Preventing Global Warming - A Common Task for Mankind
OHKI Hiroshi / Member of the House of Representatives
June 17, 2001
In mid-March, newly-elected US President George Bush announced his country's abrupt departure from the Kyoto Protocol adopted in 1997 to prevent global warming, causing great shock to countries throughout the world. Members of the European Union and Japan lost no time in sending delegations to the US government to present their objections.
The US side responded by raising two points as the biggest reasons for President Bush's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol; one, that it would inflict major damage to the US economy; and two, that no obligations have been set for developing countries that are expected to become the main source of greenhouse gas emission in the future. Nevertheless, the US government does not intend to deny the importance of taking action against global warming, and said it is actually considering alternative measures that take better account of the cost and effect relations than those laid out in the Kyoto Protocol.
However, the United States is the world's largest economy as well as the biggest generator of greenhouse gases, and its stance of not participating in an international system set up to tackle mankind's common problem of global warming by citing negative consequences for its own economy would be hardly acceptable if the United States wishes to retain the confidence of the international community as a world leader.
As for developing countries, the decision of not demanding legally binding commitments regarding restrictions of greenhouse gas emissions - at least at the early stage - was made at the first Conference of the Parties (COP1) that was held in 1995. The idea that industrialized countries should first demonstrate real results in reductions before asking developing countries to gradually participate in emissions restrictions has served as the foundation of negotiations during the Kyoto Conference and at all COP meetings that have followed. Demanding commitments from developing countries now, at this stage, would therefore only increase their opposition and make matters worse.
Japan is now requesting the US side to quickly formulate its alternative measures and is urging the US government to realize much of those measures within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol listed several measures for reducing greenhouse gases, but the Kyoto Conference (COP3) failed to define details on enforcement and scope of application of each measure as well as the weighting to be given to the various measures.
This meant the participants have had to hold numerous meetings each year following the Kyoto Conference, and these talks had reached the final phase of negotiations during the COP6 meeting at the Hague, the Netherlands, held in November last year. Under the circumstances the resumption of these negotiations seems to offer the best course towards a solution.
At the same time, we must get the US to return to the negotiating table, and to that end we must also ask the EU side to reconsider its stance. At the COP6 conference, it was the EU countries that tried to set strict restrictions on the so-called "flexible measures" included in the Kyoto Protocol, such as the counting emission of trading and cooperation provided to developing countries as reduction efforts on the part of industrialized countries, inviting a backlash from the United States and other non-EU industrialized countries. In the end, no final agreement could be reached on the concrete measures, which were to be the final touches of the Kyoto Protocol.
Countermeasures for global warming is an endeavor we must take on with patience throughout the 21st century, and considering the scientific knowledge that is already available, it is also a task that requires immediate action. The COP6 talks will be resumed in July this year in Bonn, Germany. I hope the United States will have formulated its new proposal by that time, and pray that the EU and other countries will participate in the talks with as much flexibility as possible, so that a system for international cooperation against global warming - a common goal for mankind - can be set up at the earliest date.
The writer was President of COP6, and at present a Member of the House of Representatives.
The US side responded by raising two points as the biggest reasons for President Bush's opposition to the Kyoto Protocol; one, that it would inflict major damage to the US economy; and two, that no obligations have been set for developing countries that are expected to become the main source of greenhouse gas emission in the future. Nevertheless, the US government does not intend to deny the importance of taking action against global warming, and said it is actually considering alternative measures that take better account of the cost and effect relations than those laid out in the Kyoto Protocol.
However, the United States is the world's largest economy as well as the biggest generator of greenhouse gases, and its stance of not participating in an international system set up to tackle mankind's common problem of global warming by citing negative consequences for its own economy would be hardly acceptable if the United States wishes to retain the confidence of the international community as a world leader.
As for developing countries, the decision of not demanding legally binding commitments regarding restrictions of greenhouse gas emissions - at least at the early stage - was made at the first Conference of the Parties (COP1) that was held in 1995. The idea that industrialized countries should first demonstrate real results in reductions before asking developing countries to gradually participate in emissions restrictions has served as the foundation of negotiations during the Kyoto Conference and at all COP meetings that have followed. Demanding commitments from developing countries now, at this stage, would therefore only increase their opposition and make matters worse.
