Climate Change Update - April 2004

from Dr. David G. Hallman, Climate Change Programme Coordinator, World Council of Churches (WCC)
WCC resources listed in italics are on WCC web site at: http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/what/jpc/ecology.html
To subscribe to regular updates on the WCC Climate Change Network, contact dhallman@sympatico.ca

New Scientific Research
a) The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment - Important new research on climate change focused on impacts in the Arctic was released in November 2004. Summary information includes the following:
The Arctic is extremely vulnerable to observed and projected climate change and its impacts. The Arctic is now experiencing some of the most rapid and severe climate change on earth. Over the next 100 years, climate change is expected to accelerate, contributing to major physical, ecological, social and economic changes, many of which have already begun. Changes in arctic climate will also affect the rest of the world through increasing global warming and rising sea levels…Indigenous communities are facing major economic and cultural impacts. (cf: www.acia.uaf.edu ; www.amap.no/acia ; www.cicero.uio.no)
The Indigenous Peoples of the Arctic are taking action. “We're an adaptable people, but adaptability has its limits,” says Sheila Watt-Cloutier, the head of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the group recognised by the United Nations as representing the Inuit people. “Something is bound to give, and it's starting to give in the Arctic, and we're sending that early warning signal to the rest of the world.” The Inuit have announced that they would demand a ruling from the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights that the United States, as the prime source of greenhouse gas pollution, is in violation of the Commission's own norms. (cf: www.inuitcircumpolar.com/)
b) Hadley Centre Predicts Big Temperature Rise – “Uncertainty, Risk and Dangerous Climate Change” is a new study released by the Hadley Centre for Climate Change in the United Kingdom. The report predicts that the heat-wave in 2003 which killed 15,000 in Europe will seem “unusually cool” by 2050. It estimates that the average temperatures will rise by 3.5C, far above the 2C which the European Union and many other scientific, political and civil society bodies suggest should be the maximum limit to avoid devastating climate change. The report further predicts that the Greenland Ice Sheet could disappear potentially raising the sea level by 7 metres. (cf: www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/ )
c) Food resources threatened by climate change
Results of a major scientific symposium in Germany point to significant threats for food security in vulnerable regions. A press release from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research says that “according to the report, climate change could have disastrous consequences for South Asia, causing social unrest and creating environmental refugees. A global warming of around 2.5C was felt to be potentially dangerous for food security in India if associated with significant reductions in the amount of precipitation and changes in timing. A similar level of warming was associated with potentially dangerous and rapid increase in flood risk in Bangladesh. In China, a 2.5-3C increase in global mean temperatures over pre-industrial levels could reduce rice yield by 10-20% under worst case assumptions on CO2 fertilization, while in Southern Africa a 2-2.5C warming could significantly increase the risk of commercial crop failure. In some regions where fish provides a major source of protein, such as Malawi, a similar increase in temperature would virtually eliminate the primary source of protein for almost 50% of the population.” (cf: www.pik-potsdam.de/ )

Kyoto Protocol Comes into Effect
The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 under the UN auspices as a detailed agreement with specific targets and timetables for emission reductions within the context of the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Protocol requires the “developed country parties” (i.e. mainly Northern industrialised nations) to reduce the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by various percentages from the 1990 base year. The average reduction is about 5% from 1990 levels with certain nations such as the European Union accepting a more ambitious target of 8% reduction. “Developing country parties” (i.e. mainly Southern poorer nations) accepted commitments on establishing GHG inventories and reporting actions taken but are not required to meet specific reduction targets. The principle of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’ in the Climate Change Convention means that although all nations must do their part to address the threat of climate change, the wealthier nations have the moral responsibility to do the most initially to reduce emissions since it is their pollution which is most accountable for creating the problem of human-induced climate change and they have greater financial resources than the poorer nations to take appropriate action. In order for the Kyoto Protocol to come into effect, it needed to be ratified by at least 55 countries including industrialised nations that represented at least 55% of the global emissions. The USA under the Bush Administration has rejected ratification of the treaty. The USA with 4% of the world’s population produces 25% of the global emissions. Australia has also refused to ratify the Protocol. This meant that most other industrialised nations had to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in order to meet the 55/55 criteria. The Russian Federation, after much internal debate, formally announced that it would ratify the Protocol in September 2004. The Kyoto Protocol came into effect as international law on February 16, 2005. (cf: Climate Justice – WCC presentation at World Climate Change Conference, Moscow, Sept. 2003; WCC press release: Oct. 1, 2004). 

