GLOBAL WARMING, GREENHOUSE GASES AND THE KYOTO PROTOCOL Library of Parliament Topical Information for Parliamentarians TIPS-39E 27 January 2004 The Science of Climate Change Historical Records of Global Warming It is generally accepted that the average surface temperature of the globe has increased about 0.6 o C in the past 100 years, over sea and land. Possible bias due to urban heating of measuring stations has been taken into account. Historical records, as well as a number of proxy measures, all show the same trends. Satellite measurements show a lesser degree of warming above the earth s surface, but because the record is so short, and because factors can affect the troposphere differently than at the surface, a January 2000 study concluded that the differences are probably not contradictory. Causes of Global Warming Global climate is affected by many factors, including solar output and volcanic emission of aerosols. None of the natural factors affecting climate seem to easily explain the observed global warming. The majority of atmospheric scientists now believe that the cause of late 20 th -century global warming is the human influence on gases in the earth s atmosphere that trap the sun s energy. The sun s energy is absorbed by the earth s surface and transformed into heat, which then radiates back toward space. The absorption of some of this heat by gases in the atmosphere results in the atmosphere being approximately 33 o C warmer than it would be in their absence. Since the Industrial Revolution, the level of some of these gases such as CO 2 and methane has been increasing as the result of human activity. Increases in these gases will cause more energy to be trapped in the atmosphere, which many scientists believe will lead to global warming. Although many think that this effect is responsible for the observed global warming, others believe that this effect cannot yet be distinguished from natural changes in climate. Predicting the Future Predicting the effects of increases in greenhouse gases (GHGs) is very difficult, as is predicting the emissions of GHGs over the next 100 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a group of hundreds of scientists set up in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). In its third report, released in 2001, the IPCC estimated that temperature change as the result of GHG emissions for the next 100 years will range from +1.4 o C to a worst-case scenario of +5.8 o C, depending on which emissions scenarios are used and the sensitivity of the models. The effects of rising temperature are predicted to be numerous and will depend on the extent of the warming. Different parts of the world will feel a variety of effects, not just the average. It is widely predicted, for example, that the Arctic will become warmer by more than the average. The evaporation of water from warming oceans is expected to transfer a great deal of energy to the atmosphere and therefore increase the intensity of many storm systems. Currently, many glaciers are receding, including the Greenland ice sheet. In a warming atmosphere, they will continue to recede and this, along with thermal expansion, will cause sea levels to rise. Whether changes will be good or bad will depend on the magnitude and direction of the localized effects and on the capacity for biological and socio-economic circumstances to adapt to change. In Canada, the possible effects of global warming have been reported in the Canada Country Study. This is the paper version of a Web document which is available online at http://intraparl/36/map_sv_lib-e.htm
2 The Response to the Risk of Climate Change International In 1992, more than 100 countries ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). Using the IPCC s initial 1990 report as a basis of discussion, the FCCC stated that, despite the well-acknowledged uncertainties involved in predictions, a precautionary approach should be taken, and GHG emissions should be stabilized at 1990 levels by the year 2000. In 1995, the parties agreed to work toward a binding agreement. In 1997, at the third follow-up meeting of those who signed the Convention (Third Conference of Parties, or COP 3), the parties agreed in the Kyoto Protocol to reduce average GHG emissions by a further 5.2% between 2008 and 2012. However, even if the Kyoto Protocol goals are reached, in the absence of further action, atmospheric GHGs will continue to increase, but at a reduced rate. Mitigation of GHG emissions is thus only one response to climate change. It is probable that the world must also be prepared to adapt to climate change. The Kyoto Protocol Coming Into Force The Kyoto Protocol has two criteria that must both be met for it to come into force. The first requirement is that at least 55 Parties to the Convention must ratify the Protocol. The second is that the Annex I countries (the industrialized countries for which the Protocol would be binding) that ratify must be collectively responsible for at least 55% of Annex I emissions. As of 26 November 2003, 120 countries had ratified the Protocol, including Japan and the countries of the European Union, but so far the Annex I countries that have ratified are responsible for only 44.2% of Annex I emissions. The United States, under the Bush administration, announced that it will not ratify the Protocol, mostly because it does not bind developing nations to targets and would, the United States believes, create a competitive disadvantage for the country while not solving the climate change problem. The United States, in the Protocol baseline year, was responsible for 36.1% of emissions. The key country remaining is the Russian Federation, which was responsible for 17.4% of emissions. Should it refuse to ratify, the Protocol cannot come into force. Should it decide to ratify, the Protocol will come into force. In September 2002, at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg, Russia signified its intention to ratify the Protocol; a final announcement is expected in 2004. Kyoto Mechanisms To ease the way for some countries to ratify the Protocol, and therefore its coming into force, the Protocol was made flexible to make it less expensive to meet the targets, in addition to encouraging developed countries to support projects to reduce emissions in developing countries. The Clean Development Mechanism allows developed countries to gain credit for projects with verifiable emissions reductions in developing countries, while the Joint Implementation Mechanism allows credit to be gained through projects in another developed country or in a country in transition to a market economy. An international Emissions Trading Mechanism will also be developed in order to reduce costs. In such a scheme, if a country finds it too costly to reduce its emissions, it can purchase credits from another country for which the reduction was less costly. Many countries are also developing domestic trading schemes. In addition to these mechanisms, the Protocol allows the use of forest and agricultural sinks to offset emissions. There was much controversy over what form sinks could take and how much they could be used to offset emissions. Canada pushed very hard for the inclusion of sinks, and the issue almost led to a failure of negotiations. At the second meeting of COP 6, held in Bonn, Germany, in July 2001, after the failure of the initial COP 6 meetings in the Hague in November 2000 (see The Kyoto Protocol: Progress at Bonn, by Lynne Myers, In Brief PRB 01-6E, 31 July 2001), a compromise was achieved. This compromise was fully developed at COP 7 in Marrakesh, in October 2001, into a threevolume working text called the Marrakesh Accords.
