Lanka ready to rock climate conference

The Environment Ministry with the backing of the Foreign Ministry is planning to play a pivotal role at the forthcoming UN Conference on Climate Change in Bali, Indonesia next month. It plans to present several new proposals with the purpose of getting a better deal for third world countries in encountering climate change and from the carbon trade. In an interview with The Sunday Times, JHU firebrand and Environment Minister Patali Champika Ranawaka outlined how Sri Lanka hoped to achieve these objectives with the help of other countries.

Sri Lanka’s newly formulated case at the Bali conference will however be spearheaded by yet another JHU stalwart and Central Environmental Authority Chairman, Udaya Gamanpila. He will be ably assisted by the Ministry’s Environmental Economics and Global Affairs Director Anura Jayatillake and two other assistant directors.

Basically in 1992 there was a UN agency called UNFCC tackling the issue of climate change. The climate change and the global warming phenomenon are caused by excessive discharge of green house gases, basically carbon dioxide, and methane and nitrogen oxide. As far as the carbon dioxide emission is concerned it is mainly due to the fossil fuel combustion. It has increased from 270 ppm to some 360 ppm, causing an accumulation of heat radiating in the atmosphere and raising the global temperature. The global warming is caused mainly by industrial countries or what we now term high carbon states or polluters.

In 1997 there was an agreement called the Kyoto protocol, under which it was agreed that 39 countries were above the average level of world carbon emissions, which is 5.2 tonnes per capita. Those 39 nations discharging carbon into the atmosphere above the global average were called Annexure One countries. At the time Sri Lanka’s share of carbon emission was nine tonnes per individual and as far as USA was concerned it was 19. So the Kyoto protocol wanted to cut emission level by five per cent on a voluntary basis from 1997 to 2007 and from 2008 to 2012 it was to be a mandatory thing. But the USA and Australia refused to join the protocol and reduce their carbon emission levels. Instead various arguments were put forward. They said instead of per capita, country-wise emissions should be taken into account placing China and India as big violators in the picture, even though they are below the average in terms of per capita carbon discharge. China is 2.7 tonnes per person, while as a result two bi-polar camps are emerging, with on one side basically North America, the European Union and Australia and on the other side China and India. The latter is trying to increase their carbon emissions addressing the per capita rate.

In the process during the period 1997 to 2007 they have adopted three mechanisms. One is joint implementation, meaning that within those 39 countries they can jointly implement various projects, like power generation or garbage management, to reduce carbon dioxide and methane emissions. The second is the carbon trade, where one country can buy another country’s low carbon emission points. Some of the former Soviet bloc countries, who are now in the EU, are yet below the average. So the countries like Germany, France, and the UK who are above average trade carbon within the European Union in trying to show they have reduced carbon emissions. The third is the Clean Development Mechanism, where carbon trading is facilitated between other countries that are below the world average carbon emissions and those 39 high polluters. That means we can have our own clean development mechanisms like mini hydro, wind power, and garbage management projects that can reduce carbon emissions. The high carbon countries can pay for such ventures. The reduction of one tonne of carbon is now paid US $10. In the current year the total carbon trading turnover is estimated at US$ 30 billion. It is expected to increase it to $50 billion next year.

What is so bad about the existing mechanisms to cut carbon emission is that the joint implementation and the carbon trading among well to do nations account for 90 per cent of the turnover, leaving only ten per cent on the plate of the low carbon emission nations. In the CDM mechanism also it is China, India and Brazil that get the lion’s share. China’s share is 36 per cent, India’s share is 17 per cent and they dominate the CDM projects. It works that way because for example if Germany has to cut its emissions by six per cent, then they distribute these cuts to their private companies like Benz, BMW, and Siemens. Those companies in turn trade those cuts to Indian or Chinese firms. The reasons being those countries have very large carbon saving projects, unlike countries like Sri Lanka, which have small projects. So China, India or Brazil easily attracts carbon trading. The result is that the three countries object to any new mechanisms to scuttle CDM projects and nations like Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and various other tropical countries are not benefited much.

That is why we adopted a new approach at the last meeting of the UN council on climate change in New York. Our argument is per capita emissions should be taken into account rather than a country’s emission rate. The North America, the European Union, Japan or Russia – so called developed countries or polluters – there pollution would affect us. The sea level rise alone within the next four decades will be 23 feet, that means in Sri Lanka even Colombo, Jaffna and Batticaloa are vulnerable to the sea level rise. On the other hand the scarcity of water will affect billions of people, especially in India and China, because all the great rivers Indus, Yangtse, Hwang Ho, and Brahma Putra etc are flowing from Himalayas and that water is supplied not by rain, but mainly by glaciers. The glaciers are now receding at an unprecedented rate due to global warming. So after few decades when these glaciers disappear completely there will be a major water problem in those countries.

