Why Kyoto Is Non-Recyclable

“Bleeding Rock”

Photo by R. Cardenas

Monday, October 29, 2007

Why Kyoto Is Non-Recyclable

Climate policy needs to change radically. The Kyoto Protocol has failed to achieve its main objective, emissions reduction. But the post-kyoto panorama doesn’t look good. Resistance to new approaches and lack of imagination and self-criticism seem to be dominating the discussions up to date. Meanwhile, outside the realm of policy-making, anybody who dares to criticize the Kyoto treaty is commonly labeled as a global warming denier, or worst, as an enemy of the earth. That’s why it’s encouraging to find articles such as the one below in a journal as important as Nature. Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner explain here, among other interesting things, why a recycled version of the agreement would be a waste of time.

Time to ditch Kyoto

Gwyn Prins1 & Steve Rayner2

1.Gwyn Prins is at the London School of Economics Mackinder Centre for the Study of Long Wave Events, London WC2A 2AE, UK.

2.Steve Rayner is at the James Martin Institute for Science and Civilization, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 1HP, UK.

Abstract
Climate policy after 2012, when the Kyoto treaty expires, needs a radical rethink. More of the same won't do, argue Gwyn Prins and Steve Rayner.

The Kyoto Protocol is a symbolically important expression of governments' concern about climate change. But as an instrument for achieving emissions reductions, it has failed1. It has produced no demonstrable reductions in emissions or even in anticipated emissions growth. And it pays no more than token attention to the needs of societies to adapt to existing climate change. The impending United Nations Climate Change Conference being held in Bali in December — to decide international policy after 2012 — needs to radically rethink climate policy.

Kyoto's supporters often blame non-signatory governments, especially the United States and Australia, for its woes. But the Kyoto Protocol was always the wrong tool for the nature of the job. Kyoto was constructed by quickly borrowing from past treaty regimes dealing with stratospheric ozone depletion, acid rain from sulphur emissions and nuclear weapons. Drawing on these plausible but partial analogies, Kyoto's architects assumed that climate change would be best attacked directly through global emissions controls, treating tonnes of carbon dioxide like stockpiles of nuclear weapons to be reduced via mutually verifiable targets and timetables. Unfortunately, this borrowing simply failed to accommodate the complexity of the climate-change issue2.

Kyoto has failed in several ways, not just in its lack of success in slowing global warming, but also because it has stifled discussion of alternative policy approaches that could both combat climate change and adapt to its unavoidable consequences. As Kyoto became a litmus test of political correctness, those who were concerned about climate change, but sceptical of the top-down approach adopted by the protocol were sternly admonished that "Kyoto is the only game in town". We are anxious that the same mistake is not repeated in the current round of negotiations.

The Kyoto Protocol was always the wrong tool for the nature of the job.

Already, in the post-Kyoto discussions, we are witnessing that well-documented human response to failure, especially where political or emotional capital is involved, which is to insist on more of what is not working: in this case more stringent targets and timetables, involving more countries. The next round of negotiations needs to open up new approaches, not to close them down as Kyoto did.

Full article...