ECO GENEVA (INC) #6 June 25, 1991 ( 
Author Message
 ECO GENEVA (INC) #6 June 25, 1991 (

From: <larris>
Subject: ECO GENEVA (INC) #6 June 25, 1991 (57K)

                          ECO NEWSLETTER

               CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS - GENEVA

                          June 25, 1991
                             Issue #6

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

1)  Climate Groups Attack UK, Japan, France Policy
2)  Special Report on Industry Disinformation
3)  Industry Disinformation Campaign - ICE
4)  Who Says Minneapolis is Getting Colder?
5)  Negotiation Progress in Work Groups
6)  Australia's Climate Programme
7)  Global Environment Facility Remains an Empty Vessel
8)  Leman (editorial)
9)  Promises, Promises (editorial)
10) Canada Contributes
11) European Community's Response to Global Warming *
12) Energy Efficiency 2000 *
13) Climate Action Network Contacts *
14) 'Group of 77' Plods Along *

* starred items were published in ECO 5 printed version, but
received too late for electronic version.

1) Climate Groups Attack UK, Japan, France Policy

By Eco Staff

The new `pledge and review' formula proposed by the UK, France
and Japan for the international Climate Convention due to be
signed in 1992 was yesterday criticized as `hedge and retreat' by
environment groups from Africa, Asia, Europe, the Pacific and
North and South America.

In a written statement the `Climate Action network' groups warned
delegates that `if accepted, the `Pledge and Review' proposal,
without firm commitments on targets and timetables for greenhouse
gas emissions reductions, would be a substantial retreat from the
emerging world consensus that decisive action is needed to curb
global climate change'.

Groups point out that eight months ago, at the Second World
Climate Conference, nations of the world united in calling for
significant steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to
slow the rate of global climate change. Over twenty countries
made independent pledges to stabilize and/or reduce CO2, or other
greenhouse gases.

The organizations say that the `Pledge and Review' proposals put
forward by France, Japan and the UK `could undercut efforts to
achieve international agreement on a substantive program to slow
global climate change'. `Pledge and Review', a concept well
established in economic agreements, calls for countries to make
pledges regarding what they will do to limit greenhouse gas
emissions. Those would then be subject to periodic review and
evaluation by an international team of government officials
regarding each country's pledge and progress towards meeting it.

Some developed countries already committed to cuts are attracted
to the idea of an influential `review' agency. Others, including
developing nations, fear it will be ineffective or an intrusion
into National Sovereignty. Most observers see it as a deliberate
attempt to create a convention which the US can sign up to.
Environment groups fear that the price will be an agreement with
no real impact in 1992. One delegate yesterday suggested that
measures in a convention signed in 1992 would not be implemented
until 1995.

The environment groups attack the `Pledge and Review' system as
just `Hedge and Retreat', if it becomes a substitute for
commitments to targets and timetables on greenhouse gas cuts. The
statement says they fear an `empty framework convention'. The
pledges, , they point out, `have been described in very general
terms, without necessarily containing specific commitments on
specific gasses. Nations could get by with very general pledges,
perhaps even just for more research and planning'.

Critics say countries could formulate their own pledges, allowing
very general pledges which sound comprehensive, but which lack
specific commitments on major greenhouse gases. The UK
Environment Department is sponsoring a closed expert meeting to
promote Pledge and Review at the London Royal Institute of
International affairs in August.

* Groups: Climate Network - Europe, Climate Action Networks - UK
and US, Ancient Forest International, Environment and Development
Actions in the Third World, Environmental Defense Fund, Forum of
Brazilian NGOs for UNCED 92, Friends of the Earth International,
Greenpeace International, Haribon Foundation for the Conservation
of Nature Kenya, Consumers' Organization, Kenya Energy and
Environment Organizations, National Audubon Society, Natural
Resources Defense Council, Union of Concerned Scientists,
WALHI-Friends of the Earth Indonesia, WWF International, Zimbabwe
Energy Research Organization.

2) Special Report on Industry Disinformation

By Eco Staff

The American coal industry (National Coal Association) is funding
a disinformation campaign on global warming which carefully
targets susceptible groups of the public such as young low-income
women and ageing `less-educated' men `not typically active
information-seekers', `not accustomed to taking political
action'. Global warming is portrayed as theory rather than fact,
`distorted', and like believing the earth is flat.

After market research, test advertising was carried out in three
small US towns (Bowling Green, Kentucky; Fargo ND; Flagstaff,
Arizona) in May this year. A strategy drawn up by Simmons
Advertising Inc. company calls for follow-up research during June
1991, and proposes to `go national in the late fall of 1991 with
a media program'.

Use of Scientists

The media strategy also stipulates the use of `a spokesman from
the scientific community'. Documents drawn up for the National
name Dr Robert Balling from Arizona State University and Dr
Sherwood Idso from the US Water Conservation Laboratory as two
scientists to take part in a `public relations tour'. Standard
word-processed replies have been prepared for Dr Patrick Michaels
of the University of {*filter*}ia to send to the public, in his
capacity as `a member of the Information Council for the
Environment's Science Advisory Panel'. Balling and Michaels have
written to President Bush urging him `not to support expensive
legislation'. An advert reads `let's not pay for a problem that
may not exist'. Another claims that Minneapolis in Minnesota has
been `gotten colder over the past 50 years'. In fact independent
scientific studies (see page 5) show over more than 100 years
the area has been getting significantly warmer. The US National
Weather Service state that `1990 was the fourth warmest year on
record for Minneapolis, Minnesota'.

Intelligent - Name Rejected

The primary aim of the coal-funded strategy is declared to be to
`reposition global warming as a theory (not a fact).' Among names
considered for the organization set up to front the campaign -
ICE, Informed Citizens for the Environment - was `Intelligent
Concern for the Environment'.

Following audience research, the industry's campaign planners
found that technical sources were perceived as more credible than
their own spokesmen. It noted `Industry sources and individual
spokespersons receive lower overall credibility ratings than
either activist or technical sources'. As a result the report
advocated adopting the name `Information Council on the
Environment' because it `can be seen as an expert technical
source'.

