Kyoto Protocol {link:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png}participation map 2005{/link}
A few days away from COP15 it becomes clear that a potential global agreement on climate change will be limited to a political agreement, instead of being the long expected treaty that would extend the Kyoto Protocol beyond 2012 and further enhance the Climate convention. The main obstacle is that the US politically needs to have first a domestic legislation in place before committing to any international agreement. Delays in the Senate make it unlikely that a climate bill could be approved before April 2010. In the meantime, couldn’t President Obama offer a tangible political gesture to the world community and thereby restore leadership and credibility for the US in the climate negotiations?
Our suggestion is that the Obama administration negotiates a deal in Copenhagen by which the US would buy a quantity of emission units corresponding to all emissions exceeding its Kyoto target over the commitment period 2008-2012, some of the money being allocated to adaptation funding in developing countries. There are three major advantages to this:
- The environmental ambition of the Kyoto Protocol would be restored to its original level (5,2% of GHG emission reductions of Annex I countries from 1990 levels).
- The US would credibly and immediately show its willingness to take its part — a major and a leading one — in the world effort on climate change.
- The Copenhagen meeting would deliver a concrete result with benefits for the environment and financial support for adaptation to developing countries.
How much would our proposal cost to the US? Everyone seems to accept that the US cannot meet its Kyoto target. Let us see whether this is true. The Kyoto target for the US is to reduce its net GHG emissions by 7% from their 1990 level over the period 2008-2012. According to US inventories of GHG emissions (submission 2009) the net emissions in 1990 amounted to 5257.3 Mt CO2eq. Therefore over the 5 years Kyoto period, the maximum US emissions allowed by the Protocol amount to 24446.5 MtCO2eq (i.e. 0.93 x 5257.3 x 5).
Now, according to the most recent inventory, the figure reported for the 2007 actual emissions is 6087.5 Mt-CO2eq. Therefore, and if we assume that US emissions remain at this 2007 level over the commitment period 2008-2012, we can project that the US will have emitted 30437.5 MtCO2eq (= 5 x 6087,5) over that period.To meet its Kyoto objective, the US would thus have to purchase emissions units for an equivalent of 30437,5 – 24446,5 = 5 991 MtCO2eq . Assuming that 1 ton of CO-2equivalent can be purchased for 10 US$ the total cost to bail out the US from its Kyoto commitment would be 59 910 million $((A more accurate estimate should be based on US GHG emissions projections for the years 2008-2012. However, official projections in the public domain over that period
do not account for the impact of the current economic crisis on US emissions which is known to be significant. We therefore chose to rely on reported data which provided
a relevant order of magnitude for the cost. Similarly, the price of 10$/tCO2eq is a guesstimate based on currently observed prices.)).
Most importantly, the modalities for such a bail out agreement should be defined with the suppliers of credits (mostly Russia and Ukraine) and with developing countries potential suppliers of emission units from the Kyoto Protocol Clean Development Mechanism.A fixed price should be negotiated for this purchase so as to avoid speculative price movements at the announcement of a bail out deal. Finally in order to provide funding to developing countries for adaptation – a request of long standing by developing countries – a fraction of the proceeds of the sale could be allocated to adaptation projects in the most vulnerable least developed countries.
To put the above cost figure in perspective, it represents, over the same time span less than 10% of the observed cost of the war in Irak, or, per year, 0.01% of the US GDP.
With those figures in mind is this project unthinkable?
Economically, it is affordable for the US economy.
Politically it would be a bold move with many advantages, the no least important of which would be to restore confidence in the willingness of the US to act effectively on climate change, and do it globally in a cooperative way. Buying out now the full Kyoto target would prove that. It requires no new treaty, and would open a credible way for trustful negotiations on the future commitments to be concluded soon.