Introduction

Environmentalproblemslike
air, **.,
country'The nationshaveidentified "r,
tr"..r*
r"r rheseofti.r"rlria
them dependingupon how
would continueto dearwil
severe,rt*. *. *a no* r.ri'ou,
ir-.Jri-rr-.r,
o.Y,
for their abatemenca,
discussionon rheseiouo fof]-ovi'il
.ubr.qu.nt chapters.
Today'we have a fairly good
information about environmental,probrems.
The pubric beit

i,,,.,,,",ion.r'"g.'"io.o
i.Ji,-.'".,i",q
j:T','"Ti$:[nT',,:,'.Trru*:*;lentsand

;ilJi;ffi":':]:Tiffi
f'on,.Lu,no.gori-po*.p-u"sry'i,-;#fi
,rsffi
ff:P,!;T:f
[:*:'j'',*x'#hT:i',ff
fiJ"'*"t'j::T:"il:,:i::"*ilil::*#

were being exploitedto.'ht

o"n' 'r'"a .t.y -"1 get depreted
and their conservarionis one
waysout' Resourcedepletion
of rhor cxploitationi, i.Ing .".ri.a-ou,
u.th by the individualsand
-rrobusinesscorporations,the laner
thc
dGil;;
profit.
.nrrr.-lior,
environmentalismthat emphasised
developed
a
nc
;".Itta"r.a"*r rr""rrJ;;
"ttitud.,
- that
relationshipand evernhinj in
thereis human_narur
't i, oi;;
;ted and .or,r."rJ ri'J.r.rythrng
the conceptof naturalcapital
erse.Then dweropo{
at'a ii u.c.m. *. ..r,*"t point
of
The useof naturalcapitr
"n.ntion.

;:Tlu.,orgrobarconcern$z
never-ending
:ll.:*'j::'::in":::,'fi
debate
inregard
80:g"
," ,",*""i",Ji*.lnoll.Ti
"q"*:"*::_1.".,'.,'ff
:'}T"":#i,:::"ffi.ffi

;fr ;T:ff:ffi "j",:j#ilf ;l-*::d,h*.;;;;b'jr.n'i,o,,_en,arprobrem

Two globalenvironmentalproblems
are:
(r) Global S7arming
(i0

Ozone Depletion

In general'developingcountriesare
moreconcernedwirh ghort-term
probremsofwater resourccr,
air pollution, land degradation,
deforesr"rion,lr.. Tl: develop.d
.ourrtrio,
on the other hand, arc
takrngmore interestin global environmental
issueslike d"bj ;";;ng
and ozonedepletion.Anl
Agarwal in Global Environmentat
Negoti"tions, rightly--*,i;;r;at,
..unless
alr environmentl
problemsare ad&essedvithin
irrtegiatedp.rrp..rir,. that takesinto
accountthe local and glob{
"n
therewill be litde confidencewithin
,i.:a*!"pirg
world that their concernsare being
accounr inio the grobar.rr"iror,-.rrr"i"r;,
rakeniao
t
As for .;;;;i;,
the convenrion to. combr
Deserdfication(cDc) could not aftract
-,rli of ,rr.
worrd, with the res*
that tliis conventionbecamea second
"r..*i""-rriJrr.rop.d
classconvention.

Globof
Worming*
Globd rvarmfngmeansgradualincrease
in world temperatures
."uffi
Themaingretnhou'e
g"t iscarbondioxidetcor); oth..,
nitrour-olid.,cFCs(chloroflurocarbons),
"r.
p"'R-"'"*i",^inuc,l

ffi[T*;H'#:T*i:j'::1t":ll,iit"

'

andsurphuric
nuoridc.

:ti:l;l,"l#::Hl"t
l"@.r.o-*.io*sources:-o,tryo"-i;*t1r:ffi-,Tiffi
hana

Anil Agarwar' sunita Narain

and Anju sharma in Gbbcl
Enuimnmmul

Ncgotiation l9gg,

2oor.

t 87
-GlobolWorming
Problems
Environmenl
ChopnrsGlobol
known as greenhouse
tempreture to rise resulting in what is
6c eartht atmosphere causing the

Panelon Climate
or globalwarming.The Intergovernmental
::fl1.t:.tf,L::ti::"Tej
thatglobal
It isbelieved

Irr

ffiil#rffi:':il;t,.;;rit:;'J*.-

c in thenextrewdecades.

