Twenty years later in 1992 at the Earth Summit in Rio (also known as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change), 189 parties gathered together to make an agreement to reduce emissions of this pollution. It had been observed that certain gases were having a more dramatic effect than others and 6 GreenHouse Gases (GHG) were isolated as being the most responsible see http://ghg.unfccc.int/index.html. Ultimately 154 countries signed non-binding aims to reduce target pollutants and arranged for a framework of new legislature based around the assessment of which countries were doing the most polluting. To see the results of industry emissions for each nation see www.global-change.com

This stock take of GHGs using data from 1990, meant that industrial nations would obviously take a bigger share of the responsibility and cost for reducing GHG emissions globally. The Kyoto Protocol refers to this group as Annex 1 and 2. See www.unfccc.int/not_assigned/b/... As well as having targets set for themselves, the industrial nations would offer aid and assistance to the non-industrial nations to help them become less polluting. See www.unfccc.int for the change the industrial nations are to make to their GHG emissions as their commitment to joining the Kyoto Protocol. Note that China and India, amongst the other 110 or so nations, are not due to reduce their levels compulsorily, as at 1990 levels they were considered very low polluters. In signing the Protocol they would have a commitment to reduce GHGs but they are neither measured nor policed.

After 1992, conferences were then arranged every year to progress the terms and conditions of the original meeting at Rio and to achieve a working agreement between nations rather than just a framework. This was started in 1995 in Berlin at the first Conference of Parties (COP). The most recent was COP 10 held in Dec 2004. Notable COPs were numbers 3 at Kyoto in 1997, 6 at Berlin where the Americans dropped out and 7 at Marrakesh in 2001 where many of the issues were finalised. The meeting at Kyoto was a landmark, the others were stepping stones towards its finalisation.

Once the Protocol (rules) at Kyoto was established, it became open for countries to agree to (ratify) the terms set therein by their signature. It wasn’t an instant hit and many nations attended more COPs before they were happy with the terms. Some nations withdrew and others sat on the fence and still do (China, India, Saudi Arabia and Australia). To commence the terms set down by Kyoto, it was agreed that there should be more than 55 countries that become signatories and that separately, the total of the signatories’ CO2 output should exceed 55% (as per the table in the previous link).

Russia, at 17.4%, held sway of the whole Kyoto agreement, until December 2004 when they finally committed themselves. This meant that on Feb 16th 2005 the Kyoto Protocol was legal and steps towards actual GHG reduction were finally put into action.

See www.unfccc.int for the Status of Ratification to date.

In some ways this is just the start of a movement towards global participation. The US has many States that are aggrieved at not being part of the global push and some are taking independent action towards the reduction of GHGs. China and India, two potentially massive polluters need to be re-assessed somehow to bring the US into the picture. Personally, which shouldn’t matter, I can sympathise that Mr Bush used these two nations as part of his reasons for not becoming a Kyoto signatory. However, the US is largely responsible for much of the atmospheric CO2 so my sympathies don’t extend that far.

The Americans might have a point though. Water vapour is not considered a greenhouse gas and yet it might play a massive part in our changing climate. See www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse-data.html for a different perspective completely.

It has also been seen that the Kyoto Protocol has dealt mainly in counting emissions from power generation and yet the agreement calls for the assessment of trees, farming, transportation and industry as a whole to be considered as playing an active part in GHG reduction. Measuring how much carbon forests absorb or if industry is increasing, decreasing or not bothered about Kyoto is difficult to measure and to verify independently. Indonesia, which is not policed, has spent the last 10 years chopping down its rainforests and many OPEC countries were not in the initial industrial countries held accountable and they really should be.

Furthermore France has historically chosen nuclear power above all others. This is ‘non-polluting’ and has become attractive to other nations. Australia may ultimately concede to Kyoto when it can see its way forwards as it considers nuclear more feasible than ever.

Kyoto addresses the most immediate problems of GHG reduction and yet it is flawed. However, in the meantime it is the best solution we have that has been endorsed by much of the planet and already it has placed the need to consider the way we treat the environment that feeds us in a greater and more important context. Greenpeace has been shouting it from the rooftops for many years and this now addresses the root cause.