|
Kyoto Treaty
With Warwick McKibbin
Nonresident Senior Fellow, The Brookings Institution
Wednesday, July 25, 2001; 4 p.m. EDT
On Monday, after an all night negotiation session, 180 countries resolved rules for implementation of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol to limit global production of "greenhouse gases." The United States was the only major nation that opposed the rules.
What does this mean for America? Why did 95 Senators and the Bush administration reject the Kyoto treaty? How does the world view this action?
Warwick McKibbin, Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution, was online from Australia to take your questions and comments on the technical and political aspects on the Kyoto Protocol.
Below the transcript follows.
Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Washington, D.C.:
I read somewhere that Russia will be a major beneficiary of Kyoto because many of its businesses have failed since 1990, and therefore it will be able to sell emissions credits without having to make any changes. How can the goal of Kyoto be to slow global warming if the signatories are all jockeying to comply without really reducing emissions?
Warwick McKibbin: The Kyoto treaty takes the unusual approach of choosing a single year at which to target. This is 1990. So everything is relative to 1990 (not relative where we are today). Thus any country who has reduction due to historical accident such as Russia will benefit. Russia has had an economic collapse and therefore is below 1990 emission and can sell additoonal emission permits to the rest of the world. Any countries who took action for environmental reasons before 1990 will be penalized most because they must cut even further to hit the 1990 target. I believe that emissions that have already been made should not then be used to dilute a target - that is if you really want a target.
New York, N.Y.:
Do you think that, had the U.S. agreed with the compromise to the Kyoto Treaty, that the United States industrial complex would be able to meet the restrictions that would be placed on them?
Would the U.S. public be able to meet the restrictions, as well?
Warwick McKibbin: The problem is not whether we should have a target but how quickly it can be reached. The problem with Kyoto is that there are firm targets and timetables (5.2% reduction by 2008-2012) without knowing the cost. The US (and most countries) are well above their targes. The US is probably now close to 18% above it's target for emissions. Depending on how creative you are with sinks (things which absorb carbon such as trees) you need to have a either a signficant restructuring of the US economy in the next 7 years or a significant reduction in economic activity. The evidence from economic models is not good news on this as they indicate significant costs over this rapid a time frame. I believe that we need to move towards a low carbon world but the Kyoto timetable and approach is likely to be costly - there is a great deal of uncertainty. Perhaps there are wonderful technological breakthroughs around the corner but if this optimistic view is wrong then there will be a significant economic impacts with unclear benefits in the near term.
Arlington, Va.:
What are the United State's concerns with the Kyoto Treaty? In your opinion, are they valid?
Warwick McKibbin: The US concerns are that the Kyoto Protocol sets targets and timetable for emission reeductions without any knowledge of the costs. Optimists say the costs are low. Pessimists say they are high. The best evidence says that it is likely to cost the US economy between 0.5% and 3% of income per year for what Scientists say is a small reduction in emissions which won't impact on the climate for about 50 years. I agree with the US concerns - the Kyoto Protocol is the wrong approach. What the US needs to do, however, is to offer a better alternative rather than leave a vacuum.
Laurel, Md.:
Under a Kyoto-type agreement, what is to stop a dishonest country from reporting false low levels of carbon emissions from within its borders?
Warwick McKibbin: Nothing. The agreement reached in Bonn has no penalties for non-compliance. The problem with Kyoto is that if it turns out to be easy to reduce emissions then most countries will stay with it. If it turns out to be expensive then countries will either walk away or will find ways to hide emissions - thus the agreeemnt will collapse - or politicians will find ways to change the targets (i.e. through sinks definitions) and so it will become a non effective agreement. In my view this is not a good way to address a problem that might be very important.
Columbus, Ohio:
I read a Times of London article that mentioned that for the U.S. to reach the Kyoto target of 7 percent below our 1990 level, given the pace of U.S. economic growth between then and now, the U.S. would have to reduce emissions by 40 percent. How could the U.S. cut our emissions that much without smashing the economy and having the government regulate everything from what cars we can drive, how much we can use our air conditioning and closing factories all over the country?
Warwick McKibbin: The US economy cannot be restructured between now and 2008 to 2012 without significant costs. You possibly could do this over a much longer time frame of 30-50 years but that is not the approach of Kyoto. The problem is that the targets are expressed as relative to 1990. As you say the US target is 93% of 1990. Today the US is probably 15% above 1990. Therefore the target is very tight as you say. It is infeasible to hit a tight target without a major technological breakthrough. Optimists argue it is possible - if they are wrong they Kyoto will set back sensible approaches to climate change policy for decades. It is a very risky approach given the uncertainty about climate change and the cost of taking extreme action. It would be better to raise the price of carbon by a known amount and give inductry the incentive to move away from carbon over time.
Austin, Tex.:
Many in the Republican party are not convinced that there is a real global warming threat. What are your thoughts? Has the rest of the world prematurely jumped onto the global warming bandwagon? Can a worldwide warming trend be proven?
Warwick McKibbin: The scientific evidence is mixed. I believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that global warming might be a serious issue but this is highly uncertain. Therefore we should start to take some action as insurance. But this action must be low cost and whatever institutional framework is created must be flexible to deal with new information as it comes along. The approach of fixed targets for emissions at unknown cost is the wrong approach. The world has jumped onto the wrong bandwagon in terms of a panic response. A much better approach is summarized in a Brookings Policy Brief:
http://www.brook.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb066/pb66.htm
Alexandria, Va.:
It seems, from what you are saying, that there are huge flaws with the current treaty. If this is the case, why has no one else objected, or are we simply not hearing those objections in the states?
