Prentice doubtful on climate change accord in Copenhagen

 Less than two months from key global climate change talks, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice said he doubts whether an agreement will be hammered out in Copenhagen.
"Increasingly people are being realistic, that it's hard to see a full and complete agreement being arrived at," Prentice told the Calgary Herald editorial board Wednesday.
"There's probably too much work to be done in the time left to achieve that," Prentice said.
U. S. President Barack Obama's administration is now working on alternative bilateral agreements with countries such as India and China with the intention of reviving a process that appears increasingly deadlocked between developing countries and advanced economies.
Prentice said the Copenhagen meeting is still important, but "it's more likely we'll be working toward some agreed principles."
Regardless, the minister said Canada will go ahead with its own plan of reducing climate changing emissions by 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020 --and each province will individually have to live up to that target, including Alberta.
"There will have to be a parity of effort across the country," Prentice said.
"We're all in this together. If that's going to be Canada's national target, then each province is going to have to share their share of the burden."
Prentice added the caveat that specific agreements have not been worked out between Ottawa and the provinces.
But there's no doubt the federal government has more ambitious targets than Alberta. The Stelmach government's plan allows for absolute increases in emissions until 2020.
While a difference in greenhouse strategies has been a source of contention between the Alberta and Ottawa, provincial Environment Minister Rob Renner appeared unfazed by Prentice's comments.
"It's a very complex discussion," Renner said. "I'm comfortable that we will have a unified position when we get to Copenhagen."
Renner added the province hasn't shied away from being proactive in making CO2 reduction targets -- based on how much industries produce rather than absolute caps on emissions. But he added that more ambitious targets are possible.
Alberta's "legislated reductions are relatively modest," Renner acknowledged. "Once everybody else comes on board, there's no reason to believe that we can't increase the effort . . . but we can't do it now because it would put us out of sync with everyone else and it would make our industry totally uncompetitive."
Environmental groups have long been worried that whatever strategy the Harper government rolls out for regulating industry emissions, it will allow for Alberta's oilsands to grow unfettered.
"A credible cap and trade system should not include loopholes or special treatment for sectors and provinces," said Clare Demerse of the Pembina Institute.
"The treatment of Alberta, and particularly of the oilsands sector, will be a key litmus test for whatever plan the federal government releases this fall. That's because the oilsands are the largest source of the growth in Canada's emissions," Demerse said.
Prentice said negotiations leading up to Copenhagen have proved difficult.
Alleviating poverty is a bigger priority than reducing emissions for less-wealthy countries. "They make a compelling argument," Prentice said.
Canada's position is to replace the Kyoto accord with a new agreement.
In that vein, Prentice also commented on a controversy as to whether developing countries walked out as Canadian representatives spoke in Bangkok earlier this month.
The minister said that didn't happen; those countries chose not to participate in the technical discussion

Hearings on Senate's climate change bill to begin soon

The US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee will begin 3 days of hearings on Oct. 27 on the global climate-change bill that its chairwoman, Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), and John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) introduced Sept. 30.

“Members of the committee and their staffs, along with the committee’s staff, have been working day and night since the bill was introduced, and we have made great progress,” she told reporters at a briefing. “Draft provisions of the chairman’s mark have been sent to the Environmental Protection Agency for analysis. We expect that to be completed in time for the hearings.”

Boxer said the hearings will begin with testimony from US Energy Secretary Steven Chu, Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Chairman Jon Wellinghoff.

Witnesses for the two other hearings will be announced shortly, she said. “We will schedule a full committee markup as soon as possible after the hearings,” she said.

Boxer’s announcement came a day before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s second hearing on potential costs of a carbon cap-and-trade program, a component of both S. 1733, the Boxer-Kerry bill, and HR 2454, the measure cosponsored by Reps. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), which the House approved by seven votes on June 26.

‘Radical transformation’
“As the Senate continues to consider ways to deal with the global environmental problem of climate change, much of the discussion centers around the overall costs and benefits of such a program,” committee chairman Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) said Oct. 14 as he opened the hearing. “Addressing the issue of climate change will require a radical transformation of our energy sector, so this committee will continue to take a great interest in this topic in the months ahead.”

