The Kyoto Protocol has entered into force on February 16th, 2005. But what is the Kyoto Protocol ? Why has it been initiated ? How to make it successful ? These are some questions to which I propose some answers in the text following.
A greenhouse is an installation usually used to grow plants or vegetables. It has transparent walls and ceiling in order for Sun light to come in, but not to come out. Without any internal heating device, this natural process keeps the average temperature inside the tent a few degrees higher than the outside climate. Planet Earth can be regarded as a huge greenhouse, which “ceiling” is made up with air: the atmosphere. It keeps Sun radiation near the surface of the planet. Without the atmosphere, the average surface temperature would be up to 35 °C lower. The process of keeping radiation inside a greenhouse is called greenhouse effect.
Greenhouse effect naturally occurs on Earth because of the property of some gases in the atmosphere to be transparent to incoming light from the Sun but opaque to outgoing radiation from the surface. Some gases are more efficient in that issue than others: carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapour (H2O), methane (CH4). These are called greenhouse gases (GHG). Water vapour concentration in the atmosphere is relatively low, but its opacity to outgoing (thermal) radiation – infrared light – is by far the greatest. For this reason, water vapour is the main gas responsible for greenhouse effect.
The breathing process of all living creatures on Earth takes the oxygen in the atmosphere and transforms it into carbon dioxide. In fact, carbon-based gases are released in the atmosphere every time a “burning” process occurs, including breathing. Every plant and animal on Earth is made up with carbon and water. When living tissues (such as trees) are burned, this carbon is liberated into the atmosphere. Also, when an animal dies, its carbon returns to Earth. Fossil fuels (such as natural gas, coal, and petrol) are made with the carbon contained in living creatures that died a few million years ago. So when fossil fuels are burned, it also liberates carbon-based gases in the atmosphere. Before the industrial revolution, this last process wasn’t interfering too much with the natural carbon cycle. Equilibrium was for long established between the breathing process of animals and CO2 capture by plants through photosynthesis. Now, this equilibrium had been broken.
Today, every human depends more or less upon fossil fuels: cars, house heating, electricity production, etc. Because of that, the concentrations of GHG, especially CO2, in the atmosphere has never been so high since at least a few million years. The greenhouse property of Earth’s atmosphere, directly linked to the average global temperature, becomes more effective as these concentrations are rising. According to many studies, the average temperature has been climbing gradually since the begining of the 20th century of nearly 1 °C. For a more complete (technical) description of the greenhouse effect, one may read Les changements climatiques, available on this web site.
It is a natural process for Earth’s climate to oscillate between ice ages and warmer periods. Indeed, an ice age is believed to occur about once every 20,000 years. By looking at tree rings and ice layers at both poles, it is possible to retrace what the average temperature was at a specific time. This way the “ice age cycle” can be reconstructed. According to such data, it has been a little more than 10,000 years since the last major ice age. The average global temperature should then be lowering down. Instead, as mentioned earlier, the average temperature seems to be rising up.
It took some times for the scientific community to realise that such warming could be caused by increasing CO2 levels, and even more time to convince much of them of that reality. In fact, climatology is a very complex and still misunderstood science. Predictions based on current models should then be regarded as potentially invalid. But some facts still remain: CO2 levels have indeed increased in the last century, and CO2 is indeed a very effective GHG. Today, the debate about either or not human activities are responsible for such global warming seems to be finished, and much people agree on “yes”. Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the U.N., declared that global warming is one of the biggest challenges that humanity will have to deal with in the 21st century.
Global warming comes with serious consequences. A temperature rise of just a few degrees is enough to destabilise, and even kill, many species. Summer time is getting longer years after years. Hibernating animals and insects wake up when the outside temperature reaches a certain value. But if they wake up too earlier because of a mild day of winter, they can die if freezing temperatures come again. Also, from a purely geographic point of view, such temperature rises are enough to increase the average sea level by a few centimetres. Physics laws tell that when any liquid is heated, it expands. The current ocean expansion should raise sea level by half a meter by the end of the 21st century. Cities near the ocean and island states around the World are actually facing a real threat.
