrained growth might well lead to a quadrupling of emissions over the next 100 years.

United Nations Essential Background Publications on Climate Change

CBS News In-Depth: Kyoto and Beyond

c.Why didn't the US ratify the Kyoto Protocol?

 Throughout all stages of the FCCC, including the drafting of the Kyoto Protocol, the US had played a persuasive and leading role. However, even after the US 'endorsed' the protocol, current President George Bush declined to present the protocol to the Senate for final ratification. On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto was to be negotiated, the US Senate passed by 95-0 a resolution which states that US should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not put binding targets on developing countries as well as on developed countries, or that would result in serious harm to the US economy. Still, then-Vice President Al Gore, on November 12, 1998, symbolically signed the protocol. Officially, the Bush administration pointed to the exclusion of two large developing economies (China and India) as its rationale for reversing its prior position of promotion and leadership. Other commentators have suggested that the administration’s close alignment with the domestic energy companies may have also been a contributing factor to this reversal.

President Bush Discusses Global Climate Change

Revealed: How Oil Giant Influenced Bush
The Guardian

d.Is fighting global poverty a conflict with the global warming agenda?

 The short answer is both yes and no, but the real answer is that it doesn’t have to be and shouldn’t be. Per capita energy consumption levels in the poorest nations are an order of magnitude smaller than those in the wealthiest nations. Clearly, as these economies grow, their per capita energy consumption levels will rise. This would imply higher carbon dioxide emissions if we assumed that the current balance of energy supply between all sources is immutable. So it might seem that to improve lives in developing economies, we would actually increase carbon emissions and global warming.

At the same time, the poorest nations and populations of the world are disproportionately affected by severe weather events, and will be most strongly affected by climate change. While Hurricane Katrina claimed 1300 American lives, countless storms and droughts in the developing world have claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, and have produced long lasting, seemingly irreparable damage to entire economies and geographic regions (Hurricane Mitch destroyed half of Honduras’ economy a decade ago). Disease is another major driver of poverty and many scholars (Jeff Sachs among them) have spoken of the poverty-malaria “trap” (poor nations lack the resources to address malaria fully and as a consequence of malaria, too many people miss work or die prematurely to enable the society to lift itself beyond a certain level). Malaria and many other tropical infectious diseases are highly sensitive to climate, and many of their ranges are expected to expand with increasing temperature and severe precipitation events. So alleviating the magnitude of climate change will reduce some of the major causes and conditions of poverty.

Therefore, it is necessary for the wealthy world to make significant investments in alternative energy resources, both to reduce the climate burden of our own energy production and so the poorer world can use our new technologies to accomplish their development at a lower environmental cost. Furthermore, it is necessary (as a matter of moral conscience and of good international relations) for the wealthy world to invest in adaptation measures to help the poor world better address the current impacts of climate variability and change. If major investments can be made in these two areas and if this visionary mindset can be adopted on a large scale, sustainable development can be more than a dream – it can become a reality. If these investments are not made, either or both objectives are likely to fail and may do so with profoundly negative consequences.

Governments tend to be more reactive than proactive. But concerned citizens can be proactive. The time to act is now. The people in the best position to act are concerned, educated, compassionate citizens from the developed world – i.e. you.

OECD - Development and Climate Change

e.Without Bush and the US helping, is any group in the US trying to follow the Kyoto Protocol?

 Yes, fortunately! We can point to three specific initiatives by local governments that have exercised foresight and a commitment to global stewardship.

US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. First, Greg Nickels, Mayor of Seattle, began an initiative called the US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (CPA). After directly seeing the impact of climate change on the Seattle port and area, Nickels became motivated to rally his mayoral colleagues to draft a version of the Kyoto Protocol that could be effected at the large municipal level. His goals are: to meet the Kyoto reduction targets within our communities, to urge our state and federal governments to enact policies and programs to meet or beat the greenhouse gas emissions reduction target suggested for the US in the Kyoto Protocol - a 7% reduction from 1990 level by 2012 - and to urge the US Congress to pass the bipartisan Climate Stewardship Act, which would establish a national emission trading system. He began that initiative on February 16 of 2005, the same day that 156 countries (but not the US) began their implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. Mayor Nickels wanted to have 141 other cities sign the Climate Protection Agreement before the June meeting of the US Conference of Mayors. As of May 4, 2006 230 mayors, representing over 45 million Americans, have accepted the challenge.

