By Stephen Leahy
BROOKLIN, Canada, Dec 7 2003 (IPS)

The failure or success of the embattled Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions should not sway countries in the South from developing their own, more appropriate agreements, according to a new report.

Kyoto – or a Kyoto-type of agreement – will not work for developing countries, Elliot Diringer, director of international strategies at the Pew Centre on Global Climate Change, told IPS.

A wide range of mechanisms, and regional approaches in particular, will be needed instead, the Pew report says.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is meeting in Milan, Italy from Dec. 1-12 to attempt to rescue the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

The Protocol is an agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions that has been signed by 177 countries, including the United States. While the George W. Bush administration withdrew its support, the agreement could still be enforced if Russia joins the European countries and others, including Canada, that have ratified it.

Russia was widely expected to ratify the treaty until top officials expressed concerns this month that it would hinder economic growth.

The report, ‘Beyond Kyoto: Advancing the International Effort Against Climate Change’, found that the rapid rise in GHG emissions in the South is driven by development imperatives – in particular, the need for energy and economic growth. This is actively encouraged by flows of investment and technology supporting conventional paths of development.

The authors of the report consulted experts, officials and stakeholders from more than 30 countries. Pew is a non-partisan U.S.-based group funded by charitable organisations.

“Trade and development flows from the North need to be recast to both meet the needs of the South and the need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions,” said Diringer.

Development assistance for energy ought to be directed to low-carbon emitting energy sources, he notes. However, this does not open the door for mega-dams or nuclear power plants because they pose their own significant environmental impacts.

But in order to focus on climate change, more pressing issues of food security, poverty relief, energy growth and access, urban transport, and land use need to be addressed first, the report advises.

Fortunately, climate-favouring activities are the ancillary benefits of many sound development programmes, the authors observe.

“Ultimately, then, integrating climate and development objectives calls for a new political bargain with new political actors to redefine collective responsibilities to address climate change,” the report says.

Two leading U.S. scientists have turned up the heat on the Bush administration in another new report that states there is a 90 percent chance global temperatures could rise 4.9 degrees C., melting the world’s ice sheets.

The study, which reviewed all of the available scientific data, was carried out by Thomas Karl of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) National Climatic Data Centre in the state of North Carolina, and Kevin Trenberth, director of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Centre for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Colorado. It appears in the Dec.. 5 issue of the journal ‘Science’.

The authors say there is no doubt that human activities are changing the global climate and will continue to do so for at least the next 100 years.

“The likely result is more frequent heat waves, droughts, extreme precipitation events, and related impacts, e.g., wildfires, heat stress, vegetation changes, and sea-level rise which will be regionally dependent.”

Karl and Trenberth estimate that between 1990 and 2100, global temperatures will rise by 1.7 to 4.9 degrees C. as a result of human-produced emissions of greenhouse gases, primarily from burning oil, coal and natural gas.

This temperature increase will have widespread impacts on society and the environment, including melting the great ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica and inundating the world’s coasts, they say.

A footnote at the end of the article states their conclusions are their own, and not those of the U.S. government.

Indeed, the Bush administration has disputed much of what Karl and Trennberth say, arguing that reducing emissions of fossil fuels would cost too much, and that the science underlying the causes and impacts of climate change was too uncertain.

Karl’s boss, Bush appointee James Mahoney, does not think the evidence is all that clear that human activity is mainly responsible for increases in greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide.

Mahoney, a meteorologist who became deputy director of the NOAA and head of the Climate Change Science Programme in April 2002, has been reported as challenging Karl and Trenberth’s vision of a grim future.

The San Francisco Chronicle newspaper quoted Mahoney as saying, “I think a number of sceptical scientists would also challenge them”.

Pat Michaels is one of those sceptical scientists. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, was upset by the report and the fact that the most prestigious scientific journal in the United States would publish it.

The report is alarmist and greatly exaggerates the risks, he says.

Michaels, who is often quoted in the U.S. media, is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a right-wing think-tank funded by corporations, including those in the oil and gas industry.

It is hardly coincidental that a paper by two proponents of the Kyoto Protocol was published this week, he told IPS.

“The editors of ‘Science’ also have strong political views on Kyoto,” Michaels said.

Kyoto would do little to reduce global temperature increase and costs too much, he argues. Global warming is happening, but it is on the order of a minuscule 0.75 degrees C. over the next 50 years, he says, adding that the “slight increase is something many people like you in Canada would be happy to have”.

Global temperatures have already risen 0.6C, between 1899 and 2001. Even with an additional 0.75C by 2050 – which other scientists besides Michael agree on – it is a global average. That means local temperatures could be much higher, leading to some of the significant impacts outlined in the article.

“Significant further change is guaranteed,” Karl and Trenberth write. “The rate of change can be slowed, but it is unlikely to be stopped in the 21st century.”

Karl and Trenberth also agree with the Pew report that greatly improved international cooperation and action is absolutely necessary.

“Climate change is truly a global issue, one that may prove to be humanity’s greatest challenge,” they conclude.

Excerpt: