Eco newsletter 3
ECO NEWSLETTER
CLIMATE TALKS GENEVA - AUGUST 1994
NGO NEWSLETTER
INC 10
August 26, 1994
ISSUE #3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
- Constructive Industry Hits INC10
- Joint Disimplementation
- Leman
- Rule 42
- Editorial
- Working Group I
- Working Group II
- Aircraft Contribute To Global Warming
- Climate Impacts in Africa
- Contacts
- Credits
ECO has been published by Non-Governmental Environmental Groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environment Conference in 1972. This issue is produced cooperatively by groups attending the Climate Talks in Geneva, August, 1994.
Constructive Industry hits INC 10
A packed meeting on Wednesday night saw four leaders of the US-based Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future outline how low- and no-carbon energy sources are ready to play a major role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Business Council describes itself as "an organization comprised of business leaders from the energy efficiency, renewable energy, natural gas and electric power industries who share a commitment to pursue a new energy strategy destined to realize sustainable economic development while protecting the environment." This is in sharp contrast to the dominant industry perspective at past INC sessions downplaying environmental concerns and portraying actions to mitigate climate change as a threat to global economies.
Jared Blum of the Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association discussed the range of building energy technologies, from compact fluorescent lighting to efficient heating systems, that collectively can reduce energy consumption by half or more. Best of all, Blum said, energy savings from these technologies usually pay back their investment in two years or less, giving effective returns of 50% a year or more.
Terry Thorn of Enron, a large integrated natural gas company, outlined how high efficiency combined-cycle gas generators now in operation can substantially reduce carbon emissions compared with conventional fossil fuel generators, while fuel cell technologies promise even sharper reductions as they become price competitive over the next decade.
Some environmentalists, however, have questioned the long-term role of natural gas in a greenhouse-constrained world, pointing out that no more than 20% of world gas resources could be consumed without overloading the atmosphere with carbon.
Nancy Bacon, Vice President of Energy Conversion Devices, described the technologies with perhaps the most far-reaching potential: photovoltaic solar cells. ECD's amorphous silicon cells promise dramatic cost reductions that will make PV power cost-competitive in both developed and developing countries. ECD is also developing new battery technologies that can make electric vehicles practical for widespread use by the end of this decade. These vehicles, when recharged by a largely renewable-powered electricity system, could all but eliminate carbon emissions from personal vehicles.
The Business Council released a brochure describing its positions on climate change calling for protocols to ensure reductions in GHG emissions beyond the year 2000, and urges developed countries, the World Bank, and other multilateral development banks to "harmonize their aid, export promotion and project financing policies in support of international environmental commitments."
Their presence at INC 10 has added a welcome new voice to a fossilized industrial NGO delegation that has resisted any action on climate change. The tone of Friday's industry intervention is likely to be much moderated, with little of the economic fear-mongering and misrepresentation of the climate science that has marred many past industry statements.
The Business Council plans an even larger presence at INC 11 and COP 1. One thing is certain. The days are over when the established fossil fuel industries can misrepresent their narrow self-interest as identical to the economic well-being of society as a whole. From now on, the clean energy industries of the future -- companies that will not only survive, but thrive as governments adopt aggressive, environmental climate policies -- will have a seat at the table.
Joint Disimplementation
By Atiq Rahman
Joint Implementation (JI) was supposed to have been discussed on Thursday afternoon at Working Group 1, but extended discussions on reviewing national communications, due to delaying tactics by some delegates, discussion on JI was postponed.
Besides the obvious lack of commitment by Annex 1 countries, no other issue evokes so much passion as JI. To some, JI is a mechanism for a range of cooperative arrangements designed to achieve carbon reductions in a cost effective manner. To many others, particularly southern delegates and NGOs, and many northern NGOs, JI represents shifting the principle responsibility for adequate carbon reductions within the Annex 1 countries to cheaper options in the South.
