A landmark U.N. plan to curb global warming comes into force next week despite a U.S. pullout and with many countries way off course to meet promised cuts in emissions of heat-trapping gases by 2012.

The Kyoto pact is meant to rein in rising temperatures that many scientists say will cause more storms, droughts and floods and raise world sea levels. Climate shifts could disrupt farming and wipe out thousands of species of animals and plants.

The 141-nation protocol, which will force countries to cap emissions of gases, enters into force on Feb. 16 after years of controversy since it was agreed in 1997.

“For the climate, Kyoto’s only a small step,” said Paal Prestrud, head of the Center for International Climate and Environmental Research in Oslo. “But entry into force is a big political victory” for the idea of capping world emissions.

Many climate experts predict catastrophic changes within decades unless action is taken now.

But President George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto in 2001, saying it was too costly and wrongly exempted poor nations.

The United States, the biggest polluter, accounted for 23.1 percent of the world’s emissions in 2000 - about four times the second biggest polluter Russia.

Among developed nations, only Australia backed the U.S. view, leaving Washington with fewer allies for its climate policy than for the 2003 Iraq war.

Even so, many countries bound by Kyoto are running far above its overall goal of curbing rich nations’ emissions of heat-trapping gases like carbon dioxide from cars, factories and power plants by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

Among Kyoto states, Spain and Portugal were 40.5 percent above 1990 levels in 2002, according to U.N. data.

Monaco, Ireland, Greece, New Zealand and Canada are all further over 1990 levels than the United States, whose emissions are 13.1 percent over the Kyoto benchmark year. Most former communist nations are below target.

POWER PLANTS

Environmentalists accuse many European Union nations of giving 12,000 industrial sites - including power plants, steel mills and oil firms - quotas for emissions that are too lax.

“In many cases they’re letting off industry far too easily,” said Steve Sawyer, climate policy director for Greenpeace.

The quotas are the basis for a new market where polluters exceeding their targets can buy emission allocations from those falling below. Carbon dioxide now trades at about 7.20 euros ($9.25) per tonne.

But unless the amount of quotas is cut sharply in coming years, Sawyer said the EU burden for meeting Kyoto goals would fall on consumers via higher taxes rather than by squeezing industries to shift to renewable energy like solar or wind power.

Celebrations for the Feb. 16 launch will range from meetings in the Japanese city of Kyoto where the pact was agreed to prayers in churches for its success. The Californian city of Berkeley will endorse Kyoto in a “Valentine to the Planet.”

The U.N. Environment Programme says climate change is the biggest long-term threat to humanity.

But opponents of Kyoto dismiss it as wasted money built on scaremongering science. “Put bluntly, the Kyoto protocol is one of the least good investments the world can make,” said Bjorn Lomborg, Danish author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist.”

He said Kyoto would cost about $150 billion a year to promote a shift to renewable energies like solar and wind power and that the cash could be better spent on combating AIDS, malaria and malnutrition or promoting free trade.

Even Kyoto’s backers concede it will brake the rise in temperatures by just 0.15 Celsius by 2100, a pinprick compared to the 1.4-5.8 Celsius rise projected by a scientific panel that advises the United Nations.

Everyone agrees that the longer-term fate of Kyoto will hinge on whether the United States agrees to cap emissions after 2012, shifting from its current policy of curbing growth of emissions. U.S. participation is probably the key to whether nations like China and India will take part from 2012.