The Post-Kyoto Era

By T. Helene Ystanes Føyn

The views expressed in this essay are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Technical University of Denmark (DTU). This is a shortened version of a larger essay, you can view the full essay by clicking the link at the bottom of this page.

When the Kyoto Protocol runs out in 2012, there is no longer an international agreement in place to limit the emission of greenhouse gases (GHGs), apart from internal agreements for EU nations. The annual UN negotiations have aimed at finding a replacement for the Protocol but have not yet succeeded. In Denmark much hope was put into the COP15 meeting that took place in Copenhagen in 2009. Unfortunately no global agreement was reached and instead the outcome was the Copenhagen Accord to which countries have the opportunity to submit unilateral and non-binding pledges for emission reductions in 2020. Currently there is no indication that a comprehensive agreement will be in place in time to replace the Protocol by 2013. Thus we need to prepare for a world without a global agreement regulating GHGs but with a pressing need to mitigate climate change and to bring down emission levels rapidly.

Many see the negative prospects for a binding international agreement as a major defeat and believe that the 'climate case' is lost. However there are many good alternatives that are not necessarily inferior to a global agreement. Many mitigation initiatives are already in place and these will continue the reduction efforts.

Several national mitigation commitments and polices are in place, as well as renewable energy and energy efficiency policies. Combined with energy security policies reducing dependence on imported fossil fuels these often imply significant emission reductions. Examples include China’s 11th Five Year Plan with a goal for 20% energy savings, Brazil’s commitment to substantial GHG reductions from “land use, land use change, and forestry” (LULUCF) and the U.S. Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 which regulates renewable fuel volume targets toward 2022 are all important initiatives but currently fall short of the effect that a binding international agreement can have.

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) global GHG emissions must be reduced by 50 – 85% by 2050 compared to 2000 levels in order to keep global temperature increase below 2°C (Metz et al., 2007). At the same time economic growth and development is a goal for most countries. Historically economic growth has been followed by increased energy consumption as well as increased GHG emissions. Thus to reach the double objective of major emissions reduction and continued economic growth economic activity needs to be decoupled from GHG emissions. This will require reduced energy consumption, a move away from fossil fuels and reductions outside the energy sector necessitating usage of a wide span of mitigation technologies.

A key conclusion from, among others, the International Energy Agency’s 'Energy Technology Perspectives 2010' is that a wide range of technologies need to be used (including energy efficiency, renewables, CCS, and nuclear) and that many of them are mature for immediate use while some require research and development and innovation activities. The claim is wrong that we should wait with serious mitigation efforts because we do not yet have the appropriate technologies or that they are still too expensive.

Objectives of economic growth, sustainable development and climate change mitigation can very well go hand in hand and they need not be conflicting, as is often asserted. Potentially there can be large synergies between global and national economic and development policies, green growth and climate change mitigation. Examples are energy efficiency policies and measures, removal of subsidies on fossil fuels, intelligent and holistic urban planning and electrification.

Coping with the current international economic crisis might require investments in industrial infrastructure, innovation, enhanced global collaboration and trade, etc. The opportunity should be seized to 'green' the global economy, as emphasised by the UN’s Global Green New Deal effort. Many countries have indeed spent large funds on green initiatives as part of their 'recovery packages'. The deployment of new green technologies can play a key role, as technology transfers can increase economic growth in developing countries and can ensure that development does not compromise global climate change and energy security objectives. For example China is opening one to two new coal fired power plants every week to ensure enough energy for the growing industry, turning such investments into climate friendly ones would have a large impact on global GHG emissions.

The Danish situation is a good example of the point made above. Since the oil crises of the 1970s Denmark has managed to completely decouple economic growth from energy consumption and has developed a large domestic clean-tech industry which accounts for a substantial share of Danish exports. In September 2010 the Danish Commission on Climate Change Policy released a report with its recommendations for how Denmark could become a fossil fuel free society in the long term. The commission assessed that the cost of this development will be roughly 0.5% of GDP in 2050.

Conclusion
Despite the fact that there is not yet an international agreement ready to replace the Kyoto Protocol the world may well have many alternatives that are not necessarily inferior to a global agreement. Many emissions reducing initiatives are already in place and these will continue the mitigation efforts. Furthermore, mitigation efforts may go hand-in-hand with sustainable economic development.

You can read Helene's full essay here