It's been 13 years since the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was drafted and adopted by a majority of industrialized and developing nations. It's been 11 years since these same nations - and a handful of later comers - have ratified the Convention.
Here, Johanna's quick and dirty summary of what the UNFCCC means:
Let's protect the climate system, based on the best of our abilities - that is, the more resources you have to cut down on pollution, the more you need to do so. While the adverse effects of climate change affect the planet as a whole, the greenhouse gas emissions that lead to this can be traced back primarily to a small portion of us. Thus, developing countries - say, for instance, small island states - may share very little of the "blame" (or, as I prefer, may have received very few of the benefits associated with the rise in our standard of living and consequent consumption which helped get us here), and have fewer opportunities to do something about it. Thus, it's not enough to just worry about halting a possibly impossible to stop process of climate change, we need to concurrently think about sustainable development and equity. This is particularly important since the other half of the climate change problem is not about stopping climate change but adapting to it, and one of the keys to dealing with the adverse impacts of climate change is economic development. Furthermore, we shall not hide behind the "but you can't *prove* that my belching factory is causing climate change" statistical wrangling (ahem, neighbours south of the borders...), because, in the language of the UNFCCC, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing precautionary measures which, on the one hand, slow down the problem, and, on the other, help us deal with the likely outcomes of it.
The UNFCCC entered into force in 1994, and "ratified", for those of us who are mystified, means binding yourself to its terms. The U.S. ratified on October 15, 1992. Just a comment.
But, we're all agreed on "let's play nice and watch out for the weaker players". But your definition of "nice" and "watch out" may not be the same as mine. In other words, these amorphous terms of the UNFCCC - preventing dangerous impacts, taking lead responsibility and so on - they're the language of international negotiations, and when somebody doesn't like a word in negotiations, it gets taken out until you're left with vanilla pudding. So the next step was to *do* something, make a *real* commitment.
That's where Kyoto, or, more properly, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, comes in. The Kyoto Protocol is not that complicated: all it asks is that we, as a planet, reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases by just over five percent over 1990 levels - keep in mind that, by 1990, we had *already* reached scientific consensus that there was a human-induced signature in climate change (the scientists who are the darlings of a certain administration for trumpeting that you can't "prove" that or that it's simply "not true" notwithstanding - besides, see clause on lack of scientific certainty). So all Kyoto really did was ask the countries who had so happily ratified the UNFCCC to pretty please come up with a plan to walk the walk after talking the talk. By late 2004, 55% of the ratifying countries had signed on to Kyoto, meaning the treaty came into effect this year.
And what's happened? Well, bugger all, as far as I can tell. We've got some powerhouses who think very little of international consensus and very much of their own "proof" regardless of whether or not the UN concurs (I'm looking south *again*) saying, nope, not playing with *that*, we're all for playing nice but nobody told us we'd have to let other people play in the sandbox! And so we keep tinkering with the UNFCCC amendments, and haggling over just what is meant by "adverse impact" (because," it might threaten people's livelihoods", that's apparently not clear enough) and so forth, and really, it's kind of cool to have these big-deal Conference of the Parties meetings every year since the UNFCCC was ratified. It gets you to places, you know: Milan, Buenos Aires, Delhi, Bonn, the Hague, Morocco... and this year, Montreal, later this month.
Except this year, it's different. This is the first Conference of the Parties meeting since Kyoto came into effect. So it's not just CoP, it's MoP, that is, "Meeting of the Parties". Whatever that means - I certainly can't tell from the agenda I've seen. I also know that we, Canada, sure haven't done our share on the emissions reduction, even if we *did* sign. After all, instead of a five percent redution over 1990, we've got a 24% *increase* in GHG emissions by 2003. I know that some of the powerhouse polluters didn't even sign. Did you know that the U.S. is the single largest polluter in the world, that GHG emissions from that one country are about a third higher than *all* of the European Union and *five times* as high as the next biggest polluter, Japan? So where do we go now?
I know. We remember that other half of the UNFCCC - you know, how the first half said, don't put so much crap out there, and the second half was, do what we can to make sure the crap that is out there doesn't hurt us too much? The help us deal wit the likely outcomes of it? The adaptation part? The part that has become more important than ever given the apparent failure of the reduction of greenhouse gases strategy espoused by Kyoto? The part that the US is also a signatory to?
Yeah. What are we doing here? Bugger all, too, it seems, we're so fixed on the one bit that - though a noble and very,very important initiative - isn't working so well, and forgetting that it has a very neglected twin. And you'd think that we, Canada, as an acknowledged rich country, as the host to this event, as one of the ones who *said* we'll walk the walk, and as a nation that has its own disproportionately affected in farmers at the margins of production and indigenous people dependent on sea ice and all that, we really can - and should - be doing more. Let's get to the doing, then, shall we?
And, if you want the data, go here to download the Greenhouse Gas Emissions data report. But if it makes you depressed, well, don't blame me.
It's not like November wasn't already a depressing month. I'll leave you with a chunk of Wordsworth:
The world is too much with us; late and soon,
Getting and spending, we lay waste our powers;
Little we see in Nature that is ours;
We have given our hearts away, a sordid boon!
This Sea that bares her bosom to the moon,
The winds that will be howling at all hours,
And are up-gathered now like sleeping flowers,
For this, for everything, we are out of tune;
It moves us not.