The King is dead. Long live the king." The Russian ditherings over the Kyoto Protocol notwithstanding emission management has irrevocably been put on the global agenda. While the fate of the protocol may itself be in peril, the pace has been set to abate the relentless spewing of greenhouse gases (GHG ) in vogue for over 100 years.
The protocol since inception, in 1997, and before, has braved turbulence ranging from indifference to outright rejection. Its fate, ever in question , dependent upon Russia's ratification ,which in turn enjoyed a virtual veto over the treaty ever since the US unilaterally pulled out in 2001,despite its ratification by 120 nations. The protocol, to come into force once ratified by 55 nations and whose emission total at least 55% of the total carbon dioxide emissions for 1990 ,would give industrialized nations time till 2012 to cut overall carbon and GHG emissions by at least 5% below the 1990 levels. Thus, Russian official, Andrei Illarionov's, statement at the (Conference of Parties) COP in Milan on December 2, rejecting the protocol in its current form because it "places significant limitations on the economic growth of Russia" per say, sounded the death knoll for the much beleaguered treaty.
The reality however, is far from that. A lower level Russian official, Mukhamed M.Tsikanov, the very next day made positive noises regarding the protocol while President Putin maintained a stoic silence. More importantly, the Russian rumblings were seen as a last minute ruse for further concessions from the international community, mainly from the European Union and Japan.
Still, the road ahead is a torturous one. The protocol, in the current form, is not without flaws as in much it caps emissions only for a select few industrialized nations omitting other big polluters like China and developing nations like India and Brazil. The protocol itself extends only till 2012 further necessitating a fresh round of negotiations. Also, questions regarding the 'Carbon Maze', involving verification of emissions, baselines and national emission registries/inventory, in the current from remain far from resolved.
Where Kyoto has, however, succeeded is in mainstreaming GHG's emissions and Climate Change. The evolution of multi lateral agreements has had a tumultuous past, be it the NPT or the WTO.The European Union has already announced a cap and trading system and Japan remains committed to Kyoto targets and beyond. An Asia Carbon Fund is already off the block and the World Bank has set up three different funds to oversee the transition to an emission management and trading regime. Even the United States, responsible for the current flux, has set in motion an emission management program, inviting business to voluntarily limit emissions. Global energy monoliths, like Shell, are already undertaking an internal emission audit voluntarily binding themselves to future emission caps.
Thus, while the Protocol may or may not be doomed the stage for a comprehensive round of global negotiations has been set. The North, including the US, will be forced to address the duality of growth over environment; only this time concessions would have to be hard- fought-for by the South. An emission management stream of the future would have to be first and foremost an economically viable and mutually beneficial regime, the rhetoric of subsidy and exploitation notwithstanding. The developing world must not only ensure that its growth trajectory not ape the last century's cycle but that the additionality of transition costs is borne by the north.
* Views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
PREV