The new Climate Network Europe report (Joint Implementation from a European NGO Perspective) circulated at INC10, was compiled by 45 NGOs. It states categorically:
"Since the industrialised nations of the world are currently failing to implement climate abatement measures,since joint implementation for credit can be a potential threat to a full implementation of the current and future commitments for OECD countries under the Climate Convention and also be a potential threat to the overall objective of the convention,
since joint implementation is a measure which will result in increased global inequalities, and
since there seems to be no sound scientific evidence available to prove the claimed cost-effectiveness of joint implementation,
European NGOs are strongly opposed to the concept of joint implementation for credit under the Climate Convention."
Climate Action Network South Asia, in their latest newsletter, questions whether JI is a global warming panacea or carbon colonialism. "To many in the South it appears that JI is being used as a primer for further Northern investment in southern countries, using the carbon market as a vehicle for perpetuating, and even enhancing, global inequities."
The head of a major developing country's delegation at INC10 recently stated: "Carbon pollution must not be used for transport of others' problems to southern countries at the expense of offering the latter's least expensive options and further development potential for someone else's profligate lifestyle."
Many different views have been suggested as to how JI can be a useful mechanism for reaching the objectives of the climate convention. The European statement mentioned above notes:
"Joint implementation for credit should only be an option after industrialised countries have implemented a 20% reduction of their CO2 emissions by the year 2005 as compared to 1990 levels, and joint implementation should only be a small percentage of the national target after this period."
Many Southern NGOs have suggested that: "before any JI can start, developed countries must commit first to show that almost all (say 90%) of their own mitigation measures to reduce carbon emissions are taken within their own territorial boundaries."
In the corridors of the Palais delegates are discussing JI. The G-77 still maintains its general opposition to JI. Formal discussion is awaited to see if any progress can be made at INC10.
Atiq Rahman is Director of Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies.
Leman
Leman was, as usual, being lulled to sleep by the gentle drone of Saudi interventions, when he was suddenly brought to life by the ambassador's startling suggestion that there could be anthropogenic reductions of atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide. Since one of the the only things known to get rid of these gases is lightning, Leman assumes that Saudi Arabia has developed a massive Van der Graaf generator to do the job. Obviously, anything this big would be visible from satellites, so perhaps the US could enlighten us as to the exact location of such a plant.
Somewhat bemused, Leman decided to seek light relief at the daily NGO meeting. This was, however, rudely interrupted by a burst of loud shouting from the industry 'NGO' room next door. No doubt this was in part caused by these people's unfamiliarity with consensus decision-making, as typified by their attempts to railroad the INC process. Leman is of course normally hesitant to recommend anyone to follow the example of these shameless creatures; however, if the working sessions were enlivened by as much passion as that evidenced in the business community, we might perhaps be spared the tedium of hundreds of well-paid negotiators passing the time discussing the placement of commas, and see instead a real debate on the issues. And it might rain diamonds.
Rule 42
Attempts to delay the introduction of further commitments took a new turn in Wednesday's discussion on Rules of Procedure.
An addition to Rule 42 proposed by Saudi Arabia would require Protocols to the Convention to be adopted by three-quarters of the Parties instead of the present requirement for two-thirds.
The Saudi proposal, widely believed to have been drafted by US fossil fuel lobby interests, continues their persistent efforts to delay any agreement for action to control carbon dioxide emissions.
While recognising the usefulness of seeking to achieve consensus, the draft Rules of Procedure allow for decisions on substantive issues, including protocols, to be taken as a last resort by a two-thirds majority vote of the Parties present and voting.
An increase from two-thirds to three-quarters may not be seen by many countries as important. However, it is a serious example of the host of obstructive tactics being employed by the OPEC countries and their allies in the US fossil fuel lobby.
The Saudi proposal would undermine the often stated position by the G77 and China that Annex 1 countries should take the lead and agree further commitments beyond those in Article 4.2. It is therefore surprising that the G77 and China have supported the Saudi proposal rather than the simpler option.
Only the European Union and Canada actively opposed the Saudi proposal. The failure of other developed countries to support them raises serious questions about their commitment to further action on greenhouse gas emissions post 2000.
Editorial
To beat the climate challenge globally will require the marshalling of resources far beyond the scope of the GEF. The massive economic diversity of the World Bank, multilateral development banks, export promotion institutions will be essential to effect the shift away from carbon-intensive investment.
This is not an issue of conditionality. The only condition is that investing our way out of climate change is conditional on replacing investments in fossil technologies in both the developed and developing world of benefit to all parties.
