ECO GENEVA (INC) #4 June 23, 1991 ( 
Author Message
 ECO GENEVA (INC) #4 June 23, 1991 (

From: <larris>
Subject: ECO GENEVA (INC) #4 June 23, 1991 (42K)

                          ECO NEWSLETTER

               CLIMATE CHANGE NEGOTIATIONS - GENEVA

                          June 23, 1991
                             Issue #4

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

1) Climate Convention in Cash Crisis
2) 'Now We Can Start Work' - Conference Report
3) Japan Prepares Delay Formula?
4) Early Emissions Reductions Reduce Long Term Costs
5) The View from Tuvalu
6) US Thinking on Tech Transfer
7) Montreal Fund 'Open' - Late News from Nairobi
8) 'Fate of Millions': Indonesian Warning to Bush
9) Leman (editorial)

1) Climate Convention in Cash Crisis

By Eco Staff

United Nations talks designed to produce a Climate Convention by
June 1992, already bogged down in procedural delays, now face a
cash and staff crisis. At least US$450,000 is urgently needed for
the Secretariat if the negotiations are to continue in the hope
of creating a Convention to deal with global warming by June
1992, a deadline set by the UN General Assembly. Around $US2m is
needed to allow developing countries to send one delegate each to
take part in the talks scheduled until then.

Global warming has been heralded by developed countries as the
world's most important environmental problem. Yet tomorrow a
plenary of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee will hear
from Michael Zammit-Cutajar, the head of their Secretariat, that
the organization is about to run out of funds for its work. "The
money needed for the climate talks is equivalent to just a few
minutes of the Gulf War" said Annie Roncerel of Climate Network
Europe, "Yet it will do much more for saving the world than the
Gulf War ever could."

Zammit-Cutajar, a Maltese who is working to a mandate established
by the UN General Assembly, has to draw on two `extrabudgetary
funds' to run his Secretariat and ensure the participation of
developing countries. Both rely on pledges from the world's
richer countries, namely those in the OECD.

So far the `Trust Fund For The Negotiating Process', which is to
finance the staffing and work of the small organizing
Secretariat, has been pledged a mere $US50,000 from the UK, while
the European Community has promised a further $US60,000. The
other 23 OECD countries - Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,
Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland,
Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United States -
have neither pledged nor paid anything.

It is expected that the budget to be put forward by
Zammit-Cutajar on Tuesday will show the organization needs some
$US560,000 for basic operating costs such as photocopying,
phones, faxes, telexes, stationery, typing and computing,
temporary staff, expert consultants and servicing expert groups.
Together with travel, office and staff costs are excluded as the
Secretariat is presently camping out in offices loaned by UNCTAD
and with the exception of Zammit Cutajar whose funding lasts
until next autumn, relies on staff loaned or seconded by other UN
organizations.

With existing central funds almost exhausted by the costs of the
current session's negotiations, the Secretariat has no good
photocopier or computer. Twelve or thir{*filter*} of the four{*filter*} staff
listed as `responsible officials' organizing the Convention by
next years UN `Earth Summit' are on temporary loan from other
agencies. Seven are `loaned' by the UN General Assembly in New
York, some only for a week, three are from UNEP, one each from
WMO and UNCTAD, and one is seconded by France. Some delegations
at the present talks - such as the US and Japan - are larger than
the Secretariat itself. Zammit-Cutajar is also concerned that the
climate Secretariat has yet to find any permanent offices in the
UN Palais at Geneva.

The `Special Voluntary Fund To Support The Participation of
Developing Countries', has so far received been promised no
contribution by nine OECD countries: Australia, Belgium, Greece,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy Luxembourg, New Zealand and Portugal. The
Fund is owed $US830,000 in unpaid pledges from Austria, the
European Commission, France, Germany, Japan, Netherlands and
Norway. (Funds from Netherlands and Japan are understood to be
imminent). $US682,000 has been received from Canada, Denmark,
Finland, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the UK and the US.

