The Kyoto Protocol
On the 16th February 2005 the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, drawn up in Kyoto, Japan in 1997 to implement the United Nations Framework Convention for Climate Change, finally became international law.
Signatory countries are legally bound to reduce worldwide emissions of six greenhouse gases (collectively) by an average of 5.2% below their 1990 levels by the period 2008-2012.
For the protocol to become law it needed to be ratified by countries accounting for at least 55% of 1990 carbon dioxide emissions. The key to ratification came when Russia, which accounted for 17% of 1990 emissions, signed up to the agreement on 5th November 2004. Ratification of the agreement means Kyoto will receive support from participating countries that emit 61.6% of carbon dioxide emissions.
Member countries have developed their own methods to meet targets. The EU for example has established quotas and a market to buy and sell credits. Unfortunately however some major emitters have not joined making it difficult for resident companies to trade their credits. The official view in the US and Australia is that it would ruin their economies although attitudes appear to be changing.
It will be a difficult task for most of the member countries to meet their Kyoto targets and already nations are falling behind. Spain and Portugal in the EU were 40.5% above 1990 levels in 2002. The Japanese and Canadians are also uncertain about how they will reach their 6% target by 2012.
John Harrison's Comments on Kyoto
Kyoto is now a treaty with the force of international law, however Australia has not joined along with the United States which is a major producer of carbon dioxide. Arguably, it is only a start and there is some doubt whether a legal rather than real economic price for carbon dioxide will be enough to cause us to reduce emissions sufficiently to turn the global warming problem around. One result of not joining however is that Australian businesses will be shut out of the new emerging global emissions market already worth billions of dollars. Given that Eco-Cement and TecEco Tec-Kiln technology is Australian and probably the most carefully thought out strategy we have to directly deal with the problem this is crazy to say the least.
The Kyoto protocol as a treaty will run until 2012 and comes amid a plethora of warnings that climate change is accelerating and we have only a 10-year window in which to turn the problem around.
Former Australian environment Minister Ian Campbell describes the prospect of a two degree rise in temperature as "catastrophic." He comments on Australia's position thus "our position is (that) we believe climate change will have massive negative impacts on Australia's economy and unique bio diversity," yet Australia has still not joined Kyoto.
Many have been cynical about John Howard's submissive relationship with the USA. Is the reason we have not joined related to this? Would Australia have voted for Kyoto on a conscience basis? The fact is that Australia's position on Kyoto is ridiculously contradictory. Our government does not dispute the science, we are in fact on target to meet our 2008 target, yet will not join Kyoto. I was recently told by public servant in the department of environment that the treaty was flawed. We all know that. Ian Campbell says that without developing nations and the US, which is responsible for 25 per cent of global emissions and the third-largest per capita polluter in the world, the treaty will not fix the problem of global warming. We know the treaty will not fix the problem, but we should still join. As Nicholas Stern recently said on the 28th March, 2007 to the Australian National Press Club, it is a question of demonstrating to others the need for a bipartisan approach. Refusing to ratify the protocol, even though we were allowed an increase in emissions of 8 per cent above 1990 levels, a target we are apparently likely to easily meet, is crazy! We are one of the highest CO2 polluters per capita in the world and need to show the rest of the world we are doing our share and committed to change.
According to the government Kyoto would hurt the nation's energy exports and energy intensive industries, exposing it to competition from developing nations such as China, with no binding targets in the first round. Joining Kyoto would be symbolic of our intentions to the rest of the world to do something and would allow Australian companies to more easily trade in the new carbon market that is evolving, especially in Europe. The Japanese and Singapore governments want carbon credits we could sell them if we were members of Kyoto. As Japan is one of our largest trading partners a business case based on this alone should be sufficient.
Conservationists and the Federal Opposition argue Australia should sign Kyoto, regardless of its shortcomings, as a matter of good faith and for a change they are totally correct on this. They also point out that Kyoto was always designed as a first step and never meant to engage developing nations in the first phase, as it was rich nations that had created the problem of global warming. Kyoto is a pilot treaty, what matters is the signal Australia sends to the rest of the world. What also matters to businesses like TecEco is the ability to factor into projects carbon credits.
Many "clean" businesses like TecEco will suffer until sense prevails in government circles. Others affected include, Global Renewable's, which captures greenhouse emissions from landfill, renewable energy companies like Pacific Hydro and Hydro Tasmania as well as tree-planting business such as CO2 Australia. The Australasian Emissions Trading Forum, representing these businesses, has calculated the lost opportunities could reach $1.5 billion and they have not yet costed the beneficial impact of TecEco technology. Recent research shows even farmers could earn credits under Kyoto by changing land practices.
The labor environment spokesman Anthony Albanese has taken the opposite view as would be expected of an opposition. He says "it is extraordinary that we are going to meet our Kyoto target but not receive the benefit that ratification would bring to Australia in terms of economic opportunity." Correct Mr Albanese.
Some such as Meyer Hillman[1] in his recent book push the case for carbon rationing. I cannot see this working without one person or country standing over another with the power of force. There is no doubt sequestration on a massive scale is at least also required and a more viable alternative.
Apparently the Bush Administration and the Howard Government are putting their faith in future technology discoveries. George and John, the technology is already here! You are welcome to talk to TecEco any time. Have a look at Gaia Engineering, our Tec-Kiln and Eco-Cements.
The solution has to be holistically conceived and economically driven with as little interruption to the way we live as possible. Technological change towards greater sustainability will bring economic benefits not stagnation. Not only must we convert to non fossil fuel energy as quickly as possible but we must embark on sequestration on a massive scale using all the technologies we have. Such an integrated approach must be driven by economics or it will not happen. Putting a legal price on carbon through taxation mechanisms as in Kyoto could be just the trigger we need to initiate processes that put a real price on the gas. Carbon can however only become an economic resource with a change in the technology paradigm of the scale contemplated by TecEco as in the diagram below.
The TecEco Gaia Engineering project combines a number of processes that can turn the problems of global warming, waste and potable water around. There are several permutations in which Gaia Engineering can be delivered including a brine and silicate route as depicted in the sketch above.
According to Dr John Wright, director of CSIRO's Energy Transformed Flagship Program, "It will have to be worldwide action. People will be driving more fuel-efficient cars and living in buildings that are more energy-efficient. We will be more conscious of the little things that have an accumulative effect, like turning lights off when you don't need them, and not heating or cooling entire houses, just sections. These are just the normal conservation activities that we should do now, but don't, because it is not a major blip on our consciousness."
I am going a lot further by advocating biomimicry on a huge scale. We must like animals and plants find uses for carbon to construct our homes, in this way we can modify the carbon cycle with what amounts to industrial photosynthesis as in the diagram below.
"It is going to be an almighty task to make those greenhouse cuts in that time," says Dr Wright. "Fifty years seems like a long time, but it will go quickly."
Why are the Australian government is moving on as though blindfolded? Why aren't they ceasing the opportunity TecEco are giving them to lead the world? I don't know. All I can tell my readers is that like my ancestor the John Harrison who solved the longitude problem and invented the watch, I am feeling the total frustration of it all. When will meaningful dollars emerge to move this great project forward on the scale we need it?