Online version: PDF - DTIE

UNIT 1: WHERE DO WE STAND? THE STATE OF THE GLOBAL ENVIRONMENT
011
• International airline and hotel industries lost over two billion dollars
because of the 1994 epidemic in India;
• The 1997 summer pfeisteria outbreak in the United States cost
taxpayers, seafood industries and tourism tens of millions of dollars;
• The 2001 outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in the UK (caused by
unsustainable agricultural practices and the mass transport of animals
over long distances) cost the British tourism industry £125 million a
week. Revenue losses from overseas tourists are expected to reach
£2.5 billion by the end of 2001.
COMMON QUESTION Many people, especially in the northern hemisphere,
suggest that climate change will benefit them: warmer weather, increased
agricultural possibilities, cheaper living etc. Is there any truth in such
remarks?
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
1
These people do not appreciate the full consequences of climate change. Shifts
in geographical zones, increased storms and floods, the extinction of important
plant and animal species will not make life more pleasant, but will bring largescale
misery and suffering. In addition, as risks to business - including tourism
- rise, it will become increasingly hard to obtain investment or favourable loans
and insurance cover. This is already an issue for industries that are major
greenhouse gas emitters.
International Action to Control Climate Change
Since the Earth Summit of 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention
on Climate Change has been working towards stabilising greenhouse gas
concentrations at levels that would prevent dangerous interference with the
earth’s climate.
At COP-3, the Third Conference of Parties held in Kyoto, Japan, in December
1997, 54 countries signed the Kyoto Protocol. This set targets and timetables for
reducing greenhouse gases from the year 2000 onwards. Industrialised countries
(referred to in the Protocol as ‘Article One countries’) agreed to reduce overall
carbon emissions to at least 5% below 1990 levels by 2008 and 2012; Japan and
the USA agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 6% and 7% respectively, the
EU to reduce overall carbon emissions by 8%; Russia agreed to maintain its 1990
levels. Article 3.7 of the Kyoto Protocol (the ‘Australia Clause’) permits countries
where land-use change and forestry areas are sources of greenhouse gas to
include emissions from land-use change in their 1990 base year when calculating
targets for the commitment period 2008-2010 (this concerns only Australia, which
is allowed to increase greenhouse gas emissions by 8%).
These targets represent a 30% cut in greenhouse gas emissions, compared to
what we could expect by 2010 with no such measures. The agreement also
requires developed countries to demonstrate progress by 2005. The gases to be
reduced are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs),
perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulphurhexofluoride (SF6).
Countries are allowed flexibility in how they make and measure reductions in
emissions. The Protocol makes provisions for:
• Using net changes in emissions by direct anthropogenic land
use changes and forestry activities to meet commitments. These
are, however, limited since 1990 to deforestation, aforestation and
reforestation;