The vision for developing countries is maximum development for least carbon cost. Viewing it as a choice between development or clean technology is deeply misleading. Investing in carbon is clearly non commercial in the medium term for all countries. For the international financiers to suggest otherwise is tantamount to a deliberate policy of technology dumping. And it is developing countries that will pay the interest on investments which are increasingly uneconomic.
The way out is clear: The shift to already commercial and almost commercial renewable and efficient technology is inevitable, and the only sustainable way forward to achieve development goals. Already an Australian company is talking confidently of a 1GW (1000MW) solar thermal plant.
This will mean ensuring that MDBs and the rest of the genus are pulled using all the forces available to the FCCC parties into line with the Convention.
Working Group 1
Wednesday - Discussion on the roles of the Subsidiary Bodies established by the FCCC ended early. The number of empty chairs showed the lack of interest from delegates, despite the fact that the Subsidiary Bodies are crucial to the implementation of the FCCC and probably also to future negotiations on additional commitments. The Chair asked delegates to try to work out compromise language informally on unresolved issues. Before adjourning, the Co-Chairs' Draft Conclusions on the First Review of Information was distributed.
Thursday found WG 1 bogged down in reviewing the above-mentioned paper. The snail's pace in proceeding through the document was largely due to the persistent interventions of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iran. Hence, the scheduled discussion on Joint Implementation did not get under way.
While most country representatives raised some substantive points, there were two issues worthy of note, both for the considerable amount of time they consumed and for the frivolity of the issues. The first was a request by Saudi Arabia to explicitly require that the experts assembled for assisting in the reviews of national communications should represent not only a "balance of skills, expertise and geographical distribution" but additionally a "balance of points of view." The Saudi delegate went on to say, "We all know there are only two points of view", confusing the issue even further. Needless to say, this point of view was not broadly shared!
Then, ably assisted by Kuwait, Saudi Arabia insisted at great length that the inventory information on CH4 and N20 should also include information on "removal." Of course, as patiently explained by delegates from Brazil, the US and the UK, no means exists for anthropogenic removal of CH4 and N2O from the atmosphere. To quote the Brazilian delegate, "The advantage of lawyers over scientists is they can play with words."
By the end of the day, after the Co-Chair had patiently put up with further delaying tactics, consideration of the Co- Chairs' paper was adjourned. The Chair concluded with an urgent plea that some pending issues should be worked out informally by the countries concerned as soon as possible.
Working Group II
WG2 began Wednesday considering consistency of funding policy within and outside the financial mechanism. India and Saudi Arabia strongly opposed any sort of consistency, on the grounds that this was merely a new form of conditionality. Greenpeace took advantage of an invited intervention to make four proposals on multilateral development bank policy.
One of their points, that developing countries should be requested to report on the climate change implications of proposed projects, was endorsed by the UK and New Zealand. WG2 agreed that consistency and information exchange was generally a good thing, but had no idea what either meant or how they should be expressed.
No substantive progress was made on incremental costs. Lastly, the Group considered interim arrangements with the GEF. Virtually all delegations expressed strong support for the three Secretariat proposals regarding communication and reporting to and from the GEF.
The US tried to reopen the question of policy guidance to the GEF by introducing a list of policies for the interim period, but drew little support.
Thursday morning's discussions commenced with the draft decision on the "Temporary Arrangements between the Committee and the GEF". There was general agreement on the need to include reference to the GEF Council regarding its climate activities funded under the financial mechanism, and to mention consistency between activities in and out of the financial mechanism. A new paragraph will be inserted to this effect. Delegates also agreed that the report from the GEF to INC 11 should have two parts; issues of restructuring, transparency, and democratisation; and projects.
Brazil raised the issue of including more reference to the GEF Instrument in the draft decision as well as reference to Article 12.9 of the Convention concerning confidentiality. A key exchange occurred when Brazil suggested changing "Chairman" to "Chairperson", in order to be consistent with the GEF Instrument. France questioned whether Mohammed T. El Ashry would appreciate being known as just a person and not as a man.