This special Eco report reproduces a number of documents and
adverti{*filter*}ts from the test campaign. One, developed and used in
promotional materials, likens global warming to the belief that
the earth is flat. Eco also reprints an article from the
independent publication The Energy Daily and a paid for
radio-slot script.

* Information on the global warming theory is available from the
Information Council for the Environment, PO Box 414998, Kansas
City, United States.

3) Industry Disinformation Campaign

Reproduced below are extracts from an editorial from the `Energy
Daily' (June 24, 1991) which documents the beginning of a
campaign largely financed by the coal industry to slow down any
environmental response to global warming.

----------------------------------------------------------------

`Insider documents from the coal producer and utility sponsored
advertising campaign to debunk the idea of catastrophic global
warming show that four of the top 15 US coal producers have
contributed to the project and that the campaign is targeting
"older, less-educated" men and "low-income women."

The $500,000 campaign is led by a coalition called the
Information Council for the Environment, which last week ended a
month-long marketing test in Flagstaff, Ariz.; Fargo, N.D.; and
Bowling Green, Ky. To get its message across, the coalition is
using three scientists: Robert Balling of Arizona State
University, Sherwood Idso of the US Water Conservation Laboratory
and Patrick Michaels of the University of {*filter*}ia. The three
have disputed several studies that indicate the trend toward
global warming may cause problems worldwide.

The coalition's adverti{*filter*}ts state: "If the Earth is getting
warmer, why is Minneapolis getting colder?" and "How much are you
willing to pay to solve a problem that may not exist?" It was
formed to counter the "irresponsible scare tactics" in the
"so-called public service announcements" that some environmental
groups have been airing, said Gale Klappa of the Southern Co.,
the large southern utility that is one of the primary members of
the group.

The campaign has come under fire from environmentalists who
dispute the Minneapolis statistics with figures of their own that
show temperatures getting warmer. At least one utility executive
- Arizona Public Service Co. President Mark De Michele - has
blasted the plan. De Michele is chairman of the EEI task force on
global warming, and APS includes Flagstaff in its service area.

"[Global warming] is kind of a complicated issue to take such a
simplistic approach," De Michele said, adding that his opposition
to the campaign came primarily from the campaign being conducted
within his service territory.

De Michele said that the first draft of the proposal that he saw
used the Minneapolis-type argument for Flagstaff. "But Flagstaff
had just come off its warmest winter weather on record," he said.

The coalition is comprised of such members as the Southern Co.,
Minnkota [N.D.] Power Cooperative, the National Coal Association,
the Western Fuels Association and Edison Electric Institute.
EEI's contribution of $50,000 to the group has been earmarked for
research and polling only.

That research and polling process will kick into gear this summer
as Cambridge Reports surveys people in the three cities to
determine the effectiveness of the adverti{*filter*}ts, said Ivan
Brandon of the Washington, D.C.-based Bracy Williams & Co.
government relations firm, which has been managing the project.
Cambridge Reports had done an earlier benchmark poll in those
cities before the ad campaign began May 15.

According to documents circulated around Washington D.C., by
environmental groups and others opposed to the coalition's work,
the project has been targeting "older, less-educated males from
larger households, who are not typically active information
seekers, and are not likely to be `green' consumers," and
"younger , lower-income women" who are "likely to soften their
support for federal legislation [to combat global warming] after
hearing new information" on the issue.

In addition, four of the top 15 US coal-producing groups have
contributed money to test-market the campaign, the documents
show. A list of NCA member companies that had pledged to the
campaign as of May 15 shows that Amax Coal Industries, ARCO Coal
Co., Island Creek Coal Co. and Peabody Holding Co. were among the
15 producers that had pledged a total of $75,000 to the effort.
Each was listed in the 1991 Keystone Coal Industry Manual as
being among the top 15 coal producing groups in 1989.

The NCA suggested a specific funding formula for participation
among its member groups based on per-ton coal production,
according to the documents. Companies producing zero to 6 million
tons were recommended to contribute $1,000; 6 to 20 million tons,
$3,000; 20 to 50 million tons, $7,500; more than 50 million tons,
$15,000.

On the utility side, only the presence of Minnkota and Southern
Co. on the coalition are known. Southern Co. spokesman Gale
Klappa said that none of the other utilities involved had been
asked for permission to release their names, so their identities
were not available. The Southern Co. contributed $150,000 to the
project, which by Georgia regulations cannot be included in the
utility's rate base.'

------------------------------------------------------------------

The `Energy Daily' is an independent publication.

NCA Members' Pledges to ICE Campaign

Pledges to the ICE campaign so far come from the following
National Coal Association members:

AMAX Coal Industries
Anker Energy
ARCO Coal Company
Berwind Natural Resources Corp.
Cyprus Coal Company
Drummond Company, Inc.
Island Creek CoalCompany
Jim Walter Resources
Ohio Valley Coal Company
Peabody Holding Company
Pittsburgh and Midway Coal mining
Pittston Coal Management Company
Standley Industries, Inc.
United Company
Zeigler Coal Holding Company

Total contributed as of 15/5/91 - $75,500.00

Quotes from the ICE Campaign

"...technical sources also favor choosing the title "Information
Council on the Environment" as the title for ICE, since this
organization is perceived as a technical source, while "Informed
Citizens for the Environment" carries both technical and activist
connotations" - ICE Benchmark document

"...two possible target audiences - older, less-educated males
from larger households...younger, lower-income women... " - ICE
Benchmark - page 3

"...With this high level of awareness and concern in Flagstaff it
will be interesting to see how the science approach sells. My
concern is that the absence in the messages of reasonable
approaches to solving the problems of global warming may reduce
their effectiveness. " - Letter from M.William Brier, to the
Arizona Public Service Company

The above statement indicates the industry's fear as to the
credibility of its measure.

And one reaction...

