World Conference on Climate Change kicks off in Moscow

The big question in the air preceding the conference is whether Russia will announce their decision to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. The Russian ratification is critical in triggering the treaty to come into effect. Although over 100 countries have ratified the Protocol, which means they have made it national law, the treaty calls for ratification of country representing 55% of industrialized countries’ emissions to make it come into effect. Currently, under 45% has been achieved. Because the US with 33% of industrialized country emissions has refused to ratify the treaty, the onus is on Russia with 17% to participate. Now the EU and US are vying for Russia’s favour to ratify or refuse (respectively) the Kyoto Protocol. Should Russia refuse the treaty, the Kyoto Protocol will never come into effect and over six years of careful international negotiations will be eradicated.

Besides diplomatic carrots tearing the Russian government between the EU and US favoured positions, the economic benefits for Russia pose a dilemma for the policy makers. Although Russia will most likely be able to sell emission credits because the 2008 cut-off may see Russia come out as having lower emissions than its target due to the industrial collapse in the 1990s, there will not be a very large market for the emission certificates, keeping the price very low, especially considering that the current EU states will be able to buy emission credits from the new EU states at a lower transaction cost. Also, the Kyoto Protocol provides for a second commitment period, which will bring new targets that could put the Russian Federation in an emission surplus. This means that Russia would actually have to buy emission credits that are likely to be more expensive then. How about the environmental and health benefits from signing Kyoto, you ask? As the largest country in the world, Russia has many different regions which will be affected in various ways by climate change. The livelihood of the people of the arctic is threatened whereas drought in other regions has detrimental health impacts especially on children and the elderly. Although Russians are not too worried about an increase in temperature which may make life more agreeable and agriculture possible in northern regions, the increased intensity and frequency of extreme weather events will affect everyone in a serious way.

The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding treaty that commits industrialized countries to cap their greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 6% below 1990 levels. It offers these countries three economic mechanisms to meet their targets without actually cutting emissions on their own turf. One way is to buy emission credits from countries that come out below their target, another is to invest in a climate change mitigation project in a developing country and the last one is to set up a climate change mitigation project with another industrialized country or economy in transition, such as Russia.

From an economic standpoint, it makes sense to cut emissions where they cost the least, e.g. Africa, because we can cut more emissions that way globally for the same price. On the other hand, this approach means that industrialized countries do not have to actually change their life style, and can continue draining the earth of its resources while feeling 'good' about themselves at the same time. Despite an elaborate institutional framework guiding the integrity of this Clean Development Mechanism, there will most likely not even be much demand for the sponsorship of mitigation projects in developing countries, because the economies in transition can cash in their ‘hot air’ emission credits through the system at a much cheaper price than setting up solar panels in Ghana. The hope of Kyoto proponents is that the second commitment period will make greater use of these carefully constructed structures to support renewable energy efforts in developing countries.

The enthusiasm that was stirred up by the signing of the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 is fading out of the climate change policy scene. It is difficult to remain positive about the treaty when it has been watered down substantially especially by efforts of Australia, Canada and Japan throughout the negotiations, and the prospect of seeing Russia ratify the Protocol seem grim. The countries that have extensive forest cover, such as Canada and Japan, have successfully negotiated the recognition of these ‘carbon sinks’ to be subtracted from the emissions. Besides the fact that these countries will now have an excuse not to cut emissions, another flaw in this system is that young trees take up more carbon dioxide than old growth forest, which essentially means that a country would be rewarded for clear-cutting its pristine forests and replacing it with a tree plantation. This has been a very controversial point in the Protocol negotiations. The extensive use of market mechanisms within the treaty, rather than regulation of industry, is also major cause for concern.

During the World Conference on Climate Change, a social forum has been established by two NGOs, the US-based Environmental Defense and the Center for Russian Environmental Policy. They have issued a discussion paper that will be finalized through a process of round table discussions on two days of the conference. Judging from the discussion paper, the organizers of the social forum seem heavily influenced by economic theory (as opposed to social movements theory). In addition, the paper puts quite a bit of faith into the business community to lead the way in utilizing the market-based economic mechanisms outlined in the Kyoto Protocol, which begs the question of whether the "social forum" really is one.

LINKS

The World Conference on Climate Change web site
Climate change campaigners Rising Tide
Climate Change Social Forum working paper
To write an email to President Vladimir Putin, asking him to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, go here.