Japan is now requesting the US side to quickly formulate its alternative measures and is urging the US government to realize much of those measures within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol listed several measures for reducing greenhouse gases, but the Kyoto Conference (COP3) failed to define details on enforcement and scope of application of each measure as well as the weighting to be given to the various measures.
This meant the participants have had to hold numerous meetings each year following the Kyoto Conference, and these talks had reached the final phase of negotiations during the COP6 meeting at the Hague, the Netherlands, held in November last year. Under the circumstances the resumption of these negotiations seems to offer the best course towards a solution.
At the same time, we must get the US to return to the negotiating table, and to that end we must also ask the EU side to reconsider its stance. At the COP6 conference, it was the EU countries that tried to set strict restrictions on the so-called "flexible measures" included in the Kyoto Protocol, such as the counting emission of trading and cooperation provided to developing countries as reduction efforts on the part of industrialized countries, inviting a backlash from the United States and other non-EU industrialized countries. In the end, no final agreement could be reached on the concrete measures, which were to be the final touches of the Kyoto Protocol.
Countermeasures for global warming is an endeavor we must take on with patience throughout the 21st century, and considering the scientific knowledge that is already available, it is also a task that requires immediate action. The COP6 talks will be resumed in July this year in Bonn, Germany. I hope the United States will have formulated its new proposal by that time, and pray that the EU and other countries will participate in the talks with as much flexibility as possible, so that a system for international cooperation against global warming - a common goal for mankind - can be set up at the earliest date.
The writer was President of COP6, and at present a Member of the House of Representatives.
The English-Speaking Union of Japan
地球温暖化防止は人類共通の課題
大木 浩 / 衆議院議員
2001年 6月 17日
三月中旬、米国のブッシュ新大統領が、1997年地球温暖化防止のために締結された京都議定書から突如離脱の声明を出したというニュースは、世界各国に大きな衝撃を与えました。早速ＥＵ諸国や日本は代表団を派遣して、米国政府に対する抗議を申し入れました。
これに対する米国側の反応は、ブッシュ大統領が京都議定書に反対する最大の理由は、第一に米国の経済に大きな損害を与える、第二に何れ温暖化ガス排出増大の主役になるとみられる開発途上国に対して何らの義務を課していないという二点にある。しかし米国政府としても温暖化対策の必要性を否定するものではなく、京都議定書よりはもっと費用・効果関係に配慮した方策を現在研究中である―というものでした。
