REGULAR readers of these columns will probably wonder why another article on the much-debated Kyoto Protocol is appearing in People’s Democracy so soon after the previous one on the "toxic Texan" US President George W Bush’s announcement of his administration’s decision to renege on the USA’s earlier broad endorsement of, and signing on to, the Kyoto Protocol which seeks to lay down international measures to control emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and thus minimise the dangerous climate change effects of the resultant global warming. This quick follow-up piece is prompted by the fact that the past two weeks have seen quite momentous developments which, if they become portents of similar trends in the future, would indeed signal important changes in the global order.

Agreement at last On July 21-22 in Bonn, Germany, official delegates from 186 countries meeting under UN auspices --- with numerous other NGOs, interest groups and lobbies articulating their own positions on the sidelines --- after 10 days of intense discussions and many sleepless nights, finally brought down the curtain on over 10 years of hard-fought often acrimonious debate, and successfully drew up and agreed upon an international Protocol on Climate Change. Reaching agreement on the Kyoto Protocol, so named since it was in this Japanese city that the draft agreement was drawn up based on the 1992 discussions at the environmental summit at Rio de Janeiro, has been one of the most arduous series of international negotiations ever recorded. The Protocol is slated to become an international Treaty, with obligatory actions on the part of all signatory countries along with sanctions for default, as soon as 55 countries sign the agreement and as many industrialised countries as would account for 55 per cent of GHG emissions ratify it. A difficult target to reach, and with many hurdles on the way as we shall discuss, but most commentators including many cynics admit that a significant beginning has been made.

Of equally great, some would say greater, significance is the fact that this agreement has been reached without the participation of, and despite trenchant opposition by, the US which, of course, provides much of the muscle for international enforcement. Imagine, an international agreement being agreed upon and soon poised to become international law without the US and in spite of defiance of the sole superpower! The resolve and persistent efforts of the 185 countries in Bonn, including several of the US’ closest allies speaking on its behalf and with whom many serious even grave compromises had to be made, to come to an agreement spoke volumes for their determination not to be cowed down by aggressive US blackmail and not be deterred by the US’ ugly position of "no Treaty with me, no Treaty without me."

George W Bush had termed the Kyoto Protocol "fatally flawed". Many agree that without the US, which contributes a massive 25 per cent of worldwide GHGs, the Protocol would indeed be severely handicapped and even that, in the attempt to come to a consensus which might be acceptable to the US, the global targets have been so far lowered as to dilute them to unacceptable levels. But the fact remains that a major international effort on an issue which the world community feels seriously about has now formally been initiated, without the US, severely embarrassing it and isolating the present US administration from international opinion and even from domestic opinion within the US. The entire process has also demonstrated the power of popular pressure brought on governments with great persistence and consistency by informed and organised public opinion including the scientific community and there can be little doubt that governmental delegates at Bonn felt they could ignore this popular sentiment only at their own peril. Oivier Deleuze, Belgium’s energetic energy minister, summed it up: "We could not go home with another failure. We would have made ourselves ridiculous." George W Bush had better watch out!

Let us first look at what has been agreed upon at Bonn.

Highlights of the agreements at Bonn are as follows:

186 countries agreed to the Kyoto Protocol, including 38 industrialised countries which agreed to binding targets to reduce their GHG emissions the Protocol is expected to come into force as early as 2002, as soon as 55 countries have passed it into national law and countries with a total of 55 per cent of the emissions from industrialised nations have ratified it, countries will have to submit their plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and update progress to give early warning if they are failing to reach targets if countries fail to reach the first set of targets by 2012 they will have to add the shortfall to the next commitment period plus a 30 per cent penalty, will also be excluded from carbon trading and be forced to take corrective measures domestically 500 million dollars (Rs 2350 crore) will be provided by industrialised countries to assist developing countries adapt to climate change (caused by the past and future actions of the industrialised countries) and to provide new clean technologies industrialised countries will be able to plant forests, manage existing ones and change farming practices, and claim "credits" for removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, such "credits" becoming available to offset a portion of GHG emissions international trade in carbon will be started whereby companies or other entities saving carbon by building clean technologies in other states will be able to claim "credits" which can be "sold" as tonnes of carbon saved on international commodity markets.