a change' The
H,,rricanes may be the result of su6h
is leading.to e,$rmeweather "h*go.
as it may be
have stepped in to show their concern
l--.reqce Companies in industriali,.d "o.,,,t.io
companies'cosa 50 billion dollars to global Insurance
red that a single hurricane in uSA
Rio conference
warming and subsequenlcl-rangein clim4te'
In view of the seriouseffectsof global
Uy end of 20'h
it"(t
1990
GHG; emissionsat
,o ,#ili,"
fic discussionon climate change pledged

ming

industries'
burning of fossil fuels in Power generation'
It may be mentioned that it is not only
i.rJre".e in atmospherictemperatu*
-on and other sourcesare also responsiblefo,
?"f:t:::T,ttl

ffi:ffi['r"."#

;" il;;;;

atorbet
*oid have
J,,.a earlie,
"":i:"-_1::*

is that GHGt:}tl
to scientists'
The theoryaccording

J:,.T:1J;;r*#il;;;";*"u"

*t

lt*t1:-li-tt::::T::::::":J::
rromtheearthandas
radiation
r.,,gth(inrrareJ)

also
property also increases'Scientists have
of these gasesincrease,their heat *"piirrg
Grration
concentration during the last 100 years
25o/oincraseir,
that there h"ri..r,
Eed
""rbo*di"*id"
ner<t50 years'
i.i etpected that this will double in the
J
of GHGs, particularty,.cg, *ln 1"0""d.:::
It is simple to assumethat rate of concentration
The developing countrtes
fossil fuels and deforestation P:""t,t&'
lc rate at which consumption of
a higher level of
than industriar world but when the forie/,reach
fossil fuers at ro*o"*.
bn
also their deforestation Process
also use higher amount of fossil fuels and
they
&dopment
lrould
r y i n c r e a s e , r e s u l t i n g i n h i g h e r c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f C o , i n t h e . aoft mco,
o s p heach
e r e .year
B r a zthrough
i l , a c c oprocess
r d i n g t oof
billions oi'to"'
Gdd watch Insritute, is already "orrtribotirrg
6restation.

Worming
ofGlobol
Effects
ffi;scientiststopredicttheeffectsofgreenhous".ry*.Theydoitbyconstructing

of::::t:i:fi.3::i:1':,::::tt""hT
." *;;;;'lt;i" "l'*s";,Reltab,tl
models
oo,'puter
mavnot bevalidwarming
change
theoryon"crimate dueto slobar

during the last 100 years;(ii)

h"sb.i" t*-"-ttti"t
However,scientistsagreethat: (i) actualwarming
(iii) if
*"ft by lfoC if increasein CO, doubles;
anming would funher raisethe temperature"F
temperaturerisesfurther by 3-5qC'
a risei1 seliwel
wrming condnues,coastal"ro. *o,rld see
Jf
of
of meking of mountain glaciersand expansion
-a levelsmay rise Uy O.l ft. to 5.0 ft. b.o*.
gening
getting *b*og"d and many coastalcities
ocerurs.This woulil **i. i" islandslike Maldives
hgni"t..They would be environmentalrefugccs
flooded,forcing the peopleto leavetheir originj
chansl
but therewould O:
:P*
lookingfor new habitas.'Not only rising*",.r"1"u.1,
constunPtron
more i::::-d-:11
world,*i:|-i:ltl^f:::
of
parts
m"nv
foi
summers
hot
include
These
""r*iig.
productionand ecolggrcalDalance.
of electiciry.It would alsoaffectagricultural
But
the theory of g$Ud'warming and its effecsl
As mentioned,some.,(perrshavequestioned
have
rise
will
'unanimiry the theqryin so far asrising levelsof COr'is concernedand this
for
rhereis
and rise
warming
global
b".*..tt
ihat relatiorrrhip
somekind of effect orr-,h. cli-at". Some-believe
atmospheric
like
causes
natural
could be d"t to
The warmingProcess
in CO2 may be circumstaniial.