The committee’s ranking minority member, Lisa Murkowski (R-Alas.), said it will be important to make certain climate change legislation does not endanger a domestic economic recovery. “The proposals before us will affect not only climate change, but every facet of our economy for decades to come,” she maintained. “It’s incredibly difficult to conduct a sensitive and comprehensive analysis of climate change bills, but it’s equally important to know how those bills might work and what they may cost.”

Four federal analysts testified at the hearing: Douglas W. Elmendorf, director of the Congressional Budget Office; Richard G. Newell, US Energy Information Administration administrator; Reid P. Harvey, a branch chief within the EPA’s climate economics division; and Larry Parker, of the Congressional Research Service.

Addressing climate change could entail substantial costs domestically since the US accounts for roughly 20% of total global carbon dioxide emissions, Elmendorf said in his written testimony. “Achieving such reductions would probably involve transforming the US economy from one that runs on CO₂-emitting fossil fuels to one that increasing relies on nuclear and renewable fuels, accomplishing substantial improvements in energy efficiency, or implementing the large-scale capture and storage of CO₂ emissions,” he said.

Climate legislation also would permanently shift production and employment away from industries which produce carbon-based energy and energy-intensive goods and toward alternative energy sources, goods, and services, Elmendorf said. “While those shifts occurred, total employment would probably be reduced a little compared with what it would have been without a comparably stringent policy to reduce carbon emissions because labor markets would most likely not adjust as quickly as would the composition of demand for different outputs,” he indicated.

Aspects of HR 2454
Other witnesses discussed studies of HR 2454 since its passage. Newell said EIA found carbon capture and storage and other key technologies for reducing emissions face a variety of technical challenges and, in some cases, additional questions regarding their widespread deployment.

“EIA’s results also suggest that the free allocation of allowances to electricity and natural gas distributors significantly lowers direct impacts on consumer electricity and natural gas prices prior to 2025, when it starts to be phased out,” he continued. “While this result may serve goals related to regional and overall fairness of the program, the overall efficiency of the cap-and-trade program is reduced to the extent that the price signal that would encourage cost-effective changes by consumers in their use of electricity and natural gas is delayed.” 

Harvey said in his written testimony that EPA’s analysis of HR 2454 and related Senate bills indicates cumulative reductions over several decades affect overall costs more than a particular year’s cap level. “Because HR 2454 allows emissions allowances to be banked over time, its 2050 cap (an 83% reduction from 2005 levels by 2050) drives overall behavior and encourages banking in the early years of the cap-and-trade program,” he observed.

“In other words, just changing the 2020 cap alone does not have a significant effect on total costs if all else stays the same. Costs will be lower the sooner we start acting, but a national commitment to meeting these long-run emission targets is key,” Harvey said.

Parker said the ultimate costs of HR 2454 would be determined by the economic response to the bill’s technical challenges, that the distribution of allowance value (either through free allocations or auction revenue) would determine who bears much of the program’s costs, and that the availability of offsets, especially international allowances, will be significant.

“The interplay between nuclear power, renewables, natural gas, and coal-fired capacity with carbon capture and storage among the cases emphasizes the need for a low-carbon source of electric generating capacity in the mid-to-long term,” he continued. “A considerable amount of low-carbon generation will have to be built under HR 2454 to meet the reduction requirement.”

PREVIEW-Maldives govt goes underwater for climate change

To bring attention the risk the Maldives face from rising sea levels and climate change, President Mohamed Nasheed is going to the bottom of the Indian Ocean.

On Saturday, he and 12 cabinet ministers will don scuba gear and dive 3.5 metres (11 feet, 6 inches) under the surface of a turquoise lagoon to hold what is billed as the world's first underwater cabinet meeting.

It is the latest of Nasheed's eye-catching moves to bring attention to the Maldives' plight before a landmark U.N. climate meeting in Copenhagen in December.

"The message is we will do anything, everything, to live in this country," Environment Minister Mohamed Aslam told Reuters.

The archipelago nation off the tip of India, mostly known for its high-end luxury tropical hideaways and unspoiled white-sand beaches, is among the most threatened by rising seas.

Rising sea levels of up to 58 cm, as predicted by the U.N. Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, threaten to submerge most of the Maldives' low-lying islands by 2100.

