|
Russia eyes the Kyoto market
By Sanjay Suri
London, England, Oct. 22 (IPS) — Nobody stands to gain
more than Russia through its move to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement
to cut atmosphere-warming emissions and through that to contain climate
change.
Clearly Russian President Vladimir Putin did not wake up one day and
decide to do his bit to cool down a warming atmosphere. Ratification
had its reported opponents within Russia but few can argue that at least
for the next eight years Russia has much to gain and little to lose.
Ratification by the Lower Duma is expected to be approved by the upper
house of Parliament and then by President Putin, all within the next
couple of weeks. That would then satisfy conditions for the Kyoto Protocol
to come into force.
The protocol had been awaiting ratification by at least 55 countries
said to be producing at least 55 percent of greenhouse gases (principally
carbon dioxide and methane that are said to cause global warming). Russian
entry would take it past the barrier.
The Kyoto Protocol would bind signatory countries to reduce emissions
to at least 5 percent below 1990 levels in the period 2008-2012. The
overwhelming view of climate scientists is that this would be too little
to do the climate much good. But a lot of companies stand to gain through
mechanisms agreed to make such reduction possible. And with companies,
countries; and none more than Russia. Its representative had made sure
of that at a meeting in Marrakesh in Morocco in November 2001. The Marrakesh
agreements set out the nuts and bolts for implementation of the Kyoto
targets. The Marrakesh agreements are more significant than the protocol
itself signed in Kyoto in Japan in 1997.
The principal tools given shape were emissions trading, two other agreements
called joint implementation (JI) and the clean development mechanism
(CDM), and the so-called carbon sinks. Hard bargaining by Russia at
Marrakesh gave it strong advantages in all these.
Under emissions trading a company that is emitting less than its permissible
limit of greenhouse gases can “sell” the excess credit to
a company counted as emitting more. The idea is that the buying company
can find this a cheaper option than introducing technology to reduce
emissions.
Under joint implementation an agreed group of industrialized countries
(what are called the Annex I countries of the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change) were allowed to gain credits for reduction
of emissions by implementing reduction measures in other countries on
the same list. In effect this would mean implementation in Eastern Europe
where the cost of implementing such measures would be much less.
Under the CDM, credits could be earned for emissions-savings in projects
in developing countries where measures were likely to cost even less
than in Eastern Europe. Carbon sinks was a facility to gain credit through
the existence of forests, on the grounds that trees absorb carbon dioxide
and therefore count as contribution towards carbon reduction.
These measures all place Russia in an enviable position. Following a
decline in industrial activity in the 1990s, emissions in Russia have
been calculated — on the basis of data supplied by the Russian
government to have fallen to 30 percent below 1990 levels anyway. That
means Russian industry has to do virtually nothing to meet its reductions
target by the end of the first Kyoto reduction period (2008-2012).
The low recorded emissions translates potentially as a lucrative industry
for emissions trading, that is due to begin within the European Union
(EU) from January next year. It is hardly a coincidence that Russian
ratification means that the Kyoto protocol will take effect at the same
time. Russia would be on the emissions market straightaway for EU emissions
trading and for wider emissions trading among other Kyoto signatory
countries.
Since Russian industry is emitting far less than the quota its officials
have negotiated, large sections of the Russian industry will be in a
position to “sell” their quotas to emit more. Depending on
how the market goes, this could bring significant income for Russian
industry with almost no investment required to upgrade to more environment-friendly
technology.
At the same time Russian industry is well-placed through investments
and partnerships in Eastern Europe through historical associations to
claim reductions in emissions to its credits at a cost far lower than
is likely for Western industry. It can also add to its huge reserves
of the right to emit through CDM projects. Both these provide cheap
opportunities for Russia to develop new environmentally-friendly technology,
which it too can sell.
Russia finally capitalized on its huge lakes and forest reserves available
to count to its credit by way of carbon sinks. Russian officials managed
at Marrakesh to double the amount of credits it was assigned for these
“sinks” from 17 million tons of carbon to 33 million tons.
The Russian demand was accepted because if it rejected the Kyoto protocol
as the United States had done, the protocol itself would be seen to
collapse.
Russian leaders waited seven years after the Kyoto protocol to move
towards ratification. Because it is only now that the Kyoto protocol
is taking shape as the Kyoto market.
Greenpeace releases GM corn study they
say US, Mexico are trying to bury
By Michael O’Boyle
Oct. 19 — A trilateral commission has recommended that
Mexico enact stricter controls over genetically modified (GM) US corn
that has been winding up in the fields where the crop was first developed
thousands of years ago.
The environmental activist group Greenpeace made the study’s findings
public Oct. 18 at a press conference in front of the Environment Secretary.
Greenpeace Mexico director Alejandro Calvillo said that the governments
of Mexico, Canada and the United States had been holding back on releasing
the report, which could influence a global debate over the safety of
GM foods.
The study from the North American Commission for Environmental Cooperation
(CEC) recommends Mexico enact precautionary measures to prevent the
further spread of GM corn, including grinding up US corn imports.
The group of scientists assembled by the CEC, a watchdog group set up
under NAFTA, said if the transfer of GM genes to native corn is left
unchecked, GM varieties could eventually displace native species.
The US and Canadian governments, as well as GM industry groups, have
strongly criticized the science used in the report.
The CEC report said Mexico should maintain its moratorium on planting
GM corn, carry out studies to measure the impact of the GM corn that
has already been planted, and enact stricter controls on GM corn entering
the country from the United States, Greenpeace said in a statement.
The conclusions were drawn up by 15 scientists from the three countries
that make up the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The study was carried out at the request of 22 communities in the southern
state of Oaxaca, where strains of GM corn were discovered in isolated,
rural corn fields in 2002.
Calvillo said the governments had agreed to make the study public after
it was certified by the commission in June but had not done so yet.
The US government has denied it is trying to bury the report, saying
it is raising concerns over the quality of the scientific evidence within
a 60-day review period.
That period expired at the end of August.
“The unjustified delays in its publication only respond to the
interests of GM promoters, not that of society as a whole,” Calvillo
said.
He said the US government feared the publication of the report could
unfavorably influence its legal challenge before the World Trade Organization
over the European Union’s ban on GM imports.
Calvillo also alleged the Mexican administration, which Greenpeace accuses
of pandering to biotech companies, wants to prevent any conclusions
from the study from affecting a bio-security bill currently being drawn
up in Congress.
The discovery of strains of GM corn in Oaxaca came as a surprise since
a moratorium on planting GM corn has been in effect since 1998. The
discovery alarmed environmental and farmer activists.
While the United States backs the use of GM crops, other nations, especially
European countries, have expressed concerns about the technology.
Activists say the “contamination” of Mexican fields with GM
corn could lead to yet unknown effects on native corn varieties and
ecosystems.
“Corn embodies deep Mexican cultural values that should be respected
and protected,” said Areli Carreón, director of Greenpeace’s
consumer campaign in Mexico. “Most campesinos don’t receive
benefits from GM corn and view its presence in their native crops as
a threat to their form of life.”
US agricultural companies like Archer Daniel Midlands are expected to
export over 6 million tons of corn to Mexico this year. From 30 to 50
percent of the grain is estimated to be GM corn.
While the GM corn is supposed to be used for animal feed or industrial
uses, activists complain there are no safeguards in place.
Source: El Universal
|