"by even suggesting that carbon dioxide emission rates are
somehow unrelated to potential climatic change, (ICE) is, in my
view, stifling rather than promoting intelligent discussion." -
Professor Charles Avery - NAU School of Forestry

4) Who Says Minneapolis is getting Colder?

by Eco Reporter

Despite the claims of ICE, there is authoritative published data
that the temperature in the Minneapolis region is, in fact, going
up. A study by Richard H. Skaggs and Donald G. Baker (University
of Minnesota) published in 1989 clearly shows this. Extracts are
printed below:

o Over the full temperature record, the simple linear regression
indicates a slight upward trend (see graph). The slope is only
0.008*C per year, but the large number of years makes the slope
statistically significant....

o A substantial temperature trend change occurred in the middle
part of the last century and increasing temperatures continue to
the present. We think that the cooling that occurred in the
middle part of this century is a minor fluctuation on the overall
upper trend in temperature that began over 100 years ago

o We conclude that the Eastern Minnesota record show one
temperature climate change in the middle of the last century with
a continuing increase in temperature since then.

o The amount of change in the estimated mean annual temperature
from the late 1860s to 1987 is 1.6!C. It seems to us that the
early start of this change is informative in the current debate
over whether a temperature increase due to an increase in carbon
dioxide has been detected.

Significantly, within their report, the authors debate whether
this increase indicates `a change in climate'. They go on to
state that they `accept...that a reversal of the trend of
temperature (has) occurred.

Temperature Change in Eastern Minnesota: by Richard H. Skaggs
(Dept. of Geog.) and Donald G Baker (Dept. of Soil Science),
University of Minnesota. Published 1989. Copyright: American
Meteorological Society.

5) Negotiation Progress in Work Groups

By Eco Reporters

Delegates at the climate talks in Geneva worked in two groups to
discuss legal and institutional elements of a Framework
Convention on Climate Change (Working Group 2) and greenhouse gas
commitments (Group 1) yesterday. Canada proposed a role for
public participation. Saudi Arabia suggested that countries might
not have to ratify the whole Convention. Australia reaffirmed
commitment to effective action on climate change, the importance
of the comprehensive approach on all aspects of human induced
climate, limits on all greenhouse gases and improved sinks for
gases. Here is a selection of contributions.

Working Group 1 - Commitments

European Community - said it was important to separate common and
differentiated national commitments. The first step - stabilize
CO2 emissions by 2000 on 1990 levels. First focus on common
commitments: all signatories should draw up national inventories
of greenhouse gas emissions and try to identify areas where they
could be limited. General commitments first, with an
understanding that will later specific commitments, particularly
from industrialised countries would follow.

Germany

Limit and reduce greenhouse gases beyond those required by
Montreal Protocol CO2 - need significant global decision on
emissions. Stabilisation must be achieved by 2000. Initial
reductions by 2005 and 2010.

Immediate action by industrialised countries to reduce CO2. FRG
had already taken action.

Self evident that industrialised countries support developing
countries with low present emissions to develop energy efficient
economies.

Norway

Stabilize concentrations at level which minimises dangers to
sustainable development and ecosystems.

Comprehensive approach important for cost effectiveness. Transfer
of resources to developing countries. Overall global target with
quantitative net emissions targets is important. Otherwise cannot
see if Convention is meeting targets.

Allocation to individual countries, using the differentiated
principles for industrialised and developing countries.
Industrialised countries with large emissions take the largest
reduction commitments.

Sweden

Agrees with France on differentiated responsibility but must have
commitments. Minimum standards on electric appliances and motor
vehicles. Minimum energy taxes and abolition of energy subsidies.
Developed countries should stabilise CO2 by 2000 and thereafter
reduce.

Vanuatu (AOSIS)

Immediate and significant cuts in greenhouse gas emissions aimed
at stabilization of concentrations.

Primary responsibility of industrialised countries. Commitment to
energy efficiency measures and joint R&D on renewables should
find common ground.

Switzerland

Ultimate goal: achieve global stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations at level avoiding dangerous effects, minimising
effects on ecosystems. Medium term requires substantial cuts in
greenhouse gas emissions not controlled by Montreal Protocol. All
countries should make commitments.

Convention should contain commitments to prepare within a
timeframe national strategies to abate greenhouse gases - focus
on energy sector. Economic instruments and energy efficiency
regulations should play an essential role. Targets and schedules
needed in Convention or such instruments.

First step for industrialised countries should be stabilisation
of CO2 at 1990 levels by 20000. Plus, provision for second stage
for reductions based on population, GNP, land area, efficiency
etc. Coordination of economic instruments and energy efficiency.

India

Legal obligations when per capita emissions merge with those of
industrialised countries, but not before.

Obligations of developed countries to bring down CO2 levels and
provide finance and technology.

USSR

Need economic studies. Japanese pledge and review a useful
mechanism respecting national strategy and action programmes.

Austria

Immediate appropriate action to control and reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. In the long run must address all gases.

Industrialised countries need short term targets on CO2
emissions. 20% reduction of CO2 (Toronto), next. Enhance sinks
and adaptation strategies. Minimum efficiency standards for
energy supply sector, electrical appliances ..

Australia

Commitment to effective action on climate change. Importance of
comprehensive approach on all aspects of human induced climate.
Limits on all greenhouse gases. Improve sinks and adapt to
impacts. Supports Toronto global target.

International agreement needed on CO2 and reductions of other
greenhouse gases not controlled by Montreal Protocol. All
developed countries to establish national targets and developing
countries strategies in line with differentiated responsibility.

Targets provide framework for action across sectors and over time
and provide clear signal that measures are on the way. Targets
can be increased or decreased to take into account changes in the
science. Adaptation should be significant element of Convention.

Universal action appropriately differentiated. May be useful at
an early stage to agree a categorization of countries.

Canada

Long term objective should take account of all greenhouse gases
not covered by other agreements including sinks - the
comprehensive approach. National emissions of CO2 and other gases
- it is already in Committee's mandate.

Consider immediate commitments beyond those required in other
agreements. Facilitate exchange of information. Need for public
education. Develop national strategies and make them public.
Develop national inventories.

Convention must be more than a blueprint for action, a framework
is not enough. Must include targets for limitations of national
emissions. All states must undertake obligations.