It is now confirmed that this warming occurs up to five times more rapidly at both poles than in other regions of the World. This could have extremely bad consequences. If the average temperature in the Arctic or Antarctic is to increase over the freezing point, both ice caps will melt down. In fact, it has already started. In addition to the well-known hole in the ozone layer that lies over the Antarctic, this continent is loosing huge ice blocks that travel dangerously in the ocean, threatening boats of any kind. Same thing is happening within the Arctic Circle, where boats can now travel in regions where they couldn’t before, opening new roads for merchandise transport. Elsewhere on the planet, Greenland ice cap is melting at a rate up to one meter a year in some region, while “eternal snows” at the top of some of the highest mountains has also started to melt. It is visual evidence when pictures of the same mountain tops with a 50 years interval are compared.
Most actual climate models predict that global warming also comes with more frequent extreme weather events, such at floods, hurricanes and temperature records in both directions of the thermometer. Everybody must remember the murderous heat wave that killed more than 15,000 people in Europe during the summer of 2003. Folks from Honduras surely remember hurricane Mitch in 1998 that killed more than 20,000 people while destroying entire villages. Britain people were also surprise in April 1998 by a flood that inundated streets and made many people suffer from hypothermia. Beside the force of the natural catastrophe, the difference between these events is that United Kingdom processed more means to respond. This is an example of another consequence of global warming. While much of the CO2 present in the atmosphere is released by developed countries, climate change consequences are more ravaging on developing countries because they have less resource to adapt. This example also shows that, no one, no matter how powerful, is protected from climate disruption.
Finally, there is the problem of air pollution. Carbon dioxide and every other GHG are non-breathable gases. Their rising level in the atmosphere is thus of serious concern. Massive emission of air pollutants in great cities like Los Angeles, Mexico, and even Montreal, is also responsible for a new, typically urban phenomenon called smog. Smog is a contraction for “smoke” and “fog”; as the name suggests, smog is this pale yellow-brown cloud that floats over the town, especially during hot summer times, but also during very cold winter period when more people heat their house with wood combustion. Smog is responsible for a series of breathing troubles such as asthma. Every year in the United States, about 70,000 people die from air pollution alone.
Since the Rio Earth Summit of 1992, every country is part of the framework convention on climate change, which had made them to avoid dangerous interference with the environment. Nevertheless, this summit was not enough to prevent global warming, since “dangerous interference” remains a very evasive expression. On December 11th, 1997, more than 160 countries gathered in Kyoto, Japan, to find real and effective solutions to global warming. They unanimously adopted the Kyoto Protocol. This international treaty states that industrialized countries have to reduce their emission of six major GHG1 jointly by 5% by the end of 2012 compared to the 1990 levels. Many countries had then ratified the protocol, but not enough to make it a legal binding. On February 16th, 2005, the Kyoto protocol finally entered into force, not long after the inclusion of Russia, last fall. Today, 141 countries have ratified the protocol. Only the United States seems to be reluctant in joining the Kyoto spirit. To celebrate this historical event, a commemorative event took place on February 16th in the very same building in Kyoto where the protocol was born more than seven years ago.
During this ceremony, many people from around the world have saluted the entry into force of the Kyoto protocol. They were enthusiasm, but realistic. Although the protocol is of historical importance, it remains a very small first step and actions are to be taken with no delay. In fact, the protocol by itself will not stop global warming. To stabilise the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, global emissions should be reduced by at least 60%. So the entry into force of the protocol is one thing, but its fruitfulness is another. Governments from around the world may have ratified the protocol, its real success will really depend upon local actions, e.g. at cities level, which will thus imply individual accomplishments. It is actually everybody’s responsibility to move forward with the next steps. The private sector will also have to be actively involved.
The entry into force of the Kyoto protocol makes countries commitments real and legally binding. Because different countries release different amounts of carbon dioxide and because some countries have more means than others, commitments regarding the Kyoto protocol are different for each region of the world. Canada engaged for a 5.2% reduction by 2012. European Union as a whole engaged for 8% by 2012 and is aiming for a 30% reduction by 2020. In the same period, Germany alone should be able to reach 40%.
