Climate change and the future of the Kyoto Protocal

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Seth Dunn: Research Associate

August 2, 2002 - 12:00pm EDT

Talk with Worldwatch Research Associate Seth Dunn, whose forthcoming Worldwatch Paper, Reading the Weathervane: Climate Policy from Rio to Johannesburg, examines the twists and turns of climate change policy over the last decade. His paper focuses on 12 key countries and regions, seeing what policies have-and have not-been adopted, what's worked, and what hasn't. The paper's findings have important implications for policymakers, since new policies will be needed, and existing ones strengthened, if the Kyoto Protocol is brought into force.

Ann Arbor, MI: Seth - Many people are betting on "technological fixes" to save our planet from over warming. They're prepared to make heavy investments in new hardware technologies. But what about the investments in social science research and institutional changes that are also necessary? Not only are humans the major cause of greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere, but we're the most adaptable of all species. Who's doing the studies in how human societies could (or should) restructure themselves to prevent or adapt to the harmful effects of climate change and who's funding it?

Seth Dunn: Good question. If you take a look at the work being performed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or the IPCC (see www.ipcc.ch), you'll find that there is an extensive body of research on the social science implications of climate change. These include the economic, sociological, and anthropological dimensions of what climate change will mean for societies, as well as the behavioral and societal changes needed both to mitigate the problem and to adapt to the changes to which we are already committed because of the inertia of the climate system.

The Internet: What do you think are the major achievements and failures of (global) climate change policy over the past decade?

Seth Dunn: One of the clear lessons to emerge from the first decade of climate policy is that the largely-voluntary approach of the original framework convention, agreed to at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, had a limited impact on government policy and therefore on global emissions trends. This is an important point, because the largely-voluntary approach is still being recycled today, ten years later, by the U.S. government and some parts of the business community despite the evidence that this won't get us where we need to go. So the weak response by national governments would be the major failure. In terms of successes, I would point to the fossil fuel subsidy cuts, energy tax reform, and renewable energy policy in Europe, and to some energy efficiency programs in the United States. I would also argue that the Kyoto Protocol, if brought into force and effectively implemented, will eventually be seen as a major achievement. But it's too soon to tell.

Ann Arbor, MI: Seth - I strongly concur with the concerns of the scientific community about the effects of rising greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. However I'm puzzled by your fixation with "carbon intensity". For each country, you juxtapose graphs of rising annual carbon emissions with graphs of declining millions of tons of carbon/per economic output (measured in US$ no less). What does "carbon intensity" have to do with anything? Aren't you mixing apples and oranges? The atmosphere doesn't care about "carbon efficiency"-- only about the total physical amount of greenhouse gases emitted. By showing declining national carbon intensities, you confuse the issue and support an illusion that we are making progress. It's a bit like the doctor proclaiming the operation a success; it's too bad the patient died!

Seth Dunn: I fully agree that carbon intensity is not by itself a sufficient indicator of progress toward stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. As the past decade of trends reveals, if the rate of decarbonization isn't fast enough, then emissions will continue to rise. But while ultimately lowering emissions is needed to stabilize concentrations, carbon intensity can be a useful supplementary device--especially to policymakers who are skeptical that emissions can be reduced without negatively impacting the economy.

Aarhus, Denmark: Hi Seth. How do you see the prospects of the Bush administration's adoption of the Kyoto Protocol and how will you evaluate the future of the Kyoto protocol if the US still declines to adopt it in the future?

Seth Dunn: I do not foresee the Bush administration adopting the Kyoto Protocol in the near future, if at all. But it appears increasingly likely that the Protocol will be brought into force by late this year or early 2003. This is due to the early summer ratifications by the European Union and Japan. If Russia and Poland or Russia and Canada ratify--and officials in all three countries have stated their intent to do so--then conditions for entry into force will be satisfied. This will create some complications for multinationals operating in the United States, so there may be elements of the business community pushing for the U.S. to develop a U.S. plan for emissions trading and other policies that will allow the U.S. to eventually merge with the international trading system now emerging.

Berea, KY: What is the current status and future of carbon credits? What is the future of coal?

Seth Dunn: An estimated 85-105 million tons of CO2 equivalent have been traded since 1996, with more than half this amount in 2001 alone. So a carbon credit market is emerging, though in pieces--the U.K., Denmark, the EU. In North America, there is a new Chicago Climate Exchange aimed at voluntarily trading emissions among companies. The future of coal depends on whether governments emphasize switching to natural gas for power generation--as a number of countries, include the U.K., have done--or look more to sequestering the carbon somehow--which a number of companies are advocating, but which has uncertain economic and environmental impacts. But the fact that climate policy does not bode well for coal can be seen in the power of the industry and key states (West Virginia) in influencing the Bush administration's virtual neglect of carbon emissions in its recent "clean air policy."

Oshawa Ontario Canada: With so many detailed climate studies in the past 15 years having widely divergent conclusions, this has given world leaders an excuse for doing very little. Without pressure from the grassroots we may not see significant change re greenhouse gases in our lifetime. Any suggestions?

