Here is an *opinion* piece from this week's Economist.
Nevertheless it completely devastates the idea that
Kyoto is anything but dead.
Kyoto rescued?
Jul 26th 2001
>From The Economist print edition
Negotiators say they saved the Kyoto pact this week in
Bonn. They didn't really
TO JUDGE by the euphoric proclamations and the
breathless headlines this week, it seems that the
Kyoto Protocol is back from the dead. George Bush, the
Toxic Texan, had all but killed the treaty by
declaring it �fatally flawed�. So when world
environment ministers descended on Bonn to try to
salvage the pact, its prospects appeared bleak. Yet
somehow these heroes screwed their courage to the
sticking place and refused to fail. They bargained and
worked into the wee hours�all to save the endangered
planet. Jan Pronk, the Dutchman who presided over the
meeting, at one point locked negotiators in until they
reached a compromise (see article).
Gripping stuff. And the result? In the words of Margot
Wallstrom, Sweden's environment minister, �We have
rescued the Kyoto Protocol...we can go home, look our
children in the eye and feel proud of what we have
done.� In a rhetorical question directed at America,
Olivier Deleuze, the EU's chief negotiator, added
sneeringly, �Does this protocol look fatally flawed?�
Yes, actually, it still does�and only an idiot could
fail to notice the flaw in question. The United
States, the source of a quarter of the world's
man-made output of greenhouse gases, is no nearer than
it was before to accepting Kyoto. Its continuing
hostility is partly justified and entirely
understandable, notwithstanding the Europeans'
record-breaking display of righteous indignation (and
that was a record which took some beating). The Kyoto
framework still fails to offer America anything
approaching a sensible balance of cost and benefit.
This does not mean that Bonn achieved nothing. Europe
conceded a far more flexible interpretation of Kyoto
than expected; and it scored a delicious
public-relations goal against Mr Bush. But turn to
hard-headed economics and you see what the price of
that goal may be.
Consider how the Bonn agreement is likely to play out
in America, Japan and Europe. Bonn has not changed
America's position one jot. Mr Bush was wrong to junk
Kyoto without offering alternatives, but America's
lack of participation remains decisive. Climate
change, as a problem that knows no political borders,
demands a global solution. Bonn leaves out the world's
biggest emitter.
What about Japan? Europe needs Japan to ratify the
pact for it to come into legal force. But even if the
Japanese do ratify it�which cannot be taken for
granted�this may prove a mere figleaf that does
nothing to improve the treaty or the planet's health.
Economic arguments again explain why: the combination
of a long Japanese recession and the concessions made
by the EU to win Japan's vote (such as an exceedingly
liberal definition of carbon �sinks�) has made the
country's emissions target almost meaningless.
Eurobluster
In the end, the rump Kyoto pact may fail most
spectacularly just where this week's deal was struck
and celebrated: in Europe. Once again, the reason is
economics. The Bonn deal is more flexible than what
was proposed before; and the absence of the United
States will also reduce the demand for (and so the
price of) emissions credits. Yet the pact will impose
costs on Europe's industries that will not be faced by
their American (and maybe Japanese) rivals. Will they
tolerate this?
Not if two recent cases are any guide. The heart of
the European strategy for achieving its Kyoto targets
is a pan-EU plan for emissions trading. After two
years of intensive study, the European Commission was
earlier this month about to issue a draft directive on
the mandatory �cap-and-trade� scheme. Yet, on the eve
of Bonn, it decided to postpone. What happened? Many
European businesses, including even BP (which spares
no effort to cultivate a green image), were suddenly
complaining that it would impose unfair costs on them.
Another sign of trouble surfaced even before the ink
had dried in Bonn. On July 25th the European
Commission made a big decision about the future role
of coal, the filthiest and most carbon-intensive of
fuels, in its energy supply. The EU's existing
subsidies were scheduled to be phased out from July
2002. So what did these saviours of the planet do?
They extended the subsidies for another decade.
Bonn saved the Kyoto pact�in name, for now. Big deal.
=====
John D. Giorgis
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Takoma Park, MD
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger
http://phonecard.yahoo.com/
