Term Paper on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | Geography

Here is a term paper on the ‘Global Efforts to Manage Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions’ for class 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12. Find paragraphs, long and short term papers on the ‘Global Efforts to Manage Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions) especially written for school and college students.

Term Paper on Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions

---

The uncontrolled GHG emissions, deforestation, pollution of sea, destruction of biomes, in any region or country can result in global climate change due to global circulation of atmosphere, ocean water and the inter-connecting activities amongst the various spheres. Therefore, there is a need for concerted efforts by the nations across the globe to reduce the menace of GHG emissions in order to minimize global warming.

UN and its agencies have organized several conferences to address this vital issue. The earth summit at Rio (1992) was a good start, but it was the Kyoto Protocol (1997), in which vast majority of participating nations took active part to set the goals, norms and action plans to reduce directly and indirectly GHG emissions.

The signatories to Kyoto Protocol gave the commitments for time-bound programme to reduce the emission figures as stipulated in the protocol. Montreal conference was limited to prevent destruction of ozone layer by man-made halocarbons. World Energy Conference in Rome (2007), followed by UN-sponsored Bali conference on climate change (2007) all were directed towards limiting GHG emissions. In the recent one (2009) at Copenhagen, the USA, the opponent to mandatory control on carbon emission has taken major initiative for imposing mandatory carbon capping.

Term Paper # 1. Rio Earth Summit:

U N Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), called as Earth Summit, was held at Rio de Janeiro, on 3-14 June 1992, attended by world leaders. The theme of the conference was ‘Environment and sustainable development’. Agenda included, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Statement of Forest Principles, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity.

Follow-up mechanisms included setting up of Commission on Sustainable Development; Inter-agency Committee on Sustainable Development; High-level Advisory Board on Sustainable Development. In agenda 21, it was decided that eco- efficiency should be the guiding principle for business and governments alike.

The areas of concerns included the followings:

i. Patterns of production — particularly the production of toxic components, such as lead in gasoline, or poisonous waste — are to be minimized in a systematic manner.

ii. Alternative sources of energy – to replace the use of fossil fuels, linked to global climate change.

iii. Reliance on public transportation systems – to reduce vehicle emissions, congestion in cities.

iv. Concern over the growing scarcity of water.

In the Rio Summit it was decided to come up with an agreement that would halt the increasing emission of man-made greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

Term Paper # 2. Conference of the Parties (COP):

COP comprises of all countries that have ratified the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. COP is responsible for implementing the objectives of the Convention and has been meeting regularly since 1995. More information on outcomes from Conference of the parties (COP) meetings is available at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

Kyoto Protocol:

Five years after Rio, the third session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change took place in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, resulting in what is widely known as the Kyoto Protocol. The working agreement of the signatories to Kyoto Protocol, commits developed countries to reduce their collective emissions of six greenhouse gases by at least 5 per cent of 1990 levels by 2012. The Kyoto agreement became legally binding on 16 February 2005 when 132 signatory countries agreed to strive to decrease carbon dioxide emissions. USA, a major emitter was not a signatory of the Kyoto Protocol.

Some of the signatory countries and the corresponding emission cuts are as follows:

i. 15 European Union countries, plus Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Lativia, Liechtenstein, Lithonia, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Switzerland: agreed emission cut of 8%.

ii. Although not a signatory, USA agreed for -7 % cut but later dropped.

iii. Canada, Hungary, Japan, and Poland: – agreed emission cut of 6 %. In 2006, Canada technically repelled the Kyoto Protocol and allowed emission to continue.

iv. Croatia agreed emission cut of 5%.

It was a difficult task, since it involves regulating almost all the activities of modern world responsible for greenhouse gas emission. A limited amount of emission cut was contemplated by developed countries (excepting USA), while it was impossible to impose similar sanction in the developing economy of the rest of the world.

Although the scope of Kyoto agreement was rather limited, its mechanisms are important because it set standards for further agreements, and created certain important guidelines for tackling the problem, after recognizing the international importance of reversing the steady increase in greenhouse gas emission.

Some of the important features of Kyoto Protocol are as follows:

Article 2:

In achieving its quantified emission limit and reduction commitments, and in order to promote sustainable developments, shall implement policies and measures in accordance with its national circumstances.