This Fund needs $US550,000, mainly to meet the travel and living
costs of one delegate from each of 99 developing countries for
each negotiating session. Five sessions are planned by June 1992,
meaning that almost a further $US2m is needed.

On June 19 the Secretariat circulated a note to delegations
giving its bank account. Anyone wishing to contribute to the
Trust Fund set up under General Assembly Resolution 45/212 to
bring the world a Convention to save the planet from global
warming should send a cheque to UN Trust Fund Account No. 015 -
004473 at the Chemical Bank, United Nations branch, New York, NY
10017, or, to the UNCTAD account with Lloyds Bank in Geneva.

o The recently concluded United Nations Environment Programme
Governing Council required in Decision 16/41 that its Executive
Director should fully support the INC process through inter alia,
contributions to its costs, including funding, to support the INC
Secretariat through secondment of an appropriate staff member,
and respond positively to further such requests, as well as
making available relevant information.

2) `Now We Can Start Work'

by Eco Staff

"At last - now we can start work" said one European delegate at
the UN in Geneva this weekend, as climate negotiators finally
agreed the chairing of two work groups set up to create a
Framework Convention on Climate Change. Hundreds of government
and international agency officials have spent three weeks (two in
Washington in February, one in Geneva this week, not to mention
significant time between the two sessions) to reach first base in
drafting a convention.

In another move thought to be unique in UN diplomacy, the Working
Groups for the INC climate talks have been given co-chairs. To
overcome regional rivalries Japan and Mexico were elected to
co-chair Working Group 1, Canada and Vanuatu to co-chair Working
Group 2. In addition, Mauritania was elected Vice-Chair for
Working Group 1, which was charged to develop appropriate
commitments for reducing CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions,
while Poland was elected Vice-Chair of Working Group 2 which is
responsible to draft legal and institutional mechanisms.

The intense interest in which countries are represented comes
about because of the high economic stakes involved in the problem
of global climate change. All five regional UN groupings (Africa,
Asia, W.Europe/N. America and others, E. Europe, Latin America)
now have a job to do in the Working Groups, plus as an unofficial
sixth grouping, AOSIS (Alliance of Small Island States) which
includes Vanautu. The African group expressed its reservation
regarding the limited African representation among the Working
Group officers.

Friday, more than twice the number of delegates packed into the
first session of Working Group 1, as into the parallel meeting of
Working Group 2. The reason being that initially, the most
contentious issues in negotiating any climate change convention
concern what commitments on GHG reductions it will contain, the
degree of inter-country burden sharing built into the measures,
and on technology transfer and financing for developing countries.

The Japanese co-chair is Ambassador Nobutoshi Akao, formerly
Economic Minister in the Japanese Embassy in the US. The Mexican
co-chair is Dr. Edmundo de Alba-Alcaraz, responsible for
international affairs in the Mexican environment ministry.
Working Group 1 Vice Chair is Mohamed Mahmont Ould El Ghaouth of
the Mauritanian Permanent Mission to the UN in Geneva. Liz
Dowdeswell, Assistant Deputy Minister of Environment Canada's
Atmospheric Environment Service, and an active WMO and IPCC
participant, is the Canadian Co-chair of Working Group 2. She is
joined by Vanuatu's Ambassador to the United Nations, Robert Van
Lierop. Finally, Maciej Sadowski of Poland is Working Group 2's
Vice Chair.

3) Japan Prepares Delay Formula?

By Eco Reporter

An informal paper circulated by the delegation of Japan at the
climate talks last Friday is a "recipe for delay" says WWF
International. "Japan has let the cat out of the bag on a concept
known as "Pledge and Review" says Richard Mott, Treaties Officer
with WWF International. "As a recipe for delay, the Japanese
proposal has no equal in the INC to date. If it wins support from
other countries, it could seriously undermine efforts to build on
commitments already made by the European Community, and countries
such as Australia and Switzerland".

