Why RI should ratify the Kyoto Protocol

Why RI should ratify the Kyoto Protocol

Alan Oxley Alan, Melbourne, Australia

There is probably no reason Indonesia should not ratify the
Kyoto Protocol. However lawmakers and government officials should
be fully aware of what the Protocol can and can't achieve. The
truth is that it will have precious little impact on global
warming but it promotes strategies that may well harm developing
countries.

Human activity generates about 1.5 percent of the global stock
of carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas. The
increases of these gases in the atmosphere is regarded as causing
global warming, a steady rise the earth's temperature.

The Protocol seeks to reduce human production of greenhouse
gases. It sets targets for reduction of emissions of carbon
dioxide. To reach the target, countries will increase the cost of
electricity (most is generated from combustion of coal, oil or
gas) and of gasoline.

Human-generated carbon dioxide contributes about 1.5 percent
of the world stock of carbon dioxide and appears to be
increasing. The developed and developing world today generate
about half each. Because the developing world is growing faster,
Australia's Bureau of Agriculture and Resource Economics (ABARE)
estimates that by 2040, developing economies would generate about
two thirds of the world output of human-generated greenhouse
gases.

Indonesia's ratification of the Protocol will not make it any
more effective in reducing greenhouse gases. The Protocol only
requires industrialized countries to reduce greenhouse gases.
(The target is get output back to 1990 levels).

Developing countries are under no obligation to cut back at
all. Their argument when Kyoto was negotiated was that if they
had to cut, their economic development would be impeded. Note as
well that if the Protocol comes into effect, the overall effect
will be that greenhouse gases will continue to increase.

It is not even clear that the Protocol will come into effect.
To do so, 55 percent of the emitters of carbon dioxide outside
the developing world must ratify. The United States, the world's
biggest generator of greenhouse gas refuses. It believes a more
effective strategy is to develop new technologies that reduce
emissions of carbon dioxide or capture it as it is produced. The
key is Russia. If it ratifies, and it is procrastinating, Kyoto
will come into effect. For its part, the EU has decided to cut
greenhouse gases as proposed in the Protocol, even if it does not
come into effect.

Others question the supposition that increases in human-
generated carbon dioxide are causing global temperatures to rise.
Geologists remind us that very basic things shape climate in the
long run. Indonesia has had long experience with the impact of
volcanic eruptions.

Even claims that the atmosphere is warming are challenged.
Official readings from hot air balloons in the upper atmosphere
and satellites managed by U.S. Government agencies over the 25
years show no increase in the temperature of the upper
atmosphere. If the atmosphere was warming, it would show in the
Upper Atmosphere.

Kyoto will incur significant costs. Cutting back greenhouse
gases in the industrialized world will reduce economic growth.
There are no cost effective sources of power to replace coal and
oil (except nuclear which no one wants to use). Bjorn Lomberg,
the Danish author of the best-selling The Skeptical
Environmentalist calculated that Gross Domestic Product in the
industrialized world would be two percent less per annum less by
2050 if the Kyoto strategy was adopted and the U.S. joined it.
Slower world growth means the growth of developing countries is
curtailed as well.

"Why do this?" Lomberg asked, especially if the Kyoto strategy
did not reduce human production of greenhouse gases. His argument
is that it is better to maintain growth, adapt to the impact of
climate change rather than try to alter it, and assist developing
countries to improve their basic conditions.

Last month, he convened a colloquium of leading world
economists in Copenhagen. He challenged them to review all major
global issues, including global warming and answer one question:
"If you had US$50 billion to spend, what would best advance the
global condition of the human race?" In their "Copenhagen
Consensus", they found the money would be best spent controlling
AIDS, improving nutrition, eradicating malaria, improving the
supply of water in the developing world, raising agricultural
productivity and liberalizing trade. They rated global warming
last.

European environmentalists argue that Kyoto is just a start,
that there is a political and moral value in beginning to tackle
greenhouse gas emissions. They also believe developing countries
in the future should commit to reduce gases in the future. They
put that at the Johannesburg Summit on Sustainable Development in
2002 and were firmly rebuffed by developing countries.

It is disappointing that environmental groups in the West can
be so casual about economic growth. Those from wealthy countries
might think they can afford to slow down the rate of economic
growth of the world for something that is uncertain, but this is
not an option for the developing world.

The practical alternative to Kyoto is to invest in new
technologies that reduce emissions from power generation and
develop new methods of collecting carbon dioxide. This will take
some time. But while the science of climate change remains
uncertain, it makes more sense than implementing measures which
do not solve the problem and penalize those who can least afford
it.

The writer is Chairman of Australia's national APEC Study
Centre at Monash University, Melbourne and host of the Asia
Pacific page of www.techcentralstation.com