3 Canada successfully negotiated the capacity to gain 44 megatonnes (Mt) of CO 2 reductions from forest sinks. If it were possible to use all of this credit, it would take Canada approximately 20% of the way to its target of 571 Mt approximately 240 Mt below the business as usual projection of 809 Mt. The Russian Federation negotiated a possible 121 Mt of CO 2 reductions from forest sinks. Environmental groups believe that some of these concessions have resulted in a watered-down Protocol; the World Wildlife Fund estimates that the current agreement will achieve a 2% cut in greenhouse gas emissions (with respect to 1990 levels) by 2010, rather than the 5% predicted under the original Protocol. Nevertheless, the main reaction after negotiations was one of relief that the Kyoto process was not dead. Canada and the Kyoto Protocol Canada has made a commitment to reduce its GHG emissions to 6% less than 1990 levels. Although this may not seem a great deal, GHG emissions have increased considerably since 1990, and so the goal represents a decrease in GHG emissions of approximately 30% below business as usual (see Appendix). Clearly the task is challenging, especially for a highly energy-intensive (resourcebased) economy such as Canada s. Canadian Implementation In response to its Kyoto commitments, Canada has produced a National Implementation Strategy, to which all federal and provincial ministers of Energy and Environment, with the exception of Ontario, agreed in October 2000. A Business Plan associated with the Strategy, and an Action Plan 2000 describing specific measures planned to achieve one-third of Canada s commitment, have been formulated. Effectively, almost one-half of the reductions proposed to achieve the goals of the Action Plan are to be achieved through international efforts and land-use changes, both of which have controversial aspects. Full implementation of the Strategy will depend on international ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, the actions of trading partners, and the clarity of domestic policy. Since 1998, the Canadian government has invested $3.7 billion in initiatives related to GHG reductions. A discussion paper was released in May 2002 outlining four broad policy options, which formed the basis for consultations that took place that summer. An overview of a draft plan was released on 24 October 2002, followed by a Climate Change Plan for Canada, which was released on 21 November 2002. The plan leaves approximately 60 Mt of required reductions (240 Mt) unaccounted for. Large industrial emitters will be expected to reduce emissions by a total of 91 Mt, 36 of which are expected from Action Plan 2000 and from future innovation, while 55 Mt are expected from negotiated agreements with industry. Forest and agricultural sinks are expected to reduce emissions by almost 40 Mt, 30 of which are from existing practices. The remainder is to come from actions by Canadians to reduce energy usage in the home and in transportation. The details of the incentives and regulation that will achieve these goals have yet to be elaborated. Canada and Ratification On 17 December 2002, Canada ratified the Kyoto Protocol. Canada is responsible for 3.3% of Annex I emissions and, while this is important, Canada s ratification is also significant in that it is the only country of the Americas to have binding emissions targets under the Protocol. In deciding to ratify the Protocol, the government set up two criteria that had to be met. First, there must be a workable plan that does not ask any region of the country to bear an unreasonable burden. Second, such a plan must be developed in full consultation with provinces, territories, stakeholders and Canadians. In the months leading up to ratification, there was considerable and acrimonious debate as to whether these criteria had indeed been met. Opponents of the Protocol believed that the consultations on the
4 discussion paper did not include a complete spectrum of views from all Canadians, particularly those who did not agree with the government. There was also some debate as to whether or not the plan was workable and properly accounted for Canada s target. Apart from the question of whether the criteria for ratification had been met before ratification, there was also the question of whether or not the Kyoto Protocol should have been ratified at all. Those opposed to the Protocol, such as the Government of Alberta and the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, believe that, given the United States decision not to ratify, Canada would put itself at a severe economic disadvantage in meeting the Protocol s targets. Supporters of ratification, such as the Government of Quebec and the Pembina Institute, believe that ratification of the Protocol is necessary as a first step in preventing the negative impacts of climate change and that meeting the goals of the Protocol could enhance Canada s competitiveness. prepared by Tim Williams and Jean-Luc Bourdages Parliamentary Research Branch For more information Please see the bibliography as well as the internal and external links of the Web version of this document at: http://intraparl/36/map_sv_lib-e.htm or dial (613) 996-3942
APPENDIX Mt CO 2 Equivalents Source: As modified from Canada s National Climate Change Business Plan 2002, May 2002, p. 105.