May have to be differentiated between developed and developing
with possibility of other categories as well.

UK

Negotiate a convention that as many countries as possible will
sign and include all major greenhouse gas emitters.

Industrialised countries must lead by adopting targets for
greenhouse gases especially CO2.

Long term objective and process of regular review of commitments.
Pledge and review process under which all parties commit to
develop national strategies.

Developed countries should draw up first strategies within a year
of entry into force. Should be guidelines on what those
strategies should achieve. Developing countries cannot take on
such a guideline but should agree to keep future net growth of
greenhouse gas emissions to lowest level with respect to
development requirements.

Country studies should identify steps. Executive body or review
panel needed to review all strategies in terms of possible
lessons to learn and whether in total world amount is an adequate
response.

Working Group Two

The group discussed legal and institutional mechanisms including:
entry into force, withdrawal, compliance and dispute settlement,
assessment and review.

Entry Into Force

The UK suggested that entry into force need not be tied to the
number of ratifications, but rather could take place when
countries representing a certain percentage of the world's
greenhouse gas emissions had ratified the treaty. Observers noted
that such a proposal could provide large emitters with the
opportunity to block entry into force. Most countries preferred
entry into force dependent on a certain number of ratifications.

Saudi Arabia suggested that a mechanism should be created that
would allow countries to ratify the Convention with reservations
on certain parts of the document.

Compliance

Australia, New Zealand, France and others argued for the creation
of an Implementation Committee to monitor compliance and report
to the Parties. An equal number of countries, primarily from
developing countries were reluctant to create new institutions
unless absolutely necessary and argued that the conference of the
Parties could monitor compliance.

Brazil made it clear that compliance of developing countries
would be contingent upon adequate financial and technical
resources being made available.

Dispute Settlement

New Zealand, Mexico and the Netherlands argued for a `hard'
dispute settlement mechanism with final binding judgement through
arbitration or an organization like the International Court of
Justice. The vast majority of delegations argued for the soft
non-adversarial approach of the Montreal Protocol where dispute
settlement means working constructively with countries to bring
them into compliance.

Assessment and Review

All delegations vigorously defended national sovereignty in this
area and argued that it was up to national governments to provide
information on the results of their climate change action
programme.

6) Australia's Climate Programme

by Bill Hare
Australian Conservation Foundation, WWF-N-Australia

Following the conclusion of the IPCC First Assessment report in
August 1990 the Australian Government considered an appropriate
domestic and international response framework for the country. In
mid-October the Federal Cabinet decided on interim planning
targets for emission reductions and on an international position,
the details of which were made public. The Cabinet decision also
established guidelines and processes for the development of an
implementation plan for Australia.

The means by  which Australia is developing its implementation
plan is unusually comprehensive, both in a technical and
consultative sense, involving Federal and State Governments,
industry, scientific, environmental and consumer organisation
representatives. It is planned that the results of the planning
process will be available for Government consideration and
implementation at the end of October 1991.

Emission Reduction Targets

In developing an interim target for stabilization and reduction
of Australian greenhouse emission reductions the Federal
Government adopted a comprehensive approach excluding gases
covered by the Montreal Protocol . The Cabinet "agreed to
adopt an interim planning target of stabilising emissions of
greenhouse gases (e.g. carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide)
not controlled by the Montreal Protocol on Ozone Depleting
Substances, based on 1988 levels, by the year 2000, and reducing
these emissions by 20% by the year 2005."

The Cabinet decision was qualified and indicated that "Australia
will not proceed with the adoption of response measures which
have net adverse economic impacts nationally or on Australia's
trade competitiveness in the absence of similar action by major
greenhouse gas producing countries." This qualification reflects,
in part, the current significant dependence of the Australian
economy on fossil fuel and energy intensive commodity exports.
The concern arises in this context that moves by Australia to
reduce emissions would have the effect of raising the price of
energy inputs to energy intensive industries, and in the absence
of similar action by other countries, lead to economic loss.
Environmental NGOs in Australia have argued that continued
reliance on energy intensive industries in the context of a
global need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a very risky
economic strategy.

The other side of the qualification to the Cabinet decision is
the question of the domestic impact of measures designed to
reduce emissions. Many in the business community argue that
emission stabilization and reduction will have adverse economic
effects. Indeed a macro-economic study conducted for the mining
company Conzinc Rio Tinto Australia (CRA) predicted a cost of
.04% of GDP per annum to achieve the Toronto 20% CO2 reduction
target. On the other hand studies conducted for the Australian
and New Zealand Environment (Ministerial) Council concluded that
emission reductions could be achieved cost-effectively and with a
net benefit to the economy. In addition a detailed macro-economic
study carried out for the State of Victoria demonstrated that the
implementation of energy efficiency measures along with the
introduction of some renewable energy technologies were essential
to that State's manufacturing industry maintaining and improving
its competitive advantage.

Cost-effective Implementation

The Federal Government, in deciding on an interim planning
target, set up several processes to develop the most
cost-effective ways of achieving the targets. One component of
the process was to request that a government economic assessment
agency, the Industry Commission, "should prepare a report
concerning the costs and benefits for Australian industry of such
an international consensus in favour of a 20% reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions, including new opportunities that could
arise, and how Australia would best prepare itself to respond to
those costs and benefits."

A second and key component of the Federal Government's process
for developing cost-effective implementation options was its
decision to refer the issue to the Working Groups it established
to develop the Government's Ecologically Sustainable Development
strategy. The ESD Working Groups have been requested to "report
on the most cost-effective combination of measures available for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions". The groups involve
representatives of governments, industry, NGOs, science and other
community groups.

The ESD Working Group process involves nine sect{*filter*}working
groups: agriculture, energy use and production, fisheries,
forestry, manufacturing, mining, transport and tourism. Their
brief is much wider than the greenhouse issue, however the
development of cost effective options for greenhouse gas emission
reductions is a major component of their work. The groups are
addressing both energy and non-energy related GHG emissions.

