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 and 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 is that it would ruin their economies although attitudes appear to be changing. The treaty also does not restrict China, the world's faster growing economy.
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 are well behind as are the Japanese and Canadians who will most likely not reach their 6% target by 2012.
Our view is that in spite of the fact that Kyoto has degenerated into a promissory system for political elective purposes it is still important that countries take part in the process. As at the date of writing the US had not ratified the treaty and China was not subject to it.
The new Rudd government in Australia recently joined however the United States which is a major producer of carbon dioxide has not. Arguably, the treaty is defective 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. As John Howard, the former Australian prime minister pointed out the Kyoto treaty is flawed. As he and his ministers pointed out 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 our view is that countries should still join as it is the process which is important and one result of countries not joining is that businesses will be shut out of the new emerging global emissions market already worth billions of dollars.
According to the US government Kyoto would hurt the nation's economy, exposing it to competition from developing nations such as China, with no binding targets in the first round. We argue that joining Kyoto would be symbolic of the US's intentions to the rest of the world to do something and would also allow US companies to more easily trade in the new carbon market that is evolving, especially in Europe.
In the US the Democrats agree that the country should sign Kyoto, regardless of its shortcomings, as a matter of good faith. 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 the US sends to the rest of the world. What also matters to businesses like TecEco is the ability to factor into projects carbon credits.
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. Our comments about its on its replacement is to be found at Replacing Kyoto
Some such as Meyer Hillman[1] in his recent book push the case for carbon rationing. We cannot see this sort of strategy working without one person or country standing over another with the power of force. Energy is too coupled to the economy and is still 95% sourced from fossil fuels. Geosequestration will not work because there will always be some leakage which in time renders it useless. It is unlikely substitution of base load generation can occur quickly enough to for example nuclear and It follows that anthropogenic sequestration on a massive scale using man made carbonate as we advocate is at least also required. We argue that it is a more viable alternative.
Apparently the Bush Administration are putting their faith in future technological discoveries. They should wake up as the technology is already here! All concerned are welcome to talk to TecEco any time. Have a look at Gaia Engineering, our Tec-Kiln and Eco-Cements.
Our Gaia Engineering solution involves anthropogenic sequestration and has been holistically conceived and will be economically driven with as little interruption to the way we live as possible. TecEco and associates believe 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 anthropogenic sequestration on a massive scale using all the technologies we have including our Gaia Engineering platform. Such an integrated approach must be profitable or it will not happen. Putting a legal price on carbon through taxation mechanisms as in Kyoto could be just the trigger needed 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 on the scale contemplated by TecEco as in the diagram below.
Gaia Engineering
The TecEco Gaia Engineering technology platform combines a number of processes that can turn the problems of global warming, waste and potable water around and there are several permutations in which Gaia Engineering can be delivered including a seawater or brine route as depicted in the sketch above.
TecEco advocate anthropogenic sequestration using Gaia Engineering which is biomimicry on a huge scale. Carbonate has always been the long term sink and building with carbonate is no giant leap of faith. We must like animals and plants find uses for carbon to construct our homes, in this way anthropogenic sequestration can modify the carbon cycle with what amounts to industrial photosynthesis as in the diagram below.
Anthropogenic Modification to the Carbon Cycle
We cannot understand why governments are not ceasing the opportunity TecEco are giving them to solve the most pressing problem of our times.