Je recopie c'que j'ai déjà mis sur un forum ami, ça pourrait vous intérresser:Accord au G8 sur le changement climatique GLENAGLES, Ecosse (Reuters) - Les dirigeants du G8 sont parvenus à un texte commun sur le changement climatique, qui mentionnera le protocole de Kyoto sans toutefois fournir d'objectif chiffré, a annoncé un membre de la délégation allemande lors du sommet de Gleneagles, en Ecosse.
Selon Bernd Pfaffenbach, le communiqué mettra l'accent sur la nécessité de réduire l'émission de gaz à effet de serre en développant l'usage de technologies propres, comme le prônait George Bush avant la réunion.
Le texte mentionnera également le protocole de Kyoto, signé par sept des pays du G8 mais rejeté depuis 2001 par Washington, qui le juge inefficace pour l'environnement et dangereux pour la croissance économique.
"L'accord de Kyoto sera mentionné mais le document ne contiendra aucun chiffre précis", a cependant précisé Bernd Pfaffenbach, "sherpa" de la délégation allemande.
Le protocole de Kyoto, entré en vigueur en février dernier pour une durée de sept ans, impose aux pays riches de réduire leurs émissions de dioxyde de carbone de 5,2% par rapport au niveau de 1990.
source
______________________________________________________________
Quand on sait ce qu'est le protocole de Kyoto, ça donne envie de pleurer.
En même temps, ce G8 ne me faisait rien espérer mais bon.. 
L'Hypocrisie à l'état pur...______________________________________________________________
Emissions trading is Kyoto's success story David B. Sandalow The Boston Globe
Thursday, February 17, 2005 The auditorium in the Kyoto Conference Center was filled with sleeping delegates after two nights of nonstop negotiation. But Stu Eizenstat, head of the U.S. delegation to the 1997 global warming conference, was wide awake. Exuding energy, Eizenstat turned on his microphone and delivered a simple message - the "final compromise" just circulated for approval was unacceptable to the United States because it deleted all reference to "emissions trading." The conference chairman let silence fill the room, then said simply, "May I please see the U.S. delegation in my office?"
.
Moments later, as we huddled in a small office, the chairman told U.S. representatives we were the only delegation insisting on a controversial provision and implored us to accept an agreement without reference to emissions trading. Eizenstat refused. The chairman agreed to include the provision, returned to the auditorium, and soon afterward announced that the conference had adopted a new agreement. He proposed a name - the "Kyoto Protocol."
.
More than seven years later, the agreement has finally taken effect. On Wednesday, the Kyoto Protocol - revered in much of the world, reviled by many in the United States - became legally binding on 131 countries that have accepted its terms.
.
The event is rich in irony. The United States will not be a party to the Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, the Bush administration's rejection of the agreement has become a symbol of its foreign policy for much of the world. Yet the Kyoto Protocol's most enduring legacy may be a uniquely American idea - that "emissions trading" can help control heat-trapping gases at low cost.
.
Today the European Union - an opponent of emissions trading during the Kyoto talks - is embracing an ambitious "cap and trade" program to help fight global warming. Meanwhile in the United States - birthplace of emissions trading and its strongest advocate in the Kyoto process - efforts to establish a national trading program for heat-trapping gases have stalled, with no progress in sight.
.
Emissions trading is an alternative to traditional regulation, in which market forces are used to help lower the cost of meeting an environmental goal. In a typical emissions trading program, companies are first given permits to release a pollutant and then given a choice - either use the permits or sell them. Companies that cut pollution cheaply make money by selling permits to companies where cutting pollution is more expensive. The result: An environmental goal is achieved at lower overall cost than under traditional approaches.
.
These programs have been wildly successful in the United States. In 1990, the first President Bush signed legislation creating an emissions trading program to help fight acid rain. Initial cost estimates ran from $400 to $1,000 per ton of pollution; actual costs have been $100 to $200 per ton thanks in part to the flexibility provided by emissions trading. Similar programs have been used with great success to control ozone-depleting chemicals and urban smog.
.
In retrospect, the U.S. insistence on including emissions trading in the Kyoto Protocol paid important dividends. Trading programs are far more widely accepted today than seven years ago. Indeed, they are the foundation of the European Union's new plan for controlling heat-trapping gases.
.
In several respects the Kyoto Protocol has already been a historic success. It has led dozens of countries to adopt serious programs to address global warming, many for the first time. It has greatly improved understanding of the benefits - and limitations - of emissions trading. It has helped educate publics around the world about the risks of global warming.
.
In other important ways, however, the Kyoto Protocol has been a failure. Its rejection by the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, the United States, severely limits its impact. The agreement's impact on clean energy growth in developing countries will probably be modest. The next generation of global warming agreements must engage both the world's biggest emitter and major developing countries.
.
(David B. Sandalow, an environment scholar at the Brookings Institution, was assistant secretary of state for oceans, environment and science in the Clinton administration. This comment was first published in The Boston Globe.)
source
Accueil 
