| |
Close the Loopholes That Keep the Greenhouse Gases Rising
|
|
|
Close the Loopholes That Keep the Greenhouse Gases Rising
|
|
by Carolyn Koushy
|
| |
The last chapter of the Clinton/Gore environmental legacy is being written in the Netherlands at the sixth round of negotiations over the international global warming treaty, the Kyoto Protocol.
Negotiated in 1997, the Kyoto Protocol sets mandatory greenhouse gas emission targets for developed countries. The momentum for the Kyoto Protocol began in 1988 when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established to assess research on climate change and the possible impacts of human-induced global warming. In 1995, the IPCC reported that "the balance of evidence suggests that here is a discernible human influence on global climate." Since then, the Kyoto Protocol has mandated emissions reductions in developed nations
The current session is a make or break meeting. Mechanisms now in the protocol allow countries to reach reduction targets by means other than actually reducing emissions. These so-called "flexible mechanisms" can undermine the purpose of the treaty by including dangerous loopholes. Responding to lobbying of the oil, coal and nuclear industries, the U.S. delegation supports these loopholes. I am one of 200 students who have traveled to The Hague to let the U.S. delegates know we believe these loopholes should be closed.
Three issues are of particular concern. First, under the Clean Development Mechanism, a country may receive emissions reduction "credit" when it helps cut pollution in a developing country. Green technology is transferred to developing countries, which is positive. However, due to industry pressure, the United States is proposing that nuclear power and "clean coal" count as sustainable technologies. These two technologies are not sustainable. The American public is keenly aware of the dangers of nuclear technology, from toxic waste by-products to the serious heath risks it can pose. The public might not realize, however, that "clean coal" is not clean, but only removes sulfur oxides from emissions, letting greenhouse gases continue to pour into our atmosphere.
A second loophole is in the treaty's use of carbon sinks to earn emission reduction credits for a country. A carbon sink is anything that absorbs carbon dioxide, such as a forest. But the capacity for land to store carbon is finite. We cannot rely on sinks to seriously stop global warming. We believe the protocol must focus on reducing emissions at the source. Moreover, if emission reduction credit is given for sinks, the incentive will be reduced to invest in the research and development of renewable technologies. For a serious, long-term solution, our energy sources must shift significantly away from fossil fuels and toward sustainable technologies.
A third loophole is in the emissions trading part of the protocol. Trading of emissions was initially developed as a cost-effective way to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If countries reduce emissions below a targeted amount, they can then sell the difference to another country, whose allowed emissions are then increased by that amount. The problem with this framework is known as "hot air" or emissions that are larger than "business as usual" activities. For example, some participating countries do not have to reduce their emissions, and are actually allowed to increase them to help boost their economies. If they were then allowed to "trade away" these extra emission allowances, it would prevent the global reduction of greenhouse gases.
Students are calling on the U.S. delegation to keep the Kyoto Protocol strong.
Carolyn Koushy, Clayton, is a junior at Stanford University and student leader of the Climate Team of Greenpeace, U.S.A.
© 2000 St. Louis Post-Dispatch
###
|
 Printer Friendly Version
E-Mail This Article
|
|
|
| |
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
|
|