In order to coordinate assessment methodologies for emission
reduction options and to facilitate an integrated assessment of
options an ESD Greenhouse Coordinating Group has been established
involving representatives of Commonwealth and State Government,
Industry, and NGOs drawn from the Working Groups. A Technical
Workshop is being organised to assist in the development of
common assessment methodologies and to ensure that macro-economic
modelling being conducted for the ESD Working Groups on the
greenhouse issue takes account of all issues and concerns.

A key question which the Working Groups are addressing is the
identification of policies which can bridge the difference
between measures which may be cost-effective for the economy as a
whole but which are not viewed as cost-effective by industry and
consumers at present.

The Working Groups are due to report to the Prime Minister by 31
October 1991.

Implementation Measures

A number of measures have been proposed within the ESD Working
Groups to achieve cost-effective emission reductions. Space does
not permit the elaboration of these, however a short check list
would include:

* Energy efficiency standards for appliances, buildings and
equipment;

* Major improvements in motor vehicle efficiency;

* Urban public transport development and urban consolidation;

* Modal shifts from road to rail/sea for freight

* Economic instruments, including carbon levies and/or taxes and
micro-economic reform;

* Methane related measures: natural gas reticulation system, coal
seam methane, landfill sites, and agricultural activities

* Agricultural and land-use related emissions are being closely
examined;

* Re-examination of economic directions and priorities.

7) Global Environment Facility Remains an Empty Vessel

By Eco Reporter

The Global Environment Facility (GEF)(1), in its current form, is
not an appropriate mechanism to deliver assistance under a
climate convention, according to a paper tabled by the US Natural
Resources Defense Council. While the GEF has succeeded in
mobilizing urgently needed capital, it is focussed on an
unacceptably narrow range of climate-related activities. For
example, the first tranche of GEF projects includes none in the
area of end-use energy efficiency, a world-wide priority for
reducing CO2 emissions.

Unfortunately, the GEF's work program reflects the existing
institutional strengths of its Implementing Agencies, rather than
the full range of promising approaches to global problems. The
GEF's weakness stems from its reliance on World Bank operating
procedures which severely limit public input, thereby
discouraging innovation and "bottom-up" approaches based on local
expertise.

Until the GEF adopts more participatory procedures, its
effectiveness will be hampered and it will be unsuitable to
manage larger amounts of funding under a climate convention.
"Getting the GEF off the ground on the right foot is an
opportunity the world can't afford to miss," commented NRDC
senior scientist Daniel Lashof. "Here is an issue on which the US
actually has the right position in support of procedural reforms
while the Europeans have resisted allowing public access to
essential information on proposed projects. Apparently the
European Finance Ministers who deal with the World Bank are not
hearing from the environmental negotiators who agreed to allow
access to the Executive Committee of the Montreal Protocol fund,"
Lashof concluded. (see report on Nairobi ozone meeting: Ozone
Thins over Geneva in yesterday's Eco)

NRDC urges countries participating in the GEF to insist that it
adopts operating procedures that ensure effectiveness and public
accountability. These reforms include:

* Complete documentation on all GEF projects, in appropriate
languages, must be made available to the public at every stage of
the project cycle, including, at minimum, all documents made
available to participating governments.

* Clear guidelines must be established for GEF projects in each
issue area (global warming, ozone depletion, biodiversity, and
international waters). Preparation of these guidelines must
include opportunities for input, review, and comment by all
interested government agencies, non-governmental organizations,
and members of the public.

* GEF funds should be awarded only to those countries that are
committed to developing policy, regulatory and institutional
frameworks to address the global issues in question.

* All GEF operations must be discussed at the country level with
all interested non-governmental organizations and members of the
public. To facilitate public input, the GEF Implementing Agencies
should convene regular public meetings in all recipient countries
to discuss all proposed GEF operations, including regional and
global projects.

* The GEF must establish a Small Projects Facility to provide
grants to small in-country institutions. This Facility should be
funded at a minimum level of $25 million. All grant proposals
should be discussed at in-country public meetings, and grant
awards should be based, to the extent possible, on the consensus
of in-country groups.

* The Chairman of the GEF must invite non-governmental observers
to the semi-annual meetings of the GEF Participants.

(1) The GEF was established in November 1989 as a joint venture
of the World Bank, the U.N. Environment Program and the U.N.
Development Program. Twenty-one countries have contributed $1.4
billion to support Third World efforts to combat global warming,
ozone depletion, loss of biodiversity, and pollution of
international waters.

8) Leman

Leman was interested to see that the Soviet Union has put forward
a paper jointly with Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

The paper bears all the familiar hallmarks of Saudi Arabian oil
diplomacy : the traditional references to the uncertainties of
the science and the alleged costs of abatement strategies.
Needless to say, CO2 is not mentioned specifically.

Interestingly however, there is some implicit recognition of the
need to cut CO2, and the need to safeguard the interests of
countries "highly dependent on fossil fuel production".

Leman understands from others that, by joining Saudi Arabia, the
USSR may be manoeuvering itself into that group of nations whose
major resource, when the oil reserves are exhausted and,
combusted, will be sand.

9) Promises Promises

`Pledge and review' could be a great system for developing and
implementing a climate change convention - the only problem is
that it probably won't be.

As a way of getting the United States `on board' for a Climate
Convention to be signed in June 1992, `pledge and review' may
have a high likelihood of success. But that is only because - in
the British and Japanese formulae at least - it only asks that a
plan be drawn up, subsequently to be reviewed. It is the absence
of targets, timetables and specific commitments which make it
easy for any country to swallow, no matter how little that nation
intends to do.

Indeed, if a country like the US can sign up to a Climate
Convention without committing to do anything about reducing its
CO2, it devalues that convention as an instrument of achieving
change.

Certainly negotiators could try requiring `pledges' to contain
certain levels of commitment to cut CO2 but to suggest this will
in itself develop the political will of the US to change its
policy seems to be a triumph of hope over experience.

If OECD countries already committed to cuts now go along with
`pledge and review' as the mainstay of a Convention, they may
well undermine the United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development, which will itself be judged largely by what it
achieves in curbing this, the world's top environmental problem.

