The Kyoto Protocol: Does it have a Future?

Canadian Citizens demostrate at the venue of climate change talks in cancun, December 2010
From: the National post 

In less than a month, the 17 Conference of the Parties (COP17) to the UN Climate Change Conference will be held in South Africa in order to reach a legally binding agreement for the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. So far, the only agreement that seems to exist between the parts is that once Kyoto ends, there will be a regulatory gap, and it looks like most developed countries are content to let this happen.

We must remember, Kyoto’s due date is December 2012 and even if an agreement is reached in COP 17, the document must be ratified for the United Nation countries, which in Kyoto’s case took 7 years.

One reason for this “lack of agreement” is that Canada, Japan, Russia and the US will not enter a second phase that doesn’t treat all current “major emitters” similarly. The current document gives reduction targets only to developed nations, which excludes major polluters like China and India. “It is too early for biding obligations. Our view is it would have to include all the major players –China, India, Brazil and South Africa” said Todd Stern, the US’ Special Envoy for Climate Change. These states are “not ready to have international, legally-binding obligations” he added.   

Without the Kyoto protocol, the Clean Development Mechanism (CMD) also faces a dark future. The Clean Development Mechanism allows a country with an emission-reduction or emission-limitation commitment under the Kyoto Protocol (Annex B Party) to implement an emission-reduction project in developing countries. Such projects can earn saleable certified emission reduction (CER) credits, each equivalent to one ton of CO2, which can be counted towards meeting Kyoto targets.¹

The Global Carbon Market has already stopped growing, in part because of the financial crisis, and in part because of Kyoto’s failing negotiations. On the other hand CER markets have suffered a significant loss of 48% in 2010.

It is my belief that this crisis may bring better solutions to reduce GHGemissions, because even though the Kyoto protocol and its carbon markets had a noble purpose, they have been proven to fail over time. The emission targets aren’t high enough and there isn’t a good way to prove that the targets were reached. The good news is that in the US the EPAis moving forward with its GreenhouseTailoring rule and in the EU the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) will be valid until 2020. Both regions are more likely to create a more stringent regulation of GHG (which in the US has just begun), more likely with taxation and away from Carbon Markets.