The underwater cabinet meeting is a part of the 350 global campaigns, which call for a reduction of atmospheric carbon dioxide to the safe threshold of 350 parts per million (ppm). Current levels stand at 387 ppm. Seated around a table and using hand signals and slates, the cabinet will endorse an "SOS" message from the Maldives to be presented at the U.N. climate change summit in Copenhagen.

"We must unite in a world war effort to halt further temperature rises," an advance copy of the statement made available to Reuters said.

"Climate change is happening and it threatens the rights and security of everyone on Earth. With less than one degree of global warming, the glaciers are melting, the ice sheets collapsing and low lying areas are in danger of being swamped."

World leaders will meet in Copenhagen to hammer out a successor agreement to the 1997 Kyoto Protocol.

But while the developing world says rich and industrialised nations should shoulder the lion's share of the burden, the latter are calling for drastic cuts in emissions from all countries.

Denmark has agreed to pay for Nasheed to attend the talks after the archipelago decided to decline the invitation due to a budget crisis. [ID:nCOL342180].

Nasheed, barely a month after entering office last year, declared he would establish a sovereign fund to relocate his country's 350,000 people if sea levels rise, but later admitted it was not feasible given the state of the Maldivian economy.

Earlier this year, he vowed to make the Maldives carbon neutral within a decade by switching to renewable energy and offsetting carbon emissions, primarily from tourists flying to one of the country's high-end resorts.

Nasheed, who is yet to overcome the country's economic problems led by global recession, last year unseated Asia's longest-serving ruler, 30-year incumbent President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, in the islands' first multi-party presidential election.