Seth Dunn: I would disagree with your characterization of "widely divergent" conclusions on the science of climate change. While there are, and will always be to some extent, uncertainties in climate change science, there is in fact a major consensus that the Earth is warming and that there has been a significant and growing human influence in this warming. (See the IPCC studies, www.ipcc.ch.) There is also considerable consensus about the potential for innovative technologicies and policies to solve the problem. The biggest challenge is political--that the opportunity to postpone decisions is often too tempting for leaders (such as the President of the country to your south). But there are encouraging actions, at the regional, state, and municipal level, of bottom-up climate policies that will ultimately force federal action. Look up ICLEI (www.iclei.org), which was begun in Toronto, I believe, and coordinates city-level action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Hilo, Hawaii: I haven't seen much concerns expressed about melting permafrost relative to other climate change effects. Does permafrost not contain thousands of years of accumulated carbon? Would melting over large areas not result in the release of enough methane and carbon dioxide to start a positive feedback loop leading to a "run away greenhouse effect"? Shouldn't maintaining the permafrost be one of the top priorities?

Seth Dunn: The risk of a positive feedback from the melting of permafrost and consequent release of greenhouse gases is discussed by the IPCC as one of several potential
"surprises"--low or unclear possibility, but high risk--that could lead to larger impacts than otherwise projected. (Other examples include the breakup of the West Antarctic Ice Shelf, which would affect sea levels, and the shutdown of the oceanic heat-carrying "conveyor belt," which could cause severe cooling in northern regions. The risk of surprises argues for a more precautionary and anticipatory policy response, but doesn't receive the attention it should.

Albany NY: What do you think is (or can be)the energy return on investment (EROEI) of a hydrogen based energy system, converting from solar, wind or any other renewable source?

Seth Dunn: There is quite a bit of conflicting literature on this issue, with some arguing that there will be a high return on investment and other contending that the energy costs would outweigh the benefits of switching to renewables and hydrogen. It all depends on what you think the efficiency of the system will be in 20-30 years, when such a system will be more established. Given the current rates of improvement in renewable energy and fuel cell technology, I would expect a higher return than most studies expect today. Visit the International Journal of Hydrogen Energy (at www.elsevier.org) for more on this scientific debate.

Falls Church VA: Along the lines of an earlier question, how can a summit such as this deal with some of the simple, low-cost, but significant lifestyle changes that are neccssary to make a real difference. For example, I'm interested in transport issues and wonder how simply encouraging and enabling people to bicycle and walk can be advanced at a gathering such as this. There are tremendous public health, energy, climate and other benefits from doing this, but there's a real danger these simple solutions will be overlooked.

Seth Dunn: One of the problems with these summits is that there can be something of a disconnect between the heady high-level diplomatic wrangling and the rather mundane but cumulatively essential day-to-day behavior that can actually help solve the problem at hand. As I mentioned in an earlier answer, there is great work being done by the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) to bring together cities that agree to targets to address their emissions and in turn craft public transit, clean energy, and other policies for their municipality. Perhaps you could get Falls Church to join!

Edmonton, Alberta: Following up on a previous question, if carbon intensity is an inadequate indicator (by itself) of progress in reducing the human impact on our climate, what other indicators should be monitored?

Seth Dunn: Obviously, carbon emissions themselves are an important monitor, and with them the levels of carbon dioxide concentrations. Emissions of other greenhouse gases are monitored as well by governments, and increasingly by corporations. And of course, global surface temperatures need to still be monitored closely--a group of U.K. scientists reported yesterday that 2002 is on course to becoming the warmest or second-warmest year on record.

Aarhus, Denmark: Do you see the future operation of the protocol stricly working as a separate MEA or do you see it being emerged under the WTO in some form at a later point in time?

Seth Dunn: I would expect the Protocol to continue as a separate MEA, rather than being merged with the WTO. There does, however, need to be more work in the area of reconciling the goals of these two regimes. Can governments oppose climate policies in other countries as barriers to free trade? Is there a role for trade sanctions against countries failing to comply with the Protocol? Questions such of these have yet to be fully hashed out.

: Seth, thanks for your comments on my earlier question. I am going to attend the upcoming WSSD. What do you envisage could be achieved in relation to climate change polict at the Summit? Thank you.

Seth Dunn: While the WSSD will not be tasked with negotiating the climate regime (the next round of those talks will follow this fall, in New Delhi, India), there is the possibility for progress on energy policy--obviously of major relevance to climate policy, and one of key focal points for the WSSD. A number of governments and NGOs are pushing for agreement on targets for increasing the share of renewable energy use. We support such aspirational targets, which have proved useful in the past, and have engaged in dialogue with the government of Brazil, which is spearheading the effort.

Quinter, KS: Hi Seth, when writing about carbon intesity you mention that wood is much more carbon intesive than coal. When making personal choices about heating our own homes. It would appear, from your comments, that wood heating is a poor choice for home heating when global warming is taken into consideration. Is this the case?

Seth Dunn: Wood heating for home use--fireplaces, stoves--is not a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions. The efficiency of wood burning can be improved in a number of ways--location of the stove and flue, ambient temperature, etc. So on a small scale, it's not necessarily a poor choice.