#il:JaT"d?;ri;.;.,r"

88

liomgemenl
Environmenlol

warm'
in which temperaturesoscillate between.cold and
year cycles_
rycles recurring 1000-3000
activitiesand not due to natural phenomena'
IPCC, however,believesthat warming is due to man-made

Wsrming
Glqbol
toCombot
How
(1992) 153 nations signed the conaentionon climatc
At the Earth Summit held at Rio de Janeiro

;;r;g,

to reduceemisiionsof cor.and,lther
themselves
lllr-*::-:
"la9-:
than to wait
rather
"o*mitted
and
"r,d
agreement.-o.rg nationsthat globi warming is a seriousproblem

already
reducingconsumptionof fossilfuelsby finding out
*","1n attitude,*"pi-"y be taken"towards
""a
enerw,betterenergymanagementqrstemand to reversedeforestation'
sourcesof ,.n.*"#
Ji*r",i".
Cor-per unit of heatasnaturalgas'
It is a documentedfact that burning"coalprod,r.o n"i." as-,rch
which can be possibleby
of
It is therefor" i*por,"r,, ,o .orr.ri Co, productionfrom burning "o"l
usA with 60/oaf world population
use of alternative,o,r."" oi .n.rgy like iolat and wind power.
responsibiliryin reducingthis
contributesZ5o/oofworld Co, !*irriorrr; it hastherefore'a greater

l-:

gas and to evolve new energy strategies'

"
global
,o ,h" ir.,r. of greenhousegases.Even if effects of co, on
,n... is another
"ro.J,
onlv
not
would
enerry
of
alternative sources
less use of fossil t k
*;;;;;;;-;;;
#.,
"rrd
"U",
worldwide
reduce
to
lessenpollution' It is true that all the,strategies
,"a*. 3O, emissio"
"fr.
but
incur astronomical costs,not billions'but trillions of currency'
would
reduction in co, emission
Following steps have been suggestedby
steps in this direction need to be taken in a phasedmannr'
exPerts;
(l)
(2)
(3)

to lesserpollution' Also; conversion

cleaning up coal for which technology orists. This can lead
of coal t !* i, possible.This would further reduce pollution.
only half the carborl of coal and
More use of natural gas than coal becausenatural gascontains
pollution'
of energywould ultimately tackle the problem of co, emissionand
O."J"T.:.urces
are othei renewablesourceslike
Vind power and ,o1", .#rgy are obvious .hoi.o. Bui there
These sourcesproduce
photo voltaic (photo voltaics convert sunlight directly into electricity).
iit l. ot no polludon and involve no saferyrisks'

Manufacturing fuel efficient vehicles is another step'

It is possible to
(5) . Deforestation Reversal.This is a major steP to reduce_co, concentration.
social, political and financial
reclaim more land to plant more trees but-requires help from

(4)

institutions.

C ASES( GHGS)
C R E E N H OU S E

Catbon Dioxide (COr)

o

Main greenhousegas.

fuises from burning of fossil fuels'

kvels increase as a consequenceof deforestation

Methane (CHo)
I

About ZAVI ofgreenhouseeffect is due to methane'

Arises from
(i)

rice paddies;

Chopter5Globol
EnvironmentProblems
-Globolftrming r

(ii)

wetlancls;

(iii) fecal matter from cattle;

(iv) burning ofwood;
(v)

landfills,

(cFG)
Responsiblefor about l5o/o of the greenhouseeffect,.
Thousand times more effective (heat absorbing) than COr.
Reaches the atmosphqre frorn
/ . \

f .

(1, " rerflgeratlon;

(it) air-conditioningindustry

(iii) foam packingindustries.

I$rrous Oxide (NOr)
.

Responsiblefor 5o/oof greenhouseeffect.

Arisesfrom
(r)

coal burning;

(ii) biomassburning;
(iii) breakdownof chemicalfertilisers.
Iible 5 l
EfteenCounuieswith HighestIndustrialEmissionof CarbonDioxide
Country
SouthAfrica

Total CO- Emissions

(000 mitric tons)

30t,805

Poland,Rep.

338,044

Franc

340,085

Mo<ico

357,834

Korea,Rep.

373,592

k"Jy

409,983

Canada

435,749

Ljkraine

438,2r1

United Kingdom

542,r40

Germany

835,099

India

908,734

Japan

t,126,753

Russian Federation

l,8t8,0l

China

3,r92,484

UnitedSutes

5"468,564

89

> u l

Invrronmenl0l
M0nogemen!

Climote
Chonge
After the Rio Summit, climate negotiators met in Geneva in December 1992, to negotiate schedules
for future meetings.It was decidedthat the working group on financial,procedural,institutional and
legal matterswould meet in March 1993, in time to send a reporr ro a GEF meeting in Beijing.
The Intergovernmental Negotiation Committee (INC) met six times after the Rio Summir to
preparefor the first conferenceof parties(CoPl), and completedits work by Fibruary 1995. By the
end of March 1995, 127 counrries and the EU had radfied the climate convenrion.
Saudi Arabia, which was yet to sign the convention, and other members of the OPEC, who
feared that a stronger convention would mean carbon emission cuts and taxes on oil consumption,
managed to delay substantive work of the INC until August 1993.

