Back in December 1997, the Kyoto Protocol was designed as an international agreement — no less — that was supposed to bind 192 parties (191 states) in committing to reduce emissions of the six main greenhouse gases, all deemed the main culprits of global warming.
The treaty, signed under the auspices of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, came into force in 2005 and the first phase of commitments was to run from 2008 to 2012 on the basis of “common but differentiated responsibilities”: contracting parties had a few years to prepare themselves and the reduction of emissions (the reference year being 1990) would affect differently each signatory, with the European Union (made up of 15 members at the time) agreeing to reduce the most (-8% to be redistributed among its members).
The intention was commendable, but right from the start the process was derailed by the non-ratification of the treaty by the United States of America. Reasons were numerous, starting with the traditional reluctance of the USA to have things imposed from the outside, the fact that the Clinton administration could not secure a two-thirds majority in the Senate, and because the American main negotiator, Vice-President Al Gore, had pushed for an even greater reduction effort than the one initially envisioned — going from -5% to -7%.
In effect, what was supposed to be binding was hollowed out by the defaulting of the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases at the time and the weak penalties imposed on non-compliant parties, which could in the end entirely escape their responsibilities as demonstrated by Canada when it withdrew from the protocol in 2011. With the Doha amendment put in place in 2012 and preparing the second stage of commitments (ending in 2020), the protocol went from Charybdis to Scylla, and as of today, the amendment has not gathered enough signatures to become effective.
Thus, it was decided during the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris that instead of going for a treaty with binding obligations and a mechanism of sanctions for non-compliance that proved ultimately unenforceable, contracting parties would sign a general “accord”, one based on voluntary commitments with a common goal for members to reduce their carbon emissions “as soon as possible” and ensure that global warming would be kept over the century “well below 2ºC” above pre-industrial levels. Now, even with American President Donald Trump deciding not to honor his predecessor’s pledge, 16 states in the USA and Puerto Rico have formed the United States Climate Alliance to uphold the goals set by the Paris agreement, thus bypassing the federal withdrawal. As of now, volition is thus proving more effective than obligation, despite the initial scorn for norms that would be devoid of might.
Last week the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international body providing governments with the scientific basis to develop climate-related public policies, released its latest special report on the impacts of global warming of 1.5ºC — not 2ºC — above pre-industrial levels. Predictions are bleak, to say the least.
The main conclusion is pretty simple: “global warming is likely to reach 1.5°C between 2030 and 2052 if it continues to increase at the current rate.” And this will amplify the impacts of heat-waves, destabilize marine ice sheet in Antarctica and provoke the irreversible loss of the Greenland ice sheet, and global mean sea level rise (relative to 1986-2005) will range from 0.26 to 0.77m by 2100. Any increase beyond 1.5ºC would amplify the impacts on terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal ecosystems and affect negatively their benefits to humans.
For the experts, in order to limit the rise to “only” 1.5ºC one would have to reduce the emissions of CO2 by about 45% by 2030 and reach net zero — reaching carbon neutrality — by 2050. If we were to take absolutely no action to limit greenhouse gases emissions, the temperature would then rise by 5.5ºC by 2100!
In the words of one of the scientists participating in the Panel, the report points out “the enormous benefits of keeping to 1.5ºC” and that moreover “this can be done within laws of physics and chemistry.” Political will is thus the only requirement!
No comments:
Post a Comment