A Tale of Two Protocols,By NIRMAL GHOSH

[ozoneorbit]

How Montreal Could Save Us From the Mire of Kyoto

The two protocols stand in stark contrast. But the future of our world
as we know it, depends on them.

The Kyoto Protocol sets binding targets for 37 industrialized
countries and the European community, for reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions, amounting to an average of five per cent against 1990
levels over the five-year period 2008-2012.

But the USA – at an estimated 20 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) per
capita the world’s biggest GHG emitter - has not ratified it.
(Australians recently exceeded Americans in per capita emissions, but
on total volume remained modest in comparison. India’s emissions are
at around 2 tons per capita).

Talks in Bangkok this month aimed at reaching an agreement for
post-2012 emission cuts to curb global warming, ended in trouble, with
developed and developing countries disagreeing on who must make
efforts to cut their emissions, and by when.

Related to that is the central issue of funding for compensation and
adaptation.

Developed countries with only a few exceptions – like Norway which
offered up to a 30 per cent cut in its emissions by 2020 – were
unwilling to commit to deep emission cuts, or to the financial support
which developing countries will need. Each is waiting for the other to
commit. And with the absence of commitment from the USA which is
waiting for domestic legislation, in the shape of the bill currently
being debated in the Senate, the outcome of the international talks
remains uncertain.

If emissions of GHGs - the main driver of global warming - continue to
rise, climate change will reach dangerous and likely catastrophic
levels in around 40 years. Human-induced global warming is
accelerating, partly driven by the feedback effect; melting permafrost
for instance releases methane, a powerful driver of global warming.

A rise of 2 degrees Celsius by 2050 is inevitable if radical measures
are not taken immediately to cut emissions. Developed countries need
to cut collective emissions by between 25 and 40 per cent of 1990
levels by 2020. Even the most ambitious offers at Bangkok failed to
meet that mark.

So far, emission cuts under Kyoto have been well short of the target.
Some climate change experts and thinkers, say Kyoto is clearly a
failure.

The Kyoto Protocol covers a basket of 12 gases, and only deals with
emissions of the total basket, not individual substances. It also does
not deal with reducing consumption.

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, has
specific control measures for phasing out the use of specific ozone
depleting gases.

The Montreal Protocol is the only international environmental treaty
to which every single country on the planet has signed up. It is also
arguably the most successful international environment treaty ever.

The Montreal Protocol was established in 1987 after the hole in the
planet’s protective ozone layer was discovered. It offers concessions
and grace periods to individual countries to assist in phasing out
ozone depleting substances (ODS).

Since 1991 to July 2009 the Multilateral Fund in Montreal, has
disbursed US $2.3 billion to finance the phase out of ODS. The issue
is huge and complex; ODS have been – and in many cases still are –
used in hundreds of applications covering several industries, directly
affecting hundreds of thousands of jobs, and impacting millions.

Because ODS are also drivers of global warming, the phase out of
chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) – the original villain and destroyer of
ozone – has yielded significant benefits in terms of slowing global
warming. Dollar for dollar and ton for ton, phase outs under the
Montreal Protocol, besides stabilizing the loss of ozone, has
delivered four times the benefits in reducing GHG, than emission
reductions under Kyoto.

Kyoto deals with huge volumes. Montreal deals with smaller volumes –
but the gases pack more global warming punch.

Under Montreal, CFCs have been steadily replaced with a family of
gases called HCFCs – which also deplete ozone and are also GHGs. HCFCs
are now being phased out at staggered rates around the world.

Their replacement – a family of gases called HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons)
– does not harm the ozone layer at all. But there’s a catch, and a big
one – HFCs are powerful drivers of global warming.

But HFCs, as greenhouse gases, are under Kyoto, not Montreal.

Kyoto’s focus is on CO2 and methane, which are the two big drivers of
climate change. For Kyoto, HFC is a minor gas at this stage. So
efforts to phase out HFCs are in danger of being lost in the wider
jungle of Kyoto, where battles are being fought on a larger political
and economic scale and in excruciating complexity.

But with the sustained boom in purchasing of appliances like air
conditioners and refrigerators in China and India, HFC consumption is
skyrocketing.

Currently, HCFs heat-trapping contribution to global warming is less
than 1 per cent that of CO2. But according to a recent report by Dutch
and US-based scientists, in the worst case scenario, the use of HFCs
could cause global warming equivalent to the impact of between 28 – 45
per cent of emissions of carbon dioxide by 2050.

‘’HFCs present a significant threat to the world's efforts to
stabilise climate emissions’’ the report's lead author Dr Guus
Velders of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, has said.

At the UN Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) talks in Bangkok this
month, Mauritius and the Federated States of Micronesia, followed by
the US, Canada and Mexico, tabled a proposal to add HFCs to the basket
of controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol.

They proposed establishing a phase-down schedule for HFCs with a grace
period for developing countries, with full incremental cost funding
through the Multilateral Fund to assist developing countries in the
phase-down. Compliance would still have to be reported to the Kyoto
Protocol or its successor.

The logic of such a move is simply that Montreal has delivered, while
Kyoto has not. HFCs have been created by Montreal, so it is Montreal
which should deal with them. Plus, stakeholders in HFC production to
consumption chain, are the same as those with whom the Montreal
Protocol is already dealing with.

There is an emerging consensus that the move should be made. The
European Union supported the proposal at Bangkok. It has strong
support from independent environmental non government organizations.

Opposition is expected from India and China which have both invested
in HFC production and use. Also, the new approach will have legal
ramifications. All countries will have to ratify the changes in both
the Kyoto and the Montreal Protocols. The issue will be discussed next
month at the Montreal Protocol's conference of parties in Egypt - a
meeting it would do the world well to watch closely.

Moving HFCs from Kyoto to Montreal is not as simple as it sounds. But
it is one way, supported by the logic of science and the proven track
record of the Montreal Protocol, to make real progress on curbing
global warming rather than watch the Kyoto Protocol and the UNFCCC
fall apart as melting ice caps, rising seas, acidifying oceans and
extreme weather together savage our world.

At worst, it will buy us time.

A version of this piece first appeared in The Straits Times www.straitstimes.com

Nirmal Ghosh, a writer and conservationist based in Bangkok, is a
senior foreign correspondent for The Straits Times. He is also a
Trustee of conservation NGO The Corbett Foundation in India, has
written three books on wildlife, and runs the website http://www.indianjungles.com.He
can be emailed at tige...@yahoo.com