Achieving Kyoto’s goals is quite a challenge. Countries are not asked to adapt drastic measures that would ruin their economy but to do whatever they can in order to achieve global objectives. Actually, only about 35 countries have real commitments. China, India and Brazil have signed the protocol but they have no specific obligation yet. Developing countries with fast growing economy can indeed breathe a little before taking any action. Still, China, for example, has clear national policies regarding climate change. Other developing countries are not required to do anything, but they are still invited to participate to the efforts with the help, if necessary, of industrialised countries. The spirit of the protocol is indeed not one of strict regulations and severe punishments. Global warming is a global issue that needed a global response. The idea is more one of international cooperation and multilateralism. All countries should collaborate by sharing technology, information and resource.
Before the ratification of the Kyoto protocol by Russia, some people had started to lose faith that this protocol would ever work. Even if the acceptance of the protocol was unanimous in 1997, some countries, including Canada and United States, haven’t done anything concrete to reduce their emission before February 16th. In fact, their emission has risen since 1990. On the other hand, some countries are early movers and in these parts of the World, the protocol has already made significant differences. The reduction of GHG emission is surely an action to slow down global warming, but it is also a great and effective mean to reduce air pollution. For example, a few years ago in Kyoto, mountains surrounding the city could not be seen from too far away; now they are clearly visible from downtown.
Finally, since the fruitfulness of the Kyoto protocol is in the hand individuals, it would be important to make them sensible to the problem of global warming. In some regions of the World, especially in Europe, people are noticing by themselves the reality of global warming. In England, for example, some farmers have noticed that flowers in blossom trees have opened out earlier this year. In other regions, where the effects of climate change are less visible, people may still feel scepticism. It should be important to give these people some environmental education, to explain them what is going on and what are the potential dangers of global warming. Its consequences are mostly unpredictable, but climate disruption now seems inevitable. Everybody will sooner or later be affected by global warming. The next generation should suffer more of it. Indeed, even if actions are taken now, it will take some time to reverse the process of climate change. Joining the spirit of the Kyoto protocol is thus the best way toward keeping the planet habitable for as long as possible. According to World Wildlife Fund (WWF) estimates, if current human actions on the environment continue at their present rate, 2.7 Earth will soon be needed, but obviously only one is available.
The 11th conference of the parties to United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC/COP11) - the first meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol - will be hosted by Canada. Delegations from 189 countries will gather in Montreal next fall for what will be called the Montreal conference on climate; 10,000 participants are expected. It will be a major stage in the long process that began with the Rio Summit in 1992.
Massive use of fossil fuels is at the heart of current global warming problem. The Kyoto protocol wants every single country to reduce their emission of carbon dioxide and other GHG, most of them being waste product of fossil fuels combustion. Unfortunately, the modern economic system is mainly based on such energy sources. It is quite ambitious to ask for countries to make sacrifices of that kind. Nevertheless, solutions may be easier and cheaper than thought. Many ideas had been imagined; some have pos, others have cons, most have both pos and cons.
One big problem with current technology is that they are not energy efficient. For examples, in some cars, only 12% of the energy liberated from the gasoline actually goes to the wheels. Most of the energy remaining goes elsewhere in the car, but about 30% is still doing nothing; in other word, it is simply lost as heat in the atmosphere. The amount of CO2 released by any combustion process is directly proportional to the amount of fuel burned. So one relatively easy way the reduce GHG emission is by investing in technology that are more energy efficient. Such investments may sometimes look pretty expansive, but they eventually pay themselves within a limited, often short period of time. Anybody who seals its windows during winter can testify that his or her heating costs are significantly lower than those of someone who doesn’t. Another example is that of some gas retailer in the U.S. In 1997, they put $20 millions for energy efficiency projects. Three years later, they had reduced their emissions by 80% and had saved $60 millions.
Instead of trying to reduce CO2 emission, some companies prefer to look upon sequestration. Technology to catch carbon dioxide and to sequester it already exists. People have thought to use the ocean as a reservoir to absorb CO2. Indeed, the ocean naturally absorbs ambient carbon dioxide and its ability to do so increases with the temperature of water. But oceans cannot be used to sequester CO2 in the long term. When mixed with water, carbon dioxide forms carbon acid. So adding massive dose of CO2 within the oceans could significantly raise water acidity, killing many aquatic species by the way. A cleaner way to sequester carbon dioxide would be to plant trees. Trees, and in fact all green plants, use carbon dioxide the make sugar and to liberate oxygen throughout photosynthesis.
