Nirmal Ghosh, Straits Times 15 Oct 09;
THE two protocols - the Kyoto Protocol and the Montreal Protocol - stand in stark contrast to each other. But the future of the world as we know it depends on them.
The Kyoto Protocol's major feature is binding targets for 37 industrialised countries. They are to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5 per cent from 1990 levels by 2012. But the United States - which emits an estimated 19.78 tonnes of carbon dioxide per capita compared with India's two tonnes per capita - has not ratified Kyoto.
Talks in Bangkok earlier this month aimed at agreeing to deep post-2012 emission cuts ended in failure, with developed and developing countries disagreeing on who had to cut their emissions, by when - and who should finance adaptation measures.
So far, emission cuts under Kyoto have fallen well short of the promised targets. Some say Kyoto is clearly a failure. One problem is that the protocol covers a basket of 12 gases and deals only with emissions of the total basket.
The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, however, has specific control measures for phasing out the use of specific ozone-depleting gases. It is the only international environmental treaty which every single country on the planet has signed. It is also the most successful international environment treaty ever.
The Montreal Protocol was established in 1987 after a hole in the planet's protective ozone layer was discovered. It offers concessions and grace periods to individual countries to assist in phasing out ozone-depleting substances (ODS).
From 1991 to July this year, the Multilateral Fund, with its headquarters in Montreal, disbursed US$2.3 billion (S$3.2 billion) to finance the phase-out of ODS. These substances have been - and in many cases still are - used in hundreds of appliances.
Because the substances are also drivers of global warming, the phase-out of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) - the original villain in destroying the ozone layer - has yielded benefits in terms of slowing global warming. Dollar for dollar and tonne for tonne, phase-outs under Montreal have delivered four times the benefits in reducing greenhouse gases that Kyoto has.
CFCs have been steadily replaced with a family of gases called HCFCs, which also deplete ozone, though to a smaller extent than CFCs, and are greenhouse gases to boot. HCFCs are now being phased out at staggered rates around the world.
Their replacement, though - a family of gases called HFCs (hydrofluorocarbons) - while not harmful to ozone, is a powerful driver of global warming.
Alas, HFCs as greenhouse gases come under Kyoto, not Montreal. And Kyoto's focus is on carbon dioxide and methane. For Kyoto, HFC is still a minor gas. So efforts to phase it out are in danger of being lost in the jungle of Kyoto.
With purchases of appliances like air- conditioners and refrigerators increasing rapidly in China and India, HFC consumption is skyrocketing. According to a recent report by Dutch and US-based scientists, HFCs could have a warming impact equivalent to between 28 per cent and 45 per cent of carbon dioxide emissions by 2050.
At the United Nations Convention on Climate Change talks in Bangkok this month, some countries, including the US, proposed adding HFCs to the basket of controlled substances under the Montreal Protocol. They proposed establishing a phase-down schedule for HFCs with a grace period for developing countries. Compliance would still have to be reported to the Kyoto Protocol or its successor.
The logic of such a move is that Montreal has delivered, while Kyoto has not. HFCs were created by Montreal, so it is Montreal that should deal with them.
The European Union supported the proposal in Bangkok. The proposal also has support from non-governmental organisations such as the Environmental Investigation Agency and Greenpeace. Opposition is expected, however, from India and China, which have both invested in HFC production and use.
The new approach will pose major logistical and financial challenges, and have legal ramifications. All countries will have to ratify the changes in both the Kyoto and the Montreal protocols. Moving HFCs from Kyoto to Montreal is therefore not as simple as it sounds.
But it is one way to make progress on curbing global warming - preferable to watching Kyoto or its successor fall apart as ice caps melt, sea levels rise, oceans acidify and extreme weather savages our world.
At worst, the move may buy us time.
