Eco newsletter 5

eZine lover (@eZine)

Published in 

eco newsletter

 · 1 year ago

ECO NEWSLETTER

CLIMATE TALKS GENEVA - AUGUST 1994
NGO NEWSLETTER

INC 10

August 31, 1994
ISSUE #5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Renegotiating Rio?
2. JI - A Different NGO View
3. US Utilities Plan Massive Expansion
4. Practical US Energy Savings
5. Central & Eastern Europe NGOs Organise
6. Leman
7. Germans & Dutch put PFCs & HFCs in Spotlight
8. Editorial
9. Plenary
10. Working Group I
11. Working Group II
12. Naples Group of 7 Summit
13. NGO Update
14. First Review of (In)adequacy of US Efforts at INC10
15. Contacts
16. 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.

Renegotiating Rio?

by Lise Backer, Sally Cavanagh and Hermann Tennhagen

When the EU signed the Climate Convention in Rio, it stated that the Convention contained a commitment to return greenhouse gas emissions not controlled by the Montreal Protocol to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The EU governments told their public that a major achievement had been reached in Rio.

When Clinton became President, he stated in his first Earth Day speech that the US would return greenhouse gas emissions not controlled by the Montreal Protocol to 1990 levels by the year 2000. He further instructed his Administration to produce a plan that would continue the trend towards reduced emissions. In the US, such presidential statements are seen as serious commitments, although there are concerns among US NGOs about the adequacy of measures proposed to date to meet the US commitment.

When 'adequacy of commitments' was discussed for the first time at INC9, there was general agreement among OECD countries that the Convention, despite the vague language in Article 4.2 (a) and (b), represented a commitment by industrialized countries to return greenhouse gas emissions, not controlled by the Montreal Protocol, to 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Furthermore, there was a broad consensus at INC 9 that the current Rio commitment was inadequate in light of the overall objective. In this context it was also stressed by many governments that the commitment only covers the period up to the year 2000.

When the German proposal on elements for a protocol for COP1 was tabled at INC 10 last week, NGOs criticised it for failing to define specific emission reduction targets. However, we have learned that on Monday, German Environment Minister Klaus Toepfer said, according to yesterday's edition of the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, that Germany is going for real post-2000 targets under the Convention: "Emissions should be reduced by 15-20% by the year 2005".

At the same time NGOs were surprised to learn that several INC10 governments, including some in the EU, are now proposing to renegotiate the Rio stabilisation target in a protocol. In this context, another worrying development is the widely rumoured UK suggestion to extend the stabilisation target for another five years from 2000 to 2005. The effect of this proposal would be to postpone the early negotiations on emission reductions.

We all know that the future negotiations on reduction targets will be an uphill task. There is no reason to assume that negotiations will become easier if governments wait until Berlin or later before entering into real talks on reductions.

To postpone these talks would guarantee the failure of the Climate Summit in Berlin.

JI -- A Different NGO View

Scott Hajost, Environmental Defense Fund

K. Ramakrishna & Andrew Deutz, Woods Hole Research Center

Despite appearances that the debate on joint implementation (JI) is deadlocked on how to proceed with the proposed pilot phase, the prospects for advancing the debate were significantly boosted Tuesday afternoon by the introduction of the draft decision by the co-Chairpersons of Working Group I.

The success of JI will ultimately depend on the creation of appropriate and rigorous criteria that will ensure the maximum environmental, social, and developmental benefit, while remaining attractive to investors. Undoubtedly, the pilot phase will bring with it invaluable experience on the most appropriate criteria, and would be useful in demonstrating the efficacy of such activities and reveal any problems or drawbacks. That is why it is essential that the pilot phase begin promptly: to iron out the nuts and bolts of how projects are initiated, how reductions and their accounting may be monitored, and what needs to be done in order to launch a full-fledged JI program under the Climate Convention. Industrialized countries would have to demonstrate clearly that JI is no substitute for existing Annex II country commitments to provide new and additional resources under the Convention.

JI possesses the advantages that it can be used to: 1) push for higher future commitments from OECD countries; 2) create incentives for involvement of the private sector in the dissemination and application of appropriate technologies; 3) by requiring tighter reporting requirements of participants, help bring developing countries more actively into implementation of the Convention; and 4) in a world of limited public resources for sustainable development, can provide incentives for additional -- and sustainable -- investment flows into developing countries.

