The Climate Change Conference, held in Kyoto, Japan, last winter, made international headlines. After more than a week of intensive negotiations,150 nations signed a historic treaty to curb greenhouse gas emissions. What's next promises to be even more contentious.

Hot Stuff Gets Hotter

The Earth's surface covers an area of more than 500 million square kilometres. Simply put, our planet is a huge place. In fact, it's so huge that you would think it could absorb massive environmental assaults before any effects were felt. To a certain extent that's true.

But the Earth is also a fragile place and small differences-say, in temperature--often have big impacts. For example, about 20,000 years ago, during the last ice age, the glaciers that cascaded over Europe and North America were set in motion by a fall of 4 degrees centigrade in average summer temperatures.

Now, during the past 120 years, the Earth's average temperature has increased by 0.5 degrees centigrade. What will be the consequences of this warming trend, which at first glance may seem insignificant?

The greenhouse effect is largely a natural phenomenon due to the atmosphere's heat-trapping capabilities. In fact, without such warming, the Earth would be a cold and desolate place unable to support life. Emissions due to human activities--coal- and gas-fired power plants, automobiles and biomass burnings--account for less than 5 percent of all greenhouse gas emissions.

Are these human activities now causing global warming? Nobody, not even climatologists, knows for sure. Over the past decade many mathematical models have been developed. Yet historical data on climate and temperature remains sparse. And even if humans have had a hand in global warming, that hand may prove to be a minor factor when compared to the powerful forces of nature--everything from ocean currents to sunspots to volcanic eruptions--that effect our climate.

Knowing who or what is responsible for global warming would certainly help us to devise a more effective long-term strategy for addressing the issue. Yet, a more compelling concern is this: We may not be able to wait until we have all the answers because the consequences of delay could be catastrophic.

The Climate Change Conference, held in Kyoto, Japan, last December, with representatives from more than 150 countries, marked a step in the right direction. But it was just a small step. The pact calls for 38 industrialised nations to cut their greenhouse emissions by an average of 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012. The United States, which produces 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, agreed to a 7 percent cut. Meanwhile, the 15 nations of the European Union agreed to an 8 percent reduction, and Japan signed on to a 6 percent cut.

Such measures are admirable but they are by no means sufficient. First, even if the targets set by industrialised nations are met (which is by no means certain), the benefits that accrue will be overwhelmed by increases in emissions taking place elsewhere. From 1990 to 2015, carbon dioxide emissions from Russia and Eastern European nations as well as from developing countries are likely to double. In fact, in less than 20 years, these nations will likely account for more than one-half of the world's greenhouse gas emissions. As a result, unless subsequent agreements require these nations to abide by emissions targets, the Kyoto accord will not do much to alleviate the global warming problem.

Second, the Kyoto agreement calls for a sizeable portion of the cutbacks to be achieved through "emissions trading." This strategy will allow industrialised nations with high pollution levels to buy "pollution credits" from developing nations with low pollution levels. Supporters call "emissions trading" a wise strategy that puts the market to work for the environment. Critics label the plan a "license to pollute." Beyond the rhetoric, nobody is sure it will work.

Third, the Kyoto agreement treats all greenhouse gases as equal. The truth is they are not. One tonne of carbon dioxide emissions does not effect our climate in the same way as one tonne of methane. And one tonne of methane does not have the same impact as one tonne of chloroflourocarbons. All of this makes a strategy for emissions reductions extremely complex.

Fourth, the Kyoto agreement fails to address the impact of forest and underbrush burning, which is increasingly viewed as a significant source of global warming. Such practices, which are often used to clear land in remote areas throughout the developing world, affect global warming on two fronts: they raise the atmosphere's carbon dioxide levels while curbing the Earth's ability to absorb this greenhouse gas through photosynthesis. In the short-term, moreover, the burnings of forests and underbrush are also having a dramatic impact on local climate change.

So, where does this leave us? Given the fact that the conference nearly collapsed and was only rescued by last minute negotiations, we should be thankful for the progress that was made. Yet, we have not heard the last about global warming. An issue that has been on the front burner of the global environmental agenda for the past decade is likely to remain there in the years ahead.

Back to Contents Forward to Features

Home