Bali conference: Time for action on climate change
Mallika WANIGASUNDARA
One of the biggest obstacles to the implementation of the 1997 Kyoto
Protocol for the reduction of the levels of carbon dioxide emissions and
other green house gases into the atmosphere was the refusal of three of
the biggest polluters, the US, the European Union and Australia to sign
the Protocol.
The agreement stipulated that carbon emission levels be reduced by
five per cent between 1997 and 2007 on a voluntary basis.
Against these almost intractable giants Sri Lanka hopes to make a
strong impact with certain proposals and
recommendations at the upcoming UN Conference on Climate Change due to
be held at Bali between Dec.3rd and Dec. 14th.
Sri Lanka can claim to take a lead role in reducing carbon emissions
as our level stands at .9 tonnes [ note: point nine] per capita as
against the US’s 19 tonnes per capita around 1997. It could be 22 tonnes
per capita now for the US, says Minister of Environment Patali Champika
Ranawake in an interview.
Sri Lanka has some other plus points in world ratings. The World
Economic Forum along with researchers from the universities of Yale and
Columbia rate Sri Lanka as one of the greenest countries in the region
and places her in 36th position among 141 countries ahead of Australia
and Malaysia.
In the green house gases category where carbon emissions are measured
per capita Sri Lanka rates 37th place.In the energy efficiency rating
Sri Lanka gets 36th place, and 66th when social and economic factors are
taken into account.
In the light of these achievements Sri Lanka Tourism is taking
advantage to promote the country on the theme ‘a carbon clean Sri Lanka-
Tourism’s earth lung’. Minister Champika Ranawake explained the
background to the proposals which Sri Lanka hopes to make at the
conference.
Under the Kyoto Protocol 39 countries were ranked as high polluters
as their levels of carbon emissions were above the world average of 5.2
tonnes per capita, and they were placed in what was called Annexure One.
Upto 2007 the cut of five percent was voluntary. Now, from 2008 to
2012 real carbon emission cuts have been made mandatory. Voicing Sri
Lanka’s position Minister Ranawake says that considering carbon emission
levels now a five percent cut is inadequate. It should be increased, he
says. The time for change is ripe, he adds, because there are no valid
arguments against the need to cut carbon emissions as there were
earlier.
The link between high levels of carbon emissions and other green
house gases and the warming of the planet and climate change is being
generally accepted and is not being strongly contested.
The sceptics have become a thinning crowd, he says. One of the
arguments brought forward by the US is that computations should be made
on a countrywise basis and not on per capita.
But says Minister Ranawake, at the last meeting of the UN Council on
Climate Change in New York we decided to adopt the per capita
computation because small and weak countries like ourselves would
benefit more and get a fairer deal in the carbon trade.
After 1997 certain mechanisms came into operation such as carbon
trading.Those countries which have over the average carbon emission
levels can buy carbon credit points from countries which earned low
levels of carbon emission, below the world average which is 5.2 tonnes
per capita
There is then the CDM or Clean Development Mechanism through the
operation of which we can earn money in the carbon business from the
high polluters if we run projects which emit lower levels of carbon such
as through the use of renewable energies like wind power solar power,
hydro ‘bio energy and in garbage management.
These mechanisms can earn money for countries with low levels of
carbon emission and encourage themselves and others.
There is money in carbon trading- US dollars ten per ton of
carbon.Many Soviet bloc countries now in the EU engage in this kind of
carbon trading.Almost all these countries have low levels of carbon
emissions below average and they do carbon deals with high polluters
like Germany, France and Britain.
There is another mechanism call Joint Implementation in which the
high polluters implement joint projects which use energy sources which
emit less carbon such as wind power, hydro,or bio energy and other
renewable energy sources; or they have joint projects for garbage
management. These carbon credits too can be bought for payment, This
kind of carbon trading has been going on between the EU and Russia.
But as in the case of all matters there are hitches for small, poor
and weak countries in the carbon business , says Minister Ranawake.Only
about 20 per cent of the carbon business is left for small countries.
China. India and Brazil dominate this trade. There is a reason for this.
Countries like Sri Lanka have small projects which have low levels of
carbon emission, but we are not in a position to offer large volumes of
carbon credits to these big polluters as China, India and Brazil are
able to do. Minister Ranawake is of the view that the carbon trade
should be rationalised, so that all countries will benefit from it
equitably.
More attention, he says, should be paid to the countries of Asia,
Africa and South America which are in the final count the countries
which least pollute the atmosphere and provide the carbon sinks through
the existence of huge forested areas.
This is why we are pushing for the per capita evaluation of carbon
emissions as against evaluation on a country basis. In addition we are
recommending a quota system in the carbon market, which could be based
on certain parameters , such as biodiversity, population, ecological
balance, clean projects, carbon emissions etc.
This would give us more equitable treatment , and a fairer deal. The
carbon trade should not be used as a political tool, he commented.
Our forests are carbon sinks and they absorb carbon emitted globally
. For providing these carbon store houses we should be paid, he
observed. But here too there is a hitch. The high polluters will not pay
for our existing forests like Sinharaja . They will only pay for new
forests on the basis of what is called aforestration and re-forestation
which fall within certain time scales.
We also hope to demand that the Adaptation Fund be operated properly.
Money has not been put into it as agreed earlier. So this must be done
Mr Ranawake said. At least five per cent of the carbon business should
be put into it, he said.
There will come a time when not only the people of the Pacific
islands, the Maldives and even Sri Lanka would be affected but all
people all over the world living in coastal areas would face the
catastrophe. They would have to be relocated, resettled fed and
maintained.
In the final count not only these piecemeal measures but all
countries of the world, particularly the high polluters will have to
reduce carbon emissions on a global scale if this planet is to avert the
disaster.
The enormity of what awaits planet earth is spelt out in a document
compiled by the most authoritative body on climate change , the UN’s
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ahead of the Bali conference.
It warns that the world is on the verge of a catastrophe due to
global warming. In a summary for policy makers it dismisses the views of
those who have been sceptical about green house gases and climate
change.
By 2100 global temperatures would rise between 1.1 C [1.98F] and 6.4C
[11.52F] compared to 1980/1999 levels. Sea levels would rise by between
18 and 59 centimetres [7.2 and 23.2 inches].We do not have to think
about far away islands we can think of Colombo, Jaffna, Hambantota and
Batticaloa.
In fact it is already here: retreating glaciers, the thinning of
arctic ice, the melting of snows, the thawing of permafrost. There will
be heat waves, droughts, forest fires, rainstorms floods, cyclones, sea
level surges and shortage of drinking water in a situation in which
trapped heat will change weather patterns everywhere.
When the ancient ice sheets melt the sea levels will rise faster and
inundate low-lying coastal areas;farms will be flooded and salination
will occur. There will be damage to ports, buildings, tourist resorts,
marinas , beaches. Fish and prawn habitats will be washed away with
mangroves and estuaries. |