The global warming affects various species in different ways. Those like cockroaches and mosquitoes will survive and thrive, while others will disappear. In addition adverse climatic changes like floods, storms and droughts will affect the whole world. That is why we are hoping to demand at next month’s conference the installation of an Adaptation Fund. At least give five per cent of the total carbon trading involving all three above mechanisms to this Adaptation Fund to help the people affected by the climate change problem, like the Pacific islanders, the Maldives and even ourselves. If we can prove that a disaster is caused by climate change, the Fund will have to compensate the people affected.

Secondly we are arguing that the excessive carbon emissions are absorbed by the forest cover and to some extent by oceanic green cover. So they must compensate these two areas as well. The role played by our forests is global. America’s emissions are in some ways absorbed by our Sinharaja and other forests and we also thereby facilitate the global eco equilibrium. So it is only right thing for them to pay us for that service.

The other thing we are arguing is that there should be a rational allocation system taking into consideration all factors like the size of the population of a country, the service to the eco system, service rendered in controlling emissions etc. A system should be evolved so that all countries will benefit from all carbon trading businesses. As it is more or less a political tool, where so-called developed countries use this trading phenomenon as a political tool like the IMF and the World Bank, where the Boards are dominated by powerful countries, dictate policies to weak countries. So what we propose is some form of a quota system. They have to pay high respect to the tropical countries in Africa, Asia and Central America, because those nations are broadly responsible for absorbing carbon dioxide.

A: We are canvassing the tropical countries in various parts of the world. Our position has been to some extent already accepted by those countries. We are further canvassing on that with further help of the Foreign Ministry and the guidance of the Foreign Minister. Though we are a small country, internationally we have played big roles as in the non-aligned movement in the past. In the climate change issue also there are two rival political camps. On one side there is the USA, EU and Australia and to some extent Japan and on the other hand there is India, China and Brazil. The latter group has, however accepted in principle that there should be a rational way of giving those carbon credits to nations. We are now trying to lead the way with the help of Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Senegal, and various other countries. Altogether about 54 countries have so far agreed to help us. Other countries too are favourable in finding an equitable way, including Japan and EU.

In the last few years the USA suffered so much from climate change: wild fires, tornadoes, hurricanes. If one reads former Vice President Al Gore’s book, which contains enough facts and figures, it shows how climate change would affect USA. It is not only Colombo and Jaffna that would go under rising sea levels, but even places like the site of the former World Trade Centre in New York will be submerged. So America is now awakening to this situation. George Bush Senior and George Bush Junior earlier chose not to hear environmental warnings. But now things are rapidly changing in America. At the recent New York conference What President George Bush said was that there should be some market friendly mechanism to address the problem. So on principal they accepted the effects of global warming.

Yes. We are talking to Japan, one of the high carbon emission societies and they have accepted our formulas and they too have evolved their own formula, that is called Cool 2000 and we supported their position as well. EU countries accept our position in general and the next conference after Bali will be in Poland and thereafter it will be in Denmark. So EU countries are very much interested in this problem and they have voluntarily reduced some of their emissions.

They are taking an opposing stand because the US, Australia, and Canada are trying to evade their responsibilities in tackling this global problem. They want to keep on increasing their emission levels, endangering the whole globe. China, India, and Brazil actually benefited from carbon trading mechanism, but they have accepted in principal to accept a new mechanism to address the global phenomenon of climate change.

The Canadian Environmental Minister personally invited me to receive the Award on September 24 as the best implementer of 2007. Prior to that event I had to attend an Eco Asia conference in Japan on September 7 to 9. My passport was submitted to the Canadian embassy with instructions that I had to leave the country on the sixth to attend the conference in Japan and the High Commission promised to issue the visa that Friday afternoon as I had to leave the following morning. At about five o’clock they informed us they can’t finish the processing of my visa application. So I withdrew my passport. In comparison the US embassy gave us a visa for five years within three hours. So their mentality is that they control the world. Canada itself is a conquered country.

Sixty nine ethnicities are being suppressed in that country. One thing it is a colonized country and secondly as the arctic ice cap is receding and sea levels are rising they will have to come to tropical countries like ours. Now they tell us they need ten days to process our visas but within two decades we’ll take ten years to process their visas.

This is a totally false allegation. We have not sent any officials to any climate change conference in England. I didn’t attend any conference in London. I went to attend the UN conference in USA via Tokyo. I challenge any one to prove that we issued a letter to facilitate Karuna Amman’s London visit. We had no connection with Karuna’s visit to London.