Both sequestration methods mentioned above may prove effective. But in the long term, humans should not depend upon them. Before a few decades have lasted, petroleum reserves all around the globe will either be empty or way too expansive to exploit. Untouched reserves currently exist in the aquatic abysses, but the reach of this petroleum is now facing important technological limits. The economy should thus be turned away from fossil fuels, which are non-renewable energy sources.
Many kinds of alternative sustainable energy sources, called "renewables", actually exist, and the technology to exploit them is becoming available. Current examples are wind power, hydrogen cells, solar energy, hydropower and biogases.
Wind power is already used in many parts of the World. It becomes more and more popular but remains underused. Two problems actually occur when thinking about wind power. Even if it can generate important amount of electricity, it is not a stable source of current. It indeed depends upon wind conditions. Also, even if wind power has great potential, it has a limited one. But the main advantage is that it remains a 100% clean energy. Quebec has one of the greatest wind potential in the whole world but it seems to be reluctant to introduce a significant number of windmills. Wind power could indeed contribute a lot to current energy needs. In Germany, wind power will provide 30% of consumed electricity by 2030.
Biogases are gases produced by living creatures. Such gases can be collected in waste dumps, where decomposition is going well. Biogases are thus a renewable source of energy, but remain some type of fuel, and contribute to GHG emission. It can although be used to complete wind power’s lacks of constancy as a transitory measure.
Nuclear power has not been spoken about because it remains a very controversial source of energy. Nuclear fission is the process of breaking apart heavy atoms to liberate energy according to Einstein’s theory. Such process was used to build the atomic bomb that wiped out Hiroshima at the end of World War II. The very same physics laws can be exploited to produce electricity. The problem with nuclear fission is of course one of security. Beside nuclear wastes that come with fission, people will never forget the Txernòbil accident. Nevertheless, the threat of global warming seems, for some people, greater than the one associated with nuclear fission. In fact, the urgency of finding new energy other than fossil fuels had made this practice to become attractive, especially in the United States. Using nuclear fission could effectively cut GHG emission, but the safety of the environment could be seriously compromised.
Nuclear fusion could be a much cleaner way to produce energy. Nuclear fusion is what makes the Sun to shine. It’s the process of merging several light atoms (like hydrogen) into one heavier (like helium). It liberates energy according to the very same Einstein equation. Theory predicts that this could be a 100% clean energy. The problem, and one of importance, regarding nuclear fusion is that the temperatures needed to start the reaction are several millions of degrees. Such temperatures are impossible to create on Earth. Research in the direction of cold fusion is still in progress because, although it has never been observed, it doesn’t seem prohibited by theoretical arguments.
People are also talking about hydrogen fuelled vehicles. Hydrogen is a very powerful combustible which produce water as a “waste”. Cars could easily be propelled using hydrogen instead of gasoline. Again, some problems exist with current technologies. In order to have reservoirs that contain reasonable quantities of hydrogen, it would have to be liquefied. Keeping hydrogen in a liquid state requires enormous pressures and / or extremely low temperatures. One way to produce hydrogen (H2) is by breaking apart the water molecule (H2O) with an electric current. But this technique actually requires at least as much energy (and often more) as what can be extracted from hydrogen after. The main advantage of hydrogen is that it is a renewable energy source that could be as much efficient as gasoline to run a car engine. It also has the advantage of being transportable, a quality needed to supply cars.
All these new energy sources have great potential but could only be of a limited use. Nevertheless, there is one source of energy equality accessible around the World that could be exploited massively by everybody without any fear of eventually running out of it. This huge energy reservoir will be available for human use for at least four more billions years. It’s called Sun. Current technology to catch up solar energy are quite limited in their efficiency but it is by far the most promising energy source. Large investments are being done in developing and improving such techniques. Solar energy comes in many forms. In fact, every single part of energy on this planet ultimately comes from the Sun. It’s the Sun that heats the atmosphere and which makes wind to blow around the globe. It’s the Sun that is responsible for the water cycle needed to sustain river flows exploited to run hydroelectric barrages. And finally, Sun’s energy can by directly caught with photovoltaic cells, panels that use semiconductors to transform light directly into electric current. A massive use of solar energy in its many forms will forever guarantee energy security for all humanity.
