Pressure Builds for Accord At Talks on Climate Change
Negotiators in the Buenos Aires talks on global warming were locked in a last-minute struggle last night to resolve key questions. The matters seemed merely procedural but in reality went to the heart of the politically charged issue of how fast the world can and should move to deal with the prospect of climatic change.
At issue were the shape and pace of the work schedule for putting flesh on the bones of the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement reached a year ago in Japan. Under it, industrialized countries committed themselves to make legally binding reductions in emissions of heat-trapping waste industrial gases like carbon dioxide.
Mainstream scientists say that if the emissions are not reduced, the world's climate could be seriously disrupted in coming decades.
As the Buenos Aires discussions opened on Nov. 2, virtually all major participants said the measure of their success would be the adoption of a work schedule. But as the 12 days of talks went well past their scheduled end of midnight Friday, no accord had been achieved.
The work schedule is crucial because it would govern how soon operating rules are established. Not until then, assuming that the Kyoto Protocol is ratified by the required countries, including the United States, can the protocol take effect.
Late in the day, the conference chairwoman, Maria Julia Alsogary of Argentina, circulated a draft proposal establishing a two-year deadline for fashioning the rules.
As midnight approached, there was cautious optimism. 'I think it's likely we're going to reach closure, but the clock is ticking,' said Dirk Forrister, a member of the American delegation. It was clear, he said, that the deadline would be extended: 'We're going to be going into the wee hours' of this morning.
At Kyoto the industrialized countries agreed to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by an average of about 5 percent below 1990 levels in the next 10 to 14 years. The gases are produced mainly by the burning of coal, oil, wood and natural gas.
The United States' reduction would be 7 percent. Developing countries so far have no specific targets but are required in general to control their emissions.
One of the two operational mechanisms established at Kyoto is called emissions trading. It would allow a country or private company to achieve its cuts partly by buying reductions from a country or company that has reduced its emissions more than required.
In theory, the method's proponents say, that would bring about faster reductions at lower cost. They say this has been proved by an emissions trading system for reducing industrial sulfur dioxide emissions in the United States.
The other arrangement, called the clean development mechanism, is intended to enable rich countries to invest in emissions reduction projects in poor countries.
One example is high-efficiency power plants that emit less carbon. That way, in theory, the poor countries would reap environmental and economic benefits. The investor and the recipient would share credit for the emissions reductions achieved.
One sticking point in Buenos Aires involved which of the two mechanisms should be given priority. Many developing countries, seeing the prospect of reaping new investment in their economies, wanted the rules for the clean development mechanism to be worked out first, on an accelerated schedule, with those for emissions trading completed later.
The United States and other rich countries feared that if the clean development mechanism received first priority, developing countries would refuse to approve rules for emissions trading. Developing countries have been suspicious of emissions trading, fearing that it might be used an excuse for not reducing emissions. The United States therefore insisted that the two mechanisms move ahead on parallel tracks.
As the Buenos Aires session moved into its final hours, the parallel-track idea appeared to be ascendant. Ms. Alsogaray's proposal would require that 'substantial progress' on rules for the operating mechanisms be demonstrated a year from now, with a firm decision in two years.