10) Canada Contributes

Canada is the first country to contributed to the `Trust Fund For
The Negotiating Process' set up to finance the work of the
secretariat to organize negotiations on a the Climate Convention.
Canada's $US50,000 has been banked.

11) European Community's Response to Global Warming

by Annie Roncerel

In June 1990, at the Dublin Summit, the European Council "urged
all countries to introduce extensive energy efficiency and
conservation measures, and to adopt as soon as possible targets
and strategies for limiting emissions of greenhouse gases". The
Council also "called on the Commission to expedite its proposals
for concrete action".

In October 1990, the Energy/Environment Council meeting in
Luxembourg recognised the importance of the Second World Climate
Conference and "agreed to take actions aiming at reaching
stabilisation of the total CO2 emissions by 2000 at 1990 in the
Community as a whole".

No Action Programme

What is the situation in June 1991? The EC Commission has not yet
agreed on a concrete action programme, although several drafts
have been circulated.

In the meantime, 10 national teams carried out a "Cost
Effectiveness Analysis of CO2 Reduction Options" for the EC
Directorate for Science, Research and Development which was
completed in May 1991. This study gives cost figures, as a
percentage of GDP, for different CO2 reduction objectives in each
EC country and identifies the cost-effective mix of technological
(non fiscal) options that would allow these objectives to be met
at the country level. The table below indicates the maximum
feasible level of CO2 reduction by 2010 according to the study's
calculations.

The report concludes that "A major finding of the study is that
even without any constraint on CO2 emissions, the least cost
development of each national energy system would lead to the
stabilisation of CO2 emissions by the year 2000 at 1990 level
within the Community. The key option to achieve this short term
stabilisation target is essentially provided by energy
conservation, especially in end-use sectors where the potential
for further cost-effective energy efficiency improvements has
proved to be large. Indeed, the study finds most of the energy
savings in lighting, residential appliances, dwelling (from
better insulation) and transport economically attractive
investments and operating costs of energy saving measures are
more than counterbalanced by resulting reductions in power and
supply costs."

Furthermore, the report notes that using energy more efficiently
in a cost-effective manner would serve many national or Community
objectives in addition to minimizing the risk of global warming.
The report concludes that "energy conservation certainly belongs
to the so-called "no-regret" strategies."

Weaknesses

An analysis of the document by Climate Network Europe, however,
has uncovered two major types of weaknesses. Firstly, the study
makes several important omissions. It does not consider energy
conservation in the industrial sectors, analyze the impact of
economic instruments, or examine the barriers that will hinder
the implementation of proposed options.

Secondly, the data on the availability, suitability and costs for
some options have not been harmonized across countries. In the
case of nuclear power, for example, different countries have
based their analysis on different sets of cost assumptions.

Waiting

Climate Network Europe is waiting for these findings to be
incorporated in a concrete EC action plan that will fight climate
change by reorienting energy production within each European
country.

An analysis of the EC budget shows that significant changes are
even needed at the Community level if the Community's commitments
are to be taken seriously. Despite all the political rhetoric
promoting energy efficiency and energy conservation, the EC's
energy research and development budget will spend more than 80
per cent of its resources on either nuclear fission or fusion
over the next five years.

Climate Network Europe will continue to push the Commission to
agree on an action programme to limit CO2 emissions that will be
based upon a sound energy policy that minimizes all risks and
gives priority to energy options that have the lowest impact on
the environment and can be implemented in a quick and
cost-effective manner.

Annie Roncerel is Co-ordinator of Climate Action Network - Europe

Maximum CO2 reduction by 2010 (%)

Belgium-15%
Denmark-40%
France -20%
Germany-30%
Greece -10%
Italy -11%
The Netherlands-6.5%
Portugal +50%
Spain -10%
UK -30%

12) Energy Efficiency 2000

by ECO Reporter

In May 1990, UNECE (UN Economic Commission for Europe) member
governments agreed in the Bergen Ministerial Declaration on
Sustainable Development in the ECE Region to launch a wide
ranging campaign, `Energy Efficiency 2000'. This decision was
adopted in October 1990 by the Senior Advisers to the ECE
governments.

In May 1991 the Steering Committee of `Energy Efficiency 2000'
determined that the main objectives of the project would be to
enhance trade and cooperation in energy efficient and
environmentally-sound technologies, and to improve energy
management practices among ECE member states.

Financial contributions will be made to an `Energy Efficiency
2000' Trust Fund. Total pledged contributions for the three year
project are $1.5 million US in cash and $2.6 million US in kind.

The project is intended to close the energy efficiency `gap'
between Central and east European members of the ECE and western
members of the ECE. Annie Roncerel of Climate Network Europe
says, "This project is certainly most welcome and could serve as
a reference point for what could be established worldwide to help
implement any CO2 commitments within a climate convention." But
she also warms, "However, compared to the $3 million US proposed
by the Japanese to improve their transfer of technology, the
amount presently pledged to support the ECE initiative is small."
Other UN Regional Commissions may consider similar initiatives in
their regions to improve energy efficiency.

For further information on the Energy Efficiency 2000 project,
contact F. Romig, ECE Energy Division, Economic Commission for
Europe, Palais des Nations, CH 1211, Geneva 10, Switzerland.