T HU N T F O R CH E A POP T ION S
After the EU decisionin 1990 to stabilisecarbon dioxide emissionsat 1990 levelsby the year 2000,
industrialised counrries went shopping for the cheapestoprions for carrying out rfi.i, ,.du.rior,r.
This was when the Norwegian Government first inroduced the idea of joint i-pl.-"nt"tion
(fI), at
INC-2, in June 1991. The idea was discussedin detail during the eight, ninth and tenth INCs.
FCCC mandate required CoP 1 to take decisions regarding JI commitments. Cooperative
arrangementsfor emissionsreduction are referred to in article 3(3) of FCCC, which saysthat efforts
to addressclimate change may be carried our cooperatively by interested parties.
. Developing countries, meanwhile, still felt unsure and said they neededmore information ro
'!7hat
judge the advantagesand disadvantagesof JI.
worried them mosr was rhar they were being
drawn into participating in the implementation of FCCC through JI. Most developingcountries-ar
INC-8 and INC-9 therefore demanded that JI projects should be carried out berween annex I
parties.But at INC-10, some developingcountries,including severalfrom Latin America and SoutheastAsia, began to show signs of.interest in JI schemes.
India and China started dropping hints that their opposition to JI may nor be total as long as
industrialised countries receivedno credits. This position found support from the EU. Brazil and the
African couhtries were still in opposition. Canada and the US initiilly remained insistent on receiving
credits, but finally agreed that no credit would accrue during the pilot phase, called the Activities
Implemented Jointly (AIJ) programme to distinguish it from JI.
Germany once again brought up developing country commitmenrs, saying large developing
countries are likely to emit CHGs. on a large scalein the near future which could neutraliseany
reductions by the industrialisedcountries. Combined pressurefrom environments and the media
forced the Germans to withdraw their proposals.

COP-I,BERLIN

Three issueswere on the CoP I agendaadequacyof commitments by industrialisedcounrries to

reduce carbon emissionsunder the convention, the financial mechanism,and criteria for JI. In the
sidelines,e*vironmentalists and the oil and coal lobby argued over whether the threat from climate
changewas big enough to demand action. Though -ori p.opl. came ro the conferenceexpecting
little to happdn, for once in the recent history of climate meetings, enlrironmentalists declared CoP
I satisfactory,while the oil and coal lobby called it a disaster.

Chophr
problems
5 Globol
Environmenf
_ GlobolWorming
t 9.1,
ro negoriateschedules
ural, institutional
and
reedng in Beijing.
rhe Rio Summit
to
,
1995. By the
]-"ry
non.
of the OpEC,
who
n oil consumption,

r by the year 2000.

rt their reducrions.
ernenration
0I), at
d tenth INCs.
ents. Cooperative
i says that efforts
e information to
rhey were being
prng counrries-at
rrween annex
I
crica and South_
toral as long as
l- Brazil
"ndih.
ent on receiving
d the Activitiel
rge developing
neutralise any
rnd the media

I countries to
for JI. In the
Fom Climate
rc expectins
hclared Coi

The meeting began on an optimistic note.