しかし、世界一の経済大国であり、しかも最大の温暖化ガス排出国である米国が、自国の経済にマイナス影響があるからといって、人類共通の課題である温暖化防止の国際的協力体制に参加しないという主張は、若し米国が世界のリーダーとして国際社会の信頼を保とうと欲するならば、到底みとめられるものではありません。
また開発途上国に対しては、温暖化ガス排出の抑制について少なくとも現段階では法的なコミットメントを求めないという方針は既に1995年の第一回締約国会議（COP１）で決ったことです。京都会議及びそれ以降のCOP会議での話合いの基礎にあるのは、先ず先進国が削減の実績を示した上で、開発途上国に対しても徐々に排出抑制への参加を求めていくという考え方であります。したがって今直ちに途上国の参加を求めることは、却って途上国側の反撥を強め逆効果になると云わざるを得ません。
現在日本としては、先ず米国側が検討中と述べている米国独自の温暖化対策の作成を急ぐよう求めると共に、それを出来るだけ京都議定書の枠内で実現するように米国政府に働きかけています。もともと京都議定書は温暖化ガス削減のための幾つかの方策を列記しておりますが、京都会議（COP3）ではその実施の細目や適用の範囲、諸々の方策についての比重の置き方までは定めるに至りませんでした。
そのため京都会議以後毎年何回となく会議が重ねられ、昨年十一月オランダのハーグで開かれたCOP6では、かなり煮つまったところまで協議が進んでいました。ですから、この協議を再開することが、最善の道と考えられるのです。
同時に米側を交渉の場に引き戻すためには、EU側にも再考を求める必要があります。COP6会議では、京都議定書に盛られている排出権取引や開発途上国への協力を先進国側の排出削減努力にカウントする等のいわゆる柔軟措置（フレキシブル・メジャーズ）を、EU側が数量的にきびしく制限しようとしたために、米国をはじめとする非EU先進国が反撥し、京都議定書の仕上げとも云うべき具体的措置についての最終合意が得られなかったという経緯もあったのです。
何れにしても、地球温暖化対策は二十一世紀を通じて息長く進めなければならない課題ですが、既に得られている科学的知見から考えてもその実行は今直ぐに始めるべきです。本年七月にはドイツのボンでCOP6の再開会議が開かれます。米国がそれ迄に自国の新提案を取りまとめることを期待すると共に、EUをはじめ他の諸国も出来るだけ柔軟な態度で協議に応じ、人類共通の目標である温暖化防止へ向かっての国際協力体制が、一日も早く整備されることを祈って止みません。
筆者は衆議院議員
これに対する米国側の反応は、ブッシュ大統領が京都議定書に反対する最大の理由は、第一に米国の経済に大きな損害を与える、第二に何れ温暖化ガス排出増大の主役になるとみられる開発途上国に対して何らの義務を課していないという二点にある。しかし米国政府としても温暖化対策の必要性を否定するものではなく、京都議定書よりはもっと費用・効果関係に配慮した方策を現在研究中である―というものでした。
しかし、世界一の経済大国であり、しかも最大の温暖化ガス排出国である米国が、自国の経済にマイナス影響があるからといって、人類共通の課題である温暖化防止の国際的協力体制に参加しないという主張は、若し米国が世界のリーダーとして国際社会の信頼を保とうと欲するならば、到底みとめられるものではありません。
また開発途上国に対しては、温暖化ガス排出の抑制について少なくとも現段階では法的なコミットメントを求めないという方針は既に1995年の第一回締約国会議（COP１）で決ったことです。京都会議及びそれ以降のCOP会議での話合いの基礎にあるのは、先ず先進国が削減の実績を示した上で、開発途上国に対しても徐々に排出抑制への参加を求めていくという考え方であります。したがって今直ちに途上国の参加を求めることは、却って途上国側の反撥を強め逆効果になると云わざるを得ません。
現在日本としては、先ず米国側が検討中と述べている米国独自の温暖化対策の作成を急ぐよう求めると共に、それを出来るだけ京都議定書の枠内で実現するように米国政府に働きかけています。もともと京都議定書は温暖化ガス削減のための幾つかの方策を列記しておりますが、京都会議（COP3）ではその実施の細目や適用の範囲、諸々の方策についての比重の置き方までは定めるに至りませんでした。
そのため京都会議以後毎年何回となく会議が重ねられ、昨年十一月オランダのハーグで開かれたCOP6では、かなり煮つまったところまで協議が進んでいました。ですから、この協議を再開することが、最善の道と考えられるのです。
同時に米側を交渉の場に引き戻すためには、EU側にも再考を求める必要があります。COP6会議では、京都議定書に盛られている排出権取引や開発途上国への協力を先進国側の排出削減努力にカウントする等のいわゆる柔軟措置（フレキシブル・メジャーズ）を、EU側が数量的にきびしく制限しようとしたために、米国をはじめとする非EU先進国が反撥し、京都議定書の仕上げとも云うべき具体的措置についての最終合意が得られなかったという経緯もあったのです。
何れにしても、地球温暖化対策は二十一世紀を通じて息長く進めなければならない課題ですが、既に得られている科学的知見から考えてもその実行は今直ぐに始めるべきです。本年七月にはドイツのボンでCOP6の再開会議が開かれます。米国がそれ迄に自国の新提案を取りまとめることを期待すると共に、EUをはじめ他の諸国も出来るだけ柔軟な態度で協議に応じ、人類共通の目標である温暖化防止へ向かっての国際協力体制が、一日も早く整備されることを祈って止みません。
筆者は衆議院議員
一般社団法人 日本英語交流連盟