18 July 2011 | Luca Del Buono
Climate Change, Finance/insurance, Africa, Asia, Europe, North America

 

Professor Sir David King

The outspoken scientist, who once described climate change as "a greater threat than international terrorism", told the Guardian: "I can't see the Kyoto protocol making any headway - there are enough blocks in place, especially from the US and China, that it is wholly unlikely that it will go on. We need to be pragmatic."

His preferred policy would see countries each set their own limits, without an overarching policy framework like the Kyoto mechanism. He called this "a far more realistic pathway than hoping countries will come together in an international agreement at a single point".
"If you say only a full [legally binding] treaty is any good, we will still be arguing about it in 20 years," he said.

But these views were not welcome by many campaigners and policy analysts. Nick Mabey, founding director & chief executive of sustainability thinktank, E3G, said: Kyoto contains the critical architecture needed to for an effective global climate-regime. Kyoto contains all the necessary elements for monitoring, compliance, finance, technical cooperation and economic efficiency. There is no magic institutional structure waiting to be discovered that isn’t already contained inside or is compatible with a reformed version of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto architecture took years to negotiate, refine and ratify.”

There is no time left to start from scratch again. The problem many countries have with Kyoto is not because it is flawed, but because it holds them to account in delivering real greenhouse gas emissions reductions.”

"Scrapping Kyoto and waiting for something better to come along is a bit like abandoning your car by the side of the road in the hope someone will pick you up later," said Ruth Davis, chief policy adviser at Greenpeace. "The new report's authors are right to stress that global co-operation and common rules are essential, but Kyoto is the only agreement the world has made so far that moves us closer to those goals. Scrapping it would send a destructive signal to investors and undermine the green economy."

In the report titled ‘International climate change negotiations: Key lessons and next steps’ King and colleagues provide a summary of the international efforts to address the problem of climate change.  Of the Copenhagen and Cancun Conference of Parties (COP) negotiation, the report says:

• The current actions pledged are still a long way from what is necessary: individual Governments need to take more action to curb emissions
• New forums for negotiations should be utilised in parallel with the UNFCCC process, focused on bilateral and regional action
• The pledge-and-review system set up in Copenhagen and Cancun is a useful way forward in the absence of an international legally-binding agreement

The report puts forward a series of next steps or actions that would be practical in furthering practical action. Notably:

• Strong decisive steps are needed from key governments to place a long-term, stable and appropriate price on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
• This will signal to the corporate sector that climate change is to be dealt with seriously, and stimulate appropriate investment from that sector to produce market-facing solutions
• Limiting emissions from deforestation is a key area in which incentives need to be put in place immediately
• RD&D spending on clean energy should be increased with the public sector using its limited funds to leverage private sector investment
• The co-benefits between energy security, economic stimulus through energy efficiencies and innovation, and tackling climate change should be highlighted.

Full report

blog comments powered by Disqus