Warwick McKibbin: A lot of people are objecting within Governments but you don't hear much because of the growing role of the green lobby in many countries. Why stick your neck out when we are only at the stage of international theater. The negotiations you read about are mainly between environment agencies and not economic agencies. Once the issue goes from international negotiation to introducing binding legislation in each country, you will hear a lot more noise.
Reston, Va.:
If Kyoto is so bad, why are 179 for it?
The CIA's report that says a major trend in the developing world will be increased urbanization and all its problems. How can a nation that's 40 years behind us in industrial development agree to limit output just as they're hitting their smokestack stride?
Warwick McKibbin: The last time I looked, only 8 small island states have actually ratified the Kyoto Protocol- that is they have passed it into domestic law. By signing an international agreement it is not binding - it is only when it is ratified. 179 countries are not for it - the environment Ministers and their representatives are for it. There is a big difference. Most sensible people would agree that something should be done about climate change but they don't realise just how flawed the Kyoto approach is.
Texas:
What sort of "vacuum" is the United States leaving right now? I am guessing that many other countries are not 100 percent behind the Kyoto Protocol. Why are they not stepping up to the plate to work with the United States to draft an alternative?
Warwick McKibbin: The vacuum is that a concrete alternative has not been formally put on the table. There are closed-door discussions of alternatives (many based on price targets for carbon rather than quantitity targets for emissions) but these don't get public light because of the politics of environemtnal policy in most countries. The climate change negotiations are highly political so it will take firm leadership to push an alternative approach. Countries like Australia, New Zealand, Canada and Japan would I beleive support a more sensible alternative but not without US leadership it seems.
Baltimore, Md.:
Is it correct that OPEC nations expect to be compensated for the lost revenue from countries that cut back on fossil-fuel use?
Warwick McKibbin: That is one of many debates currently occurring.
Arlington, Va.:
Australia has been one of the few countries in general agreement with the U.S. against implementation of the Kyoto protocols. With Japan's decision to proceed with the protocols, what kind of pressure will Canberra and other governments be under to do the same?
Warwick McKibbin: The pressure doesn't become irresistable until countries actually start to ratify the protocol (i.e. pass into law). I cannot believe that Japan will ratify despite the rhetoric. Japan's emissions are about 13% above target despite not growing for a decade and facing a massive economic problem. Ratifying Kyoto would be a severe blow to a weakened economy.
Somewhere, USA:
So, what you are telling us is that the United States is being sensible by not flying its negotiators all around the world in a feigned attempt at making policy rules for a global treaty that will not hold. So why are all the other countries?
Warwick McKibbin: What I am saying is that we need an international treaty for climate change and the US needs to be the one who leads this process with an approach that addresses the key uncertainties about climate change policy. Whatever is done must be low cost and give incentives for industry and individuals to reduce carbon emissions where is is cheap to do so. I have been involved in the international meetings since 1991 and frankly I can't understand what is in the minds of the negotiators except to protect their country's self interest a much as possible. Kyoto is not a coherent plan. It is a political compomise thrashed out by a group of totally exhausted people in Kyoto. It now has momentum because of the environmental lobby and a large industry who stand to make profits out of a complicated treaty. I am a strong believer that common sense will ultimately prevail - but is frustrating to watch.
Washington, D.C.:
What are your thoughts about a two pronged attack: 1st cap methane, then 30 years later begin to phase in CO2 caps. A recent study (Hansen?) indicates that GHG reduction will be roughly the same for the first 30 years. During this time, we can develop a better approach to limiting CO2.
Warwick McKibbin: I am against caps because this implies uncertain costs. A better approach would be to raise the charges for emissions - like a tax. However the revenue from the tax would not go to the government but goes to whoever has the property rights over the emissions. This is set out in my Brookings Policy Brief.
New York, N.Y.:
What do you think of the potential of fuel cells to drastically reduce CO2 emissions?
Warwick McKibbin: I am not a technology expert. I suspect that fuel cells might be part of the answer. But to get there you need to raise the price of carbon. This will make alternatives more economically viable. An alternative to carbon will unltimately emerge but I don't think any particular technology should be targeted except by making carbon based tecahnologies more expensive.
Arlington, Va.:
You mention the cost as being a justifiable reason for not going ahead with the Kyoto Treaty.
But what about the long term costs of environmental damage. Granted the U.S. won't bear the brunt of these costs, but it seems a bit selfish (to say the least) to expect small countries, like Bangladesh, to bear the cost of environmental damage resulting from the greenhouse effect when the U.S. is one of the major causes.
What about the possibility that is being discussed in Europe right now, of designing a framework by which these poorer countries can legitimately sue the U.S. for environmental damage?
Warwick McKibbin: I think Kyoto is the wrong approach but we should take action because of possible long term costs. I want an agreement that will work not one that will collapse and then make sensible international action harder to achieve. Most environmental problems in developing coutnries are local not global. I think a lot of citizens could sue their own governemnts in developing countries for lack of clean water or clean air - if this approach was considered.
Alexandria, Va.:
Is this how most international policy is made, or just environmental? It sounds pretty ridiculous to waste 10 years on a treaty that will not hold up in each countries homeland. Who is running this?
Warwick McKibbin: I hope not.
Washington, D.C.:
It appears that many of the United State's original concerns (greenhouse-gas trading, counting natural carbon-absorbing sinks, etc.) were adopted in Bonn. To what extent were these elements added in response to U.S. concerns?
Warwick McKibbin: The US and the Umbrella group were very important in getting some sensible adjustment to the original approach
washingtonpost.com:
That was our last question today. Thanks to everyone who joined the
discussion.
| |
© Copyright 2002 The Washington Post Company | 