Tel. 734 60 11 Telefax 733 9879

13) CLIMATE ACTION NETWORK - CONTACTS

EUROPE - CENTRAL AND EASTERN

BME Zold Kor Sztoczek u.5-7 H-1111, Budapest HUNGARY

Fuggetlen Okologiai Kozpont - FOK, Miklos Ter 1 1035 Budapest
HUNGARY

Independent Ecological Centre, 1082 Baross U. 83 Budapest HUNGARY

Environmental Contact Centre - ECC, 43-360 Bystra ul. SZCYNTA 5.
POLAND

EUROPE - EC

Inter-Environment Wallonie - IEW, 20 rue du Luxembourg 1040
Brussels BELGIUM

Danmarks Naturfredningsforening, Norregade 2 1165 Kobenhavn K
DENMARK

Bulle Bleue, 12, rue Francis de Pressense 75014 Paris FRANCE

CREPAN, 17 avenue de Tourville 14000 Caen FRANCE

World Information Service on Energy - WISE, 5 Rue Buot F-75013
Paris FRANCE

Institut fur Okologische Wirtschaftforschung - IOW,
Giesebrechtohr 13 1000 Berlin 12 GERMANY

Deutscher Naturschutzring - DNR, Kalkuhlstr.24 5300 Bonn 3 FED.
REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Institut fur Europaische Umweltpolitik - IEUP,
Aloys-SchHlte-Strabe 6 5300 Bonn 1 FED. REPUBLIC OF GERMANY

Oko Institut, Prinz-Christians-Weg 7 6100 Darmstadt GERMANY

Earthwatch, Harbour View Bantry, County IRELAND

Amici della Terra Italia, Via del Sudario 35 00186 Roma ITALY

Lega per L'Ambiente, Via Salaria 280 Rome ITALY

WWF Italia, Via Salaria 290 Rome ITALY

Mouvement Ecologique Luxembourg, 6, Rue Vauban 2663 LUXEMBOURG

Centrum voor Energiebesparing en Schone Technologie, Environment
Technologies Oude Delft 180 2611 HH Delft NETHERLANDS

Landelijke Ver. tot Behoud van de Waddenzee - LVBW, Voorstraat
18, P.O. Box 90, 8860 AB Harlingen NETHERLANDS

Stichting Natuur en Milieu - SNM, Donkerstraat 17 3511 KB Utrecht
NETHERLANDS

Vereniging Milieudefensie - VMD, Damrak 26 1012LJ NETHERLANDS

Associacion Ecologista de Defensa de la Naturaleza, c/Campomanes
13, 2 IZQ SP-28013 Madrid SPAIN

Energy and Environmental Programme - EEP, 10 St James' Square
London SW1Y 4LE UNITED KINGDOM

Friends of the Earth - FOE UK, 26-28 Underwood Street London N1
7JQ UNITED KINGDOM

Institute for European Environmental Policy - IEEP, 3 Endsleigh
Street London WC1H UNITED KINGDOM

Transport 2000 - T2000, Walkden House 10 Melton Street London
NW12EJ UNITED KINGDOM

World Wide Fund for Nature UK - WWF UK, Panda House, Wezside
Park, Godalming GU7 1XR Surrey UNITED KINGDOM

Climate Network - Europe, 98 rue du Trone 1050 Brussels BELGIUM

EUROPE - EC/EFTA

WWF International - EUROPE UNIT, 608 Chaussee de Waterloo 1060
Brussels BELGIUM

EUROPE - EFTA

Osterreichische Ges. fHr Natur und Umweltschutz - OGNU,
Hegelgasse 21 1010 Vienna AUSTRIA

Aksjon Mot Luftforurensning - ALF, P.O. Box 94 1364 Hvalstad
NORWAY

Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain, Box 245 401 24 Goteborg
SWEDEN

FAR EAST

Energy Research Institute, Bld 917 Anwai 100101 Beijing Peoples
Republic of CHINA

Citizens Alliance for Saving the Atmosphere and the Earth,
1-3-17-813 Tanimachi Chuoko 5412 Osaka JAPAN

INTERNATIONAL

Centre for International Environmental Law - CIEL, Kings College
London Manrese Road London SW3 UNITED KINGDOM

Friends of the Earth International - FOEI, 26-28 Underwood Street
London N1 7JQ UNITED KINGDOM

Greenpeace International, Keizersgracht 176 1016 DW Amsterdam
NETHERLANDS

World Wide Fund for Nature - WWF International, World
Conservation Centre Avenue du Mont Blanc 1196 Gland SWITZERLAND

NORTH AMERICA

Friends of the Earth Canada, Suite 701, 251 Laurier Avenue West
Ottawa Ontario K1P5J6 CANADA

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy - ACEEE, 1001
Connecticut Avenue NW 535 Washingon D.C. USA

Conservation Law Foundation, 3 Joy Street Boston, MA 02108 USA

Energy Conservation Coalition - ECC, 1525 New Hampshire Avenue
NW, Washington D.C. USA

Environmental Defense Fund, 1616 P Street, N.W., Suite 150,
Washington, D.C. 20036 USA

Environmental and Energy Study Institute, Suite 700 122 C Street
NW Washington D.C. USA

Environmental Law Institute, 1616 P Street NW, Washington, D.C.
USA

Friends of the Earth US, 218 D Street SE, Washington, D.C. USA

Greenpeace - US, Fort Mason, Bldg. E San Francisco, California
94123 USA

International Institute for Energy Conservation, 420 C Street, NE
Washington, D.C. USA

National Audubon Society, 801 Pennsylvania Ave. SE Washington,
D.C. USA

Natural Resources Defense Council, 1350 New York Avenue NW,
Washington, D.C. USA

Nuclear Information and Resource Service - NIRS, Suite 601 1424
16th Street, NW Washington, D.C. USA

Pacific Institute for Studies in Dev. Environment & Security,
1681 Shattuck Avenue, Suite H Berkeley, California 94709 USA

Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Project, 215 Pennsylvania
Avenue SE Washington, D.C. USA

Rocky Mountain Institute - RMI, 1739 Snowmass Creek Road
Snowmass, Colorado USA

Safe Energy Communication Council - SECC, Suite LL215 1717
MAssachusetts Avenu NW, Washington D.C. USA

The Alliance to Save Energy - ASE, 1725 K Street, NW Suite 914,
Washington, D.C USA

The Sierra Club, 408 C Street, NE Washington, D.C. USA

Union of Concerned Scientists, 1616 P Street, NW Washington, D.C.
20036 USA

World Resources Institute - WRI, 1709 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. USA

World Wildlife Fund/The Conservation Foundation, 1250 24th
Street, NW 20037 USA

14) 'Group of 77' Plods along

By Our G77 Correspondent

While the INC 2 sessions have been moving in fits and starts, the
Group of 77 has, together with China, been plodding along. As at
the beginning of the second week, their general position seems to
be rather vague.