Curbing Emissions by Sealing Gas Leaks

To the naked eye, there was nothing to be seen at a natural gas well in eastern Texas but beige pipes and tanks baking in the sun. But in the viewfinder of Terry Gosney’s infrared camera, three black plumes of gas gushed through leaks that were otherwise invisible.
“Holy smoke, it’s blowing like mad,” said Mr. Gosney, an environmental field coordinator for EnCana, the Canadian gas producer that operates the year-old well near Franklin, Tex. “It does look nasty.”
Within a few days the leaks had been sealed by workers.
Efforts like EnCana’s save energy and money. Yet they are also a cheap, effective way of blunting climate change that could potentially be replicated thousands of times over, from Wyoming to Siberia, energy experts say. Natural gas consists almost entirely of methane, a potent heat-trapping gas that scientists say accounts for as much as a third of the human contribution to global warming.
“This for me is an absolute no-brainer, even more so than putting in those compact fluorescent bulbs in your house,” said Al Armendariz, an engineer at Southern Methodist University who studies pollutants from oil and gas fields.
Acting quickly to stanch the loss of methane could substantially cut warming in the short run, even as countries tackle the tougher challenge of cutting the dominant greenhouse emission, carbon dioxide, studies by researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggest.
Unlike carbon dioxide, which can remain in the atmosphere a century or more once released, methane persists in the air for about 10 years. So aggressively reining in emissions now would mean that far less of the gas would be warming the earth in a decade or so.
Methane is also a valuable target because while it is far rarer and more fleeting than carbon dioxide, ton for ton, it traps 25 times as much heat, researchers say.
Yet while federal and international programs have encouraged companies to seek and curb methane emissions from gas and oil wells, pipelines and tanks, aggressive efforts like EnCana’s are still far from the industry norm.
As a result, some three trillion cubic feet of methane leak into the air every year, with Russia and the United States the leading sources, according to the Environmental Protection Agency’s official estimate. (This amount has the warming power of emissions from over half the coal plants in the United States.) And government scientists and industry officials caution that the real figure is almost certainly higher.
Unless monitoring is greatly expanded, they say, such emissions could soar as global production of natural gas increases over the next few decades.
The Energy Department projects that gas production could rise nearly 50 percent over the next 20 years as companies race to discover and tap new sources. In the United States, 4,000 miles of new pipeline was laid last year alone.
But the industry has been largely resistant to an aggressive cleanup.
The Bush administration, which opposed mandatory limits on greenhouse gas emissions, expanded an existing voluntary domestic program for capturing methane emissions and began a related international program — with both aimed at promoting profitable ways for businesses to cut methane emissions as a relatively easy first step to combat climate change.
In April the Obama administration signaled that it could adopt rules requiring the biggest American companies to report all of their greenhouse gas emissions. Oil and gas industry groups countered that the cost and complexity of dealing with some 700,000 wells were too great.
In September the E.P.A. announced that the obligatory reporting would begin in 2011 but that it excluded oil and gas operations, at least for the time being. (Agency officials say they plan to issue rules for oil and gas by late next year.)
Some scientists reject the industry arguments. “Further delay on finding and stopping such releases would be irresponsible, given the financial and environmental benefits,” said F. Sherwood Rowland, a Nobel laureate in chemistry at the University of California, Irvine.
Internationally, the amount of methane escaping from gas and oil operations can be only crudely gauged. But in 2006 the E.P.A. estimated that Russia, the world’s largest gas producer, ranked highest, with 427 billion cubic feet of methane escaping annually, followed by the United States at 346 billion, Ukraine at 225 billion and Mexico at 191 billion.
Reflecting the uncertainty in such estimates, Gazprom, Russia’s giant state gas monopoly, estimated its annual emissions at half that figure last year.
An E.P.A. review of methane emissions from gas wells in the United States strongly implies that all of these figures may be too low. In its analysis, the E.P.A. concluded that the amount emitted by routine operations at gas wells — not including leaks like those seen near Franklin — is 12 times the agency’s longtime estimate of nine billion cubic feet. In heat-trapping potential, that new estimate equals the carbon dioxide emitted annually by eight million cars.
In the routine operations, great yet invisible plumes of gas enter the atmosphere when new wells are activated, old wells are invigorated to boost gas flows and wells are purged of fluids by letting out cough-like bursts of gas.
In many gas fields, said Roger Fernandez, a senior methane expert at the E.P.A., fluid-clogged wells are still purged the old-fashioned way, by opening valves or using outdated equipment in ways that release a misty burst of gas directly into the air.
For the E.P.A. and environmental scientists, the challenge is convincing gas and oil producers here and abroad that efforts to avoid such releases often more than pay for themselves.
The use of infrared cameras is expanding as word spreads of the payoff in saved gas, said Ben Shepperd, executive vice president of the Permian Basin Petroleum Association, which represents 1,200 companies in the oil and gas business around West Texas.
“We would like to see more people doing it,” he said. “People are very surprised when they shoot their equipment with these cameras and they see that there are releases in places they wouldn’t have expected.”
The benefits are there not only for gas producers but also for companies handling oil. Thousands of oil storage tanks emit plumes of methane and other gases, said Larry S. Richards, the president of Hy-Bon Engineering in Midland, Tex., which is using infrared cameras to survey storage tanks in 29 countries and sells systems that capture the gas.
A clearer view of the worst methane emissions could come next year, when Japan plans to start releasing data from Gosat, a satellite that began orbiting the Earth in January. It may be able to identify the top hot spots within a few miles.
That may increase pressure on countries with particularly large leaks.
As the biggest methane emitter, Russia has begun seeking high-tech solutions. In April, for example, Gazprom, the Russian Defense Ministry and an Israeli aerospace company began discussing the potential use of miniature remotely piloted helicopters to monitor pipelines for leaks.
But gadgets alone will not halt the vast exhalation of methane from Russia, environmentalists say. There is some hope that a successor to the 1997 Kyoto climate change pact will include more incentives for money to flow to Russian methane-reduction projects.
Western companies that have captured methane point out the money that is often to be made by doing so.
Starting around 2000, BP began introducing methane-catching techniques at 2,300 well sites in New Mexico. At well after well, gas that would have otherwise escaped now flows through meters that field crews affectionately call the “cash register.”
Among other actions, BP engineers have fine-tuned a system for purging fluids that can stop up wells. The process uses the pressure of gas in the well to periodically raise a plunger through the vertical well pipe. This removes the liquids but typically allows gas to escape.
The new computerized process, which BP calls smart automation, tracks well pressure and other conditions to more precisely time the plunger cycles in ways that avoid gas emissions. From 2000 to 2004, emissions from BP wells in the region dropped 50 percent, the company says. By 2007, they had essentially ended.
On average, installing the systems has cost about $11,000 per well, but they have returned three times that investment, said Reid Smith, an environmental adviser for BP working on the project.
“We spend a lot of money to get gas to the surface,” Mr. Smith said. “It makes a huge amount of sense to get all of it through the sales meter.”

