A stepping stone: the Kyoto Protocol may not hold all the answers to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions but many say it's a good first step.

Responding to the warning of the scientific community, governments around the world negotiated the Kyoto Protocol; an amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), an international treaty on global warming. It was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, and came into force on 16 February 2005 following ratification by Russia on 18 November 2004.

The treaty had to be ratified by industrialized countries responsible for at least 55 percent of total rich-country emissions to come into effect.

As of August 2005, a total of 153 countries had ratified the agreement including Canada (December 2002), the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia (November 2004), and the 25 countries of the European Union (starting in May 2002 with all 15 then-members), as well as Romania and Bulgaria. Notable exceptions are the United States--the world's biggest energy consumer and its biggest polluter accounting for 25 percent of the industrial world's emissions--and Australia.

The Protocol calls on countries to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide, the chief gas contributing to global warming. Cuts are also required for five other greenhouse gases by 2012. Those who can't make the cuts can engage in emissions trading.

Under the treaty, industrialized countries have to meet individual targets of reducing or stabilizing their output of greenhouse gases from their 1990 levels. This is to happen over a four-year period starting in 2008. In November 2005, meetings will start on what to do after 2012.

Developing countries are not bound to reduce emissions. They get a free ride because they are responsible for only a small portion of the global greenhouse gas emissions, though this is a sore point among some Kyoto critics.

Reduction targets for industrialized countries were set as follows:

* Eight percent emission cuts by Switzerland, most Central and East European states, and the EU (which will meet its target by distributing different rates among its member states);

* Seven percent emission cut by the U.S (This doesn't mean much because the administration of George W. Bush has withdrawn from the Kyoto process);

* Six percent emission cuts by Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland;

* Russia, New Zealand, and Ukraine are to stabilize their emissions;

* Norway may increase emissions by up to one percent; and,

* Australia may increase emissions by up to eight percent, and Iceland may increase emissions up to 10 percent.

Countries can meet their targets in a variety of ways, ranging from taxes to fuel-efficiency laws to public awareness campaigns.

Each developed country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So, for example, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, such as Canada.

As a recent article in The Economist explains, "The idea is that a market-based system which gives countries and companies flexibility to meet their targets will produce the greatest emission reductions at the lowest cost."

Britain set up a system for trading carbon dioxide in 2002, and the European Union did the same in January 2005. The emissions-trading scheme covers emissions from a wide range of industrial sectors, representing 45 percent of EU emissions. Member states are responsible for handing permits to companies that take part.

Some $37 billion in emission allocations are expected to trade in Europe annually, according to the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.

Recently, the volume of emissions traded on the European Climate Exchange reached more than two million tonnes a day. The price rose to as high as 29 euros ($35.67 U.S.) a tonne in July 2005.

Countries also receive credits through various shared "dean energy" programs. And, they can benefit from "carbon dioxide sinks" in the form of forests and other systems that remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Under Kyoto's Clean Development Mechanism, rich-country companies can earn certified emission reductions by cleaning up emissions in developing countries as well.

Climate change was one of the big issues (along with poverty in Africa) at the G8 summit at Gleneagles in Scotland in July 2005. Prime Minister Tony Blair of the United Kingdom described climate change as "probably, long-term the single most important issue we face as a global community."

At the summit, the G8 leaders (U.K., France, Russia, Germany, U.S. Japan, Italy, and Canada) issued a statement on the importance of tackling climate change, promoting clean energy, and achieving sustainable development. They agreed that climate change is a serious issue, that human activity is contributing to it, and that urgent action is needed.

The statement also included a package of measures to combat climate change, and speed up the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The package includes improvements to energy efficiency in both appliances and buildings, cleaner vehicles, aviation, work on developing cleaner fuels, renewable energy, and promoting research and development and the financing of future projects.

The G8 leaders at Gleneagles were joined by the leaders of Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa. The heads of the International Energy Agency, the International Monetary Fund, the United Nations, the World Bank, and the World Trade Organization also put in an appearance.

But, the issue took a blow at a subsequent summit at the Greenland village of Illulissat in August 2005. Ministers and climate negotiators from 22 countries attended the gathering organized by Denmark and Greenland.