The experience and results generated by JI projects in the pilot phase also offer a crucial strategy for the development and strengthening of the fundamental commitments of the FCCC itself. Successful demonstrations of low and modest-cost reduction strategies, particularly those that provide a suite of collateral environmental and economic benefits, will break down the resistance now posed by both industrialized and developing countries to the strengthening of the FCCC's emissions reduction commitments.

US Utilities Plan Massive Expansion

by Beth Zilbert, Greenpeace US

A recent Greenpeace survey of US power generators shows plans for the massive construction of new fossil-fired power plants over the next twenty years. Analysts from all quarters have identified the potential to save between 25% and 75% of all electricity now used in the US with conservation and efficiency measures. This survey demonstrates that US power generators are heavily biased against these energy and cost saving measures. The resulting massive increase in CO2 and other greenhouse gases raises new threats to climate stability and puts the nation's utilities at odds with the national Climate Change Action Plan. Plan.

Over the next twenty years US electric producers propose to increase power plant capacity by 20%, adding over 160,000 megawatts, 85% of which will come from fossil fuels. If constructed, these power plants would increase US emissions from electric power by 35% over 1990 levels by the year 2014.

This will not only have a devastating effect on the economy, but also threatens US commitments to "reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000I and continue the downward trend of reduced emissions" made by President Clinton on April 23, 1993. This puts a new light on the current stand of the US government to not support an international protocol that would mandate emissions stabilization at 1990 levels by the year 2000.

Practical US Energy Savings

by Robert H. Russell, Conservation Law Foundation

In the New England region of the United States, electric utilities, spurred by environmental and consumer groups, have over the past six years been reducing CO2 emissions and saving their customers money by implementing a full range of energy efficiency measures. These utilities have invested nearly US$ 2 billion in purchasing kilowatt-hour savings from their residential, commercial and industrial customers.

Three quarters of New England's investor-owned electric utilities, responsible in total for some 20,000 MW of capacity, have collaborated with environmentalists, including the Conservation Law Foundation and public regulators, to deploy and evaluate energy efficiency measures, from high- efficiency lighting and improved residential insulation, to motor and refrigeration replacement, and improved building design.

The results so far are little short of stunning -- even though they have largely been won despite a deafening lack of interest from the (former) national government.

In 1993 the electric utilities in the New England region managed to reduce their customers' consumption by nearly 4,000 gigawatt hours (GWH), about 3% of total regional demand -- equivalent to the city of Boston consuming no electricity for a year. Although a good start, it does not reflect the potential savings possible that were graphically illustrated by the Conservation Law Foundation's own "Power to Spare" report issued seven years ago. This concluded that the New England region could cut its total electricity use by 20% in 20 years by investiny in energy efficiency measures that in 1987 cost less or were expected soon to cost less, than the electricity that the utilities were selling.

Even the modest energy efficiency measures implemented in New England cut carbon dioxide emissions by 3 million metric tonnes, about 6% of the total CO2 that New England's utilities -- significantly cleaner (in terms of air pollution) than those in many other parts of the world -- emitted last year. If all other utilities in the US achieved the modest success of those in New England, nearly 65 million tonnes of CO2 would have remained locked in the ground.

To put this in perspective, the US government estimates that it will need to reduce CO2 emissions (or their equivalent) by nearly 400 tonnes if it merely wants to return carbon emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. Although more than a third of that is supposed to come from mostly voluntary or informational programmes that carry a high risk of failure, virtually none of the US program builds on the savings achieved by some electric utilities. Perhaps governments know things NGOs don't. Full-scale implementation of energy efficiency across the country could reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 200 million tonnes or more.

Data developed in New England, which has some of the most rigorously monitored energy efficiency programmes in the world, demonstrate that even during an economic recession energy efficiency saves electricity at one-half the cost (or less) of generating the same electricity. And that calculation doesn't take into account the savings from the current environmental costs (climate change, acid rain, ozone smog, etc.) that the energy industry inflicts on the people of the world.

Countries can no longer ignore approaches like energy efficiency. Practical strategies are out there and are working. They have the potential to significantly reduce carbon emissions and can save large sums of money.

Central and Eastern Europe NGOs Organise

by Zbigniew M. Karaczun, Polish Ecological Club /FoE Poland

The first-ever regional CAN CEE meting on climate change was held in Warsaw, Poland in July. Delegates came from Croatia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Poland, Russia Romania, Slovakia, Ukraine and the former East Germany. The meeting was sponsored by the Danish Ministry of Environment Protection.

