The Politics of Global Climate Change
Human-induced climatic change, caused by steadily escalating emissions of the so-called greenhouse gases is now recognised by politicians and scientists alike as a serious global threat to the Earth.
This year will be crucial in the international politics of climate change and its solutions. December will see a major conference of the parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) to be held in Kyoto, Japan. The meeting will consider significant new agreements to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Only by agreeing to undertake immediate and ongoing reductions in greenhouse gases can nations of the world meet their own pledge to protect the climate from "dangerous human interference", quickly enough to ensure the world's ecology, food supplies and economies are not damaged irrevocably. This is the objective of the FCCC signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992.
This year we have seen intensive negotiations in the lead up to the Kyoto meeting. Governments have already agreed to negotiate a new Protocol to the Convention containing specific reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The issue at stake is the extent and effectiveness of those reductions.
Solutions to the burning of fossil fuels, the main cause of the human made greenhouse gas problem, are available now: energy efficiency, solar and other renewable energies. The problem is not technical--it is political.
The Dynamics - Politics
There have been three further negotiating sessions in 1997 in the lead up to the COP3 summit. The United States, Japan, Australia and the European Union will be critical players in determining the success or otherwise of the process of negotiations in Kyoto.
As the world's biggest greenhouse gas emitter, the United States is a key player. Currently it appears to be politically schizophrenic: while President Clinton emphasises the need to act to protect the climate, the US proposal is appallingly weak and falls short of all sensible expectations.
To ensure effective and measurable outcomes, it is essential that Japan, as host, plays a strong leadership role in the lead-up to and at Kyoto. Thus far there have been no signs of such leadership, despite Japan's placement at the cutting edge in emerging world markets in solar and other renewable technologies. On the contrary, by proposing a weak target they have actively undermined the negotiation process.
The European Union has traditionally been a progressive force in the climate negotiations, but is currently distracted by internal differences. Their proposal includes a 2005 target and supports emission reductions of 15% by 2010.
Australia's position is currently among the most destructive in the climate negotiations, as it chooses to protect its coal industry over any other domestic or international concern.
An Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) has been formed by 36 nations particularly vulnerable to the impacts of sea level rise and increases in storm severity resulting from human-induced climatic change. In 1994 this group presented a blueprint for a legal Protocol, containing commitments for industrialised nations of a 20% reduction in CO2 emissions by the year 2005 - similar to the "Toronto target" identified in 1988. The group of G77 and China have put a proposal up which is similar to the European proposal with further reductions after 2010.
The Dynamics - Industry
Not surprisingly the world's rich, influential fossil fuel industry have consistently tried to undermine political action on climate change. Using industrial front groups such as the US "Global Climate Coalition" and the "International Climate Change Partnership", oil, coal and car interests have targeted the credibility of climate science and climate models, and scaremongered about the possible economic and employment impact of reducing CO2 emissions. They have repeatedly tried to deflect attention away from the West's responsibility to clean up after the mess it has created, ignored the cost of "no action", and have moved to suppress the development of clean and climate-friendly alternative solutions.
Greenpeace
The science tells us that the minimum and urgent first step required to move the world toward protecting the climate is a legally binding cut in CO2 emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by the year 2005. Further large reductions must follow. A 50% reduction must be achieved no later than 2020 and possibly much earlier. Depending on action to stop deforestation and on the transfer of clean and renewable technologies to developing countries, a reduction of around 35-65% by 2010 will be needed by industrialised countries to stay within the safe emissions corridor -- ie to avoid ecologically dangerous climate changes.