Compromise at Kyoto: the search for a worldwide treaty on greenhouse gas emissions goes on.

Global warming has made it onto the international treaty scene. Whether or not our world is about to fry in its own waste products, politicians are acting to at least slow global warming down. Why? For politicians, the environment is what they call a "motherhood" issue. You can't get elected by promising to trash Mother Earth.

Public opinion polls consistently show most voters want pollution cleaned up. Elected leaders who ignore opinion polls usually don't last long. That's why delegates from 160 nations gathered in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997 to talk over the latest findings in the global warming debate. The purpose of the Kyoto meeting was to hammer out a new global warming treaty.

With so many countries represented there were bound to be differences of opinion. Delegations split into several factions, each pushing its own solution to the problem.

Pre-conference workshops had been held with the aim of drawing opposing views closer. But, when the conference in Kyoto opened there were still some wide gaps between groups, and a lot of tough talk about who was going to blink first at the negotiating table.

European nations talked the toughest. Speaking for all its 15 member states, the European Union had an ambitious plan. It wanted to see emissions of greenhouse gases brought down to 15% below their 1990 levels by 2010. Cutbacks on this scale were unthinkable in the United States, Canada, and Japan. These members of the industrialized world were going for an agreement that would see emissions cut to about the 1990 level somewhere between 2008 and 2012.

Europeans would find it easier than most to reach their deep-cut targets. They already have a head start. They live in a densely populated continent that has already experienced heavy, local air pollution. Choking, smoke-filled smogs of 50 years ago pushed Europeans to switch from coal to cleaner fuels such as natural gas. Tighter living space has meant smaller homes to heat, and smaller, more energy-efficient cars and trucks.

By comparison, North Americans have huge distances to cope with. With plenty of space available, we live in bigger homes and drive bigger cars. Many of us have to use huge amounts of energy to counter the brutal cold of a long winter.

Also, because of the apparent abundance of everything, Canadians and Americans have developed some energy-wasteful habits. Meeting the European targets would mean some very dramatic lifestyle changes on our continent.

The rich, industrial countries represent a minority of the world's people. The majority of countries at the meeting are not wealthy. Their agenda was simple; no cutbacks at all.

A Chinese delegate in Kyoto summed up that point of view: "It is not possible for the Chinese government to undertake the obligation of reducing greenhouse gases until China works itself out of Third World poverty." If catastrophic global warming takes place it won't start killing people for two or three generations; poverty is killing people now. The most urgent problem is the one you deal with first.

So, the pressing need for countries such as China and India is to raise living standards. To do that they have to industrialize. That takes huge amounts of energy. Both countries have large deposits of coal. Just as Britain did in the Industrial Revolution, India and China are burning coal to create the electricity that drives growth. "Talk to us about curbing greenhouse gas emissions," they would say to the industrialized world, "when all our people have full bellies and enjoy the same luxuries you take for granted."

With these opposing attitudes, 2,200 voting delegates arrived in Kyoto. For a week, negotiators haggled, but got nowhere. The United States, Canada, Japan, and Russia would not agree to the tough standards demanded by the European Union. As the conference ground towards what looked like certain failure, the U.S. brought in its top gun. Vice president Al Gore flew in to try and save the talks from a humiliating collapse. During a 14-hour marathon of meetings and behind-the-scenes arm twisting a compromise was found. As 6,500 non-voting observers and journalists waited, delegates negotiated through the night. The result was the Kyoto Protocol:

* Developed countries together must cut emissions of carbon dioxide and five other gases by an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2012.

* Individual nations have their own targets; Canada and Japan must cut to 6% below 1990 levels, the United States to 7%, and the European Union to 8%.

* Developing countries are not required to make any cuts.

* Industrialized states can trade emissions quotas among themselves. If one country can bring its emissions below its target it can sell its savings to a state that is having trouble reaching its target. Details of this program were not worked out.