The conference agreed that governments in the region should adopt the Toronto Target (20% CO2 reduction before 2005). There was also common agreement to adopt the European NGO Statement on Joint Implementation, published last week at INC10.

Participants also discussed scientific problems; political aspects of the FCCC; what the GEF means for Central and East Europe; and possibilities for GHG emissions reduction within the CEE region, based on the example of Poland.

Climate change is not an immediate priority for CEE governments. Those attending expressed their disappointment, however, that climate is being negotiated by a few government agencies, without NGOs being given access to information.

All agreed on the needs to: improve the flow of information within the network; establish more formal contacts; start common projects; and initiate more detailed work on specific national strategies. New national offices will be opened in Moscow and Warsaw, complementing the existing Zagreb regional office.

There was also a well-attended press conference. Mr. Ole Plougmann, head of the Danish delegation to the INC, and Prof. Maciej Sadowski, the head of the Polish delegation attended, and presented an official view on JI.

Toni Vidan (CAN-CEE co-ordinator) adds: With the exception of the JI discussion, delegations from CEE countries on INC10 were hardly to be heard.

It seems obvious that CEE governments are continuing their policy of 'wait and see', hoping to find a way to cash in on the fact that emissions in their countries are falling. The mistake of such a policy is that without their active support for stronger commitments from industrialised countries, there will be no political framework for gaining any benefits from the situation.

The CEE environmental NGOs' objective is to raise public awareness of the problem, emphasising that sources of GHGs are often also sources of local and regional pollutants. This, they hope, will help to make governments take action.

Leman

(Lemania) Madam Chair, I thank my most distinguished colleague from San Seriffe for his most perspicacious observation that fire has in fact broken out at the back of the room. However, if I may draw your attention to paragraph 6 line 3 of his proposed revised text, I would like to suggest that the words 'fire' and 'fighting' should in fact be not be separated, as together they form a compound noun. Thank you Madam Chair.

(Chair) San Seriffe, is this acceptable?

(San Seriffe) Madam Chair, in my country it is the practice to separate compound nouns. It seems to me that the original language is quite comprehensible.

(Lemania) I am sorry, Madam Chair, but I believe that my distinguished colleague's proposed text would imply that it is the fire itself that is doing the fighting, whereas surely we should be proposing that the fire should be fought.

(Chair) Ruritania, you have the floor.

(Ruritania) Madam Chair, might I propose a compromise suggestion, which would be to insert a hyphen between the two words.

(Chair) As I see that neither Lemania nor San Seriffe have their flags up, I assume that this compromise is acceptable, that is to say that in paragraph 6 line 3 we insert a hyphen between the words 'fire' and 'fighting', and I now offer the floor to Saudi Arabia.

(Saudi Arabia) Madam chair, I would like to draw your attention to paragraph 7 of the proposed revised text by my distinguished colleague from San Seriffe, in which he suggests that the fire be put out by throwing water on to it. In my country, water is a scarce and valuable natural resource: I propose therefore that we should replace the word 'water' with the word 'gasoline.'

(Kuwait) I would like to add to my distinguished Saudi colleague's suggestion. If we could perhaps insert the words 'or other petroleum distillates' after the word 'gasoline', this would give us some choice in the matter, and give us the flexibility we may require when we come to dealing with this most important matter.

(Flames engulf all)

Germans and Dutch Put PFCs and HFCs in Spotlight

Last week, the German and Dutch delegations became the first governments to call for international controls on emissions of perflourocarbons (PFCs), super potent greenhouse gases with atmospheric lifetimes of up to 50,000 years. In their statements on the adequacy of commitments, both governments suggested that Annex I Parties take action on PFCs and HFCs at COP1.

The Dutch said that early action on PFCs and HFCs would prevent these CFC substitutes from becoming a significant greenhouse problem. The statement proposed that compounds could initially be limited to applications where no good alternative is available and where emissions to the atmosphere are minimal.

The Germans pointed to the emissions of PFCs (CF4 and C2F6) from aluminum production as a potential sphere of action. They also called for reporting on the production and consumption of PFCs and HFCs as well as recycling of the compounds.

