Development mechanism far from clean

By Sanjay Suri

London, England, Oct. 1 (IPS) — It is called the Clean Development Mechanism, and is one of the principal tools to turn the Kyoto Protocol into reality on the ground — or in the air.

The Kyoto protocol expected to come into force by the end of the year following ratification by Russia sets out three mechanisms to reduce emission of greenhouse gases (like carbon dioxide and methane thought to lead to global warming) from industry and transport: emissions trading, joint implementation and the clean development mechanism (CDM).

The Kyoto protocol would apply only to countries that have ratified it from among a list of 38 industrialized countries. But the CDM ropes developing countries into the bargain indirectly.

At the heart of all three mechanisms are ways in which companies in the North can continue to pollute as before, but find other ways to offset this pollution.

The joint implementation (JI) facility allows the 38 industrialized countries listed in Annex 1 of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to implement projects that reduce emissions or provide for carbon removals in other Annex 1 countries. The Annex 1 countries were listed under the UN convention under which most countries agreed in March 1994 to take action to contain climate change attributed to industrial activities.

A German automobile firm can for instance take measures to reduce emissions at one of its plants in Britain, and this reduction would be to its credit within a rating system that gauges emissions and the steps taken to reduce them.

In effect, however, JI would cover mostly industrial investments in Eastern Europe where the cost of technology and other steps to reduce emissions would be less. The pollution through plants at home could continue as usual while the company meets its obligations to cap emissions through a project in an East European country at lower cost.

The CDM extends this principle to developing countries. A country from the North can take on a project in the South with claimed emissions capping facilities built into it. “The certified emissions reductions (CERs) generated by such projects can be used by Annex 1 parties to help meet their own emissions targets,” the Protocol says.

There is no way of knowing yet how the CDM will work, says Greenpeace climate campaigner Steve Sawyer. “But with the Russian move to ratification we will have at least a chance to determine whether it will be useful or not,” he told IPS. “Until then it is just an idea.”

Much will depend on how rigorous the methodologies are that measure emissions related to these projects, Sawyer said. “Many want to be in the CDM pipeline but so far very few types of projects have been chosen, like treating methane gas from land refills and refrigeration technology,” Sawyer said.

The Kyoto Protocol says the CDM is “expected to generate investment in developing countries, especially from the private sector, enhance the transfer of environmentally friendly technologies and promote sustainable development in general.”

The claim that the CDM will be productive for domestic partners also remains to be tested, Sawyer said. “Technology transfer has been much talked about but very little operationalized.”

Recent amendments of the CDM mean that companies from the North may not always have to offer technology to partner firms in developing countries. They can earn emissions certificates by planting trees instead.

It is not clear also who will award the certificates, and on what kind of measurement. The Protocol says companies proposing a CDM project must first prepare a project design document that will then be validated by “an operational entity” and then monitored by “a different operational entity.” This entity will then produce a verification report, and “if all is well, will then certify the emission reductions as real.”

But any additional emissions-cutting technology introduced by companies from industrialized countries in developing countries will come at a cost. CDM projects could mean a company in developing country would end up paying towards the increased cost of new technology for a project in that country. Developing countries would then carry the burden of emissions reduction costs even though the Kyoto protocol formally exempts them from these measures, since the bulk of emissions come from industrialized countries.

The Protocol says that “although the cost of limiting emissions or expanding removals varies greatly from region to region, the effect for the atmosphere is the same regardless where the action is taken.” The CDM is intended to offer companies a cheaper way of meeting their requirements. But a wide gap remains as yet between the intention and implementation with verifiable results.

Climate changes buffet Australian PM’s election campaign

By Bob Burton

Canberra, Australia, Oct. 4 (IPS) — In the last week of the federal election campaign Australian Prime Minister John Howard’s efforts to woo environmental voters suffered a setback with the revelation that the government promised an oil company financial assistance but only on condition that it sue the environmental group Greenpeace.

Greenpeace had campaigned strongly against the Queensland shale oil project, developed by Southern Pacific Petroleum (SPP), on the grounds that it was a major new source of greenhouse gas emissions. From the outset the project encountered strong community opposition while technological problems rendered it hopelessly uneconomic to the point that it is currently being shut down.

