SUNS  4308 Friday 23 October 1998

Washington, Oct. 21 (IPS/Danielle Knight) -- Bitter divisions between governments over binding commitments to reduce 'greenhouse gas' emissions are threatening to torpedo the Kyoto agreement on global warming, say environmental organisations .

In Buenos Aires next month, negotiators will begin the seemingly daunting task of hammering out details of the Kyoto Protocol - that includes the development of a system of trading emission permits and the question of what restrictions should be applied to developing countries.

Many environmentalists, while trying to remain optimistic, say a decade of international effort to halt human induced global warming is on the verge of collapse.

"Since the historic Kyoto climate conference last year, negotiations on the details of the Protocol have bogged down in acrimonious debate over a host of complicated provisions," says Chris Flavin, vice president of the Washington-based World Watch Institute.

"These divisions are widening rather than narrowing, raising the risk that the Protocol may not be ratified by a sufficient number of industrial nations to bring it into force - or else ratified so late as
to make its emissions targets unattainable."

Scientists, meanwhile, continue to record record-breaking high temperature patterns around the world and most agree that the cause of global warming stems from greenhouse gases released through the burning of fossil fuels, including coal, oil and gas.

If this is not reduced, temperatures will continue to increase around the world and will increase the risk of storms, floods, heat waves and droughts, scientists say.

The threat was acknowledged by most countries of the world when they gathered in the Japanese city of Kyoto last December to negotiate the climate change agreement. They agreed to reduce the emissions of six greenhouse gases by an average of six percent from 1990 levels, and to complete the reductions between 2008 and 2012.

But disagreements over how to reach this goal could wreck the November negotiations in Buenos Aires - and other talks on the Kyoto Protocol.

One of the main stumbling blocks to agreement is the insistence by the Republican-dominated U.S. Congress that developing countries commit themselves to binding emission limits as have industrialised nations. Backed by powerful industrial interest groups, Republican senators and
congressional representatives argue that, in the coming century, greenhouse gas emissions from developing countries will be as great as those from industrialised nations.

Meanwhile, developing countries refuse to agree to binding limitations until they witness concrete action by the industrialised countries - who are responsible for the majority of the current greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

Amid all the squabbling, President Bill Clinton says he will delay US ratification of the treaty for one or two years.

"The real question is: why are we letting the special interests define the agenda on climate change policies?" says Nancy Kete, director of Global Climate Program at the Washington-based World Resources Institute.

"These same people who are setting up Buenos Aires for failure are the ones who brought us decades of delay on phasing lead out of gasoline, reducing acid rain and who fought every new air quality, environmental and health protection regulation that has been put on the table."

Wide divisions between countries also remain on what is known as the "flexibility mechanisms" of the Kyoto agreement. These mechanisms are designed to give nations choices in when and where to make emissions reduction investments.

They include a 'checking account' to be set up for each industrialised country with five years of allowable greenhouse gas emissions (for the 2008-2012 period). The amount of the allowance for each nation is set as a percentage of the nation's 1990 emissions levels and each nation commits to limit its emissions to the amount in its account. Countries are then allowed to trade surplus allowances for a price to other countries who are having trouble meeting their targets.

In theory, such mechanisms should encourage cuts to be made wherever it is the least expensive to do so. But, environmental organisations and the European Union say that without limits to how much trading or joint implementation a country can do, a country could pay to avoid cutting any emissions domestically.

Without the EU's proposed limits on trading, for example, the United States could continue to emit the same amount domestically if they buy permits from Russia and Ukraine who, because of economic troubles, have closed down power plants.
  
"This provision undermines both the effectiveness and legitimacy of the Protocol," says World Watch's Flavin.

The so-called 'Umbrella Group' - which includes the United States, Canada, Australia and others - however, opposes all limits to trading. Industrialised countries also may be able to avoid cleaning up their own act through another controversial mechanism that would allow them to offset their emissions by counting the carbon absorbed by their forests or paying other nations to preserve their forests.

"There is no scientific basis to make such an accounting today," says Ashley Mattoon, a researcher at World Watch. "The forest issue threatens to become a giant loophole that undermines the commitments made in Kyoto."

The European Union and the Umbrella Group also strongly disagree on how to hold governments responsible, or liable for meeting their Kyoto target.
  
While the Umbrella Group says nations should monitor and be responsible for meeting their targets, the EU is pressing for rules that require buyers of emission permits to "beware" of purchasing allowances from nations that are headed toward, or falling short, of their target. The EU also says that no nation should be allowed to engage in emissions trading unless it faces automatic compliance consequences.

Negotiations in Buenos Aires are not likely to end in agreement on all the various issues. The best many organisations expect is the formation of working groups to address each of the issues and strict timetables for these groups to reach decisions.

"We don't expect the drama of Kyoto to repeat itself in Buenos Aires but there should be progress in moving the process forward and a lot of action behind the scenes among the major players," says Alden Meyer, director of government relations at the Washington-based Union of Concerned Scientists.

As negotiations will continue well beyond November, governments should not wait until the details are finalized for them to begin efforts to scale back their emissions, says Dan Lashof, a senior scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council.

"The commitment to domestic action is the lubricant that will allow the gears of the negotiations to move forward smoothly," he says. "Without such action all the other issues will probably grind to a halt."