November Conference Produces Modest Progress Toward Controlling Greenhouse Gases

Back to Map Page December, 1998 Buenos Aires, Argentina An international meeting to negotiate methods of controlling climate-warming greenhouse gas emissions concluded in mid-November with mixed progress reports. The meeting, held in Buenos Aires, Argentina from November 2-13, 1998, called together negotiators from more than 150 nations. Its primary objective was to work out a timeline for designing methods of achieving emissions limits outlined in the Kyoto Protocol, a broad set of agreements established in a similar meeting last December in Kyoto, Japan. The Kyoto Protocol outlined a series of general mechanisms by which world emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric heat-trapping gases might be controlled in the coming decades. Carbon dioxide, the principal greenhouse gas (followed by methane, nitrogen oxides, CFCs, and others) is produced chiefly by burning fossil fuels. These gases are believed to be causing increases in average global temperatures--increases that are expected to disrupt ecological systems, water supplies, weather, severity of storms and droughts, and sea levels around the globe.     Whose responsibility is it to curb greenhouse gas emissions? The Buenos Aires meeting moved another step toward sharing responsibility.   The Kyoto Protocol, now signed (but not necessarily ratified) by most of the countries that helped write it last year, established that industrialized countries will have four years, from 2008 to 2012, to reduce greenhouse gas production to levels slightly below 1990 emission rates.  An important component of the Kyoto Protocol was the agreement that countries could buy and sell rights to emit CO2. This agreement was extremely controversial. Buying and selling emissions rights means that industrialized countries such as the US, Canada, and European nations, can pay non-industrialized countries for emissions credits, (their unused right to produce greenhouse gases) instead of actually cutting their own emissions. Supporters of this plan say such trading rights are necessary to allow progress on controlling emissions without restricting economic growth in the US and other wealthy countries. Critics point out that this agreement simply gets big CO2 producers off the hook without making any real progress toward the actual goal of cutting worldwide emissions. The Buenos Aires meeting this November had the relatively modest goal of simply setting a deadline for hammering out methods of meeting emissions limits. In this the meeting succeeded: attending countries agreed to develop plans for emission controls in two years, by the end of 2000. In addition, several developing nations agreed to accept binding limits similar to those imposed on wealthier nations. Argentina and Kazakhstan were the first of these, and others showed interest in similar cooperation. Also showing at least token support for controlling global warming were several major petroleum-dependent corporations, including General Motors, Monsanto, Shell Oil, and British Petroleum. Relaxing their long-standing positions of rigid opposition to fossil fuel restrictions, these companies promised to make efforts at cooperation with the accords. These points of hope are important in a process that has been continually stymied by powerful countries and corporations more interested in defending their own economic prosperity than in avoiding possible disastrous consequences of global climate change. However, this progress is relatively modest in comparison to the still-standing obstacles ahead. Despite a softening of the rhetoric from several large corporations, the business community remains generally opposed to any restrictions to trade, growth, and continued consumption of fossil fuels. Some developing countries, eager to achieve the standard of living enjoyed in wealthy nations, still resist considering serious restrictions until they see actual progress on the part of the bigger emitters in developed nations. China and India, both populous countries with significant industrial ambitions, both hold this position. And finally, skeptics fear that even if timetables and plans for emission controls are developed within the two-year time limit established in Buenos Aires, those plans will still face opposition from national governments. Most important, the US Senate still must ratify the Kyoto agreement. Since the US is by far the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the treaty will accomplish little without full US support. But the Senate is widely expected to reject any plan that could curtail economic expansion. Since the Senate is unlikely to consider a vote on any emissions control plans for at least two years, progress, if it happens at all, will still be slow in coming. For further information, see these related web sites: Details on the Buenos Aires meeting and resolutions Information on the United Nations Convention on Climate Change, with updates on recent action Follow the "climate change" link in the topics list. To read more, see Environmental Science, A Global Concern, Cunningham and Saigo, 5th ed. Greenhouse gases and climate change: pages 375-380 Efforts at cutting emissions: pages 379-380 Marketing pollution rights: page 174 Environmental Science, Enger and Smith, 6th ed. Global warming and greenhouse gases : page 360 Science versus policy: page 6 Interrelated nature of environmental problems: page 5-7 Back to Map Page feedback form | permissions | international | locate your campus rep | request a review copy digital solutions | publish with us | customer service | mhhe home Copyright ©2001 The McGraw-Hill Companies. Any use is subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. McGraw-Hill Higher Education is one of the many fine businesses of the The McGraw-Hill Companies.