Editorial: Hot air, cool heads on climate treaty

Sometimes international negotiations simply cannot be allowed to fail. The Kyoto Protocol on climate change is in that category. The industrial contribution to global warming may be a matter of dispute but that is not an argument for doing nothing. Today's state of knowledge argues rather for taking agreed precautions that will limit the increase of carbon emissions without imposing possibly needless restraints on the engines of global prosperity.

The targets set at Kyoto in 1997 were wildly optimistic and became more so as a result of growth generated by the long United States boom. The agreement was mitigated somewhat by the prospect of tradeable emission rights and credit for forestry and crops which could absorb the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide. But when environment ministers of the signatory Governments met at The Hague last year, many of the European ministers were not in the mood for those "loopholes", as they called them.

The Europeans, many of them from Green Parties in coalition Governments, let those talks collapse rather than agree to a British compromise. This week in Bonn they changed their tune. Do not be fooled by their chest-beating and self-congratulations at the 11th-hour agreement. Our own Pete Hodgson excelled most in hyperbole, pronouncing the deal "probably the most comprehensive and difficult agreement in world history".

In fact, they have agreed to smaller emission reductions and "loopholes" more generous than those they refused to accept at The Hague. Back then, they were no doubt counting on Al Gore to win the American presidency and to embrace hair-shirt environmentalism.

Instead, the US produced a President who turned out to believe that the Kyoto direction was flawed and appeared not to care whether any international response to global warming might be found.

When the rest of the Kyoto signatories recovered from their dismay they decided to go ahead with the meeting scheduled in Bonn. They went ahead with no prospect of agreement by the Bush Administration, which says it is preparing an alternative proposal. It is in no hurry. The White House has denied suggestions from Bonn that it has agreed to have its proposal ready for the next global warming gathering in October.

New Zealand, under its previous Government, was firmly with the US, Canada and Australia in insisting that tradeable emission rights and recognition of carbon sinks be part of any regime. Now it seems we are wobbly. Mr Hodgson wants market mechanisms but at Bonn, as at The Hague, we were no longer among those reported to be holding out.

Canada, Australia, Russia and Japan went to Bonn reluctant to agree to anything that would not include the US. At the end, Europeans were so anxious to save the Kyoto Protocol from oblivion they came to terms with Canada, Australia and other American allies.

Now the Europeans say they have "isolated" the US. That will remind many of the London headlines: "Channel closed, Europe cut off". As environmentalists never tire of reporting, the world's largest economy is naturally enough its largest source of greenhouse gases. Until the US signs up to a climate change treaty, not many others will ratify it.

But at least Bonn has produced terms the US could consider and will come under international pressure to do so. The President's intransigence had possibly the desired effect at Bonn. There is no reason now for the White House to snub the continuing effort.

www.nzherald.co.nz/climate

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

United Nations Environment Program

World Meteorological Organisation

Framework Convention on Climate Change

Executive summary: Climate change impacts on NZ

IPCC Summary: Climate Change 2001