The problem of change of a climate, so called as a global warming, has already coated with a gamble, “sensational” publications and numerous myths. Thus, not everybody understands a true nature of new threats and even less society knows about mechanisms of their prevention and elimination. Let’s try to improve a situation, providing correct and a brief information on this issue.
First of all, we will define with concepts. So, the climate is a long-term mode of weather in a certain territory. It is formed under the influence of numerous factors, characterised by a relative constancy and defines conditions of existence of all live in this territory, in particular – the human. The climate tends to change itself. In this case, we shall not confuse the change of a climate to weather anomalies. Now it is a question of the essential, global changes carrying long-term rather than casual character. The problem is not that the climate of a planet becomes warmer, but that the speed of this process is impressive. Of late one and a half centuries the mankind became the witness of sharp (by geological measures) changes. The size of possible losses owing to climatic changes is that motive which forces to search for pressure decrease ways on climate system.
Reduction of emissions effects economy of expenses
The economy is based on a use of an environment and the resources generated in certain territory. These conditions define territorial geographical distribution of population, a sort of its occupation, access to water and food resources, transport and power expenses. Climate change introduces corrective amendments to the economic processes – though always it is possible to find something positive in any changes – nevertheless in this case the negative aspect obviously prevails.
How to struggle against climate changes ?
Modern climatic changes are caused by increase of concentration of greenhouse gases in atmosphere, first of all carbonic gas, owing to burning of so-called traditional fossil power resources, namely – coal, oil and gas. Nevertheless, greenhouse gases are not classical air pollutant as they directly do not influence people’s health. For this reason to struggle against such emissions by common methods (a filtration, manufacture transferring outside settlement limits, etc.) it is impossible or it is inexpedient. Moreover, actually it is perfect all the same, in what place of a planet there are emissions. Not a geographical location of a source is important, but a total volumes of issue of greenhouse gases. That is the result from hundred factories located in one province of China, will be the same, as from hundred similar factories in regular intervals placed on a planet.
It causes necessity to force owners of sources of emissions (including thermal electric power industry, metallurgy, animal husbandry, refuse dump, etc.) to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. There are many technological decisions of this problem, differing in cost and in the speed of their introduction.
It is clear, that the state cannot know for certain, which variant of reduction of emissions will be the most effective for this or that enterprise, especially when it is a question of global scales. In this situation, a logic decision remains in creation of system, which economically would interest owners of the enterprises independently to reduce emissions.
Prolongation of action of the Kyoto protocol: pro’s and con’s
The term of validity of the first period of liability under the Kyoto protocol expires together with 2012. Until this time, it is necessary to negotiate the instrument, replacing Kyoto protocol, or to co-ordinate obligations for the second period of action of the Protocol. Since 2007, active international negotiations and consultations on this question are carried out, however until now the compromise is not reached. Moreover, there are all bases to consider that the compromise is improbable, at least till the end of next year.
Therefore, the main debate is conducted round prolongation of validity of the Kyoto protocol. Japan, Canada, the USA and Russia vote categorically against the second period of the Protocol. They demand to conclude new – the global – long-term Agreement by which quantitative obligations on restriction of emissions for the basic countries-emitters will be defined.
China together with the majority of developing countries, on the contrary, support prolongation of validity of the Protocol.
The European Union as a whole supports the conclusion of the new long-term agreement. However, by 2013 it is almost unreal to reach this purpose. Therefore, in order to avoid time gap between the Kyoto protocol and the new agreement, the EU does not dispute prolongation of validity of the Protocol after 2012. Irrespective of results of the international negotiations, the EU in the sequel will carry out further internal policy on reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases, in particular at the expense of home market.
