CO 2 emissions

Energy consumption in economic sectors is directly linked with CO2 emissions.

Expanding economic activities impose the greenhouse effect at local and global levels. However, the relation between economic growth and environmental degradation has been widely debated since the late 1960s (Lindmark, 2004). One line of argumentation has stressed that economic growth leads to degradation of the environment, a view that was brought forward in the Limits to Growth study (Meadows et al., 1972, 1992). As a reaction to these conclusions, economists have argued in favor of growth as a precondition for an improved environment (for instance, Beckerman, 1975).

Since the 1992 Rio summit, a new clean production paradigm, defined by environmental programs of the United Nations and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), is becoming widespread. This new paradigm augments the old reactive one, based on assimilation capacity, critical loads, and control – end of the pipe – solutions, taking into account new principles that add an additional parameter to the production/consumption system: the explicit consideration of environmental protection at all stages. This new clean production strategies approach is based on the principles of precaution, prevention, and

integration, i.e. the effects of hazard displacement (Hirschhorn et al., 1993). The principle of prevention states that future technology developments should reduce potential pollution emissions and thus, the risk of environmental damage at source (Zofío and Prieto, 2001).

The issue of global warming is becoming a major and unavoidable element of world energy policy. The United Nations Convention on Climate Change marked the first step towards an international determination to limit releases of GHG. In December 1997, 39 developed economies signed the Kyoto Protocol to curb the emissions of GHG including CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, hydro-fluorocarbons, per-fluorocarbons, and sulphur hexafluoride. The largest contributor to the greenhouse effect is CO2 emissions. In 1995, it accounted for about 82% of total GHG emissions from developed economies whereas methane was 12% and nitrous oxide about 4% (UNEP, 1999). The emissions of the other three remaining gases are less than 2%. Therefore, reducing CO2 emissions has been a focal point of energy and environmental policy in many economies. As rising atmospheric concern about global warming and dependence on fossil fuels grows, the search for reducing carbon dioxide emissions becomes a matter of widespread attention.

Considering the present 85% share of the world energy supplied by fossil fuels, and knowing the time needed for new energy systems to penetrate to their market potential, capturing and sequestering CO2 appears as an efficient response to the CO2 problem. Moreover, in the long term, CO2 sequestration will allow us to keep on exploiting the large coal and natural gas reserves that represents a substantial share of the world available energy sources (Jean-Baptiste and Ducroux, 2003).

Although there was general agreement about the need to control emissions, lots of problems arise when fixing reduction commitments. The main problem is to establish the targets of emissions limitations for different economies. While rich economies fear the dangers to economic growth of limiting their emissions, poor economies argue the great inequality in the distribution of CO2 emissions across

economies in current and past emissions for not limiting their development possibilities with mitigation policies. The different relative responsibilities of the inhabitants of different economies and groups of economies and the problems generated by this inequality constitute fundamental features to be taken into account in the negotiations among economies on the actions for mitigating the emissions of GHG.

As the consideration of economic growth and climate policy, the USA proposal was to establish heterogeneous targets of emissions limitations while the EU proposal was to establish as large a homogeneous reduction as possible at least for the USA, Japan, and the EU for the Kyoto Protocol (Bengochea-Morancho et al., 2001). Finally, the Kyoto Protocol (1997) set a specific timetable for each economy under the Convention on Climate Change, with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by at least 5 percent below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012. The European Union, United States, Canada, and Japan could reduce their emissions relative to 1990 levels by 8%, 7%, 6%, and 6%, respectively.

Only three economies (Island, Australia, and Norway) are allowed to increase their emissions relative to 1990 levels by 10%, 8%, and 1%, respectively. Russia, Ukraine, and New Zealand may keep their emissions at the 1990 level. The rest of the industrialized economies are required to reduce their emissions 6% to 8% from 1990 levels in the 2008 to 2012 period. Especially, the developing economies were not given any specific reduction commitments in the Kyoto Protocol.

However, the reduction is compared to the levels of 1990, which is the base year for the Kyoto Protocol, during the first commitment period 2008 to 2012. The targets somewhat come from negotiation and compromise. The targets might mislead the country’s policy and limit the economic growth and the ability of competition. That maybe is the reason that the USA do not want to ratify the Protocol until some of the lesser-developed economies (particularly China, India, and Brazil) agree to curb their emissions.

The inequality in the distribution of CO2 emissions across economies is one of the most relevant issues for the design of global climate policies. While rich economies fear the dangers to economic growth of limiting their emissions, poor economies argue the great inequality in current and past emissions for not limiting their development possibilities with mitigation policies. The different relative responsibilities of the inhabitants of different economies and groups of economies and the problems generated by this inequality constitute fundamental features to be taken into account in the negotiations among economies on the actions for mitigating the emissions of GHG.