1. Chapter 6 Sealing the Deal to Save the Climate

2. The accumulation of these waste gases over the decades, is overwhelming the planet’s energy balance and heating up the earth’s surface. Saving the global climate and protecting ecosystems in a warming world must become a national interest for each of nearly 200 independent states. As the world grows by 78 million people each year, the difference in the emission levels are increasing because of the number of developing countries and to solve the climate problem it will actually require a real sacrifice. Most of the world’s governments have been meeting regularly since about 1980 to come up with way in which all countries can agree to stop changing the planet’s climate. The Kyoto Protocol went into effect in 2005. Most nations ratified the international climate agreement except the United States. This agreement requires industrial countries to control emissions of carbon dioxide and five other key greenhouse gases to level somewhat below those recorded in 1990.

3. Equity and the Response to a Changing Climate Many scientists believe that poor countries with little responsibility for today’s climate instability will be hit hard by the climate change. The Kyoto Protocol is based on the principles of “common but differentiated responsibilities” that recognizes that there are different economic and emissions positions. Two questions were asked. How should rights to emit greenhouse gases be allocated? And who should bear the cost of emissions reductions and adaptation to climate change?

4. For emission rights they came up with two different principles: The Egalitarian Principle states that every person worldwide should have the same emission allowance. This principle gives populous countries the greatest number of emissions rights. India for example has 3 times as many people as the US so they would be entitled to 3 times as much emissions than the US. The Sovereignty Principle argues that all nations should reduce their emissions by the same percentage amount. Large emitters would make large reductions of greenhouse gases while low volume emitters would make smaller reductions. An agreement to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 10% US 579 million tons and India by 141 million tons.

5. Two other principles that deal with costs The Polluter Pays Principle asserts that climate related economic burdens should be borne by nations according to their contribution of greenhouse gases over the years. Since 1950 the US has emitted about 10 times as much CO2 as India. The US bill for dealign with climate costs should be about 10 times greater. The Ability to Pay Principle argues that the burden should be borne by nations according to their level of wealth. If they went by gross domestic product figures to determine how much each country pays. The US would pay 12 times more than India.

6. WHAT WILL IT COST? The leading economy in this greenhouse market designed to reduce CO2 emissions is China. China is the world’s most populated country. The govt. there has given priority to the development of renewable energy and has committed to reducing the carbon-dioxide emissions from electric power generation since 2000. The United States and other industrial countries account for an estimated 76 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions form 1850 to 2002. New forest and the conversion of most of the world’s farms to practices that allow soil to capture and store atmospheric carbon could remove some excess carbon dioxide. To prevent as many future emissions as possible the world’s wealthier countries will need to finance much or even most of the reduction needed in poorer countries. These reductions can be from avoid deforestation, land degradation or making wind turbines instead of coal-fired power plant.

7. Continued The 19.5 billion provide in 2006 and 2007 by a few industrial countries for emissions reductions in a few developing countries helps start us in the right direction. Industrial countries need to invest in energy efficiency at home, shift from fossil fuels and develop climate-friendly ways to produce food, goods, and services. Things are probably not going to be done unless more and more people have a rallies about climate change so they can persuade people to make a difference. And this most likely won’t happen until the damage is more severe and by waiting longer it could be harder to stop or stabilize the environment. With uncertain benefits, the upfront costs of effective prevention still are big and that why people are more hesitant to spend the money to eventually reap the benefits.

8. Who will Emit? The U.N development Programme and other suggest that the risk of climate catastrophe approaches an intolerable level if the worlds average temperature fails to stay within 2 degrees Celsius of the preindustrial global average. Significant climate risks may lurk even in more-modest temperature increases. Humanity needs eventually to shrink net GHG emissions to zero. All combustion releases heat- trapping CO₂ into the air. All molecules of more than two atoms – from water vapor to methane to the polyatomic industrial gases used in refrigeration and air conditioners. The vast majority of GHG emissions now come from the countries and regions that are demographic and economic giants countries such as The U.S Russia, Japan among the industrial countries China, India, Brazil and developing countries.

9. Lessons learned, Time Lost More than two decades have passed since scientist first began calling news and public attention to the growing urgency of the problem. By 1994 most of the world’s nations including the U.S, had ratified and put into force the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, First agreed to at the United Nations conference on Environment and Developing in 1992 The Kyoto Protocol aimed to drive down the GHG emissions of industrial countries as a first step in what was planned to be a two-phase process

10. State of Play Despite the absence of the U.S, parties to the protocol continue to strengthen its provisions and have committed to improving and expanding the carbon trading, Clean Development Mechanism, and other emissions reducing tools to which it gave birth. Japan, Canada, And New Zealand also participate in Kyoto Protocol- based carbon trading.

11. One of the Bali Action plan was to continue focus on global climate negotiation on four main areas: Mitigation, a term covering efforts to reduce emissions below what they would be. Adaptation to the climate change that is already on the way. Technology transfer from industrial to developing countries to facilitate and help pay for these in countries that otherwise may not be able to afford them. Financing for poorer countries provided by wealthier ones and potentially a pool of all nations.

12. New Directions “Hard” emission caps after 2012 – This has become easier through things such as the Clean Development Mechanism To ensure warming increases no more than 2.4 degrees Celsius the world must reduce CO2 emissions 50-85% of the year 2000 levels by the middle of this century – Industrial nations need to reduce emissions 25- 40% by 2020

13. Government Proposals for Climate Change China and the Group of 77 Mexico Switzerland India South Africa European Union Norway Brazil

14. The Real Deal Greenhouse gas emissions need to be capped and then steadily reduced world wide. What is the fairest way to do this? Many observers think that emissions should be controlled on a per capita basis. However, other suggestions have been made.

15. India and Germany Suggest Have suggested allowing developing countries emission levels to rise until they are equal to the emission levels of industrialized countries. These industrialized countries would presumably be decreasing their emission levels rapidly At the point when their emission levels are equal, both groups could reduce their per capita emissions together

16. Brazil’s Proposal Since industrialized countries are responsible for most of the buildup of GHGs, would reducing emissions on a per capita basis be fair? They proposed making country responsibilities proportional to their historical contribution to the problem. This suggestion made no headway on the international stage.

17. Greenhouse Development Rights An increasingly popular plan to reduce emissions that was developed by a U.S. group, EcoEquity, and the Stockholm Environment Institute Responsibility would be based on a country’s cumulative per capita GHG emissions from a specific date, perhaps 1990. Would also take in to account, a country’s ability to help deal with the problem without sacrificing necessities. A country’s capacity would not count people/families below a “development threshold” of $7500 per person This would shield the poor from potentially high costs of reducing emissions.