Both statements are significant in light of the fact that INC guidelines for national communications do not require Annex I countries to inventory emissions of PFCs and HFCs. The move highlights the need to address these greenhouse gases and could lead to a revision of the guidelines.

Although current concentrations of PFCs make a very small contribution to global warming compared to CO2, they are about 5,000 to 10,000 times more potent than CO2 on a per molecule basis.

As governments start to focus on the extremely long-lived PFCs, they are likely to turn their attention also to sulfur hexaflouride (SF6), another 'fully fluorinated' compound. SF6 is more than 20,000 times more potent than CO2 and is used mainly as an electrical insulating gas, in semiconductor manufacturing, and at aluminum and magnesium foundries.

Editorial

There has been much talk about consistency within Working Group II, but little real effort by delegates to consider how the activities of other conventions and multilateral fora should be aligned with the objective of the Climate convention.

Because of its all encompassing nature, the climate change convention has to help define the lanes along which other conventions travel. Otherwise the gamut of treaties currently under discussion will undoubtedly head towards treaty congestion -- agreements such as GATT, or bodies such as the World Bank, could seriously undermine the efforts of the Climate Convention.

As a starting point, efforts should be undertaken by national governments to ensure that they speak with a single, consistent voice, even if from different ministries, in various multilateral financial, environmental and development fora. To facilitate this process, governments should develop methodologies for integrating the development of their various national action plans: including, but not limited to, climate change, biodiversity, and desertification.

There is inconsistency with the aims of the 1992 Earth Summit even within WG1 -- graphically illustrated by Brazil, the host of the Summit, when they failed to even mention the word 'sustainable' in an intervention that talked of "the fact that their (developing countries) priority is development itself". At least be consistent with the concept of sustainable development -- even if only in language. Otherwise we might as well go home and start again.

Plenary -- Monday

Discussion was on arrangements for COP1 and INC11. Germany stressed their own efforts towards COP1, and the fact that they wanted some form of regulations post 2000, with some kind of reductions. Their suggestion that COP1 be attended by senior officials between 28th March and 7th April, with relevant government ministers attending for the last three days, was accepted.

Some light relief came when the Czech Republic and Slovakia announced that they wanted to be included in Annex 1, and that the main reason they were not included already was that they forgot to tell the Secretariat that they existed as separate entities. Slovakia also announced that they had ratified the convention on 18th of August.

Saudi Arabia suggested that discussion on the adequacy of commitments could be dropped from the current agenda to speed up the negotiation process!

On arrangements for INC11, Saudi Arabia led a lengthy debate on the timing in relation to Ramadan, supported by a number of mainly Islamic countries including Kuwait, Senegal, Malaysia and Indonesia. There might also be a clash with the UN conference on desertification. Some southern countries wanted INC11 to be no longer than two weeks due to financial constraints for many delegates. The chair suggested that if negotiations were restricted to two weeks sessions would have to run on Saturdays and in the evening. There was no conclusion on this.

Working Group 1 -- Monday

This second day on Joint Implementation was dominated by industrialized states favouring this concept. Even the more critical statements, however, did not question the pilot phase-approach.

Netherlands, Slovenia (in line with the interventions by Poland and the Czech Republic), Japan, Canada, the US, Australia and New Zealand all thought the pilot phase should be open to all signatory countries, with Japan suggesting it was open even to non-party countries. The time thought sufficient for evaluation ranged from 2-3 years (New Zealand), 3 years (Netherlands, Australia), and 3-4 years (Canada). There was broad consensus among these states that reporting should be on an annual basis. Japan, however, said that regular reporting was not necessary as there would not be many projects at the beginning of the pilot phase.

On institutional arrangements, the Netherlands and Japan seemed to be inclined towards greater control by the CoP at the beginning of the phase, but supposed that there could be a shift towards a 'bottom-up' approach as JI develops. Canada, the US and Australia seemed to regard any control by the Parties to the Convention as unnecessary. The US took a very restrictive view, criticizing the Secretariat's diagram, and regarding even the auxiliary functions outlined, such as "facilitating the match between the potential partners of a project" and "assistance in project development" as superfluous.

Japan was guarded, suggesting a slow start to the pilot phase to initially develop the concept, and stating that the issue of crediting demands should have careful consideration.

Canada recommended that countries should adopt one project only, which could be well documented and reported.

The US pointed to their domestic programme for JI and recommended that the criteria developed should also be used internationally. In their view, JI should be an instrument for cooperation between domestic industry, and partners from developing countries and those with economies in transition.