EU ministers reiterated a commitrhent to
stabilise
aicsisns by the year 2000, and
called on orher annex I (indusJali5ed)
countries to commit to
dilisadon-over a longer term' Above all, the
Berlin conferencemust herald a further limitation
and
r&rction of climate.&maging GHGs after the
year 2000,said the il;il;;".r-""r,
bhl- The uK minister of environment,
John Gummer, urged a 5-10 per
cenr rul
"a-* and
cur by
uy D'ri
Briain
rLr Lv'L
rrhcr countries by the year 2010.
But as soon as AlliancG of small Island States(Aosls)
repeatedtheir proposal for a 20per cenr
abon dioxide reduidon target by the year 2000
for i"aurrri'"rir.J*unt.io,
Australia and the us
nk recoursein iiversionary tactics; the two countries
praised the German proposal of singling out
Lqcr developing countries like India and china
to piune their carbon dioxide emissions as well.
s*eral major environmental groups bought their
argument, that thesecountries are likely to neutralise
ay reductions by industrialised .ou.r,rio with
th"ei, emissions i; ;. future. Greenpeace
and the
usbased Environmental DefenseFund.planned
to orga.nisep"bli.;"igns
of the German position,
ad propose a moratorium on foreign assistance
to all projects that may lead to emissions.
Howwer' a remarkableconsolidation of opinion
by NGos and the media forced German minister
Angela Markel to withdraw the proposal, and Kohl
even announced that his government, supported
b st EU' planned to cut emissions by more than 20 per cenr by the
year 2005.This isolated
rt'mralia and the uS' Tim -wirth, head of
us d"l.g"iio.r, ur;.a
the
strong influences of the
+e
opposition Republican parry for his delegation's
iqabiliry; take on srrongercommirmenrs,
Republican
rcnber' lobbied by the powerful oil industry,
bound the us delegation ro agree ro curs only
if
doclcping countries
to accept commitments. cop-l saw the emergence
of a new group-agreed
(Japan, US, canada, Ausiralia and Nerv
tuscANZ
zealand), u.rloa in their resist"rr.. to'"",io., by
irdustrialised countries unressdevelopingcounrr.io
.o-i-,,r-.n,r.
""..fr.J
G77 countties, meanwhile, began the meeting
as disunited as rhey had been during the INC
retings after Rio' Initially, the AOSIS proposal failed
to get much supporr from them. India began
by opposing the draft, afraid that pressure on
industriJr.d
would t;;"il*ly.bring
qlunter-Pressurestir accept carbon
"o,r.r,rio
dioxide reduction programmes.
But pressurefrom Indian NGos
oade the delegation .hl:g" its.stanceand support
th. pio"por"l. I, bt l*';;;J.""i't"
i.i"rt",,"r,
---ooo emissioncuts by tabling a.green paper', a revised
form of theAOSIS draft.
The Indian PaPer was based on the concern
that ind.ustrialisednations musr iniriate emission
rcductions to provide the necessaryspace for
developing countries to increase their emisbions.
I(amal Nath, the then India's minister for Environment
Foro.r,
-s;rirgasserted,.uweloping countries
"rrl
have no or negative responsibility for causing
global warming".
that existing commitments
rcre inadequate' the gree.n
PaPercalled on anne* I countries to adopt
specific
-r-----and legally binding
r
commitments for carbon dioxide reduction after
2000.
G77 and'china agreedto negotiate a mandate
basedon India's proposal, and rhe EU viewed
the
trcen PaPeras an effective way to break.the existing deadlock gut rh.
us and
opposedit. The latter hampered the meeting by
"rioonc."untries
opposing even rhe
in a bid to protect their oil markets f.o"d"p,i;;;i;;;"I;;-;*#,
convenrion. The paper found support from
NGos.
".rt-rrg
The EU reminded delegato thT-!..ping in
mind the time taken for ratification, a protocol
on
roduction commitments in the post 2000
would need to be adopted in r997,in orde;
;;;d
to
enter
inro force by 2000' Keeping this in mind, the
Berlin Mandate that was adopted at the end
of-the
meeting called for a protocol with a schedulefor
reductions to be
il;;;.
i, **
,n*
dre existing commitments listed for industrialised
"aqpr.a
"*._l.O
nations in article
-- ,h", annex I counrries
must

92

Environmentol
Monogemenl

coordinate'relevant economic and administrative

insrrumenrs, and periodically rwiew
their policies
and practices - weie inadequate. New
reduction targers *.r. ,r..d.d for,annex
i
industrialised
countries beyond the year ZOOO.No agreemenr
was reached,howwer, on a post-2000
er,rissioncap.
The Mandate launched an ad hoc gro,rlp
or the Berlin Mandate
! (AGBM)
to
vrvut
negotiate
a
timetable for
reductions(See: The Berlin Manite).'

The Berlin Mandate

At the first conferenceof parties(cop 1), herd
in BerlinfromMarch26 - Aprir7, ';;o TheAllianceof smalllslandstates(Aosls)
urgedindustrialised
nationsto cuttheircarbon
dioxideemissionsby 20 per cent by ttreyear
2000..
o The UK ministerfor environmer{
urgeda 5-10 per cent cut in greenhouse
gas (GHG)
emissions
by 2010.
r Industriarised
countriescontinuedto argueaboutthe stringency
of targets.
r Indiapresenteda revisedformof
the AOSISdraft.
o The EU timetablefor negotiations
by 1997was ddopted.
r lt was recognisedthat existingcommitments
werenot adequate.
t
agreed
that no new commitmentsshouldbe introduced
9:ugtltents.
for developing
countries,
and
o A restructured
GlobalEnvironment
Facility(GEF)wasgivenanotherfour-year
termas the
interimfinancialmechanism.
TheBerlinMandateaccepted,forthefirsttime,
theneedfor legalrybindingtargetsfor industriarised
Countries.
The Mandaterecognisedthat
r Existingcommitments
for industriarised
nationsunderFCCCwereinadequate.