* Forested countries will get a break on their targets because trees absorb carbon dioxide. Nations can build up credits by planting trees.

* Penalties are to be assessed against countries that violate the Kyoto Protocol, but what these penalties might be were not worked out.

* The agreement is legally binding, but it's unclear how it will be enforced.

The Kyoto Protocol has received mixed reviews.

Johny Lahure, Luxembourg's Environment Minister was jubilant: "Today, there are no losers and only one winner: the environment." Argentinean diplomat Raul Estrada agreed, "I think there is reason to celebrate," he said.

But, the World Wildlife Fund wasn't ready to pop any champagne corks: "Two-and-a-half-years of negotiations on climate change ended ... with a flawed agreement that will allow major polluters to continue emitting greenhouse gases through loopholes."

The business sector dislikes the agreement on the grounds that it meddles with free market structures, and that the science on which it's based is shaky and unproved.

The general feeling, though, seems to be that the Kyoto Protocol was the only compromise that could be achieved in the circumstances. Environmentalists say that at least there is now a treaty. It may not be perfect, but it's something to build on. The idea that it can be built on worries free enterprise.

Some Canadian scientists see it as a milestone. Andrew Weaver is a professor of earth and ocean sciences at the University of Victoria. He says the cuts are small but big enough to force change. Fossil-fuel producers, car makers, and other industries will have to begin looking seriously at alternate and cleaner-burning fuels. Danny Harvey is a climate specialist at the University of Toronto. He says industry, government, and consumers have to rethink such things as car purchases, urban sprawl, and the reliance on petroleum products.

Whatever happens, the process continues. Most experts agree the Kyoto Protocol could easily unravel as time passes. Hardly any countries, Canada included, lived up to the promises they made in Rio in 1992. Kyoto will probably follow that pattern.

The Protocol faces a very difficult journey in the United States. It must be agreed to (ratified) by the U.S. Congress. However, the U.S. Senate has already passed a resolution saying it will reject any proposal that doesn't force cuts on developing countries.

The Protocol faces challenges in Canada too. Prime Minister Chretien sat down with the provincial premiers before the Kyoto meeting. Canada's political leaders agreed that the country's negotiating target should be to get emissions 3% below 1990 levels by 2012. In the pressure-cooker atmosphere of Kyoto Canada agreed to the 6% level. A lot of provincial premiers are unhappy about this. And, although Canada signed the treaty in April 1998, it won't mean much if the provinces refuse to cooperate.

But, despite the difficulties, negotiations go on. More meetings will be held. More compromises made. Eventually, a treaty with tough targets and a means of enforcing them will be signed. Or, the global warming process will have been proved to be a mostly natural phenomenon and thousands of negotiators, scientists, and diplomats can move on to other work.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. The Kyoto Protocol is not the end of the greenhouse gas treaty-making process. Follow-up meetings are scheduled at which attempts will be made to extend and deepen emission cuts. Open a clipping file on negotiations, and have students look for reports on the continuing process. Periodically review the contents of the file.

2. Developing countries have refused to commit to any greenhouse gas reductions until the developed world has made major cuts. Their argument is that it is the industrialized nations who are responsible for most of the emissions to date so it's the industrial countries that should be cutting back. Organize a debate around the proposal that Third World nations should be exempt from treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol.

3. Some argue that the Kyoto agreement will actually lead to an, increase in greenhouse gases. They say that industries that need a lot of energy for their processes will find it increasingly difficult to operate developed counties with strict emissions controls. The obvious strategy for such enterprises is to move to Third World countries where there are few restrictions. Discuss how might deal with this issue.

RELATED ARTICLE: FACT FILE

Between 1990 and 1997, Canada increased its emission of greenhouse gases by 13%.

RELATED ARTICLE: FACT FILE

In a 1997 Environics poll, 61% of Canadians said governments should act now to reduce human impact on the world's climate, even if there are major costs.