Fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas make development possible but they also release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Surfing the Internet, driving a car or heating or cooling a building all require the burning of energy. Without energy, industrial societies could never succeed. As the developing world is seeking to become part of the global economy, they want to be able to burn whatever fuel they need to in order to raise the standard of living for their citizens. But many scientists believe that man-made emissions are harming the earth’s atmosphere. Climate changes could lead to many environmental problems, such as shifting seasons, higher sea levels and desertification. There is no international consensus on how to deal with this problem without incurring huge financial costs.

The issue of global warming currently comes under the jurisdiction of two major international agreements: 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change and its offspring, the Kyoto Protocols. (The ratified the former, but not the latter.) In 2012, many of the provisions of the Kyoto Protocols will expire, so the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change organized the Montreal Climate Change Conference to try to negotiate the next steps. Held from November 28th – December 9, 2005, close to 200 countries attended the conference. While a comprehensive agreement on how to move forward was not achieved, progress was made.

During the conference, the rulebook of the 1997 Kyoto Protocols was adopted. The rule book spells out how emissions will be reported and verified. It also establishes a clean development mechanism, giving credit to developed countries for helping developing countries produce clean energy by investing in sustainable development projects. This mechanism will be funded by developed countries, who committed more than $13 million for 2006-2007. An example of this mechanism is a Honduran sewage- treatment plant funded by. [1] Montreal also produced an agreement on emissions trading, in which countries who produce too much greenhouse gases can buy credits from countries that are under their limit. So if meets its targets for reduction, but has not, can sell credits to and be rewarded for its success. A third major achievement of the Conference was the commitment of the to join non –binding talks about a climate change agreement to replace Kyoto after 2012.

Montreal also produced an agreement on emissions trading, in which countries who produce too much greenhouse gases can buy credits from countries that are under their limit. So if meets its targets for reduction, but has not, can sell credits to and be rewarded for its success.

Some believe that instead of a comprehensive agreement on climate change, smaller regional efforts or initiatives coming from industry may be the best way to move forward. Paralleling the UN Conference in Montreal, close to 200 mayors met and signed the “Mayors Climate Protection Agreement,” pledging to meet or exceed the Kyoto emissions reductions. Several states in the northeast have been working on a joint agreement to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power stations. California has also created its own program to reduce greenhouse gases. While in June 2005, the U.S. Senate rejected a measure calling for mandatory limits on emissions linked to global warming, it did pass a non-binding resolution to start mandatory greenhouse gas reductions that would not also harm the economy. While no specific policy recommendations were offered in the non-binding resolution, it did signal the entrance of global warming into the debate about energy. The U.S. House of Representatives did not pass any similar legislation.

The Bush administration has already committed to provide $5 billion to research climate change.[2] This figure includes $3 billion for the Climate Change Technology Program, which is a multi-agency effort to develop technologies that would decrease greenhouse gases, such as a hydrogen fuel initiative, Coal-Fired, Zero-Emissions Electricity Generation and research projects on fusion energy. Nearly $2 billion has been set aside for the Climate Change Science Program and $200 million for climate-change-related international assistance programs.[3]

The Bush Administration has been pushing the Asia-Pacific Partnership for clean development as an alternative mechanism to deal with global warming and climate control. This would be a voluntary partnership that would not focus on mandatory emission reductions, but instead would address environmental issues through economic growth and technology.

In June 2005, before the G-8 meeting in , a group of 24 companies, including BT, HP, Toyota , Siemens and Volkswagon proposed a global emissions trading scheme that would set limits on how much greenhouse gas countries could emit and would define \"emissions rights\". Companies are seeking these types of limits because they are interested in more certainty for long-term investments and a more level playing field.[4]

The Bush Administration has been pushing the Asia-Pacific Partnership for clean development as an alternative mechanism to deal with global warming and climate control. This would be a voluntary partnership that would not focus on mandatory emission reductions, but instead would address environmental issues through economic growth and technology. Some countries did not sign the Kyoto Agreements because developing countries did not have to curb emissions and they believed the economic hardships would be great. The Bush administration estimated that it would cost $400 billion to the economy and that 5 million jobs would be lost.[5]

China’s assertion that the Kyoto process is the main forum for solving green-house gas emissions will make it difficult for the Bush administration to promote the Asia Pacific Partnership.[6] As the 2nd largest greenhouse gas emitter, ’s commitment to any climate agreement is crucial to its success. Given the pace of its development and the increase in the number of coal-fired power plants, may surpass the as the biggest greenhouse gas producer in the next twenty years.[7] The agreed at Montreal to join the non-binding discussions about a climate change agreement to replace Kyoto after 2012 in an effort to try to bring developing countries, such as and into the process.

There is no easy answer on the best way to address climate change and global warming. The costs that governments will face to reduce emissions are high. No country wants to feel that they are making sacrifices while others are not paying their fair share. Nonetheless the problem of global warming and climate change will not go away in the near future as more and more countries industrialize. As globalization increases the interaction of people, companies and governments around the world, there is a need to work together to lift people out of poverty, while preserving the environment.

---

[1] Harvey, Fiona. "Developing Countries back Kyoto." The Financial Times. December 10, 2005.

[2] Harvey, Fiona. "How to cut emissions the American Way." The Financial Times. December 6, 2005.

[3] "Climate Change Fact Sheet". Released by the White House. May 18, 2005.

[4]"Business pushes G8 on Global Warming.". The Financial Times. June 10, 2005.

[5] Duff-Brown, Beth. “To Join the Kyoto Treaty.” The Washington Post. November 30, 2005.

[6] Harvey, Fiona. “Developing Countries back Kyoto.” The Financial Times. December, 10 2005.

[7]“Shame in Montreal.” The New York Times. December 13, 2005.






Contributed by Globalization101.org. Reprinted with permission from Globalization101.org.

To read another Global Envision article about issues regarding global warming, see UN Conference Brings about Channge in US Stance on Global Warming.



Return to top

Bookmark/Search this post with:

• Delicious
• Digg
• StumbleUpon
• Reddit
• Facebook
• Google
• Yahoo