'

areneeded
rorindusrriarised
countries
onthe1eeo
'X5Ji1l,:,.T,1Tt""':,?.113:i3"*

No newcommitments
shourdbe introduced
for deveroping
countries.
An ad hoc groupon the.BerrinMandate(AGBM)
*Ti"] up to negotiatea protocoror another
witha viewto aooptn! ttrei""rrt" ar cop
3 in 1997.Cop 2 was herdin Geneva
ftu?:,.renr

Kyoto
Protocof
CoP2 decidedto hold a conference,
coP 3 in

Kyoto t";iliJ,

js d..r";-;;;

997 tofinarise o.o,oil

"
#il stablise
us emission
toieeO
levels
[#_"#ilH,fj.Il.j:,""jfj*?
bv2010
whereas
ErJ,G77andchina,
;;;;;ffi;U'l;i::;;T;;",::?

fil
expected
this response
andcamepreparedwith a varietyof mark
r-br..i r.missiontradingmechanisms
that would help it to take th. l*.i, below
1990 l*.1r, Tho. -."tfuir-,
wereincluLd in Kyoto
Protocol'Finally'Kyotowasa big success
for us., anda bargainr", uia i" *.r,"i;a#;anisms
wereacceptedby other
Eloups'Ti'adingof emissionsbd;.;
;;,i.rs got into protocol in the last
'.rrv'r
rninuie. USA signedthe proiocol.

- Globol
$lorming:
Problems
Environment
5 Globol
Chopler

93

within a specifictime
Though dweloping counrrieswere not obliged to reduceGH.G emission
agreeto do,so' As
co-untries
if
developing
Protocol
trame, USi insisted tha't it would ratify the KyoL
a mechanism to
was
This
protocol'
of
the
part
mentioned above trading of emission became a
Development
Clean
called
scheme
a
hcilitate participation of ieveloping nations. In thls mechanism
from
investment
bringing
equipment,
Mechanism (CDM) was evolved. COtrrt it a way of financing
developing
particip.ating
for
etc.
J*.r.p.a ,r"tion, for infrastrucrure, water, forest conservation,
the developedcountry
-,rn,.i.r. Through CDM developingcountries would receivbinvestment which
emission achieved'
carbon
in
pfotection .or emission
will receive credit for sha,reof *uiio.r-"rrt
usein subsequent
The developedcountries after having earnedthe credits can bank them for future
protocol nee&
effect,
into
commitment period. USA has not ratided the Kyoto Protocol. To -come
co, lwel'
1990
ratification from 55 parties to FCCC with emissionsadding upto 55o/oof total
in a rePort tl glt-!4
The Centre for Scienceand Environment' a NGO basedin New Delhi,
atmosphere'The UK
to
the
rigtrts
emission
per
capita
for
equal
warmingpublished in 1990, argued
recomrnendsthat
which
Pollution
Environmental
on
Governmenr appointed Royd bommission
on a simple and
nations
to
allocated
be
to
quotas
emission
Sective climate protocol *ill ,.quir"
concept'
equai per capita basis. USA opposesthis
very expensivefor
It should be noted that industry in USA feels that Kyoto Protocol would be
At this
impractical'
is
US
without
iealiry
that Kyoto lroto"ol could be a
.h.-. i-h.:;gg.rrio'
the
abandon
to
US
of
move
the
criticised
both if,. developing and developed-countries have
i;";
protocol.
yet there is a hope that US will reconsiderits decision, though the talks on Kyoto Protocol held
President assertsreduction
in Hague in Nov., 2b00 resulted in deadlock between US and EU. US
very, little to
be fixed for China and India despite the fact.that the latter contrib-ute
*g.*".ho,rld
deepfreeze, Chronologlt
emissionsin comparison to USA. See:I(yoto Accird on Global Varrning put in
and Delhi Summit.