US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement

Vehicular Emissions. Second, after three years of public discussion of California laws, the California Air Resources Board adopted greenhouse gas emission standards for vehicles, which are to be phased in from 2009 to 2015. Tailpipe emissions of carbon dioxide from cars, light trucks and SUVs are to be reduced by nearly 22% by 2009 and 30% by 2015. While the cars will be more fuel-efficient they are also likely to cost more. However, they will also be cheaper to operate. Estimates of the payback period range from 3.7 to 4.3. Of course, the automotive industry, through the Alliance of Automotive Manufacturers, sued California. Since then, 10 other states (New York, New Jersey, Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts, Oregon, Washington, Rhode Island, Connecticut and Pennsylvania) have also adopted similar policies. Again the automotive industry sued, targeting New York State. This time the auto industry claimed that only the federal government, not New York State, had the authority to issue greenhouse gas regulations. Ironically, the US Environmental Protection Agency, under Bush, has claimed it does not have the authority to regulate carbon dioxide, since it is not a pollutant. Meanwhile Canada is also adopting the California standards.

'Gas Muzzlers' Challenge Bush
BBC News

California Air Resources Board

States Taking Matters Into Their Own Hands
Washington Post

Separately, California has also funded a pilot project to build a Hydrogen Highway network of roughly 200 hydrogen fueling stations along the major highways of the state by 2010. Hydrogen fueled stations would be created every 20 miles along major highways. This $60 million initiative is projected to reduce air pollution in the state by up to 50% by 2011.

California's Hydrogen Highway Network

Utility Emissions. Third, nine states from the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast banded together to create a cap-and-trade arrangement for greenhouse gases emitted by utilities. Do you recall the acid rain debacle in the 1980s that consumed the attention of environmentalists, industry, and the press, when northeastern states in the US and the eastern provinces of Canada wasted valuable time blaming each other instead of attacking the problem? To avoid a similar counter-productive delay, these states set an early agenda to cooperate on utility greenhouse gas emissions. The program is called the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). Central to the initiative is developing a multi-state cap-and-trade system initially covering carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. RGGI plans to include different greenhouse gases later on. The goal is to cap carbon dioxide emissions at current levels through 2015 and reduce emissions by 10% by 2020. The nine states are: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont. In addition, Maryland, the District of Columbia, Pennsylvania, the Eastern Canadian Provinces and New Brunswick are observers in the process.

RGGI - Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative

f.What is the private sector doing in response to global warming?

 Many private sector companies are adopting meaningful policies aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from their operations and business lines. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change lists 30 member companies of its Business Environment Leadership Council that have adopted specific reduction targets.

Two leading companies have been in the news recently for their new global warming positions, Goldman Sachs and General Electric. Each company has announced a broad global warming policy that impacts both their own operations and their approach to their customer business. Goldman’s new Environmental Policy Framework, while establishing only a single objective target (greenhouse gas emissions from operations to decline 5% from 2005 levels), is still progress in the right direction on many fronts. Goldman’s policy is impressively broad minded and addresses: Direct Operations, Market Making and Investments, Research, Public Policy, and Business Selection. One important focus of Goldman is its intention to continue its existing investment pattern in wind energy generation.

Goldman Sachs on Environmental Accords and Global Warming

Goldman Sachs Environmental Policy Framework

GE’s recently announced policy targets reductions from operations as well as new investments in renewable energy and energy conservation initiatives. GE’s emission reduction target is 1 percent by 2012 based on 2005 as the baseline. While this may seem insignificant, without this target GE’s projected emissions would rise 40% in this seven-year period. Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing is a vital step since industrial manufacturing processes worldwide are believed to be the largest emission sector, at over 30%. 

Business Leading the Way: GHG Reduction Targets

In February of this year, 86 evangelical Christian leaders issued a joint statement supporting a stronger agenda to defend against further global warming. The group included many notable religious figures including Rick Warren, author of the best seller The Purpose Driven Life. The statement noted the fear that many “millions of people could die in this century because of climate change, most of them our poorest global neighbors.”

AREN'T WE ONE?
Editorial by Katarzyna (Kasia) Duda

I love my native country, Poland, but there are other countries that provide better opportunities for young people who wish to work hard for their success. So, I came to the US to take advantage of its educational resources. I arrived at the end of July 2004, a time when the Kyoto Protocol’s fate was hanging in the balance. When still at home in 1997, I knew that the Kyoto Protocol was being drafted in Japan and that it was a crucial step in fighting global warming and protecting the environment. Since I arrived in the US, I’ve been surprised by how little the press and the people focus on global warming and other environmental issues. Poland is one of the 39 countries from Annex B that took responsibility for the condition of our COMMON planet. And I am proud of my country for doing that. The US is the earth’s biggest greenhouse gas emitter. It accounts for almost 25% of global emissions even though the US is only about 4% of the earth’s population. The US is a global leader in nearly every field. But the US ran away from its responsibility and did not ratify emission targets under the Kyoto Treaty. Why can’t the US be a leader in terms of protecting the environment? I think that it is absolutely horrible that the US is rejecting its participation in this vital global effort to combat global warming. We have only ONE planet, we should act as ONE in protecting it.

– Kasia