News

Save the Kyoto Protocol

DanChurchAid activist participating in a "wake up call" event, as part of the Countdown to CO2penhagen campaign

“We are deeply concerned that many wealthy nations imagine that a loose and non-binding climate agreement should replace the responsibilities they have already committed to in the Kyoto Protocol,” says Mattias Söderberg, leader of the international climate secretariat for DanChurchAid.

During the latest climate negotiations in Barcelona it became increasingly clear that many wealthy nations are looking for a chance to dodge the concrete obligations of the Kyoto Protocol, which many of them have clearly neglected. Instead they wish to completely abandon Kyoto in favor of a much looser climate agreement for the Copenhagen summit in December.

More Kyoto, Please!

DanChurchAid and its European sister organizations feel that the Kyoto Protocol should be extended for a new period, which establishes how much the wealthy nations should decrease their CO2 emissions starting in 2012. “Kyoto has the big advantage that it clearly distinguishes between the wealthy nations, who are responsible for the majority of CO2 emissions – and thereby for the catastrophic climate changes threatening the world – and the poor nations, who undeservedly are being hit by the climate disasters,” says Mattias Söderberg. “If you abandon Kyoto we risk a totally diluted climate agreement with diluted promises that cannot be enforced, and a race between the wealthy nations to promise as little as possible.”

Rather than a new chrome-plated climate agreement with beautiful words and little substance, the churchly development organizations cooperating in Aprodev suggest that nations participating in the Copenhagen summit extend the mandate of the Kyoto Protocol, and at the same time make a number of concrete decisions in the areas not covered by the existing protocol – including clear promises of mechanisms for financial and technical support of the world’s poorest nations.

The USA Must Participate

The USA neglected to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 and it is unlikely that they will join it at the present time. In the opinion of Mattias Söderberg it should, however, be the long term goal, and until it is possible the USA must obligate themselves through other agreements: “A ‘firewall’ should be constructed around the USA to prevent the bad example of spreading to other wealthy nations who actually HAVE committed to the protocol. The political price of not being a part of the Kyoto Protocol should be high!”

Climate Negotiations 2009

The negotiations leading up to the summit in Copenhagen in December 2009 are a part of the UN negotiations that began in 1995 and which have continued with mostly yearly summits, so-called COP summits (Conference of Parties). The COP summit of 2007 in Bali resulted in two years of intensive negotiations leading up to COP15 in Copenhagen. Here the negotiations are conducted in two tracks:

1. An extension of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which established precise obligations for the participating wealthy nations, the so-called Annex 1 nations – and a precise distinction between industrialized and developing nations with “common but differentiated commitments”. The U.S. Congress subsequently denied ratifying the Kyoto Protocol.
2. An establishment of a binding climate agreement in Copenhagen for all the nations of the world. The climate agreement should, among other things, ensure that developing nations are compensated for the climate changes and receive both technological and monetary support to ensure a CO2-less development.