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