A New Hope for a New Kyoto

February 7, 2007 by Killian Clarke

Almost one week ago, the United Nations dealt a decisive blow to the dying remnants of what was once a robust group of global warming skeptics. On Friday, February 2 the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which consists of hundreds of the world's top environmental scientists, released a report claiming that it was 90 percent certain that human activity had contributed to the rapid increases in global warming over the last century. The language of the report was unnervingly urgent: do something now, or else.

In the days following the report, responses from around the world dominated the headlines of the world's newspapers. China was quick to condemn the lack of action on the part of developed countries. Brazilian President, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, echoed this sentiment, saying that Western nations were in no position to lecture Brazil about their deforestation problems. And in Europe, the European Commission proposed a sweeping measure that would limit carbon dioxide emissions in automobiles.

The desire to take action has also manifested itself within the United Nations. International actors have begun to pressure Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon to call an emergency summit on global warming to address the pressing issue. The real question is, would such a summit do any good? Or would the result be simply a rehashed and recycled version of the already existing, and largely ineffective, Kyoto Protocol?

Bu the change in international attitudes regarding global warming certainly lead one to hope that such an outcome would not be the case. Indeed, initial responses to such a summit have been positive, even from some of the world's worst polluters: Japan, Germany, China, and India. In my opinion, such a change in attitude is crucial for creating an atmosphere in which real and enforceable promises can be made.

Evidence of this can be found not in the manner in which Kyoto was developed, but in Kyoto's predecessor: the Montreal Protocol. There has, of course, been endless analysis as to why Montreal succeeded where Kyoto failed–but in the end it all comes down to attitude. The Montreal Protocol was implemented to limit CFC emissions that were leading to the creation of a gaping hole in the ozone layer. While there was certainly strong opposition from certain countries and private actors to the treaty, there were two elements to the formation of the Montreal Protocol that were conspicuously absent from Kyoto–conclusive and undeniable evidence that CFCs were leading directly to ozone depletion, and a strong atmosphere of cooperation and willingness to take on the problem among the summit's participants.

But now, following this most recent development, there has been a fundamental change in the terms of debate. Indeed the report may have created both of the necessary conditions for decisive action to be taken: it has rendered the connection between carbon dioxide emissions and global warming almost uncontestable, and it has created an atmosphere that may allow swift, decisive, and comprehensive action. Even the United States, a country that releases 25 percent of the world's carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and which has also vehemently condemned the Kyoto Protocol and refused to sign it, may be forced to comply.

The months ahead will either confirm or deny this suspicion. But I suspect that it may not be long until the world finally decides it is ready to confront global warming head-on.