While leading nations agreed that climate change is a serious problem, India's environment minister withdrew from the conference at the last minute. He insisted on sticking to the original UN climate convention, which stated that developing nations were not obliged to tackle emissions until developed nations had cut their pollution.

As well, the U.S. chief climate negotiator, just weeks after President Bush signed the summit declaration stating that climate change was a pressing issue, said the country was still unconvinced by the consensus science on climate.

While the issue of how to address greenhouse gas emissions continues to be debated, a group of major firms in the U.S. decided to make voluntary cuts to the gases that their operations emit. Early in 2003, they started trading credits on the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX). This is the first and only voluntary, legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction and trading program in North America.

The original plan of the group was to cut emissions by a modest two percent from 1999 by 2002, and another one percent each following year. But, it was a start: the project was developed by 28 large companies including Ford, DuPont, and British Petroleum America, along with the dries of Chicago and Mexico City, a group that emits 700 million tonnes of carbon dioxide each year.

In July 2005, the CCX, which now has 100 members, announced that it will extend and expand its program for an additional four years through 2010.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. In February 2005, Laurie David, trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, wrote in the Los Angeles Times that author Michael Crichton's best-selling novel, State Of Fear (ISBN: 0066214130), "offers up the delusional notion that global warming is the creation of environmental groups looking to boost their profile and fill their coffers. This is like arguing that the link between smoking and cancer was dreamed up by oncologists, radiologists, and funeral home directors. Unfortunately, Crichton's sophomoric fiction may be the only thing many Americans read on global warming." Read State of Fear and discuss the views presented by the author.

2. Some opponents suggest that Kyoto is a scheme to either retard the growth of the world's industrial democracies or to transfer wealth to the Third World in what they claim is a global socialism initiative. Research this idea and discuss whether or not you think it is valid.

3. At the G8 meeting at Gleneagles, Scotland in July 2005 members said "We will advance the global effort to tackle climate change at the UN Climate Change Conference in Montreal later this year (in November 2005)." Prepare a follow-up report on what happens at the Montreal conference.

Websites

International Emissions Trading Association--http:// www.ieta.org/ieta/www/ pages/index.php

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy--http:// www.nrtee-trnee.ca/ eng/overview/overview_e.htm

Natural Resources Defense Council--http://www.nrde. org/

FACT FILE

The top dozen emitters of greenhouse gases are responsible for rough y 80 percent of global emissions.

Toronto has decreased greenhouse gas releases from municipal facilities by 40 percent and is saving $2.7 million a year through energy efficiency improvements.

Even some defenders of the Kyoto Protocol agree that the impact of it is small, but they view it as a first step with more political than practical importance for future reductions, perhaps of up to 70 percent.

DECADES IN THE MAKING

The first time the international community met to consider global environment Stockholm, Sweden, in 1972. That was at the UN Conference on Human Environment.

In the fall of 1990 at Geneva, Switzerland, the First Scientific Assessment of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Cange layed the foundation for the Rio Treaty.

In June 1992, at the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 154 nations signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, The agreement bound countries to stabilize greenhouse-gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Three years later, in April 1995, at Berlin, Germany, the countries that signed the Earth Summit agreement confirmed their commitment in the Berlin Mandate.

The following year, in July 1996, a second follow-up to the Rio Earth Summit took place at Geneva, Switzerland. That led to the Geneva Declaration, calling for any post-year 2000 commitments to be legally binding.

In June 1997, at a G7 summit at Denver, Colorado, Canada, the United States, and Japan backed away from their Earth Summit commitments. They agreed among themselves to extend the deadline for stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels by 10 years.

That takes us to Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, to the Third Conference of the Parties to the 1992 UN Convention (160 by then). The United States and European Union agreed to cut emissions by seven percent and eight percent respectively, and the developing world agreed to no limits on emissions.

And, the process continues as world leaders try to tackle this very complex issue.

MINORITY VIEW

Most countries now agree that human activities cause much of the world's climate change. However, the Bush administration in the United States takes a different view. President Bush withdrew his country's support for the Kyoto Protocol in March 2001, He argued that there isn't enough sound science to prove the human activity effect on global warming. Mr. Bush also says that cutting greenhouse gas emissions by seven percent below 1990 levels by 2012 would strain the American economy. He also complains that the treaty doesn't require developing nations to cut their emissions. Not all Americans agree.

