Geology Newz: The Kyoto Primer

Terminology:

GHG = greenhouse gas/es

Kyoto Protocol:

An agreement between nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to slow down global warming. Target emission reductions use 1990 as a baseline from which to reduce. Sample required reductions are 6% for Canada, 7% for the US, 8% for EU countries (see chart below). The protocol is a commitment by members, and is not optional.

Reduction goals must be met by 2008-2012. "Developing" countries do not have to adhere to as strict regulations. Countries are allowed to be flexible in how they achieve their reduction goals, as long as they meet them.

GHG identified are:

CO2 - Carbon dioxide
CH4 - Methane
N2O - Nitrous oxide
PFCs - Perfluorocarbons
HFCs - Hydrofluorocarbons
SF6 - Sulphur hexafluoride

Interestingly:

  • The Umbrella Group which formed during negotiations for the protocol, has consistently protested and slowed activity for the protocol and wants a slower approach to GHG reductions. This group consists of Canada, the United States, Japan, Russia, Ukraine, Norway, New Zealand, and Australia. (should be called the Unbridled Greed Group) 
  • Economic measures are in the protocol which enable countries to make financial gains by being greener, with emissions trading, investment in other countries’ green projects, and by increasing their amount of vegetation that will absorb CO2 (CO2 "sinks"), they gain points that they can to offset toward emissions.
  • Countries are divided into Annex I for developed countries and Non-Annex I for developing.
  • There is an Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) which is composed of 43 low-lying and small island countries, most vulnerable to sea level rise. Climate change threatens their survival and they usually work together in Kyoto negotiations. (couldn't they have called it OASIS? Oops, that wouldn't be funny.) 
  • There are 48 countries which are considered least developed, (LDC), and they have the most room in GHG emissions. They are also encouraged to use some green smarts in their development.
Annex I Kyoto Targets by country: negative = need to reduce GHG
Annex I Kyoto Targets by country: negative = need to reduce GHG

History of the Kyoto Protocol:

  • 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
  • 1994 Convention on Climate Change decides it needs an agreement with stricter demands for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions
  • 1995 Negotiations begun
  • 11 December 1997 Adopted as an addendum to CCC, with 130 countries involved.
  • 16 March 1998 to 15 March 1999, open to signature at UN Headquarters, New York
  • 16 February 2005 Protocol became an official international treaty recognised by the UN.
  • November 2007 IPCC releases study, The Fourth Assessment Report, by scientists stating that human induced climate change is real (see post by me earlier this month on this report), that we are already witnessing human induced global warming, and that results could be disastrous (but you have the option to deny that, if you like being an idiot). CO2 is named as the most important GHG.

 

Greenland Glacial Melt 2007
Greenland Glacial Melt 2007

Tags:
This also appears in:

Next Posts

Previous Posts

Comments

Potty Mouth
From what I have read, the Kyoto protocol is far to expensive for the return and there are cheaper methods to achieve greater reductions. Have you read any of this? I saw it in a Reason magazine article with an interview of the guy that wrote "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
Geology Byotch
I am for the Kyoto Protocol. They have been working on this for 15 years. I also support the IPCC. Expensive, well, define expensive. What cost is the future?
Potty Mouth
I don't think that you read my entire comment. There are other methods that cost less AND have a much greater return. In other words, other methods are available to lower greenhouse gases significantly more and cost governments MUCH less. These methods would be far more likely to get the buy-in of governments as they get much more for their money. It seems to be a matter of efficiency.
Geology Byotch

I did read it, but I say this: everyone has had over ten years to do something and some governments have taken it upon themselves to take measures, but others have been pretty lame with it, including the US.
There is no simple solution. I believe the carbon trading and such are excellent ideas and as long as you can put something like that in, you can tempt the greedy into joining as well. Not that you should have to tempt them; they should change because it is the right thing to do (but that never motivated GWB's administration, and some others as well).
GWB wants to use "other" methods. His ideas are crap. He has done everything in his power to bring in CEOs of oil companies and other shifty arseholes to suck the US dry of any ability to be self sufficient or forward thinking.
The Kyoto Protocol is what is out there and what has been worked on for fifteen years. It is not required for anyone to join; the US, Canada and the other Umbrella Group members just do not want to look bad. They have stated they are more concerned with their fossil fuel driven economies than trying to do something worth a damn. Some did not listen when they had years to do something. Now there is a way to do this, and lo and behold, some governments say all of a sudden, "Oh look, but there are better ways" or "We do not want to do it that way." It's not dirty laundry, you can't spray stain remover on it and throw it in the washing machine and it comes out all better. As is typical with the US, there seems to be no ability to make change ahead of time when you know what's coming, or even during the period of time when it is arriving. It's always, Oops, we messed that one up, let's try to fix it now that it's broken. Nothing works well that way.
Andl, as far as expensive, how expensive is messing up the planet? If anyone should pay more, it is the US and Canada. And Japan. We rode on top economically for awhile now at the expense of the atmosphere, and along the way, knowing we were doing it the wrong way.

Potty Mouth
The Bush admin isn't the ones saying there are "other ways". This is a guy that Reason Magazine interviewed. It sounded reasonable to me.

This whole mess has become so politicized that nothing meaningful is ever going to be done. It will be all posturing for polling points.
Geology Byotch
Actually, the Bush admin is one of the ones saying there are other ways. They have fought this all the way from the beginning of Dubya being in office.
Potty Mouth
This guy has nothing to do with the Bush Administration. He doesn't care for their policies. Reason magazine is also opposed to most of the administration's moves.
Geology Byotch

I get you---and we can agree to disagree on some of this. Which is what makes science fun.

I plan on going to a talk at a university tonight on climate change and the Antarctic. It should be fascinating (and depressing). Cheers.

Potty Mouth
LOL. I am just going to enjoy the warmer weather =).
Geology Byotch
It's bloody cold here and has been for a couple of months. I taught myself to knit last weekend.

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in

You will be asked to join Vox to post this comment.