Adaptation to Climate Change
Most of the international negotiations on climate change over the past decade have been focused on addressing the causes of human-induced climate change with the Kyoto Protocol being the prime example. However, the accumulating scientific evidence indicates that climate change is already happening and vulnerable communities are already suffering through sea-level rise, increased droughts, floods, tropical storms, etc. Furthermore, the pace of emission reduction by industrialised nations has been unacceptably slow. The World Council of Churches has been working with denominational and ecumenical relief and development agencies to increase awareness of the impacts of climate change and support efforts to reduce the vulnerability of communities. (cf. Solidarity with Victims of Climate Change; WCC press release Sept. 3. 2002) The WCC also co-sponsored a major consultation on climate change with Pacific Churches and the resulting statement, The Otin Taai Declaration, was endorsed by the WCC Central Committee in February 2005 (WCC press release: Feb. 18, 2005). Developing nations that are increasingly experiencing the impacts of climate change have been arduously pressing for action and support to address the need for adaptation at the last several major negotiating sessions especially at the 9th Session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (COP9) in Milan in December 2003 and COP10 in Buenos Aires in December 2004. Industrialised nations, particularly the USA, has been resistant to agreeing to significant collective action on adaptation since that would acknowledge a level of responsibility for creating the problem which they refuse to do. OPEC oil-producing countries led by Saudi Arabia have also held up progress by their insistence that actions to address adaptation be tied to international efforts to help their own countries economically from the impact of “response measures” to climate change which would reduce global fossil fuel use. As a result of these various forms of resistance, a limited compromise agreement to move forward was agreed at COP10 much to the frustration of the developing nations which are suffering already. (Adaptation issues are also raised in a WCC theological reflection on Tsunamis and Climate Change – where is God? available on the WCC web site.)

International Emission Trading System
One of the ‘flexibility mechanisms’ within the Kyoto Protocol to help countries meet their reduction targets is a provision for emission trading. Countries and companies which are below their assigned target can sell credits to countries and companies that have not been able to meet their reduction target. The European Union is the first entity to initiate an emission trading system among major industrial sectors as of 2005. Currently, it exists within the boundaries of the European Union. Other countries including Canada are in the planning stages for similar trading systems. All of these are being designed in such as way as to be compatible when the time comes for a global emission trading system. Though there may be ecological and economic benefits for national and regional emission trading systems, the World Council of Churches and other civil society groups have been concerned about the ecological integrity and economic fairness of such a system were it to become global. A WCC consultation was held on this subject in 2000 and the report The Earth’s Atmosphere – Responsible Caring and Equitable Sharing of a Global Commons is available in the climate change section of the WCC web site.

Negotiations Needed on Post-Kyoto Climate Change Policy Framework
The emission reduction targets in the Kyoto Protocol are intended to be met by 2010-2012. The WCC, academic institutions and civil society groups have been doing some thinking about what kind of climate change policy framework should be negotiated for the period after Kyoto. The WCC has prepared a major paper on ethical dimensions which is on the WCC web site entitled Moving Beyond Kyoto with Equity, Justice and Solidarity. Given the length of time that it takes to negotiate international treaties, it is essential that such negotiations begin as soon as possible. At COP10, the USA resisted starting such post-Kyoto discussions since the Bush Administration doesn’t even accept the Kyoto Protocol itself. A plan was proposed by some countries to hold seminars to begin exploring future options. The USA circulated a paper saying that such a seminar should not discuss “any future commitment, framework or mandate” for addressing climate change and “there should be no written or oral report of the meeting”. The final agreement was a very compromised plan to hold a seminar in May 2005 in Bonn that, in order to satisfy the USA, is in no way to be seen as leading to negotiations intended to set specific emission reduction targets and time-tables for post-2012.