IEEJ: January 2011

Special Bulletin
December 3, 2010
A Japanese Perspective on the International Energy Landscape (21)

COP 16 Meeting and Kyoto Protocol Extension Proposal
Ken Koyama, PhD
Director
Strategy and Industry Research Unit
Institute of Energy Economics, JapanOn November 29, the 16th Conference of Parties to the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change, known as COP 16, opened in Mexico’s Cancun. The meeting lasting
until December 10 will deal with important challenges including a new international framework for
global warming measures after the 2012 expiration of the Kyoto Protocol.

It may be risky to predict the results of the meeting at its outset. But many COP 16
participants and experts share the view that any agreement is unlikely to come out from the meetingon the new international framework. The overall view grew clear at last year’s COP 15 meeting in
Copenhagen. Basic conditions for the view have remained unchanged, including the absence of theUnited States’ domestic agreement on the new framework and developing countries’ rejection oflegally binding targets for cutting their domestic greenhouse gas emissions. Rather, the ruling
Democratic Party’s defeat in the U.S. midterm Congressional elections and industrial countries’
protracted slump have become additional negative factors. Therefore, the environment surrounding
an agreement on the new international framework has grown tougher. Relevant future developments
are uncertain.

Surfacing under the situation is a proposal for a simple Kyoto Protocol extension thatJapan has feared most. As indicated by media reports, the Kyoto Protocol extension seems to havebecome subject to discussions at the COP 16 meeting. Anticipating the absence of any agreement on
the new framework, developing countries have reportedly been insisting that there is no choice but toextend the Kyoto Protocol in order to prevent the absence of GHG emission reduction requirements
after the 2012 end of the emission reduction commitment period under the protocol. As far as theKyoto Protocol is extended, developing countries may have no emissions-cutting obligations while
securing fund and technology flows from industrial nations through the Clean Development
Mechanism and other systems under the protocol. It may be natural for developing countries tostrongly support the extension that would be the most advantageous for them in a sense.
1

IEEJ: January 2011

But I would like to anew specify key points and problems regarding the Kyoto Protocolextension issue, as indicated already by various experts. The first point is that the Kyoto Protocol’s
coverage of GHG emission restrictions is very narrow. As of 2007, the countries that are required tocut GHG emissions under the Kyoto Protocol accounted for only 28% of global CO2 emissions. In
spite of the fact that warming is a global problem, less than 30% of global emissions are covered by
the Kyoto Protocol. This situation means that the effectiveness of emission cuts is doubtful, apartfrom the problem of fairness. The simple Kyoto Protocol extension may thus amount to using aholed bucket to carry water. As far as developing countries are free from the framework despite their
GHG emissions growing over a short to medium term and even over a long term, the hole in thebucket will clearly grow larger (emissions-cutting countries’ coverage of global emissions will
decline further).

Second, it is a grave problem that China and the United States, the first and second largest
GHG emitters in the world, are left free from emission-cutting requirements. The two countries
cover more than 40% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Irrespective of these countries’ voluntaryemissions-cutting efforts, it is significantly unreasonable for this big portion to be left outside asystem where countries are responsible for reducing emissions. Doubts may naturally emerge about
the significance of an international framework in which the most important players regarding theglobal warming problem do not participate.

Third, the Kyoto Protocol lacks fairness regarding burdens on economy, industry andpeople’s life by requiring only a limited range of specific countries such as Japan and the European
Union members to reduce GHG emissions. Particularly for Japan that has accumulated
energy-saving efforts and that features very high marginal costs for emission cuts as pointed out bymany research organizations in the world, the Kyoto Protocol extension may lead to the continuationof heavier burdens. This is the reason why Japan’s industry sector has raised strong opposition to thesimple Kyoto Protocol extension.

As a matter of course, these points have been discussed and recognized sufficiently inJapan. The government has specified a policy of opposing the simple Kyoto Protocol extension. Butthe EU has been inclined to tolerate the Kyoto Protocol extension if a comprehensive framework is
anticipated to cover all major GHG emitters such as the United States and China. Thus, the problem
is that Japan could be isolated by opposing the simple Kyoto Protocol extension. I believe thatJapan’s argument against the above-noted problems with the simple Kyoto Protocol extension issound. But no one can guarantee that a sound argument will always stand in international
negotiations. Sound arguments can succumb to force of numbers, dominant atmospheres or2

IEEJ: January 2011prevailing trends in many cases. Considering that Japanese delegates are engaged in very difficult
negotiations through tough efforts to reiterate sound arguments and maintain a firm attitude while
trying not to be isolated, I feel that the promotion of international understanding and diffusion ofJapan’s stances through domestic forums and external messages is important and that we shouldmake some contributions to the promotion.

Delegates from not only Japan but also other countries should have undoubtedly made fullconsideration of various strategies and measures and sufficient preparations to face the very difficultinternational negotiations. Nevertheless, they may have to make tough decisions at some occasions
during changing discussions lasting for more than 10 days. Hoping that Japan could get results thatare desirable from long-term and comprehensive perspectives, or avoid undesirable results or
damage at the negotiations to defend its national interests while pursuing global warming prevention
as a global interest, I would like to send cheers to Japanese delegates.

Contact: report@tky.ieej.or.jp

3