Scientists say that what has been agreed in Bonn is nowhere near what is required to reverse the current pace of global warming, but it is a start and a good one at that. In the pre-industrial period it is estimated that the atmosphere contained between 200 and 275 parts per million by volume (ppmv) of carbon dioxide, the predominant GHG. Today it has reached 370 ppmv, a level which scientists say has not been seen on this planet for over 20 million years. If no steps are taken, and industrial development and population growth continue at present rates, carbon dioxide levels are expected to reach 700 ppmv by 2100 resulting in increase of average temperatures by up to 6 degrees Celsius with devastating consequences for all life on earth.

There is great scientific consensus today about the threat to life on the planet from global warming. The objections by some corporate or conservative scientists, mostly quoted by the US administration despite mounting evidence and scientific opinion within the US itself, that natural fluctuations in climate from sunspots or variations in the earth’s orbit could explain the 0.6 degree warming in the 20^th century or that there are too many uncertainties in computer modeling to predict temperatures in a century’s time look increasingly hollow. A recent editorial in the prestigious and staid scientific journal "Nature" --- as one commentator put it, hardly a hotbed of environmental radicalism --- compared those who dismiss the threat of global warming to those who maintained that smoking does not cause cancer. The menace is real indeed but how far the measures agreed in Bonn will go towards solving the problem is open to some dispute.

The measures under negotiation since Rio seek to stabilise the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at about 450 ppmv, still too high fear many scientists but nevertheless a good target which can realistically be achieved. However, without further severe cuts in carbon dioxide emissions, stabilising the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will be difficult. Further, there is a substantial time lag in the world’s climate and, as such, even if GHG emissions were totally stopped tomorrow, the earth’s climate would get warmer and sea levels would rise for roughly another one hundred years before they start falling back. The problem is that by merely cutting emissions slightly, to 1990 levels, the Bonn accord leaves huge quantities of carbon dioxide pouring into the atmosphere where it will linger for over a century in the absence of other measures to take it out.

By some estimates, the original Kyoto target of an average 5 per cent cut in 1990-level emissions by the 30 most industrialised countries by 2012 has effectively been reduced to just under 2 per cent. A major reason is the concession extracted by close US allies Australia and Canada to count forests and farmlands as "carbon sinks" thereby further reducing their requirement to curb actual emissions. Another reason is a compromise whereby Russia, for example, will be able to trade more supposed "carbon credits" with countries that undershoot their targets. Japan , another key US ally used crude blackmail to remove financial penalties from the agreement leaving the issue of enforcement somewhat in the air. Even "good boys" Britain and Germany, who added weight to the EU’s determined push at Bonn and who currently exceed their emission cut targets, managed to extract concessions on their own "dirty" fossil fuels such as coal.

The severest critics of the Bonn accords have estimate that, as a result, global warming may be reduced by as little as one tenth of a degree over the next hundred years. Most scientists disagree with such a pessimistic view but agree that the Bonn agreements are only a beginning. John Mitchell, head of climate change modeling at the highly regarded UK Met Office said:

"Trying to reduce [GHG] emission levels is a bit like your mortgage. The sooner you start paying it off the better," he said. "Some people have criticised Kyoto, saying we won’t notice any difference, but it takes time to change things, because there are time lags not only in the climate system but in business and society.

The isolation of the USA in Bonn has been sharp and total, and has climaxed several months of extraordinary policy-making by the new George W Bush administration. Even conservative Bush supporters and those who at least oppose all radical or even liberal views have been aghast at the extreme positions taken recently by the Bush administration signaling a dramatically isolationist turn to US foreign policy and certainly utter disregard for international obligations and multilateral agreements. One swallow does not make a summer, so the saying goes, but in the case of current US policy, it has not been one bird but a veritable flock.