Australia supported the view that JI be unrestricted and comprise all gases, while New Zealand suggested an 'opt-in' approach for developing countries.

Countries ambivalent towards JI included Peru, the Philippines, Venezuela and South Africa. Chile took a cautious position, supporting the industrialized states' view that JI should be open for all countries. Venezuela even seemed ready to open JI for non-Parties. NAFTA seems to be lurking in the back of their minds. The Philippines offered a more sophisticated approach, where JI would be available to all Annex I countries as well as others that have indicated in their ratification an openness to cooperation in JI.

Chile further supported US demands to restrict "excessive bureaucracy", adding that most questions should be left for bilateral negotiations.

The Philippines described JI as a "possibility for global and cost-effective measures" under the FCCC. They said sink enhancement should be excluded from those measures and that emphasis should be on renewables and improvement of energy efficiency.

South Africa stressed the compatibility of JI projects with national development programmes, the importance of provisions for "holistic technology transfer" and long-term capacity building. Pointing to the threat of a new 'eco-colonialism', South Africa demanded full property rights for the host countries.

Indonesia was the only country to directly criticize JI and renewed the position originally held by the G77 and China that alternative approaches were needed. It emphasized that JI should benefit developing countries, providing for technology transfer and capacity building.

WG1 -- Tuesday

Subsidiary Bodies

The proposal from the co-chairs regarding subsidiary bodies was accepted with few alterations and discussion was concluded, pending decision on one point: the role of subsidiary bodies in determining "agreed full incremental costs" and its designation as either a methodological issue or one to be included in the financial mechanism section of the document.

Adequacy of commitments

After the rather 'easy' adoption of the Secretariat's paper on subsidiary bodies, WG1 delved into the draft conclusions by the co-chairs on the adequacy of commitments. Needless to say, the process of reaching agreement was not as smooth and there are large sections of the text that remain in square brackets. A number of themes seemed to run throughout the debate, beginning with the first paragraph where countries sought to clarify exactly which parties would be subject to review over the adequacy of commitments. Saudi Arabia, Brazil and the Republic of South Korea, here, and throughout the day, introduced explicit language to indicate that the review of the adequacy of Art. 4.2 (a) and (b) is restricted to the commitments of Annex I countries only.

The co-chairs' attempt to present a balanced report of the points of the various views was quickly placed into question by an intervention by Saudi Arabia. Saudi presented three paragraphs of text describing "one point of view" to replace the single paragraph that had been provided by the Secretariat. This language was representative of those countries in favor of a cautious approach, due to the lack of new scientific information, and stressed the "need to focus on implementation of existing commitments of Annex I Parties." South Korea expressed its desire to again indicate explicitly that Art.4.2(a) and (b) does not include non-Annex I countries. (This is currently pending.)

After the adoption of most of the Saudi text, the group moved on to the paragraphs describing the "other view." Switzerland was active on a number of fronts. It first offered more specific language regarding the inadequacy of commitments beyond the year 2000. It then provided support on the science side with the following language: "It was noted that according to currently available scientific information, stabilization of emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 will not lead to stabilization of atmospheric CO2 concentrations at any time in the next 100 years." Hungary then extended the paragraph to include mention of the precautionary principle, followed by a heated (and pending) debate as to whether Art. 4.2(d) allows for additional commitments. The Saudis insist that it does not, and that therefore all reference to it should be deleted from the text. The US disagreed. New Zealand made a lengthy addition (still in square brackets) referring to the creation of a technical advisory panel, including public and private parties. The US and Switzerland also inserted language reflecting their preferences for a "negotiation process" (US) and a series of more specific protocols (Switzerland).

Throughout the revisions of the paragraphs describing different points of view, the co-chair insisted that each set of countries represented by a certain viewpoint be able to include its own assessment of that position in its paragraphs, thereby allowing each 'view' to ascertain its own 'position'. This was knocked out of balance with the late introduction of new text by Brazil (seemingly party to the first 'view') and its determination to include this text into the paragraphs of the second 'view'. The text introduced by Brazil has not yet been taken up for debate, but reiterates many of the points described in earlier versions of the draft regarding commitments by Annex I Parties. This, the pending text, and the yet-to-be-reviewed text will all be tackled in the next session of WG1.

