Kyoto Lives!

The first entry on this blog was a prediction of the death of the Kyoto Protocol at Durban as Canada, Russia and Japan weren't going to enter into a second commitment period and the EU had said that it would only do so if the environmental integrity of the agreement was improved (which is code for more nations joining the second commitment period (KP2)).  This looked like an impasse without visible resolution.

Having seen the eventual end of the CoP 17 high level segment happily my prediction was wrong.  There will be a KP2, albeit only with an EU+ group of countries (EU, probably Australia etc).

This does mean that it will cover less than 15% of global emissions and thats a shame.  There is still to be debate on what targets many nations will take on under this KP2 and I don't expect them to be deep, indeed I think its more likely that they will be in line with the existing domestic targets.

While the low level of global emissions that are covered by the KP2 reduces its environmental integrity, I think its been of huge value in two other ways.

1) A a vessel to carry on the existing frameworks like the CDM and JI etc.  The CDM for example has had a huge amount of work put into it, particularly in improving monitoring and verification, and in improving the access and ease of use for LDCs.  This is the scheme that Australia will use under the clean energy futures package for the international offsetting of our domestic emissions for example.

2) As a negotiating piece.  I suspect the statements by Connie Hedegaard that I discussed above may well have been simple gamesmanship.  I think the desire to improve the environmental integrity of a KP2 is sincere, however the EUs historical attachment to the KP and to its position of international leadership on this issue suggests that they would not have given up on it easily.  So I think the statements to the effect that "we wont sign a KP2 unless lots of others do" may have been gamesmanship and allowed the EU broadly, and Hedegaard personally, to have a position they could retreat from in exchange for other nations, particularly developing nations doing something in return.  Something like the outcome of "the EU will sign up to a KP2 now (and remember how difficult the financial position of the EU is at the moment) if developing and transitional nations take on binding targets  in 2020".

If thats the case, I really don't want to play poker against Hedegaard.  I can see myself getting the poker equivalent of a 'pantsing' in pool*.

Either way, Kyoto lives on in a new guise.  I wonder if, in 50 years, we'll be talking about the KP not as a vessel for directly reducing emissions, but as a vessel for much greater action in the long run by being used as a negotiating tool and carrier for the CDM etc.

For the moment, however, it can rightfully claim that reports of my death are greatly exaggerated (with apologies to Mark Twain).



* For those not familiar with that rule, its the punishment for losing a game of Pool without sinking a ball.  You can probably guess from there that the punishment involves the lack of pants and a run of some sort ;)