US demands imperil global warming deal
Copyright 2000 The Times (London)
November 25, 2000
Nick Nuttall in The Hague
TALKS to avert the threat of global warming were on the verge of collapse last night as deep divisons were exposed between the United States and Europe.
The US insists that forests, which absorb carbon dioxide, should be counted against emissions from cars, factories and power stations. It also says that small groups of trees, under which cattle on the prairies shelter from the sun, should be counted as so-called carbon sinks.
As delegates from 180 countries withdrew for all-night talks, John Prescott, the Deputy Prime Minister, said that America's insistence on the ability of forests and farmlands to absorb greenhouse gases was jeopardising the talks.
The three-year Kyoto Protocol, the ground rules of which are being debated in this conference, states that "human induced activities" in relation to forests and farmlands should win carbon credits.
Britain and the European Union are at odds with the American-led group of countries, which includes Australia, Japan, Canada and New Zealand, over what this part of the protocol should be taken to mean.
British officials said that the Americans counted planting trees and fertilising forests as taking action to curb the build up of greenhouse gases. "You fertilise them so they grow faster ... That's their forestry management bit," one official said.
The United States has said that it should be given 100million tonnes of carbon credits each year for effective forestry management and 24million tonnes for environmentally friendly farmland management. The credits are intended to offset its industrial emissions.
Jan Pronk, the Dutch minister leading the talks, has drafted a deal that would cut America's credits to 50million tonnes. European countries are sceptical, however, about the effectiveness of America's gas emission reduction programme.
John Lanchberry, climate change policy officer for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, said that trees were temporary carbon stores and provided no real solution to the threat of global warming. "They are trying to avoid doing any real emission reductions. Trees are temporary storage facilities. For example if they burn down, as happened in forest fires last summer, all the carbon dioxide they have soaked up goes straight back into the atmosphere," he said.
Under the Kyoto Protocol, industrial countries agreed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2 per cent, on average, by 2010. The European Commission and environmental groups fear, however, that Mr Pronk's proposal could increase emissions by between 3 and 9 per cent.
Mr Prescott said that any accord must maintain the integrity of the Kyoto Protocol, but American officials have insisted on reaching an agreement to calm opposition from right-wing senators.
The Deputy Prime Minister said that some progress had been made. Britain and America have proposed a new climate change fund, in addition to cash set aside in Kyoto, to enable poor countries to adapt to rising sea levels, floods and storms. Up to $ 1 billion a year will be available.
The cash will also be used to help these countries to build solar power and modern gas power stations so that they do not use coal and oil as their economies grow.
The talks have done little to end disputes in other areas. The issue of what should happen to a country that fails to meet its emission cutbacks by 2010 has also divided the talks. The European Union, led by France which has the presidency, is insisting on heavy fines. the United States opposes any penalty and wants to be able to add shortfalls to the next commitment period from 2010 to 2020.
Dominique Voynet, the French Environment Minister, said that the US plan could put off action for ever and a day. She said it was not in the interest of the environment to sign such a blank cheque.
Mr Prescott was optimistic that a deal could be reached. But there were signs that some nations would prefer to defer a deal to May or June next year, rather than sign up to one that was merely a political gesture. Some delegates also fear that George W. Bush, who may by then be the US President, is not fully committed to the fight against global warming.