Kyoto rocks....

Writing in the Financial Times, the US undersecretary of state for global affairs, Paula Dobriansky, described the Kyoto protocol as 'an unrealistic and ever-tightening straightjacket, curtailing energy consumption'. It was a no-holds barred attack on an agreement which already looks as though it is stumbling under blows from those who say that the targets are impossible to reach.

While the UK government has backed Kyoto all the way, figures released early in December 2003 make for depressing reading. Only the UK and Sweden are anywhere near to meeting targets for cutting emissions (see table for target hits and misses).

We have to ask if the Kyoto protocol collapses what can we do instead? Perhaps the only bright spot comes from the unlikely quarter of those who always thought Kyoto was a bad idea. Global representatives gathered in Milan in December 2003 to discuss the future of climate change and how we can deal with it.

There are groups within these delegates, and not just the USA who have always felt that the Kyoto protocol was more hindrance than help. Its rules are regarded as too complex, and methods nothing more than political fudge. Furthermore, they say that we would need a new plan in 2012 anyway – so why not use this opportunity to adopt a plan B now? This alternative approach is known as 'C&C': contraction and convergence.

Contraction means reducing the global output of greenhouse gases. This is no different from the aims of Kyoto, of course. However, C&C means adopting the 60% reduction by 2050 which was recommended by the Royal Commission on Pollution – and which has been adopted by the UK government. On a global scale, this would require careful management, and hence the policy of 'convergence'.

At the moment, developed areas such as the USA and Western Europe do most of the polluting. This is an imbalance which cannot continue if the less developed countries are to develop to their full potential. Under C&C therefore, national emissions targets would converge year by year towards an agreed target based on each country's population. So by 2050, every person in the world will have the same right to pollute.

Contraction and convergence does include the opportunity to trade emissions, simply because some countries will find it harder to make cuts than others. However, under C&C the whole world will be involved, and there will be much sterner targets. Supporters of C&C say that it will put an end to the short-termism of Kyoto, and focus everyone on the problem of global warming rather than the complicated mechanism for attempting to fix the problem.

There is an argument that says we should try to stick with the Kyoto protocol as far as possible, and make it work. Also, that whatever measures countries take to cut emissions it's a step in the right direction, whatever the strategic system in place. Kyoto has got itself bogged down in nitty gritty, and has become something of a political rather than a scientific tool. For example, at December's COP9 meeting, it was decided to launch a Special Climate Change Fund to help poorer nations cope with and adapt to the impact of global warming. In response, Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations argued they should get assistance from the Fund if renewable energies such as wind and solar power dent demand for fossil fuels...

Those who support C&C are still a small number. But the withdrawal of Russia from the Kyoto protocol will invalidate it. This would leave the world looking for an alternative. C&C may be more attractive to the USA, and, looking on the bright side of this potentially huge setback for the environment, it would be better to have America on-side.