Perhaps because of the wide ranging interests of their national
members, the only consensus among G77 members seems to be to
avoid a Convention seems of specific commitments. Their
discussions focus mainly on three of the member country
non-papers, i.e. those from India, China and Vanuatu.

One the surface at least, G77 countries are taking little
interest in the policy options issues which preoccupy OECD
countries. One delegate, when asked what he thought about Japan's
much talked-about `Pledge and Review' replied that it was not of
much consequence to the G77.'

Default

The G15 set up to coordinate the G77 trade, economy and
environment policies  seems to have been reluctantly
dragged into coordinating G77 positions at INC. But Monday's main
G77 meeting failed to designate specific coordinators for Working
Groups 1 and 2 of INC. The meeting adjourned with the limp
agreement that the New York and Geneva groups will have to
continue whatever coordination possible. Some developing country
observers are unimpressed. "So much for developing country
solidarity" said one last night. `'Unless the G77 can get its act
together, the OECD countries are likely to rule the roost. And
yet another convention will be decided by default."

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

ECO is edited by Chris Rose; production editors Malcolm
Sutherland and Alister Sieghart

ECO wishes to acknowledge the generous support of the following:
Apple Computer - Industrade AG, Wallisellen
AVEC INFORMATIQUE SA, Route des Acacias, 47 Geneva
Intercontinental Hotel, Wagons Lits

ECO (name as in 'SWCC') has been produced for EDF and others as a
Media Natura project with the generous support of the Apple
Computer Division, Industrade AG, Wallisellen and Avec
Informatique SA, Geneva.

Software support has been donated by Aldus, Applelink, Computers
Unlimited, Microsoft, Sitka. (any others).

Design by Akel Minott, London; Production Editors Alister
Sieghart, Shades & Characters and Malcolm Sutherland, Recruit
Media.

Electronic mail distribution coordinator Lelani Arris, EcoNet
Energy and Climate Information Exchange (US), supported by a
grant from the Joyce Mertz-Gilmore Foundation.

Project Management Chris Bligh , Media Natura, 21 Tower Street,
London WC2H 9NS Tel (+44) 71 240 2936 Fax (+44) 71 240 2291.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For enquiries and response to ECO:
ECO Editorial Staff
Tivoli Room, Intercontinental Hotel, Geneva
Telephone: (+41) 22 740 0541 / 734 6574
FAX:       (+41) 22 734 8425
E-mail:    APC Networks - gn:wwfgland, gn:swcc
           Applelink - uk.region1

For Press enquiries to particular NGO spokespersons:
The Non-Governmental Organisations (NGO) Room
Persan Room, Intercontinental Hotel, Geneva
Telephone: (+41) 22 740 0536 / 734 5243
FAX:       (+41) 22 734 6442

For information about fax distribution of ECO (FAX numbers):
Australian Cons. Foundation:     Bill Hare         61-3-416-241
Belgium: CAN - Europe            Tasmin Rose      32-2-512-6673
S. America : SOS Mata Atlantica                  55-11-885-1680
USA: Center for Global Change    Pam Wexler      1-301-403-4292
UK: Media Natura                 Sally Cavanagh  44-71-240-2291

Every issue of ECO will be posted in full to the en.climate and
climate.news conferences on EcoNet (APC) and the sci.environment
conference on Usenet.

For information about electronic mail and conference distribution
of ECO, contact:
E-mail coordinator: Lelani Arris
APC Networks - igc:larris


Telephone -    1-403-852-4057 (Canada)

Or contact support staff at one of the following APC Networks:

Network                Telephone                    E-mail
---------------------------------------------------------------
GreenNet (Europe)      (44) 71 923 2624             gn:support
EcoNet (US)            (1) 415 442 0220             igc:support
Pegasus (Australia)    (61) 66 856 789              peg:support
Alternex (Brazil)      (55) 21 286 0348             ax:support
Nicarao (Nicaragua)    (505) 2 26  228              ni:ayuda
WEB (Canada)           (1) 416 596 0212             web:spider
Peacenet (Scandinavia) (46)  8 72 00001             pns:support

For information about Media Natura:
Media Natura Project Manager : Chris Bligh
Telephone (+44) 71 240 2936/ 71 497 2673/ 71 497 2712
FAX: (+44) 71 240 2291
E-mail : gn:medianatura

To find out more about Media Natura please write to Media
Natura, 21 Tower Street, London WC2H 9NS, United Kingdom

******************************************************************
PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS NEWSLETTER!!

We are interested in tracking ECO electronic distribution.  We
hope to keep improving our service as we approach UNCED 1992.  If
you find this newsletter of value, please return the following
report.  Thank you for your help!!

******************************************************************
ECO NEWSLETTER - GENEVA - ISSUE #6

How did you get the newsletter?

_________e-mail _________________________________address
_________conference or list _____________________name

Have you used the information in reports or newsletters? (please
specify)

Did you distribute it to others? (please list)

Return to:

******************************************************************
Lelani Arris                           * Project Director
EcoNet:    larris                      * EcoNet Energy & Climate


Telephone: 403-852-4057                * Jasper, Alberta T0E 1E0
Fax:       403-852-3215                * Canada
******************************************************************



Sun, 12 Dec 1993 12:10:00 GMT
 
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

1. ECO GENEVA (INC) #5 June 24, 1991 (

2. ECO GENEVA (INC) #3 June 20, 1991 (

3. ECO GENEVA (INC) #4 June 23, 1991 (

4. ECO GENEVA (INC) #7 June 26, 1991 (

5. ECO GENEVA (INC) #4A June 23, 1991

6. ECO GENEVA (INC) #2A June 19, 1991

7. ECO GENEVA (INC) #1 June 18, 1991

8. ECO GENEVA (INC) #8 June 27, 1991 (

9. ECO GENEVA (INC) #2 June 19, 1991

10. ECO GENEVA #10 - Dec 20, 1991 (55K)

11. ECO GENEVA #8 - Dec 18, 1991 (29K)

12. Weekly Tropical Cyclone Summary #3 (August 18 - 25, 1991)


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software