Such as:

i. Enhancement of energy efficiency in relevant sectors of the national economy. Energy efficiency and conservation of energy in industries are key instruments to reduce GHG emissions.

ii. Protection and enhancement of sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases not controlled by Montreal Protocol. Promotion of sustainable forest management practices, afforestation and reforestation, taking into account its commitments under relevant international environment agreement. A major sink and reservoir of main GHG (CO₂) is the forest.

iii. Promotion of sustainable form of agriculture in light of climate change consideration.  

iv. R&D and increased use of new and renewable forms of energy, of carbon dioxide sequestration technologies and of advanced and innovative environmentally sound technologies.

v. Progressive reduction or phasing out of market imperfections, fiscal incentives, tax and duty exemptions and subsidies in all GHG emitting sectors that run counter to the objective of the convention.

vi. Encouragement of appropriate reforms in relevant sectors aimed at promoting policies and measures which limit or reduce GHGs, not covered by Montreal Protocol.

vii. Measures to limit and/or reduce emissions of GHGs in transport sector. The transport sectors include also aviation and marine industries, where GHG emissions reduction need to be worked along with national and international organisations, such as, International Civil Aviation and the International Marine Organization respectively

viii. Limitation and/or reduction of methane emissions through recovery and use in waste management, as well as in the production, transport and distribution of energy.

Article 3:

i. Ensure that the aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide equivalent emissions of the GHGs do not exceed the assigned amounts, in reducing their overall emissions by at least 5% below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.

ii. May use 1995 as the base level for hydrofluorocarbns, perfluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride, for the purpose (i) as above.

iii. Net changes in greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removal by sinks resulting from direct human-induced land-use change and forestry activities to afforestation, reforestation and deforestation since 1990, measured as verifiable changes in carbon stocks in each commitment period, shall be used to meet the commitments of each party. The modalities, rules, and guidelines to calculate changes in carbon stock due to emissions by sources and by sinks in agricultural soils, land-use change and forestry are to be worked out by parties at the earliest.

The aim was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 38 nations, who emitted most and who could afford the changeover. In trying to reach greenhouse gas emission standards, many at Kyoto complained that the European reliance on nuclear power for clean emissions wasn’t all that clean.

India’s per capita emission of Carbon Dioxide in 1997 was 1 tonne. China and Brazil had 2 tones of emission each. Hence these countries were not subjected to the Kyoto emission target. With highest end of emission figures of USA (20 tons) and Australia (16 tons), need to participate, otherwise the rest of the world have to shoulder an unfair burden. Although there may be some flaws in Kyoto treaty, till date it’s the only international agreement on emission control.

The other important features of the Kyoto Protocol with respect to six GHGs and their emission control in five major sources are covered in Annex A.

1. Annex A:

First part contains a list of six greenhouse gases (GHG), such as, Carbon dioxide (CO₂), Methane (CH₄), Nitrous oxide (N₂O), Hydro fluorocarbons (HFCs), Perflurocarbon (PFCs), and Sulphur hexafluoride (SF₆) emissions of which need to be controlled. The changes in emission figures are to be reported in terms of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.

And the second part of the same annexure lists the GHG emitting sources in five major sectors as follows:

a. Energy:

Fuel Combustion (Energy industries, manufacturing industries and construction, transport, other sectors, others).Fugitive emissions from fuels (solid fuels, oil and natural gas, other)

b. Industrial Processes:

Mineral Products, Chemical industry, Metal production, other productions, production of halocarbons and sulphur hexafluoride, Consumption of halocarbons and SF6.

c. Solvent and Other Product Use:

Main areas involved are halocarbons.

d. Agriculture:

Topic includes, enteric fermentation, manure management, rice cultivation, agricultural soils, prescribed burning of savannas, field burning of agricultural residues, other.

e. Waste:

This topic includes solid waste disposal on land, material recycling, waste water handling, waste incineration etc.

Penalties are to be imposed for signatory countries not reaching the target by 2012. By this time a second set of commitments up to 2020 will be negotiated. Countries failed to reach first target have it added to second target plus a 30per cent penalty for the shortfall.

November-07-Rome- World Energy Conference:

The biggest conference on the subject brings together world leaders and corporate executives once in every five years. The conference has expressed concern of climate changes and its potentially disastrous economic and social effects with the use of fossil fuels.

European Commission president, in his keynote address said that Europe would lead the way toward conservation and the efficient use of energy in order to mitigate worst effects of climate change. He has urged the developing countries, like India and China to find a way to economic growth while still regulating emissions.

This issue of involving developing countries in the mandatory regime of emission control has been repeated again in the Bali conference (2007) and more recent Copenhagen meet (2009). The last two conferences were held to replace Kyoto Protocol expiring in 2012.

