文章 Articles

Toward a post-Kyoto accord

Heated debate occurs at every climate-change conference and Bali will be no different. But, writes Xuedu Lu, progress will come only through cooperative nations taking a global perspective and acting according to their abilities and obligations.

Article image

In the last few years, I have been a participant in United Nations climate-change talks, during which debate has centred on a number of points. They include: the causes of climate change; the effects of, and adaptation to, global warming; technology; measures to slow climate change; policy options, and international mechanisms.

In which direction will international climate-change mechanisms move after the Kyoto Protocol ends in 2012? Will the agreement’s obligations simply be extended, with adjustments of emissions targets, or will they be replaced by a new deal? This is currently the most discussed and most difficult of issues -– and it is the heart of the climate-change debate.  

Signatories to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) – a treaty to which the Kyoto Protocol is an addition -- decided that negotiations should take place on developed countries’ obligations during the second stage of the Kyoto process, after 2012. But those developed countries all want to see developing nations included in the process. The European Union already has undertaken to cut greenhouse-gas emissions between now and 2020, but does not want to do so alone. It wants to see the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia and East European nations take similar steps, along with some degree of action from developing nations.

In 2002, the Eighth Session of the Conference of the Parties (COP8) to the UNFCCC issued the Delhi Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change and Sustainable Development, stressing that climate change should be dealt with within a framework of sustainable development, and that adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change should be a high priority. The climate already is changing and, therefore, adaptive measures are essential.

And so, in 2004, COP10 approved the Buenos Aires Programme of Work on Adaptation and Response Measures, giving unprecedented status to adaptation to climate change. Among other points, the 2001 Bonn Agreement established a fund to help developing nations adapt to the negative effects of climate change. But uncertainty over the actual effects of climate change, the vast funding needed and the fact that further negotiations will require the allocation of responsibilities and obligations mean that progress is extremely slow.

All national governments agree that, ultimately, technological research, development and application can resolve climate-change issues. The UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol stress the need for transfer of advanced technology to developing nations to assist their participation in international efforts to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. But developed nations are concerned that such transfers will damage the competitiveness of their businesses and products, and have found numerous excuses over the last decade to drag their feet on this obligation.

Despite a number of resolutions from the Conference of the Parties -- the association of nations that have ratified the UNFCCC – there have not been any genuine examples of transfer of advanced technology from a developed nation to a developing one in order to reduce emissions. Developing nations continue to ask developed nations to carry out this obligation, and it is an ever-present – not to mention difficult and heated - issue at UNFCCC and Kyoto talks. Many representatives of developing nations feel weary and at a loss. Advanced technology provides competitiveness, and it is no easy task to persuade developed countries to give up profitable technology.

The Kyoto Protocol is a milestone in international environmental cooperation, but for a number of reasons many nations are looking for a new mechanism for cooperation on climate change. A range of bilateral, multilateral, closed-door and open methods are being used to create new agreements. For example, the US has launched the International Partnership for the Hydrogen Economy (IPHE), the Carbon Sequestration Leadership Forum (CSLF), the Methane to Markets Partnerships, the Generation IV International Forum (GIF), the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP) and the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate (APP), all outside the UN climate talks framework. Canada is attempting to extend the G20 meetings of finance ministers to climate change, creating an international climate change mechanism based around meetings of energy and environment ministers.

The advantage of these non-UN systems are that they are easier to operate and are more efficient decision-makers. But they have less coverage and their decisions are not legally binding, relying only on voluntary implementation. So they can complement and promote the UNFCCC and Kyoto talks, but not replace them. China has made this clear when participating in these regional organisations.

Other matters that give rise to heated debate during UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol negotiations are: the protocol’s flexible instruments, such as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) and Joint Implementation (JI); efforts to build capacity among developing countries and help them adapt to climate change; incentive mechanisms for developing countries to cease felling trees and hence reduce overall carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions; greenhouse-gas emissions in the aviation and shipping sectors; and examining developed nations’ implementation of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol. These issues have a direct influence on implementation of the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, and are raised at every round of negotiations. This does not mean that the discussions are any less heated.

Climate change is a complex issue, not a simple environmental matter. It affects numerous interests, and so conflict and disagreements are unavoidable. Regardless, the very nature of the problem means that only international agreements can resolve it. All signatories need to take a global perspective on cooperation and carry out their responsibilities according to their abilities and obligations. Only by doing so can they resolve this global, long-term problem. There will be no other option.


Lu Xuedu is deputy director-general at the Chinese Ministry of Science and Technology’s Office of Global Environmental Affairs. Dr. Lu also is a member of the UNFCCC Clean Development Mechanism executive board and of China’s delegation to UN climate-change talks.

Now more than ever…

chinadialogue is at the heart of the battle for truth on climate change and its challenges at this critical time.

Our readers are valued by us and now, for the first time, we are asking for your support to help maintain the rigorous, honest reporting and analysis on climate change that you value in a 'post-truth' era.

Support chinadialogue

发表评论 Post a comment

评论通过管理员审核后翻译成中文或英文。 最大字符 1200。

Comments are translated into either Chinese or English after being moderated. Maximum characters 1200.

评论 comments

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



Comment from A-Yin

To tackle climate change is a complicated issue because it is not only about environmental protection, but also involves interests of different parties.Therefore, conflicts and arguments in the process are inevitable.

However,the nature of this issue means that international conventions will be the only way to fix it. This requires all signatories to consider cooperation from a global perspective and fulfill their tasks in accordance with their own responsibilities and capabilites.

There are no other better and more effective solutions than this to this global issue.

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous




Only with cooperation we can solve the global warming!

Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous


















中国 厦门 李林


Bali conference works towards a wrong direction.

It is necessary to have the Bali conference to fix the climate change, a big issue which we cannot ignore anymore. It is true that the global warming is the result of human activities. But the meeting works towards a wrong direction as it says that emission cut is the only remedy. In fact, global warming is not caused by the increase in greenhouse gases but the amount of thermal energy on the earth.

It is still worth further research and discussion to conclude that the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere leads to the global warming, as it is too complex to calculate the difference between how much the sun heats the earth by solar radiation and how much the earth loses its heat into the atmosphere..

As you know it is easier to warm a room by heating and other similar means rather than increasing the layer of window glasses.

We have been continuing heating the earth ever since the industrial revolution by damaging forests and using fossil fuels. It is an unarguable fact that the temperature on the earth is increasing due to those activities. So to check the global warming, we should aim to save energy rather than cut emissions. Why cannot we tackle the issue by fixing the real problems? Otherwise, we just put the cart before the horse.

Except for emissions by livestock, most greenhouse gases are caused by energy use. To cut emissions also heavily rely on energy saving. Though some clean energy does not emit greenhouse gases, say natural gas and nuclear energy, they still heat the earth in one or the other way.

So even if more nukes to be built and more other similar clean energies to be tapped, the temperature of the earth will be still going up.

To conclude, to save energy is the only radical way to resolve climate change. Meanwhile the use of water, wind, solar and tide powers should be encouraged, because they do not actually lead to the increase of thermal energy on the earth as their energy is just transformed from one to the other forms.

Meanwhile, to increase the greenery is of great importance for heat storage.

Li Lin from Xiamen in China


Default avatar
匿名 | Anonymous



A good question raised above

I once tried to figure out the two impacts of fossil burning: its immediate effect from the transformation from chemical energy to thermal energy; its long-term greenhouse effect. Due to limited data and energy, I haven't yet conducted a thorough research. Please let me know if any experts have done such a research. Aturen