Kyoto Protocol on Life Support for Another Year

The Kyoto Protocol, the world's only legal agreement to fight global warming, survived Copenhagen but its future remains very much in doubt.

The treaty, which binds 37 nations to emissions cuts, is still "an active agreement," but it appears "to be on life support," Erich Pica, executive director of Friends of the Earth USA, told SolveClimate.

The Dec. 7-18 Copenhagen talks failed to resolve the rich-poor impasse over the 1997 protocol.

Instead, the world agreed to "continue its work" on Kyoto until the next climate conference in Mexico in December 2010 — leaving open the possibility of downgrading or replacing it less than a year from now.

For some Kyoto supporters, the simple fact that it wasn't buried in Copenhagen is a kind of victory. For others, especially poor nations, the ambiguity around the treaty's future foretells its imminent end.

"If I were a developing country, I would be nervous about this agreement," Pica said, referring to the non-binding Copenhagen Accord that emerged from the talks.

Arun Jaitly, leader of India’s Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), said:

"Admittedly, the Copenhagen Accord does not contain a specific statement that the Kyoto Protocol is no longer operational." But, he added, "there is ... an implied abandonment of the Protocol and the Bali Action Plan."

Kyoto imposes mandatory carbon cuts on rich nations, with the exception of the United States, which never ratified the treaty and has no obligations for curbs on the poor.

Its future was at the heart of the two-week talks.

The treaty's first "commitment period" ends in two years. Until then, developed states are legally bound to a 5.2 percent carbon cut below 1990 levels by 2012.

In Copenhagen, debate raged over whether to lock in the second phase of the protocol post 2012, with deeper cuts of at least 40 percent by 2020, as poor nations nations wanted, or scrap it altogether in favor of a brand new framework, a position favored by the rich.

The first drafts coming out of the summit called for Kyoto's extension to at least 2017. The issue was on the table until the very last minute, according to observers.

But in the end, no deadlines and no specific caps on emissions were set.

The G-77 plus China says it is determined to keep Kyoto alive — along with a parallel legally binding agreement that would force comparable obligations on the United States.

Rich vs. Poor

Poor nations see the ditching of Kyoto as an end to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility," which ensures rich nations carry the world's carbon-cutting burden.

Wealthy countries, on the other hand, want one, brand-new binding agreement for all carbon polluters.

In fact, rich states bound by Kyoto's commitments have long been ready to jump ship — although some more than others, and for different reasons.

For instance, in the EU, Kyoto is domestic law until 2020 already, but the bloc would much prefer a new international framework that covers the U.S. and other major emitters.

Japan wants out because it feels it got a bad wrap in 1997. Being the host country, it took on strict commitments that it is now struggling meet. It is also concerned over economic competitiveness with China and South Korea, which have no obligations under the Kyoto Protocol.

The Australians want a single, bottom-up alternative to Kyoto, where nations pursue hard emissions cuts and review the results later.

Canada never implemented its Kyoto commitments, and has no plans to, as its emissions continue to surge wildly, due largely to tar sands development.

The U.S., for its part, has made it crystal clear it will not be part of any international climate regime — Kyoto or otherwise — that does not force mandatory carbon cuts on China and other big polluters.