The afternoon's discussion covered the note on "Provision to developing parties of technical and financial support", with progress reports on the: Climate Convention Information Exchange Programme and the Training Programme to Promote the Implementation of the Convention. These programmes receive GEF funding. Future activities known as the Climate Convention Cooperation Programme were also discussed.
While there was general agreement on the importance of the programmes in increasing the capacity of developing countries to participate in the Convention, various OECD countries feared that the INC Secretariat would become involved in project initiation and implementation with possible duplication of effort, and that WG2 might in effect be approving a block grant to agencies rather than to countries. Developing countries were extremely supportive of the programmes, regardless of the idea originating from an outside agency.
UNDP, UNEP and UNITAR representatives appeared to clear many of the OECD concerns, but acknowledged that the Working Group would need to clarify various political issues.
Overall, NGOs believe that COP policy should ensure that the operating entity of its financial mechanism must provide full information on financing of all direct and associated projects, and that it must provide for observation status of NGOs in its executive body.
Aircraft Contribute to Global Warming
By Michael Oppenheimer
A new report by EDF indicates that future subsonic aviation emissions of CO2 could climb much higher than previously anticipated. At present aviation contributes about 3% of CO2 from all global fossil fuel burning, and over 2% of CO2 from all sources. The new study developed a model for aviation demand and technological change. Scenarios based on this model indicate that emissions of CO2 may rise to 3-10% of total CO2 emissions by 2050, and 4-14% by 2100. In addition, NOx emissions may climb several fold, increasing the warming effect of ozone in the upper troposphere. Together, changes in Earth's radiation balance attributable to CO2 and NOx could add 10% to global warming from all other sources.
Various recent studies, summarized in the World Meteorological Organisation's ozone assessments, indicate that current subsonic aircraft contribute nitrogen oxides to the upper troposphere, where they appear to be very efficient generators of ozone (as opposed to destroying it, as NOX does at higher altitudes). At these altitudes (9-13km) ozone acts as a greenhouse gas, trapping heat and potentially warming earth. Ozone appears to be increasing in the upper troposphere, but the precise contribution of aviation to this change has yet to be pinned down.
At present, NASA is investigating the potential for a new generation of supersonic aircraft based on improved emission technology. A fleet of 500 is anticipated which would fly in the stratosphere. Research is underway on the degree to which an engine with lower NOx emissions would affect the ozone layer. Although large uncertainties will remain for many years on the effects of both subsonic and supersonic aircraft on the stratosphere, the time is ripe to establish limits which will stimulate the development of subsonic aircraft with lower emissions of both CO2 and NOX than today's models.
Standards need to be developed now to assure the ozone layer's full protection from aviation emissions. The International Civil Aviation Organisation, the Parties of the Montreal Protocol, and the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change have an obligation to act cooperatively to develop an approach which will prevent aviation from becoming a major problem to the global environment.
Michael Oppenheimer is senior scientist with EDF.
* Copies of the EDF report can be obtained through Eco from Debbie Good of EDF.
Climate Impacts in Africa
By Climate Network Africa
Climate Network Africa has been compiling reports from its individual member organisations in each sub-region of the continent. The regional report conclusions show that the impacts of climate change on Africa could be catastrophic.
Evapotranspiration in the already arid northern sub-region of the continent could lead to increased desertification and a gradual decrease in forest cover. Worsening climatic conditions already contribute to these problems, forcing people to migrate to the already crowded coastal areas where urban expansion is consuming large tracts of once fertile agricultural land.
In the Sahara and Sahel sub-regions, rainfall is predicted to decline, resulting in soil degradation and an increasing number of dust storms. Agricultural and pastoral production will be hit and chronic food shortages could develop. Increases in diseases such as asthma, and meningitis are also predicted. With a changing climate and unstable agricultural base, large scale population movements will undoubtedly increase, threatening great political instability.
North east Africa will experience more intense dry periods and shorter wet seasons. Water shortages may even affect huge river systems such as the Blue Nile, affecting agriculture and forestry throughout the region. Desert locusts, other pests and livestock diseases are expected to increase, also threatening food security, and forcing people off the land and into the already overcrowded towns and cities.