Guelph, Ontario: In Canada, we have put together teams & networks cutting across universities & government agencies (Health Canada, Environment Canada) to look at links between climate change and major health outcomes (waterborne diseases, foodborne diseases, vector-borne diseases etc). Since health has a much higher public profile and political clout than environment by itself, we are hoping that we can open more widely some of the doors to power to give more serious throught to climate change. It seems to be working, at least on the research side. Is there experience in other countries in getting climate issues in through the "side door" like this?

Seth Dunn: I am aware of your effort in Canada, and it's an essential one--bringing together the climatological and public health communities. One of the major gaps (though quickly getting filled) in climate impact studies has been the area of human health impacts--though it is one of the most compelling topics for the public, and one of the most effective areas for bringing about meaningful policy change. As you might recall, it was evidence of the link between ozone layer depletion from CFCs and skin cancer that really sped up the policy response. There may not be a climatic equivalent of the ozone hole discovered over the Antarctic--which also helped--but having a solid base of research on projections of increased heat wave mortality, malaria risk, and other climate-related vulnerabilities will help lower the threshold for real policy change.

Sacramento, CA: Seth, You mentioned voluntary emission trading. I don't understand how that works. Why would a corporation voluntarily purchase emission credits?

Seth Dunn: Voluntary emissions trading is undertaken by firms that anticipate taking part in a real emissions trading system (i.e. one in which they can obtain credits that can be used against emissions reduction requirements). Not all firms see this worth doing at this point, of course. But it can help these companies gain experience and confidence.

Ann Arbor, MI: Seth -- Energy-wasting urban sprawl is one of the obvious consequences of our cheap energy policies and is heavily subsidized by our housing, financial, transportation, and energy industries. (It's un-American to be critical of large single-family houses with fewer people located in remote areas on acre-size lots.) Is it a waste of time to argue for urban energy efficiency (in the U.S. and around the world) in the face of these allied economic forces?

Seth Dunn: Urban and transport policy are one of the big "blind spots" in my paper--an area where little is being done at the federal level. That's partly due to inertia, and partly due to the need for action at the municipal level, where the solutions will appear.

London, UK: There is an argument that technological fixes will not effectively help regarding global warming, and that the only option is a radical scaling back in energy usage and the entailing dramatic lifestyle change. Do you think renewable energies or energy-saving, technological solutions will be enough to slow down climate change?

Seth Dunn: Rather than be pulled into the simplistic "technological quick-fix versus radical lifestyle change" debate, I would argue for a blend of doing more with less (much greater efficiency, less consumption) and relying increasingly on low- and no-carbon energy sources.

Oshawa, Ontario Canad: I agree that we have the technology smarts to solve this climate change problem. The Ford Motor Company has just designed a new facility and the energy costs are approximatley 50 percent lower with inovations like covering gardens on the roofs to lower air-condioning costs. I was at a NAR Real Estate convention in New Orleans in 1997- put a motion forward to have a study group set up to address climate change & there was no interest. Ironic it was in New Orleans which would be the first American City to go under water.

Seth Dunn: There is an encouraging "green design" movement underway in Europe and Japan, and to an extent here in the United States. This is enabled partly by the advances in building material efficiency and the growing availability of solar roofing and onsite "micropower" options.

Ann Arbor, MI: Seth - Why do we accept that nation-states are the best implementers of greenhouse gas reduction policies and practices? Each country that signed the Kyoto Protocol is a matrix of different social and economic systems, each with its own processes and requirements for cycling greenhouse gases through the atmosphere. Wouldn't it make more sense for like industries, agricultural communities, urban residential planners, in different countries throughout the world work together to devise policies and practices that address their particular needs and conditions rather than to rely on each country to come up with homogenized, one-size fits all type policies?

Seth Dunn: The more decentralized policies and practices you describe are happening to some extent. But at some point there will emerge the need for greater coordination across cities, states, and countries. So we need both the bottom-up and the top-down approaches to solve this problem.

Hilo, Hawaii: A recent Worldwatch publication contained an estimate of the amount of carbon dioxide the oceans can absorbe annually at almost 9 billion tons. Is there no saturation point? Is the natural inflow of calcium (or other limiting minerials) sufficient for the oceans to continue absorbing CO2 over extended periods? Wouldn't "coral bleaching" adversely affect this estimate?

Seth Dunn: I don't think that estimate is correct (and it's definitely not from one of my papers). The amount of potential oceanic carbon absorption is much lower, and will itself be affected by greater oceanic warming. As we will see in coming months with the latest El Nino, oceanic warming can have many impacts on the environment and society.

Dick Bell, Worldwatch Institute: Seth, Thanks so much for being with us today. And thanks for all the great questions. Please join us again in two weeks on August 16, 12 PM EDT, for a live chat with Worldwatch researcher Payal Sampat, who will be talking about her work on the mining.] Thanks.

Seth Dunn: Thank you to those who wrote in and/or watched the chat, and I hope you will enjoy and find useful my new paper on climate policy, "Reading the Weathervane."