Three years after the ambitious Kyoto Protocol was signed, Alan Osborn looks at the progress being made to cut global air pollution

The Kyoto Protocol, agreed in Japan in 1997, represented the most ambitious attempt ever made to put the control of global pollution, with all that it spells for climate change, into a binding agreement. Since the historic signing, many countries have had second thoughts about the deal - most conspicuously the US but also some European countries, yet in two months' time, the 6th Conference of Parties (COP6) will meet in The Hague to take key decisions on all the "Kyoto mechanisms". What they agree will form the package that governments will submit for domestic ratification.

The main sticking point is that the protocol will only actually enter into force after developed countries accounting for at least 55 per cent of total 1990 global carbon dioxide emissions, ratify it. So, however historical the initial signing seemed, it's the immediate future which will show whether or not the protocol will be significant or just an internationally broken promise. Will countries ratify it? Will America - and what happens if it doesn't? How will the US presidential elections affect COP6? In June, the Royal Institute of International Affairs organised a conference - The Kyoto Protocol: The End of the Beginning? in a bid to find some answers.

The Environment Secretary, Michael Meacher, was positive in his opening address. "I think we are all optimistic that COP6 will indeed be a turning point in the climate change negotiations," he said. It was clear that there was a lot of common ground between the parties on many issues. The measure of success, said Mr Meacher, would be the degree of ratification to allow Kyoto to enter into force. "The EU has made it clear that - subject to a satisfactory deal at COP6 - we will take the necessary steps to ratify by 2002. I hope that other countries will follow suit."
Mr Meacher said it would be possible to ratify without the US, added: The US is responsible for 25 per cent of worldwide greenhouse gas emissions and it would be enormously better if the US came on board."
Where the UK is concerned, Mr Meacher said the intention remained to go beyond the Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent reduction in emissions. "We have estimated that the policies in our programme could deliver a 21.5 per cent reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions by 2010 - nearly 10 per cent beyond what we are required to do. These policies will also move us towards our tougher domestic goal of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and we will take these steps regardless of whether Kyoto enters into force."

Mr Meacher won applause when he said that UK electricity suppliers would have to deliver at least 10 per cent of their energy from renewable sources by 2010. Among other things, the Government would look "very seriously" at wind power, where the UK had the capacity to do 40 times more than at present. But no country could solve the problem alone, which was why the UK was committed to securing an effective international response. Mr Meacher was speaking shortly after the release of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report which cast doubt on the proposed 20 per cent cut in CO2 emissions by 2010 and called for cuts of 60 per cent within 50 years and 80 per cent by 2100. The chairman of the Commission, Sir Tom Blundell, told the conference that besides introducing fundamental changes in its own energy uses, Britain should show "forceful leadership" in COP6 negotiations. Poorer countries could not be expected to take costly action if the developed countries shirked their responsibilities, he said.
Sir Tom said the 10 per cent target for renewable energy generation by 2010 was too low. The report called for a four-fold increase in energy research and the establishment of a Sustainable Energy Agency, that would include nuclear power, though more nuclear power stations should only be built after nuclear waste had been safely dealt with.

Ambassador Mark Hambley, the US Special Negotiator on Climate Change, dismissed as "rubbish" a charge that the US was doing little to combat climate change and accused those of trying to blame the US of "posturing". "Is Europe really on track?" he asked. "Is Europe really the environmental conscience of the world? For Europe the tough measures have yet to be taken. Labels won't help us." He said President Clinton emphasised the problem of climate change in every speech. "It is a political priority for the US," he insisted and the Kyoto Protocol would be a "bust" if it went ahead without the US. "That would just be scoring politically motivated debating points and to what purpose?" he asked.
Ambassador Hambley said the US was already taking considerable action through government executive orders. Renewable energy sources would be up to 5 per cent of the total by 2005. There would be a million solar roofs in the US by 2010. "We've started a process of decoupling the rise in emissions from economic growth," he said. But there was no doubt that the target for America of a 30 per cent cut in emissions by 2012, was "very stiff".

A paper prepared by Henry Jacoby, professor of management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, argued that the US senate would not ratify the protocol as it stood but it was also "not so clear that Europe will meet its objectives." Professor Jacoby accepted that the EU could ratify before the US but the real question was implementation.
"The US won't take a leading role in the short term," he said. This was not because of the American elections as "climate change is not a major issue in the US". But this could be a plus. "There is no-one strongly opposed to it. Support could be rallied, but the US would expect others to follow. You can't dismiss the US as a leader but it's not likely. It depends on domestic factors in the US."
The head of strategic development for Russia's ministry of energy, Dr Professor Alexy Mastepanov, accepted that Russia was one of the major greenhouse gas sources (17 per cent of the annex B country emissions). "We have quite specific obligations under the protocol and we are one of the countries where much could be implemented. But there's no consensus in Russia on these issues. A lot of different organisations and departments are involved. But we are trying and we believe that our economy and our energy use and efficiency will come to a level in the future so that we do not have to reproach ourselves," he told the conference.

ACHIEVABLE OBJECTIVES
The summing up was delivered by Eileen Claussen, executive director of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, former assistant US secretary of state for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific affairs, and one of the most respected American authorities on climate change.
She said that in the test of setting reasonable and achievable objectives, the protocol "unfortunately falls short". It was highly unlikely that the US would be able to meet its Kyoto target of reducing emissions by 7 per cent below 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012. "A 7 per cent reduction is overly ambitious in a country where emissions have grown to more than 11 per cent above 1990 levels and are likely to continue to rise," she said.

There had been little or no effort on the part of government leaders in the US to encourage a national debate on how to go about reducing emissions.
"Virtually every budget item and every piece of legislation that so much as mentions the possibility of climate change, let alone our responsibility to address it, is viewed by many in Congress as a "backdoor" attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol and is therefore voted down or pushed aside," she said. Another factor was that administrative processes in the US were "enormously time-consuming".
But the US would not be alone. "Few national governments will be able to stand up in 2008, 2010 or 2012 and say that their targets have been met. In some countries, as in the US, it may be a lack of will or a lack of effort that leaves the targets unachieved, while in others it may be the simple fact that these are very tough targets," she said. Ms Claussen referred to a report on the efforts of five European governments which showed that "only one, the United Kingdom, is definitely on track to meet its obligation and only one other, Germany, is in a position in which it might".

"But the Kyoto Protocol is not fatally flawed and its good qualities outweigh its flaws," concluded Ms Claussen. "We should be asking how we can structure the protocol so that it provides the basis for a sustained and successful effort to mitigate climate change. If we need to renegotiate the targets or the timetable - and I suspect we will - then so let it be. The initial targets will mark but a moment in time. Twenty years from now it will matter little where or when we got them, only that they provided a starting point in the global effort to achieve measurable progress against a problem that will in all likelihood be with us for generations to come."

Air pollution specialists may be interested in the WHO air pollution bulletins, available from publications for £7.60 each, tel: 020 7827 5882.