In 1997, a new word entered our lexicon: "Kyoto".
Yes, the name of the Japanese city had been in use for centuries but, in the context of 1997, Kyoto shifted from just being just a city to a treaty on climate change and carbon emissions. When you wanted to talk about was being done internationally to address the issue, the answer was "Kyoto".
On January 1st of this year, the Kyoto Protocol expired.
The world can go back to guilt-free emissions of greenhouse gases without having to worry about meeting any obligations under the treaty. And undoubtedly this leaves some individuals and corporations quoting Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Free at last. Free at last. Thank God Almighty, we are free at last."
In practice, the 1997 Kyoto Protocol did little to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Most of the signatories met their targets. Indeed, many far exceeded their targeted reductions in the emission of carbon dioxide equivalents. Lithuania with a reduction target of eight per cent managed a reduction of over 75 per cent during the span of the treaty. Germany exceeded its target of 21 per cent without damaging its economy.
But one of the more glaring failures for the Kyoto Protocol is Canada. Not only did we not meet our target of a six per cent reduction but our emissions increased by over 40 per cent during the course of the treaty - despite the fact that we were one of the early adopters. No wonder the Canadian government withdrew from the treaty.
Still, over the five year period from 2008 to 2012, the countries that stuck with treaty can claim success as they far exceeded their target of a 4.2 per cent average reduction and achieved an overall 16 per cent reduction.
Critics argue this was achieved with the "low hanging fruit" - decommissioning old power plants, natural reductions in fossil fuel reserves, and economic drag. It was also aided by the general collapse in the world economy through 2008 which has been used as an excuse by some legislators for doing nothing. After all, trimming carbon budgets might lead to a deeper, longer recession, they say.
On the whole, as significant and notable as the cuts have been by the industrial nations that abided by the treaty, they have not impacted the global problem. Consider that in 1990, global emissions stood at 22.7 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. That was the base level target - reductions were to be achieved relative to emissions in 1990.
In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated, emissions stood at 24.4 billion tonnes per year. As of 2011 - the last year for which there are complete statistics - global emissions have now reached 33.9 billion tonnes per year, a 50 per cent increase overall, relative to 1990.
Emissions are rising faster than reductions would be the simple way to put it. And although some of the blame can be squarely laid at the door step of "developing countries" - China's total production now exceeds that of the United States - per capita consumption in the big producers continues to increase.
Some countries are now taking the approach that there is nothing that can be done to stop the effects of climate change. It is time to switch from carbon reduction strategies to adaptation strategies. After all, estimates suggested that emissions of carbon dioxide must stay below 1,000 billion tonnes between 2000 and 2050 if we want to keep the average temperature rise below 2 C by 2100.
In the past 12 years, we have already pumped over 450 billion tonnes more carbon into the atmosphere. At the rate we are going, we will pass the 1,000 billion tonnes mark by 2025.
In this context, finding different ways to cope with the effects of climate change seems almost reasonable. After all, if climate change is inevitable, then economic change must occur as well.
Adaptation ranges from focusing on hard defences - such as building sea walls and moving cities located in low lying areas - to much softer approaches. In Bangladesh, with its low lying deltas, a rise of one metre in sea levels will flood 20 per cent of the country and displace 14 per cent of the population. In anticipation, coastal communities are planting mangroves and fruit trees to protect against erosion and to accommodate the shift to salt water ecologies.
Such approaches will require a great deal of science over coming decades. Adaptation through natural selection will likely be too slow to allow the world to maintain the present level of bio-diversity. An approach that combines environmental engineering and biochemical engineering will likely be necessary if we would like to help the planet remain habitable for most of the remaining species.
This year, 15 years beyond Kyoto, politicians are still debating what to do. Let's hope that over the next decade, they finally get down to business and start applying some science to the problems of climate change.