It will be important in the next few years to switch to such renewable clean energy sources. Even thus none of these technologies are yet perfect, they can still be combined in a very efficient way. Biogases can help stabilise the wind production. Hydrogen, actually more powerful than solar cells, could be produce using the later. Possibilities are numerous. The Earth has a limited size, and thus limited resources. Mankind has proven itself to be very efficient when time had come to find urging solutions to a given problem. Now should be a good time. The Kyoto protocol is an invitation to build a better energy efficient society while being closer to the environment.
The main problem encountered when trying to apply solutions in the global warming issue is the great inertia of economy. Industries seem to always win upon environment. The absolute dependence of the actual economic system to fossil fuels makes very difficult the adoption of cleaner technology. The immediate economic advantages appeal is, unfortunately, what governs most of industrial decisions.
One solution to invite companies in reducing their CO2 emission is by putting a price on it. This concept is called carbon trading, or more generally “emission trading”. The idea behind this is to give a market value to carbon emissions. Such a practice is included in Article 17 of the Kyoto protocol. Basically, each country has some emission credits. It means that it can emit a certain amount of carbon in a clearly defined period of time. If a country emits less carbon than its limit, it can sell the remaining credits to countries that emitted more than their limits. The same concept can also be applied inside a country, between companies. It’s a way to achieve a global goal: those who have the means to reduce their emission are encouraged to do so while those who cannot have to pay for extra credits. The idea is, in fact, not so new. In the 1980s, in the United States, such market was implemented with sulphur dioxide to fight acid rains. It indeed proved itself to be way more effective than any regulations or taxes.
The United States are responsible for 25% of global GHG emissions. Any international issues, especially one such as global warming, cannot be treated without U.S. participation. In 1997, they agreed to reduce their emission by 7% compare to 1990 levels. But the U.S. administration has changed since then and President Bush never ratified the protocol to make this commitment effective. He declared that it would not be a good thing for U.S. economy. Refusing to join the Kyoto protocol was not, by itself, a lack of good faith from U.S. government toward climate change. What really was, thus, is the fact that it replaced the Kyoto protocol by nothing concrete.
Fortunately, even if the White House is extremely reticent in adopting the protocol, some actions are being taken across the country. Some people are starting to realise that it might be time to leave the politicians in their decisions. The main argument from U.S. administration not to join the Kyoto protocol is that it could have many negative impacts on economy. In fact, it could be the opposite.
Every single country around the world will sooner of latter invest in cleaner technology, such as solar cells. Economists believe that the U.S. need a part of this new market. Otherwise, much of the expertise and leadership will go to Europe and Japan. Such transfer will have dramatic impact on U.S. economy. It occurred in 1973 with the first oil embargo. The U.S. lost a third of their market to the Japanese efficient automobiles. There is also the fact that the Kyoto protocol will be affecting everyone on Earth, including the United States. If they want the rest of the world to join their agenda, especially in the war against terror, U.S. have to move forward in issues that care to the World.
Finally, the pressure from business to adopt cleaner and more efficient technology seems more important than the pressure from government. Industries are more and more expected to lead in the climate change issue. Cities across the country also started to react in response to the entry into force of the Kyoto protocol. Both are taking initiatives to reduce GHG emissions because they understood that they could wait no more for the government. About 19 states are moving forward with different kinds of approaches, like production of a significant part of their electricity with renewable resources (wind, solar, etc.) A hundred and fifty cities in six states have climate proposal and actual real action plan. Some state governments, including California’s, have adopted their own policies regarding climate changes. Those are not necessarily the ones imposed by Kyoto protocol, but they still remain concrete policies. The city of Seattle is a leader in this issue. Seattle, a few other American cities and some big companies (including IBM) are part of the “60% club”. Each of them has already reduced their emission by more than 60% since 1990. Seattle Mayor has started a crusade to convince other city’s Mayors to join him in this effort. He is also an active partisan of the “clean car bill”, that has yet to be adopted the state of Washington government.
1 Carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs) and sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Pier-Yves Trépanier, Avril 2005
tpieryves@hotmail.com