The US under president George W Bush has declared it would not ratify the Comprehensive (nuclear) Test Ban Treaty or CTBT, is calling for scrapping of the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, has threatened to go it alone in developing missile defences, went back on the Kyoto deal it had earlier agreed to in 1997 and has recently declared its opposition to global negotiations towards a Convention to Ban Biological Weapons.

In the climate change negotiations since Rio, the US has all along been the main obstacle with three main objections to the Kyoto Protocol: the exemption it offers developing countries; the burden it puts on the US as the world’s biggest offender to curb emissions, and the supposed lack of consideration given to new technologies and market-based ways of tackling global warming. Even after the Clinton administration came on board in 1997, years of inconclusive meetings followed, striving to reach a consensus which, the closer it appeared, got further away. Last November in the Hague the negotiations collapsed dramatically with a walk-out by the British deputy PM, John Prescott, who thought he had brokered a deal with the US only to find it unacceptable to others. When newly-elected president George W Bush openly repudiated the treaty, it seemed the final nail in the coffin, but it appears that the 186 nations that came to Bonn were inspired to make the extra effort. A determination to defy the US was also discernible.

Part of the reason for the success of the talks in Bonn was the absence of the US from the negotiating table flowing from its rejectionist stance. In earlier negotiations the US had been seen as blocking progress and as fighting a rearguard action, line by line through the agreement. This time in Bonn, the EU with a large presence of Social Democratic governments with Green coalition partners and ministers made its presence forcefully felt and pushed hard for a closure. Another important factor in the US isolation was the role of Iran as head of the G-77 group of developing countries with China and India as key allies. Correspondents covering the Bonn meeting reported that it was clear that many of the smaller nations did not want to let the opportunity pass of giving Mr Bush a diplomatic bloody nose.

Delegates hissed and booed at the US delegation when they entered the Plenary chamber while tired but elated delegates were hugging each other. So embarrassing and complete was the US isolation at Bonn that US energy secretary Spencer Abraham offered no comment at all and his staff referred all questions on the Bonn agreement to the State Department. Ms Condoleza Rice, US National Security Advisor and trouble-shooter in Europe was hard pressed to defend the US position and could only promise to "stay on board" whatever that meant given the US rejection of the Protocols and recent US energy policy which will result in an estimated 35 per cent increase in emissions of GHGs and, according to one commentator, "reads like a recipe for heating up the planet." While most European countries appear to have been driven towards environmental friendly positions by enormous popular pressure, it appears clear that the self-proclaimed champion of democracy is influenced more by the pressure of its oil and other energy lobbies, known to have been leading supporters and financiers of George W Bush’s campaign for the US presidency.

Domestically, in the US, the Democrat opposition moved fast to capitalise on the Bush administration’s isolation, pushing through a measure in the US Senate which restores 4.5 billion dollars (Rs 20,250 crore) in funds for programmes addressing climate change which the White House had attempted to cut. The Bill drew significant Republican support and clearly reflected worries of elected representatives about their constituents’ opinions. One Democratic Senator said that this vote "underscores that the Bush administration’s initial approach of ignoring climate change altogether is beyond imperfect --- it’s unacceptable."

Indeed, it would be foolhardy for anyone to believe that the road ahead will be easy without the US on board both because of its own enormous emissions which need to be reduced and because of its huge clout internationally. Yet, the determination of the world community to forge ahead in the face of US opposition is indeed heartening and may well signal further such actions in the years to come. As one observer at Bonn put it, the agreement reached there is a geopolitical earthquake. President Bush wants a missile defense shield against possible attacks by "rogue states". But, as one environmentalist group put it, the world community is more keen on building a shield against global warming. And the US is clearly emerging as the world’s leading rogue state.