Meanwhile, the EC plans to take a bold step in framing legislative proposals to cut automobile emissions to 120g of carbon dioxide per Km by 2012, a standard that only 8% vehicles in Europe are able to meet in 2006.

Dec-07 Bali-Climate Change Conference:

Bali Conference was held in December, 2007, in order to replace Kyoto Protocol on its expiry in 2012.The conference was attended, amongst other dignitaries, by UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon. Unlike Kyoto, in Bali conference, US delegates agreed “to go forward and join consensus”. Bringing USA in the mission to curb carbon emission was a major achievement at Bali. Excepting for a statement of good intentions, Bali conference did not produced anything concrete to replace Kyoto protocol, with a new international agreement by 2012.

The ‘reduction in carbon emissions from deforestation and forest degradation’ was excluded from Kyoto due partly on scientific grounds as to the ‘precise effects’ and also due to non-availability of a method to measure ‘carbon loss’. However mounting evidence of the destruction of tropical forests causing as much as 20% of GHG emissions, along with better technologies for measurements have led to lengthy discussion on this subject, including ‘avoidable deforestation’ in post 2012 strategy (when Kyoto Protocol expires) at Bali conference.

Bali conference stressed the urgent need for “meaningful action to reduce emissions from deforestation and forest degradation”. A concrete step in that direction is to have a “work programme” to test various approaches.

Under the Kyoto Protocol, expiring in 2012, rewards for storing carbon through trees are only given for reforestation or planting new forests. This restriction has become unjustifiable in view of the facts that destruction of tropical forests resulted in shrinkage of storing capacities equivalent to 20% of GHGs emissions.

If deforestation is taken into account then Indonesia & Brazil soar up to become world’s 3^rd and 4^th largest emitters. However, Brazil leaders want a system of reward for countries bringing their deforestation rates down from pre-1990 levels, and keeping them there. If so happen then Brazil may be only nation that qualifies.

The decisions taken at Bali, call for a couple of more years of trial and error to find the best ways to deal with this subject. Investors in carbon markets will be first to shun these conservation projects that are manifestly failing because of bad government or corruption.

Post Bali Efforts:

Despite not reaching to any broad consensus at Bali, efforts are being made by individual states including US to cut down carbon emission.

For Example:

i. EU imposing a stricter carbon limit in automobile emissions,

ii. China imposing fuel-economy regulations,

iii. America’s Congress approving a bill on fuel economy, by 2020,

iv. California will require all petrol sold there to meet low- carbon regulations, and

v. In 2008, environment ministers of G-8 (group of eight industrialized nations) including China & India began talks to pave the way for forthcoming G-8 summit.

These are indicatives of the major economies trying to set the positive trends towards reducing carbon emission.

Indonesia, the host to Bali conference, with a population of 235 million and one of the largest carbon footprints outside of developed countries, has outlined a plan to slash greenhouse gas emissions by 17% in 2025. Indonesia hope to achieve the target by reductions in forest burning and cutting the oil consumption. Mr. Boer, head, UN Climate Change Secretariat, urged USA to follow Indonesia rather than President Bush’s promised capping by 2025, which is ‘not enough’ and paltry compared to Indonesia.

Term Paper # 3. Climate Change Performance Index:

The results of a study on the climate change performance of 56 countries reported at Bali Conference. The score is based on per capita emission trends, absolute energy-related CO₂ emissions of a country and on domestic and international climate policy of a country. The scores of best ten and the worst ten countries are indicated in the tab.9.1.

In the list for top ten performers (table 9.1), India occupies the 4^th position, with the performance index of 62.4, which is nearly equal to that of top performer, viz., Sweden with a performance index of 65.6. However the per capita emission in India would be low in comparison to that of Sweden, due to vast difference in population and the scale of development.

UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Dec 1- 12, 2008, Poznan, Poland:

Discussions in UNFCCC at Poland were centred around following areas:

i. Moving towards a ‘negotiating text’ for a treaty to combat climate change that would be finalised by the next summit in Copenhagen, December, 2009.

ii. On the operationalization of the Adaptation Fund meant to help least developed countries (LDC) to cope with climate change, it remains unresolved.

iii. On assessing risks due to climate change and the ‘possibility of creating an insurance mechanism’ to cover these risks.

iv. On reforming the clean development mechanism (CDM) that rewards green technologies in developing countries. There was still disagreement on whether carbon capture and storage (mainly emissions from coal-fired power plants) would be included in it wholly, partially, now, later or not at all.

v. On rewarding developing countries that control deforestation, there was no agreement on how to measure this benefit in the form of reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

Term Paper # 4. Rating Countries Based on Per Capita Emissions:

A better index to emissions of anthropogenic or man-made gases by different countries would be per capita emissions rather than the absolute value. The per capita emission is a logically correct index of performance with respect to emission reduction by nations across the globe. However, from global warming point of view, the absolute emission figure is the one which would determine the quantity of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere and thus the global warming potential (GWP).