Climate changing

Efforts to pass climate change legislation through Congress in time for the international summit in Copenhagen received an unexpected boost from Republican sources this week. The first, and perhaps most important, was South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham's decision to join Massachusetts Democratic Sen. John Kerry in a bipartisan climate bill that includes - gasp! - the cap-and-trade provision so often derided by conservatives.

But for those frustrated by the pseudo-science and quackery of climate change opponents who continue to bury their heads in the warming sand, the second was just as satisfying: Turns out the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under President George W. Bush was just as alarmed by climate change as the rest of the mainstream scientific community.

The infamous e-mail from the EPA that the White House refused to even open in 2007 was released this week under a Freedom of Information Act request filed by Greenwire, the environmental news service. As expected, the e-mail shows that the agency, under Republican leadership, expressed the same concerns about the impact of greenhouse gases that the EPA under President Obama does today.

The "U.S. and the rest of the world are experiencing the effects of climate change now," the Bush-era memo concludes. It also warns of rising sea levels, drought, violent weather, outbreaks of disease and greater numbers of heat-related deaths.

Any similarities between the language of that dire forecast and the one EPA provided earlier this year is strictly common-sensical. The agency's choice to move forward with an endangerment finding under the Clean Air Act that could soon lead to strict regulations imposed on major carbon producers was, if anything, overdue.

The Graham-Kerry bill won't please everyone in the green community. It would open up more off-shore sites to oil and natural gas exploration, for instance, and would promote nuclear and clean coal technologies that have significant environmental drawbacks.

But the fact that a Republican senator would endorse climate change legislation so early in the process (the Senate has yet to even conduct hearings on House-approved climate change bill) is quite a contrast to how a divided Congress has so far handled health care reform.

No doubt Mr. Graham is not the only GOP senator willing to take action on greenhouse gases despite the party's anti-tax mantra. Are you listening Sen. John McCain? Plenty of traditional Republican allies in the business community support legislation, too. Most recently, Nike and Apple resigned from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce because of the organization's failure to face climate change realities.

The potential impact of climate change is simply too worrisome not to take action. Most Americans recognize that. So do many big corporations and major utilities. At the moment, the biggest obstacle to meeting the December Copenhagen deadline may be timid Democrats like Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who doesn't want to deal with it until health care reform is passed.

That's too bad because, as the Bush EPA e-mail confirms, the science of climate change is clear. It's just the politics of it that need to be overcome

Insurers offer green incentives

Citing fears of rising costs from climate change, insurance companies have begun changing the terms of their policies to encourage customers to act more green.
One change came last month, as California's Insurance Department approved a plan to let insurers adjust their fees to encourage customers to drive less, which could result in a decline in greenhouse gases.
Another recent initiative includes reimbursing property owners when they install energy-saving devices or use environmentally friendly materials as they rebuild damaged homes or commercial buildings.
Insurers say they want to do as much as they can to address the risk of climate change because they fear that environmental disasters, which are projected to keep rising as the climate changes, could expose them to larger losses.
This week, the Willis Research Network — an arm of one of the world's largest insurers, the Willis Group — partnered with San Diego's Scripps Institution of Oceanography to measure the risks posed from climate change.
Peter Moraga, a spokesman for the Insurance Information Institute of California, said the insurers' green policies are “a direct result of looking at climate change as an issue. Reducing our (climate-related) risk is a big part of this.”
Critics say that some of the moves are little more than marketing ploys, designed to capitalize on growing public demand for greener goods and services.
A poll of insurers this summer by Celent — a Boston research and consulting firm — found that 56 percent of respondents said they intended to use their green policies in their marketing.
“Insurance companies realize they can get some mileage if they paint themselves as a bit greener,” said Doug Heller, executive director of Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica group that has long been critical of the industry.
Government regulators are also prodding the insurers.
Starting in May, the nation's biggest insurers will be required to submit annual filings telling regulators and investors how much risk they face because of climate change and what steps they plan to take to mitigate the risks, under a rule adopted by the National Association of Insurance Commissioners.
Among other things, the rule requires each insurer to “summarize steps (it) has taken to encourage policyholders to reduce the losses caused by climate change-influenced events.”
One of the biggest initiatives is a nationwide campaign to introduce “pay-as-you-drive” auto coverage, tying auto insurance rates to mileage data collected from the odometer or other devices.
Last month, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner approved one of the nation's first pay-as-you-drive programs, citing a 2008 report by the Environmental Defense Fund that said if 30 percent of Californians used such coverage over the next 10 years, the state could avoid 55 million tons of CO ₂ emissions, the equivalent of taking 10 million cars off the road.
If is approved by the Office of Administrative Law, it could go into effect as early as this month.
Although insurers have long used mileage as a factor in determining rates, the rules have often involved broad categories. For instance, State Farm, one of California's biggest auto insurers, provides a lower rate for people who drive below 7,500 miles per year and a higher rate if they exceed that level.
“How does a rule like that incentivize anybody who drives, say, 12,000 miles per year to reduce their driving,” Heller said. “They'll never get down to 7,500, so why try?”
Although low-mileage drivers stand to get lower insurance rates thanks to pay-as-you-drive, some of the biggest benefits may go to the insurers, who will be able to use more comprehensive mileage data when setting rates.
In fact, insurers see a number of benefits from climate change. A report last month by the Insurance Information Institute of New York — an affiliate of the California institute — found that “opportunities exist on several fronts” from climate change, including the creation of whole new industries, such as alternative fuel facilities, that will need new forms of insurance.