East and Central Africa will also see its agricultural capacity decline. Increases in temperature and humidity will create ideal conditions for malaria, sleeping sickness and other infectious diseases.
In West Africa, more frequent and longer dry periods are expected, again threatening crop failures. Coastal areas may be affected by rising sea levels and intrusion of salt water into inland freshwater resources. Increased erosion already threatens hydro-power supplies and transport links. Sleeping sickness and malaria are predicted to increase.
Southern Africa, faces similar threats. The staple food for the region, maize, is particularly susceptible to drought. Wetlands of international importance are under threat from drought, as well as wildlife, including the African elephant and buffalo. Political disputes over scarce shared resources such as rangelands, water etc., could arise. Disease vectors would multiply faster.
Even if only a small selection of the possible changes noted above occur, the effect on Africa as a whole would be catastrophic. African governments must start to establish national organisational structures to deal with climate change. Although African countries are not required to reduce GHG emissions, they should plan their development programmes carefully and not make the same mistakes made by the industrialised North.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
For enquiries and response to ECO:
Eco can be contacted at:
Hotel Longchamps, 7 Rue Butini, 1201 Geneva,Switzerland,
Phone: +41 22 734 7280
Fax: +41 22 738 0007
email: asieghart@gn.apc.org
ECO is also available through Dial-a-Fax. Reverse Poll your fax machine (see your fax machine manual or phone (0)374 506 506 for technical help) and simply dial ... Worldwide +44 374 50G 517 or within the UK - 0336 413 706 Wait for the horrible noise, and press "START" button on your machine.
Every issue of ECO will be posted in full to the climate.forum and climate.news conferences on the APC networks, and the Usenet news group sci.environment. It will also be available via anonymous ftp from IGC.APC.ORG (192.82.108.1), subdirectory /pub/ECO.
Binary PageMaker files are also available via Applelink, on the APC conference climate.news, and via ftp from IGC.ORG
For information about electronic mail, conference distribution and ftp availability of ECO via APC, contact: Lelani Arris, Electronic Mail Coordinator: Tel: (604) 968-4380, Fax: (604) 968-4390 (Canada), email: larris@igc.apc.org
For information about Pagemaker files via Applelink, contact ECO staff: applelink:media.natura. For information about Applelink, contact your local Apple dealership or the UK help line, email: uk.sysop@applelink.apple.com For information about Pagemaker files via APC, contact Media Natura ECO staff, email: asieghart@gn.apc.org
CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Editorial & Production Managers: Phil Hurst and Alister Sieghart
Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet
North American Distribution: Wes Dowling & EESI
Assistance from: Alden Meyer; Dan Lashof; Carol Werner; Herman Ott, Atiq Rahman, Tessa Robertson; Shana Mertens; Andrew Deutz; Kirsty Hamilton; Debbie Goode; Wild Turkey.
Published by the Climate Action Network, with assistance from Media Natura, London.
The Climate Action Network would like to thank the following who have provided funds and facilities for Eco: Environmental & Energy Study Institute * Environmental Defense Fund * World Wide Fund for Nature * Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain * Greenpeace International * German Marshall Fund of the United States * Natural Resources Defense Council * The Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future
Special thanks to: Hotel de Longchamp % UN Non-Governmental Liaison Services
with resources contributed by: Adobe, Aldus UK, APC Networks, Apple Computer, Balelec, Dial-a-Fax, EcoNet, Fintel, GreenNet, MicroRent plc, Strategic Communications and Shades & Characters Ltd.
*************
PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS NEWSLETTER!!
We are interested in tracking ECO electronic distribution. If you find this newsletter of value, please return the following report. Thank you for your help!!
*************
ECO NEWSLETTER - GENEVA AUGUST 1994 (INC 10)
How did you get the newsletter?
______ e-mail address_________________________________
______ conference or list name__________________________
______ ftp or other file server location_________________
______ other (please specify) _____________________________Have you used the information in reports or newsletters? (please specify)
Did you distribute it to others? (please list)
Return to:
*************************************************************
Lelani Arris * Essential Ellements
email: larris@igc.apc.org * Box 42
Telephone: 604-968-4380 * Dunster, BC V0J 1J0
Fax: 604-968-4390 * Canada
*************************************************************