POST KYOTO

Freeze*
in Deep
onfjhhalWwmingput
Accord
Kyolo
the pl?n,qt'.tttq::,:l:
Forget that scientistshave been warning about the qrowing_lwels of co, on
reducedtherr em$srons
.1"rio.r. of environmentalists.Forget that companieslike DuPont have already
inte.,i to reduce them further. Forg:1 that a number of auto'
of greenhousegasesby iO p", ..r,i,
"nd
that several other
manufacturers are investing in RBCD to manufacture low pollution cars. Forget
emissions
companieslike IBM, Uniti Technologiesare committed to reducing their greenhouse.gas
that
Forget
greed')
profit
some,filthy
by
(ThJy
be
guided
inust
all
by a quarter in the next 10 years.
th. KyotJ""cord, agreed to reduce their emissions of
38 industrialised countri.r'h"rr.,'rr.ri.,
of the United States
g...rrhour. gasesby 2012 ro 5.2 ptercent below the le.,elsin 1990. The President
gasa pollutant in
the
for
havinglamed
apologised
has
Bush
pollutant.
Geoig.V
lavs CO" is"not a
his pioposal of capping qt. 9o, _emittedby power utilities using coal'
tt"r .ii,iJr"*n
;;p*,.'il
that the US h"t no intention to comply with the
He has denounced the Kyoto
""cord, ".d "nnour..J
treaty.
eight student*nows, that.co, is,essentialfor plants'
Bush supporters
^COr. argue, what every class
Vi,fi the help of sunlight, plant, bt."k CO, in to carbon ind oxygen' and release
Plants absorb
-atmorphere.
\{/ithotrt Cb, ^nd sunlight theri would be no greeneryon our plant'
oxygen back into
in school' scientists'
H..r'.., CO, is good for us. Surely,'if you and I learnt this when we were
diplomats and industrialists cannot be oblivious of it.
"rr.,rirorr.rr.rri"listi,
From Economic Times, APril 3' 2001.

94

Monogemenl
Environmenlol

Let's first look at the scientific evidence. Our planet Earth gets energy from the sun, some of
'Without
this
which is absorbed by carbon dioxide, water vapour and other gasesin the atmosphere.
heat, the planet would be very cold. The rest goes out of the eartht atmosphere. CO, levels were
constant for thousands of years till human beings started using fossil-fuel, which has incre.sed the
level of CO, in rhe atmosphere enormously. Many scientists believe the increased CO, levels can
lead to a gradual warming of the Earth, but others argue that this warming effect may be counteracted
by various other factors. Two years ago, a stuily by Princeton University claimed that planm within
the US can absorb the CO, releasedby fossil fuel burning in the country A more recent study,
reported in Science News on March 19, 2001 however, challengesthe Princeton University study'
According to this study conducted by David Schimel of the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry
in Germany, USt absorption of atmospheric CO, is around 0.3 gigaton per year, far below the
annual US carbon emissionsof 1.5 and 1.6 gigatons.Basedon data for the period 1980 to 1993, the
study finds that during droughts, US vegetation emits, and not absorbs,COt
True, as Mr Bush argues,there is incomplete "scientific knowledge of the causesof and solutior
to global climate change".But the issueis not whether CO, is a pollutant or nor. In small doses,COis essentialfor life on the planet, in large quantities it is a pollutant. So the issueis how much *rb*
can the US ecosystemabsorb.The US is the biggest producer of greenhousegasesin the world
pfoducing about a fourth of the total. The issueis whether the US absorbsall the-CO, it releases.
lr
the Schimelt study shows,it does not.
Most serious critics of the Kyoto accord do not quesrion the need for controlling the releaseof
greenhousesgases.The question that they ask: Are the objectives of the Kyoto accord achievable?Is
it not more realistic to keep the levelsof CO, emission from growing, instead of bringing them back
to some historical low? Putting a cap on CO, releaseby coal basedpower plants will make many of
theseplants uneconomiial. So for an economy faced with an energy crisis and falling into a recession,
the immediate queltion is: environment protection, at what cost?And many US poliry makers have
concluded that the environment can wait.
Unfortunately, the economic and political compulsions of the US presidencyhave put in deep freezethe half-hearted affempts of policy makers around the world ro prorect the environment.
Eileen Claussenand co-authors (1998) in "Equity and Global Climate Change" have classified
the annex I countries into two categoriesusing equiry crireria on global climate change as given in
the Thble below.
Table5.2
Classificationof CountriesUsing criteriaon Globalclimatechange
Category