Working Group II -- Monday

The working group spent most of the morning dealing with the relationship between the INC/COP secretariat and the GEF secretariat. True, as it was said, they dealt with this issue and made the some decisions already at previous INCs, like INC 8, but struggle again they did. Most of the questions were held off until the afternoon when a draft text of the G77 and China proposal for modalities, programme priorities and policies would come. China expressed a strong view that Article 11.3.d of the Convention was crucial because it talked about identifiability and predictability of the funds available for implementing the convention. This was a theme which shadowed the debate for the next day and a half.

In the afternoon the G77 and China draft text was distributed. That paper, along with the co-chairs' draft of text for the COP and the EU draft were the basis of discussion for the afternoon and next day. This proved a very confusing task, calling for the very best in paper-shuffling skills.

The main issue was new conditionalities that might be placed on monies coming from multilateral, regional and bilateral institutions to developing countries. It was the position of the G77 and China that no new conditionalities should be placed on funds for projects outside of the financial mechanism but still having climate change implications, unless the projects were specifically called climate change projects.

All of this posturing was in relation to an agreement reached at INC9 about asking the Secretariat to obtain information from these other financial institutions, which are outside of the financial mechanism, to report on the greenhouse gas impact of their projects. That means that sectors should not be specifically named, as they were in the EU proposed text -- transport, industry, agriculture, forestry, energy and waste management. It was argued that the information would be too massive and the secretariat would be overburdened.

The counter-argument from the developed countries was that there was no such thing as too much information, given that information on climate change and its impacts was what formed this convention in the first place.

The debate raged on, without either the developed countries or the developing countries budging or naming the elephant in the room until France finally said they understood why the G77 and China wanted to keep mentioning Article 11.5. It was because they didn't want any projects reported on that were funded by financial means outside of the convention unless they were specifically named as climate change projects, because they didn't want scrutiny of projects that would have potentially high greenhouse gas emission implications, nor did they want the climate convention COP to have any say or ability to impose "new forms of conditionality on funding".

How could the COP do its job without knowing the greenhouse gas impacts of the projects funded by the world's richest banks, which dwarf the miniscule funds available in the GEF?

As usual with this working group, little was agreed upon and much was put off until today, when the co-chairs will attempt to place one document before the working group with an attempt at consensus on whether, and what type of, adaptation projects could be funded through the financial mechanism; on what kind of projects could reports on greenhouse gas emissions be made to financial institutions outside of the financial mechanism without imposing new conditionalities on funding to developing countries; and exactly what kinds of projects are eligible for funding in general from the financial mechanism -- specifically transfer of technology.

Naples Group of 7 Summit

by Scott Hajost, EDF

The Group of Seven Industrialized countries addressed a number of climate related matters at their annual summit in Naples last July. In their Communique, the G7 leaders committed to speeding up implementation of their climate action plans and report on what they have achieved at next year's Halifax Summit. Moreover, the G7 recognized the need to develop steps for the post-2000 period. (Reports are that President Clinton himself introduced language on climate change.) The G7 leaders also stressed that they will work for the success of the Berlin Conference of Parties. On a related point, the G7 leaders noted the importance of investments in energy efficiency improvements to protect the environment and urged multilateral development banks to make more progress in incorporating environmental considerations and local citizen participation in their programs.

The G7 also devoted substantial attention to an action plan on closure of the Chernobyl nuclear plant in the Ukraine. France and Germany have backed a nuclear option for replacement of Chernobyl. Environmental groups have strongly advocated a mix of concrete energy efficiency and renewable energy options as an alternative to upgrading and completing nuclear energy plants, and as an important component of good climate abatement policy. The Communique does speak to the need for increased conservation and use of alternative energy sources.

Finally, the G7 committed to address in Halifax what framework of institutions will be required to meet the challenges of sustainable development and the well being of the world's peoples in the 21st century. This included how existing institutions, specifically the Bretton Woods institutions, should be adapted and how to build new institutions to meet these goals. To this end it can be inferred that the G7 have agreed to launch a significant effort to ensure that the World Bank and the IMF, and possibly other international institutions, truly promote sustainable development of the people they were intended to serve. This should extend to protecting the world's environment, including its climate.

Hopefully, when the G7 come to Halifax next year they will be able to report that they have fully implemented their existing obligations under the Climate Convention; have committed to seeking significant reductions in their greenhouse gas emissions; and are seeking to ensure that the World Bank and other international institutions contribute to meeting the objective of the treaty.