African lawmakers seek common position ahead of Copenhagen climate meeting

African lawmakers are meeting Nairobi to discuss best ways to handle the harsh environmental conditions brought by climate change ahead of the UN meeting on global warming in Denmark.
    Lawmakers attending the two-day meeting said Africa must be fully prepared to justify its requests at the Copenhagen meeting to allow financial flows to the continent.
    Kenya's Environment Minister John Michuki said that there was need to make a firm decision on the amount required to address climate change issues in Africa.
    "We should spend the remaining time on projects and numbers because it is in Copenhagen that projects and numbers will meet the financial gurus of this world," Michuki said at the start of the meeting on Tuesday.
    "If we shall be told to go back home and work out on our programs and projects, we shall have wasted our meager resources for two weeks and come out there with nothing," he added.
    The conference is also expected to rally African countries to demand for an equitable post in the 2012 Climate Change Agreement.
    The lawmakers will show their commitment in conserving the environment by planting trees in Karura Forest. Five hectares has been set aside for the exercise.
    Swedish ambassador Ann Dismorr said the European Union (EU) pledged to cut the emission of greenhouse gasses by 30 percent by next year and scale up financial support to developing countries.
    "This is providing that other developed countries make comparable reduction commitments, and providing that advanced developing countries contribute adequately according to their responsibilities and capabilities," Dismorr said.
    Nobel Peace Prize laureate Wangari Maathai said Africa should stop over dependence on donor funds and implement environment conservation measures that do not require much funding.
    Maathai told the lawmakers that governments should encourage planting of more trees, harvesting rain water, curbing soil erosion and protection of wetlands instead of just looking up to the West for aid.
    She told African MPs attending the conference to forge the continent's collective position ahead of the global climate talks in Copenhagen in December to ensure the forum was not another talking shop.
    In June, the African Parliamentarians Summit on Climate change said it would demand at the talks that the Annex 1 countries (developed countries) committed a minimum 200 billion U.S. dollars annually for adaptation and mitigation of climate change in developing countries.
    Among issues to be deliberated on by the lawmakers, university dons and environmental experts include the role of lawmakers on climate change, legislative approaches, disputes and actions, economic impact of climate change and its implication on development.
    "Because we could talk about degradation, adaptation, we can talk about mitigation but that will not take us anywhere in Copenhagen," Michuki said. He said the industrialized nations should leave the developing countries to come up with their own solutions to the climate change problem.
    The Copenhagen talks are expected to come up with a new climate deal to replace the Kyoto protocol which was adopted in December 1997 and entered into force in February 2005.
    The Kyoto Protocol which sets binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has been signed and ratified by 184 parties of the UN Climate Convention with the United States as a notable exception.