In an article in the Los Angeles Times in February 2005, Laurie David, a trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council, noted that "Global warming is real and rapidly altering our weather, our economy, and our world, The 1990s were the hottest decade in the last 1,000 years, according to the Natural Resources Defense Council. Nine of the 10 hottest years on record occurred after 1994, according to the United Nations' World Meteorological Organization.

"The Arctic ice sheet has shrunk 20 percent since 1979. And bears are coming out of hibernation a month early, throwing off their entire life cycles." Ms. David described the U.S. stand as "an act of supreme irresponsibility ... (bowing) to the coal, oil, and automobile lobbies ..."

A month later the Washington Post published an article by Michael Northrop, pointing out that several companies--IBM, DuPont, British Telecom, Atcan, Norske Canada, and Bayer--"have each reduced emissions by at least 60 percent since the early 1990s, collectively saving more than $4 billion in the process. Other smart companies, such as Alcoa, 3M, Kodak, United Technologies, Latarge, Shell, and BP, have also far exceeded the smaller reductions envisaged under Kyoto and have saved large sums by using energy more efficiently ... (and) that between 1990 and 2002, Britain trimmed emissions 15 percent while boosting its economy 36 percent."

A student group, Kyoto Now, at Cornell University, aims to use student interest to support Kyoto Protocol compliance. The group says there are dozens of campuses across the U.S. with campaigns to reduce greenhouse gases. As well as developing renewable energy projects on campus, the group is promoting the need for research and development of renewable energy technologies, lobbying university administration to raise funds for such a program.

Beyond campus life, several states are involved in the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. As of November 2004, nine Northeastern U.S. states joined the state level emissions capping and trading program, to pressure the federal government to support the Kyoto Protocol. Participating states include Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, and Delaware.

As of June 2005, 165 U.S. cities representing 35 million Americans support the Protocol: Mayor Greg Nickels of Seattle, Washington started the nationwide effort to get cities to agree to the treaty. Seattle, New York City, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Boston, Denver, New Orleans, Minneapolis, Austin, TX, Portland, OR, Providence, RI, Tacoma, WA, San Jose, CA, Salt Lake City, UT, Little Rock, AR West Palm Beach FL, and Annapolis, MD are among supporters.

CONTRARIAN AUSSIES

When the Americans opted out of the Kyoto Protocol, Australia, Canada, and Japan started to get twitchy about Kyoto. They were concerned that by ratifying the agreement they would be put at a competitive disadvantage with the U.S. Although Canada and Japan did ratify the treaty, Australia did not It's a subject of debate among the major opposition parties in the country. Australia's Prime Minister, John Howard, who was re-elected in the 2004 election, says the protocol would cost Australian jobs, and that Australia is already doing enough to cut emissions.

Along with the U.S., for example, Australia recently joined the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. The agreement, which also includes the People's Republic of China, India, Japan, and South Korea, was announced in July 2005. It plans to address energy security, climate change, and air pollution issues by cooperating on the development and transfer of technology to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Members will contribute to a fund to finance clean technology projects.

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol, which imposes mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, it allows its partners to set their goals for reducing emissions individually. However. there is no enforcement mechanism. Supporters say that flexibility is key to success, but critics think the agreement will be ineffective if there are no enforcement measures.

The founding members represent almost half of world Gross Domestic Product, energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions and populations. The partnership aims to halve greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the century.

As Prime Minister Howard sees it, the deal is fairer and more effective than the Kyoto Protocol. "It demonstrates the very strong commitment of Australia to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but according to an understanding that is fair to Australia and not something that will destroy Australian jobs and unfairly penalize industry."

Australia says it remains firmly committed to limiting greenhouse gas emissions. As a party to the United Nation's Framework Convention on Climate Change, it says it recognizes the need for a global effort but sees the Kyoto Protocol as ineffective. The Australians say Kyoto "fails to address the issue of economic activity and emissions moving from emissions-restricted countries to unrestricted countries, with no overall greenhouse benefit. Despite the Kyoto Protocol's entry into force, global emissions will be some 40 percent higher in 2010 than in 1990."