The world’s countries contribute different amounts of heat- trapping gases to the atmosphere. The table 9.2 shows data compiled by the Energy Information Agency (Department of Energy, USA), which estimates carbon dioxide emissions from all sources of fossil fuel burning and consumption.

The list of the 20 countries with the highest carbon dioxide emissions (data are for 2006) is included in table 9.2. Australia tops the list followed by US, Canada, & Saudi Arabia. Another group of developed countries with next level (around 10) includes UK, S.Korea, S.Africa, Japan, Germany and Spain. Lowest per capita emission figure is that of India, which is 1.16.

The industrialised countries’ earlier commitments of financing and technology transfers to developing countries to help them combat climate change are now withdrawn. Industrialised countries are pressing India and China to make legally binding commitments to cap their greenhouse gas emissions, though per capita emissions in India are just over one tonne of carbon dioxide a year, compared to 11 tonnes in European Union (EU) countries and 20 in the US.

Developing countries are struggling to find money for Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD) in a post-2012 climate deal. If they do manage to find a significant sum of money, the Carbon and Biodiversity Demonstration Atlas produced by the World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC) of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) will come in very handy indeed.

Carbon Emission and GDP:

The carbon intensity, also called per capita annual emissions, is a measure of how much carbon equivalents (CO₂e) are emitted per capita of GDP. The inverse is the metric called carbon productivity which is the amount of GDP product per unit of carbon equivalent. Carbon intensity is thus the amount of carbon dioxide emitted per unit of economic growth (commonly 1000 dollar GDP).

According to figures published by the United States Department of Energy, China in 2006 emitted 2.85 tonnes of carbon dioxide from fossil fuels for every $1,000 (604 pounds) of gross domestic product (GDP), around 15 percent lower than a decade earlier. In comparison, the United States in 2006 emitted 0.52 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every $1,000 of GDP, while Switzerland produced 0.17 tonnes, and impoverished Chad just 0.07 tonnes. The corresponding figures for Russia, S.Africa, and India are 4.5, 2.42, and 1.80 tonnes respectively.

The India’s stand that the current climate change negotiations under the auspices of UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) are being skewed in favor of the industrialized nations got another shot in the arm. Purported pre-release of a McKinsey report projects that; India will continue to be one of the LEAST Carbon Intensive countries in the world despite an economic growth rate of 7.5%.

This second endorsement follows the recent report by the World Bank saying that India is right in resisting the mandatory emissions reduction. China has pledged to cut the amount of carbon dioxide produced for each unit of economic growth by 40- 45 percent by 2020, compared with 2005 levels. On same account, India’s figure is 25 percent by 2020 from 2005 levels Copenhagen Climate Conference November-December, 2009.

The recent United Nation’s Climate Change Conference held was to replace Kyoto Protocol (setting targets for cutting emissions) by a new deal. The aim of the conference was to have a comprehensive political agreement that puts the countries on a clear path to concluding a binding agreement in 2010.

The interim agreement should lead to immediate action and a broad road map for future treaties, including:

1. Political commitments for mid-term action by all major countries; economy-wide emission reduction targets for developed countries, and quantified reduction mitigation actions by major developing countries, including India.

2. A ‘prompt start’ on adoption, forestry, technology and capacity building activities and support in developing countries.

3. The legally binding agreements are to be finalized over the coming year, including: a framework for verifiable mitigation commitments by all major countries; new agreements for sustained mitigation and adaptation support to developing countries; and a system to verify countries’ actions and supports.

4. A clear mandate to conclude negotiations on a legally binding agreement at COP 16 in December 2010.

The USA, a non-signatory to Kyoto Protocol, has for the first time opted for mandatory emission cut at the Copenhagen meet. Developing countries like India and China are against mandatory regime. They agree to impose voluntary emission cut.

The negotiations are proceeding on parallel track under the UN framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), with US participation, and also under UNFCCC’s Kyoto Protocol, without the USA.

Term Paper # 5. Framework for Mitigation Commitments:

The final agreement should clearly define the nature of mitigation commitments and how they are to be reflected in a final agreement.