In a May 2003 e-mail, the manager of the Department of Industry, Technology and Resources Refining & Fuels Section, Marie Taylor, wrote to the department’s deputy secretary, John Ryan, and the head of its Resources Division, John Hartwell, setting out her understanding of a cabinet decision offering financial support to SPP.

“The government’s decision to put this arrangement in place was made subject to SPP taking legal action against Greenpeace and with the understanding that the viability and environmental impacts of the project would be made clear within this 12 month window,” the e-mail stated.

While SPP never proceeded with the legal action, Greenpeace Australia climate campaigner Gareth Walton said that he was surprised at the government’s plan to use “taxpayers’ money to incite an oil company to sue Greenpeace.”

The e-mail was obtained by Greenpeace Australia under the Freedom of Information Act, which allows citizens to access internal government documents subject to meeting certain conditions.

Kirsty Bozeman, a spokeswoman for the Minister for Industry, Technology and Resources, Ian Macfarlane, was unavailable for comment. However, she told the Sydney Morning Herald “there was no obligation on anybody to do anything.”

This revealed threat against Greenpeace will not augur well for Howard with environmental issues being at the forefront in the lead-up to Saturday’s election.

Latest opinion polls show that public support for the Australian Greens has surged to an all time high of 12 percent. Howard’s political survival may hinge on attracting second preferences of those Australians who will vote Green.

Last week’s announcement that the Russian government intends to ratify the 1997 Kyoto climate change treaty has left Howard isolated both nationally and internationally.

The treaty, which required support from at least fifty-five countries accounting for fifty-five per cent of the developed world’s greenhouse emissions, will now come into effect once Russia has signed the treaty.

For his part Howard insists he will not reconsider his decision not to ratify the treaty.

“No, I won’t change my mind because it would hurt Australia. ...through ratifying under present conditions...countries like China and Brazil and Indonesia would not be subject to the emission targets that we’d be subjected to,” he said in a radio interview Oct. 1.

Richard Dennis, deputy director of the Canberra-based think tank The Australia Institute, believes Howard’s argument is a refusal to accept responsibility for a problem it has contributed to.

“The climate change that is beginning to occur now is caused by the carbon dioxide emissions that have occurred over the last 100 years and by definition it is developed countries that have put the carbon dioxide into the atmosphere today,” he told IPS.

The Australia Institute calculates that each Australian contributes approximately 27 tons of greenhouse gases annually — the world’s highest per capita emissions level — while each Indian is responsible for less than one ton and each Chinese for less than 3 tons.

“So it is entirely equitable for us to be required to be the first to commit to action, not just because we are a richer country, but because we caused this problem,” Dennis said.

In the final negotiating session for the 1997 Kyoto protocol Australia extracted the best deal of any developed nation. In a last minute concession the Australian government was told that by 2010 it could increase its emissions eight percent above the 1990 levels, while all other industrialized countries agreed to an overall reduction of six percent of emissions.

Despite the concessions, since Howard came to power in 1996 he has supported the position of the United States — which despite producing almost a quarter of all greenhouse gases has also refused to ratify the treaty.

Howard insists that while Australia won’t ratify the Kyoto treaty “we will meet the emission targets which have been laid down by the Kyoto Protocol, so our failure to ratify is a measure to protect the interests of Australian companies.”

Dennis views Howard’s argument as nonsensical.

“So given that he says we are going to meet the target anyway, it is just madness to suggest that it is not in Australia’s interest to ratify. So either the prime minister doesn’t believe we are going to meet the Kyoto target and doesn’t want to be bound to meet them or he simply doesn’t understand the issue,” said Dennis.

Climate change campaigner with Greenpeace Australia, Catherine Fitzpatrick, believes it is inevitable that within the next few years Australia will ratify the Kyoto treaty, even if Howard is re-elected.

“Once it comes into effect businesses in Australia will start seeing the lost opportunities because, unless you are from a signatory nation, you can’t benefit from the potential benefits such as emissions trading and the clean development mechanism,” she said in an interview. “Those companies missing out will start to put more and more pressure onto the government.”

While the Howard government refuses to ratify the agreement, the opposition Labor Party has promised to sign the agreement and support an increase in the target level of power that electricity suppliers are required to purchase from renewable energy suppliers, such as wind power companies.