Recently

More articles in the archive.

'New Kyoto' pact - Bush PR triumph? 22 August 05

Great play was made earlier this month when the US, Australia, China, India, Japan and South Korea – together responsible for more than half of global greenhouse gas emissions – announced a new pact on tackling climate change. According to Australian PM John Howard, “The fairness and effectiveness of this proposal will be superior to the Kyoto Protocol.” Good news, I’m sure. Except that the new pact doesn’t have any timetable for reducing emissions. Or indeed any emissions-reduction targets at all. So why is it better than Kyoto, which does at least have an (inadequate) target that ratifying countries have to achieve? Cynics might suggest that the new pact is little more than a PR stunt, dreamt up to get Bush off the climate change hook, and to outflank the EU by posing as an ‘alternative’ to Kyoto. Read an excellent article discussing the issues on Grist.

Comments

Dano
August 22nd, 2005 at 09:50 PM

I hope your honeymoon was lovely. We missed you, but not so much that we wanted you to end your honeymoon…well

Best,

ÐnØ

Mark Lynas
August 23rd, 2005 at 11:44 AM

That’s very kind of you, Dano. Though I see there was plenty to talk about (as usual) in my absence!

Caspar Henderson
August 26th, 2005 at 08:59 PM

Well yes, but see this from 30 July

Climate dilemmas

http://jebin08.blogspot.com/2005/07/climate-dilemmas.html

Dispute continues around the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, with environmentalists calling it toothless because of its lack of timetables and targets

The way it was announced – apparently a suprise to the international community – certainly contrasts with the painstaking multilateral approach that has surrounded Kyoto and the G8.

Things to consider:

  • the parternship includes the world’s four largest coal producers, if not the largest (Australia, China, India and the United States). Three of these countries are also its largest consumers and likely to burn coal come hell or highwater so technology to deal with the consequences is needed.
  • Two members of the partnership – Japan and South Korea – are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. It’s true that Korea is “non-Annex I state” which means it has not undertaken to meet specific targets; but Japan does have targets to meet (albeit inadequate to the challenge – but then so is almost everything so far), and as the world’s second largest economy by some distance it carries some weight that, with an additional finger on the scale from S Korea, may help to draw the “techno-optimist” and “timetables-and-targets” camps together.
  • For a US administration characterised by unilateralism and realpolitik (another notable example in recent days being the nuclear deal with India), this may be as good as it gets. The partnership may facilitate technical progress – and US companies such as GE (the country’s largest by market capitalisation) will lap up the opportunities (including nuclear ones) and thereby afford some space for those working towards making targets and timetables a little bit more achievable (e.g. beyond 2012).
Leave a Reply