Criteria
'High'

Must act now

for both responsibility and

standard of living criteria,
regardlessof opportuniry criteria
ranking

II
Shouldact
nowbut differendy

'Middle'

rankings for any two

ciiteria and all other
combinations

Annen I C.ountries

,A.ustralia,Austria, Belgium, Canada, Czech Republic,

Denmark, France, Germany, Greece,Israel, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, United
Kingdom, USA (20 countries)
Belarus, Butgaria, Estonia, Finland, Georgia,
Hungary Iceland, Ireland, Lawia, Lithuania, Moldova,
New Zealand, Poland, Romania, Russia,Slovak
Republic, Sweden,Switzerland, TirrkeyyUkraine (17
countries)

- Globol
Wormingt
Prcblems
Environment
5 Globol
Chopler

95

ondBusiness
Chonge
Climote
but many' especiallyin scientific
There is some skepticism about climate change in certain quarters
global warming continues T ft*n:
world, feel that th. throt from global warming is real' If the
imbalance in ecosystemwhich in turn
.",;;1 *."ra causestorms, flooir, drought "rri dir""r" and
out in letter and spirit, it would lead
would a-ffecteconomy and business.If Kyoto Protocol is carried
will have to change th-eoperations, adopt
to reduction in carbon emission,which means the industry
manufacturing' In fact' man)' heads of
alternativesfor energy production and change con"entional
and its afFectson business'They feel
companies h"u. .*p..rrld a concern "borrt tf,. climate change
associatedwith climate change' A
that it would be wise to understand the risks and opportunities
the patterns of hurricans in USA'
study
to
have formed
group of Insurance
" "orrror,i,r*
"o-p".ri.,
of billions of dollars' These
tune
the
A hurricane could causedamage to ProPerry and crops to
assets.Further, a result of global
companieswill have to adust tli.i, p*tfoiios'of climate-dependent
countries' the pharmaceutical
warming, if the tropical Ji.'.;r.r ,pr.*.i,o hitherto cold areasin dweloped
companies will find a larger market'
energy use' In other words'
For stabilising carbon dioxide emission, it would mean efficiency.in
long..'when the energy prices rise' the
energy efficient products would replace those existing since
which will affect the automobile
in
demand
leis
vehicles that consume more fuel (trucks) would be
technology equiprrlent would go
energy
industry. At the ,"r.r. ,iln" the pric., of goods like renewable
proJ,rci'g equipment th"t git'tr"tt electricity more efficiently'
companies like ABIi
;p5;;
"..
Ford, GM and Toyota are
This would increasethe compani., ,"1., "ttJ p-fiit. Daimler-chrysler,
on fuel cell technology with no carbon
*"rf.i"g on projects th"t *o.rid produce ."rr.h", would run
new market and small manufacturers may
dioxide emission.Thus these.".'gi"rr$ would dominate a
be out of the business.
changewould give an advantage in
Oil companiesfeel that taking a proactive position in climate
operating oil deposits'The
the sense,h", gorr...rln.*. -"y"p.o"id. th.m more oPPoftunities.for
change may take stePsto
climate
of
aware
proactive decision is a managerialiecision. The managers
mitigate the emissionsto earn public trust'

Carbon Tiading
on ClimateChangepreparedguidelinesfor international
Convention
At Rio,the Framework
targetsset out appliedonlyto developed
gas
emissions,.The
to curbgr""nn;r""
agreement
if countriesfailedto comply'The Kyoto
apply
would
votuntaiy-no'sanctions
countriesand were
at fivepercentreduction
targetsfor OeGlopedcountries,
pioto"of(1997)set outbg;tiy-Uinding
before,Kyoto.Protocol
mentioned
As
emissions.
in emissionsby 2010coiipit"o to t-netgso
be tradingbetween
would
There
Mechanism'
Development
includedcarbontrading/ilean
This wo.uldbe subiectto the conditionthat the trading
countries.
developedand devetoping
wouldcontributetosustainab|edeve|opmentindeve|opingcountries.
at homewouldbe
The US madeproposalfor tradingbecauseit fearedthatreducingemissions
considerable
make
US.would
itseconomy'The
effects'on
anOiniswouldhavead-verse
eXpensive
6f tradeable
Success
countries'
developing
be
would
spme
Thesellers
mechanisms.
u$eof,trading
permitsneeds to be watched.