Homestead mailing list

[Gene GeRue <genegerue AT ruralize.com>]

> I see an agenda to allow developing, Non-Annex I, nations freedom to
> grow their economies without the burden of emission limitations or
> paying for tradeoffs.

But a bit of research reveals that many Non-Annex I nations are in  
fact doing things that support the Kyoto Protocol:

 MONTREAL, CANADA, December 5, 2005 -- A report released today helps  
dispel the notion that developing countries are not contributing in  
the fight against climate change, and suggests ways in which doing  
more can help rather than harm their development.

Brazil, China, India, and South Africa are featured in the report as  
examples of countries with varying degrees of emission-reducing  
measures incorporated into national policies and practices. In his  
foreword to the report, former president of Brazil and current World  
Resources Institute (WRI) board member Fernando Henrique Cardoso  
notes that the greatest responsibility for preventing dangerous  
climate change still rests with industrialized countries.  
Nevertheless, he argues, “If we want to avoid a global catastrophe,  
developing countries will have to find development paths that avoid  
huge greenhouse gas emissions.”

WRI’s Rob Bradley and Dr. Jonathan Pershing discussed Growing in the  
Greenhouse: Protecting the Climate by Putting Development First at a  
press conference here today during the UN climate talks.  
Representatives from more than 150 countries are here to determine  
how to structure the Kyoto Protocol after its first phase ends in  
2012. Kyoto requires developed nations to cut their emissions of heat- 
trapping gases by 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2008-2012.

“The climate science clearly tells us that developing-country  
participation in cutting emissions will be vital to avoiding  
dangerous climate change,” Pershing said. “At the same time, these  
countries have pressing development needs, and are not yet ready to  
take on emission caps of the kind adopted by industrialized nations.  
What we need is a more innovative approach that both promotes  
development and reduces emissions.”

Growing in the Greenhouse, a work involving eleven authors from both  
developed and developing countries, presents an approach known as  
Sustainable Development Policies and Measures (SD-PAMs). This focuses  
on how best to meet the development goals of developing countries,  
while finding low-emission development choices. The authors flesh out  
part of the great deal of work that needs to be done to implant SD- 
PAMs into the international policy framework. Although higher levels  
of funding will be required for improvements in developing countries,  
integrating climate into broader development concerns may help  
increase the effectiveness of both development and climate spending.  
SD-PAMs offer the potential to promote economic development while  
reducing the long-standing tension between industrialized and  
developing nations surrounding climate-change goals and agreements.

To illustrate the SD-PAMs approach, the report presents four detailed  
policy studies from major developing countries: Brazil, China, India  
and South Africa.

Since the 1970s, Brazil has used ethanol from sugarcane as a partial  
substitute for gasoline. The decision to use ethanol was driven by  
concerns over oil imports and a desire to support sugar producers.  
The authors estimate that Brazil has saved $100 billion in external  
debt by avoided oil import and debt service costs. But the incidental  
impact on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions has been significant: an  
estimated saving of 574 million tons of CO2 over 30 years, or about  
10 percent of the country’s total emissions during that period.

“Climate change played no part in Brazil’s decision to embrace  
biofuels,” Bradley added. “But the climate has certainly benefited.  
Our authors suggest that some 20 other countries could benefit from  
the same strategy, which would further help reduce global emissions.  
The SD-PAMs approach aims to harness both the development and climate  
change advantages of such measures.”

China’s growing transport sector presents a more complex case. In  
urban areas in particular, the growth in car ownership and use is  
spectacular and has given rise to rapidly increasing GHG emissions.  
Although China itself has begun to implement policies, such as  
improved vehicle-efficiency standards, the sectors involved –  
especially the automobile sector – are global in scope. In such a  
case, concerted international action may prove more effective than a  
select number of countries acting individually.

In India, 56 percent of the households have no electricity supply,  
and the problem is growing worse as new connections fail to keep pace  
with population growth. Based on concerns raised about the grid and  
diesel technologies, there are significant reasons for India to  
prefer renewable energy on domestic policy grounds. The authors  
suggest that making India’s electrification goals part of an  
international climate effort might successfully help to address the  
country’s current high cost of renewable energy technologies.

South Africa, meanwhile, offers an example of the limitations of the  
SD-PAMs approach. Carbon capture and storage technology has the  
potential to cut emissions while expanding the public’s badly needed  
access to electricity. It would be possible for donor countries to  
finance the future capture and storage of South African emissions,  
but this would mean a step change in the willingness of the  
international community to pay for climate protection.

While the concept of combining domestic and climate priorities is  
firmly embedded in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate  
Change (UNFCCC), existing climate agreements have not attempted to  
systematically foster the integration of climate change and  
development at the policy level.

 - 30 -

The World Resources Institute (www.wri.org) is an independent, non- 
partisan and nonprofit organization with a staff of more than 100  
scientists, economists, policy experts, business analysts,  
statistical analysts, mapmakers, and communicators developing and  
promoting policies that will help protect the Earth and improve  
people’s lives.

http://www.wri.org/climate/newsrelease_text.cfm?NewsReleaseID=352