NGO Update

• Markus Kurdziel Bndis 90/Die Grunen (Germany)
• Sascha Mller-Kraenner Deutscher Natur Schutzring (Germany)
• Zbiqiew Karaczum Polish Ecological Club
• Liz Barratt-Brown NRDC (USA)
• Meindert Brouwer WWF Netherlands
• Isabelle Mamaty ENDA (Senegal)
• Amett Falkenhager Germanwatch
• Arjette Stevens Greenpeace International
• Jan-Peter Voss Germanwatch
• Debbie Good Environmental Defense Fund (USA)
• Ravi Sharma CSE (India)
• Carolyn Whelan The Bulletin
• Dominique De Santis Centre for Our Common Future (Switzerland)
• William and Hillary Clinton Revolutionary Anarcho-Syndicalists for Total Climate Change

First Review of (In)adequacy of US Efforts at INC 10

by our Washington correspondent

After raising expectations of leadership with its statement at INC 9 that current commitments under the climate treaty are clearly inadequate, the United States has disappointed progressive governments and NGOs alike by its failure to make specific proposals at INC 10 on just how the treaty should be strengthened.

The US calls for a "new post-2000 aim" for the climate treaty, but is not even clear whether this new aim "should be similar to or different from the current one." Given the admitted inadequacy of the current treaty, how could a "similar aim" move us forward towards the ultimate objective of stabilizing atmospheric greenhouse gases at ecologically sustainable levels?

Only real reductions in emissions can do that. As the world's largest emitter, the US has commensurate responsibility to propose concrete solutions to the climate problem -- a responsibility it has thus far failed to live up to.

The US proposes "common actions" by Annex 1 parties, possibly including incentives for lower-emitting technologies and "development of international norms" for more efficient energy technologies. The US also proposes bringing public and private sector experts into the process of developing new policies and measures under the climate treaty. These are useful contributions, but after launching them last week, the US delegation has devoted little time or energy to advancing them in the INC 10 discussions, compared, for example, to its Herculean efforts to promote its joint implementation proposals.

Perhaps the most damaging aspect of the US performance at INC 10 has been its calls for "broader leadership" in efforts to combat climate change by differentiating among non-Annex 1 countries and promoting new efforts by the more "advanced" developing countries to limit their greenhouse gas emissions. Everyone agrees on the need to come to grips with increasing emissions at the global level. But the fact that the US rhetoric was accompanied neither by specific proposals for new developing country action steps, nor by any new US commitments to limit its own emissions, predictably helped create the backlash among G-77 countries that has stymied progress at INC 10.

It is now less than seven months until COP 1 opens in Berlin. The US must move well before INC 11 to clarify its position on these issues, most importantly the "new aim" for post-2000 commitments. Otherwise, the US will bear a heavy share of the blame for the resulting failure of the Berlin Climate Summit.

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

NEW!!!

In addition to existing text and PageMaker versions available on-line via APC networks and the Internet, Eco is now available via the World Wide Web (WWW) on-line hypermedia format. Eco WWW editions are being made available as soon as possible after their publication from INC10 in Geneva.

The WWW editions of Eco include all the graphics and text available in the full printed version. To view the WWW Eco editions, you will need access to the InterNet (the higher the speed the better) and WWW 'browser' software, such as NCSA Mosaic (Windows, Unix and Macintosh formats), MacWeb or WinWeb. All these software items are available via InterNet ftp sites.

To access the Eco WWW Front Page, you will need to enter its URL (Uniform Record Locator) which defines the location of a document on the InterNet. The URL of the Eco Front Page is:

http://www.igc.apc.org/igc/climate/Eco.html

(note the capital E on Eco)

For questions or problems with Eco via WWW, email Richard Elen (relen@igc.apc.org).

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Editorial & Production Managers: Phil Hurst and Alister Sieghart

Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet

North American Distribution: Mike Witt & EESI

Assistance from: Karan Capoor; Alden Meyer; Sally Cavanagh; Andrew Deutz; Kirsty Hamilton; Lise Backer; Tony Vidan; Rusty Russell; Dwight "Pizza" Van Winkle; Hermann Ott; Liz Barratt-Brown; Beth Zilbert; Hermann Tennhagen; Jennifer Morgan; Dirk Hoffmann

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 
*************************************************************