Following the principles of ‘common but differentiated responsibilities’, it should allow varying forms and levels of commitments depending on national circumstance:

i. Absolute economy-wide emission targets for all developed countries, and

ii. A wider range of quantifiable policy-based commitments for major developing countries, like India & China (e.g., sectoral emission targets, energy efficiency standards, renewable energy targets, sustainable forestry goals).

The agreement should launch and support a process, such as a “registry” process, to elaborate country-specific commitments for the major developing countries and to align support for them. It also should go as far as possible in defining implementation and accounting rules.

Support for Developing Countries:

The agreement should broadly establish the mechanisms, sources, and levels of support to be provided in a final agreement for adaptation, capacity building, forestry and technology deployment in developing countries. It should; set initial funding levels and a timetable for periodic replenishment; set criteria to determine countries’ contributions to and/or eligibility for support; rely on, rather than replicate.

A Sound System of Verification:

The agreement should establish basic terms for the measurement, reporting and verification of countries’ mitigation actions, and of support for developing country efforts, as called for in the Bali Action Plan. Building on existing reporting and review requirements under the UNFCCC and Kyoto Protocol, it should require annual emissions inventories by all major- emitting countries (with a phase-in period and support for developing countries); national verification of countries’ mitigation commitments; and, regular implementation reports subject to international review.

Term Paper # 6. Opposition to Copenhagen Protocol:

The major developing nations like Brazil, South Africa, India and China (BASIC) are against imposition of mandatory sanctions on emissions on developing economies, without financial aid to adopt clean technologies to combat emissions. Although these countries are also major emitters, particularly China followed by India, however they have very low per capita emission figure in comparison with advanced countries.

In India, 50% of the villages have no electricity. There are no alternative than to have coal based big power plants to bridge the large gap in the basic needs of a huge population, in an appropriate timeframe. Under these circumstances, India cannot afford to impose sanctions on the emitting industries till these basic amenities are extended to cover the wide spectrum of the population. Hence legal binding on emission should be accompanied by financial assistance to developing nations in adopting green technologies.

Term Paper # 7. Post Copenhagen Meet of Basic:

The BASIC meeting at Delhi in January, 2010 follows the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference where it was decided to continue negotiations in two tracks relating to the Bali Action Plan and the Kyoto Protocol for another one year so as to have a final outcome at the sixteenth Conference of Parties at Mexico in 2010.

The meeting called for finalising a legally binding treaty on reduction of carbon emission latest by 2011 and indicated that the world could not wait indefinitely. A legally binding outcome should be concluded during climate change meet at Cancun, Mexico in 2010, or at the latest in South Africa by November, 2011. The news reports, that domestic legislation in the US had been postponed has been a major concern to reach an internationally legally binding agreement at an early date.

EU to Lead:

EU led the fight against climate change through its ground- braking Emissions Trading Scheme in accordance with Kyoto Protocol and the new emission proposal of “20/20/20 by 2020” in which the emission cut would be 20% below 1990 level, plus a 20% gain in energy efficiency, plus 20% of energy from the renewables. This plan needs the approval of Council of ministers and the European Parliament. It is meeting hefty opposition from heavy industries and coal-dependent countries like Poland.

Term Paper # 8. 2010 United Nations Climate Change Conference:

The conference was held in Cancun, Mexico, 29 Nov. to 10 Dec. 2010. The conference is officially referred to as the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties (COP 16) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the 6th session of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties (CMP 6) to the Kyoto Protocol.

In addition, the two permanent subsidiary bodies of the UNFCCC – the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SBI) – held their 33rd sessions. The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference at Copenhagen extended the mandates of the two temporary subsidiary bodies, the Ad Hoc Working Group on Further Commitments for Annex I Parties under the Kyoto Protocol (AWG-KP) and the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA), and they met as well.

The outcome of the summit was an agreement, though not a binding treaty, to limit global warming to less than 2° C above pre- industrial levels and calls on rich countries to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as pledged in the Copenhagen Accord, and for developing countries to plan to reduce their emissions.

The agreement includes a “Green Climate Fund,” proposed to be worth $100 billion a year by 2020, to assist poorer countries in financing emission reductions and adaptation. However there was no agreement on how to extend the Kyoto Protocol, or how the $100 billion a year for the Green Climate Fund will be raised, or whether developing countries should have binding emissions reductions or whether rich countries would have to reduce emissions first. To most delegates, though they approved it, the agreement “fell woefully short of action needed”.