The main risk connected with the termination of validity of the Kyoto protocol relates to decrease in demand the market of quotas. As far as there are no obligatory requirements concerning reduction of emissions, such obligations will get voluntary character. Formally mechanisms of the Kyoto protocol will not be canceled, but real demand will use unless the projects realized through the mechanism of clean development. Actually, the EU, to be exact – participants of its home market, remains the unique buyer. However, the European Commission last year has accepted the legislation, considerably limiting an import of permissions to emissions outside the EU. Market demand decrease will weaken stimulus for investments into reduction of emissions in developing countries, as well as in the countries of Eastern Europe, not the EU-members, in particular in Ukraine.
How Ukraine has taken advantage of mechanisms of the Kyoto protocol?
On March 15, 1999, Ukraine has signed Kyoto protocol and ratified it on February 4, 2004. Realizing the Protocol, Ukraine has incurred the obligation not to exceed throughout 2008-2012 the level of emissions of greenhouse gases of the year 1990. Actual volumes of emissions in 2009 have made only 40 % of a quota.
In April, 2006 Ukraine was entitled the right to realize the Project of collateral implementation according to procedures and the requirements confirmed by Committee on supervision of collateral implementation, working within the limits of the Kyoto protocol.
As of July 11, 2011 by the Committee on supervision of collateral implementation from Ukraine at different stages of realisation 59 Projects of collateral implementation were registered. These projects have already allowed to reduce emissions almost by 30 million tons of units of emission that makes about 40 % of world volume within the limits of the Project of collateral implementation .
In comparison with other countries of Eastern Europe, such result makes doubtless success. However, such result grows dull against the China (2654 projects and 368 million tons of units of emission) and the India (1653 projects and 98 million tons of units of emission).
Sale of carbon units by Ukraine within the limits of the mechanism of international trade in quotas is possible only under the so-called scheme of green (or target) investments. It provides, that the received means should be invested in real projects, allowing reduction of emission, or in adjacent spheres (development of an infrastructure for ecological projects, monitoring, scientific researches in this branch, etc.).
Under this scheme, Ukraine negotiated appropriate agreements with Japan and Spain in total amount of 47 million tons of units of emission. In this niche of the world market of quotas Ukraine ranks over 13 %. The received means are mastered meanwhile partially and directed on repair and thermal sanitation of schools and hospitals in several regions of Ukraine.
Who needs to deprive Ukraine a place in the Kyoto protocol?
Since October 12, 2011, participation of Ukraine in international trade in emissions of greenhouse gases has been temporarily suspended. Such decision was accepted by Committee on observance of the Secretary of The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in connection with “discrepancy of national accounting system of emissions of greenhouse gases to requirements of the Kyoto protocol”.
Nevertheless, what is the fault of Ukraine towards the experts of UNFCCC? “Unfortunately, errors of previous government create problems on realisation of the Kyoto protocol in Ukraine, – the minister of ecology and natural resources of Ukraine , Nikolay Zlochevsky, has noted. – I’m convinced, that when the Committee will consider the report on conducting of the Cadastre of emissions of greenhouse gases in 2010, all problems will be solved. It will occur in the near future”.
Now, the success has appeared!
On October, 15th of the current year, the group of international experts ERT has finished studying of the National cadastre of emissions of greenhouse gases for the period since 1990 until 2009, the press-service of the Ministry of ecology and natural resources of Ukraine informs. On Saturday, on October, 15th, preliminary conclusions of the Group connected with results of check, having positive character, have been stated.
There is no doubt, that already at the nearest session of Committee on observance of the Kyoto protocol Ukraine will meet with approval of the progress shown by the present government. Ukraine already now proves its readiness to meet all requirements of the Kyoto protocol.
Preliminary conclusions of experts of ERT will be a basis of the definitive report on check, which will allow to restore the status of conformity of Ukraine to requirements of the Kyoto protocol. It will provide the chance to renew participation of Ukraine in international trade in emissions and the mechanism of joint realisation under the national procedure.
During presentation of preliminary conclusions, the members of ERT duly stated, that the cadastre for the period since 1990 until 2009 as a whole corresponds to requirements of the national reporting. The international experts have noted considerable progress in report preparation, ability of Ukraine operatively and effectively to react to remarks, put forward to the previous cadastre.