Mott points to a proposal by Japan that nations `pledge' to
control greenhouse gases only after ratification of a Climate
Convention, without any binding obligation to cut emissions to
certain levels. He says "countries could sign a climate treaty in
1992 wholly devoid of obligation to control any greenhouse gases.
Then, years later, after ratification and entry-into-force, they
could unveil for the first time just what they intend to do, on a
purely volunteer basis."

Until now, the `worst case scenario' feared by most environment
groups was that the climate talks would lead only to an empty
framework convention in time for the UN CED `Earth Summit' in
June 1992. But even then the Convention signing was expected to
be followed directly by negotiations on a Protocol to limit C02
emissions. Richard Mott says that Japan's proposal for `Pledge
and Review' is much worse. "It presupposes an empty framework
convention" he says, adding "It eliminates the protocol process
altogether, delays incorporation of emissions control measures
(possibly for years), and makes the controls themselves entirely
voluntary, unspecified pledges".

Latitude For Laggards

Short of complete abdication of the responsibility, to control
greenhouse gases, says Mott, "it would be difficult to devise a
proposal that gives laggard countries more latitude and protects
the global environment less."

WWF International notes that Japan has already agreed to
stabilise its own per capita carbon emissions by the end of the
century. "Although this is hardly `leading edge' among other OECD
countries" states Mott, "it is a beginning. Ordinarily, a
country's opening position in international negotiations
repackages its domestic programme. Why does Japan propose
something that falls so far short of its own commitments?"

Environmentalists fear that the answer to that question is that
Japan is seeking to accommodate the undisclosed beneficiary of
its planned delay - the United States. The Japanese interest in
`Pledge and Review' appears not to be an isolated development.
The UK, which plays host to the July G7 meeting which is to
discuss global warming, has taken a similar approach at the
Geneva talks.

4) Early Emissions Reductions Reduce Long Term Costs

by Mary Beth Zimmerman from The Alliance to Save Energy

The United States is urging negotiators for a climate change
convention to adopt a comprehensive approach to implementing
climate change mitigation strategies. The White House contrasts
this comprehensive approach with a piecemeal approach of placing
limits on selected greenhouse gases (GHG), which is described as
unnecessarily costly.

This notion that we must choose between a comprehensive approach
-- with its advantages of minimising long-run policy costs -- and
actions undertaken now to limit emissions is both false and
misleading. In fact, far from being mutually exclusive, the
comprehensive approach and incremental implementation of GHC
restrictions are complementary strategies. Incremental
implementation of emission limits smooths the way towards a
long-term, least cost mitigation framework and can actually
reduce total costs below that possible by waiting to implement
GHG restrictions all at once.

The Comprehensive Approach

The comprehensive approach has two components. The first is
equalization of the marginal costs of controlling different
sources and sinks. In this way, more expensive reductions in one
gas are not used in lieu of less expensive options to reduce
emissions of another gas. Second, marginal costs are equated to
long-run marginal benefits of mitigating climate change. This
ensures the magnitude of response is justified by environmental
need.

Individual country responsibilities under a comprehensive
approach can be separated from the location of actual emissions
reductions by implementing opportunities to trade emissions
permits. That way nations responsible for emissions reductions
can shop the world, so to speak, for the least costly
opportunities .

Selecting Mitigation Options Under a Comprehensive Approach

The array of GHG reducing options (emissions and sinks) available
to each country, both those available now and those which might
become available in the future, may change. These options could
be ranked from the least to the most costly in terms of their per
dollar contribution to reduced radiative forcing.

We can also imagine implementing these measures starting with the
least costly ones and working toward until enough GHG reductions
have been made to ensure climate stability. The mix of options
selected would include both different levels of reductions and
different types of reductions for each country.

Given the magnitude of the task at hand, the numerous
least-costly emissions reductions selected under this long-run
comprehensive scheme would most likely include some reduction of
carbon, methane and other gases by industrial countries.

Because these `inframarginal' emission reductions would
ultimately be included in a long-term comprehensive approach,
they can be implemented on an interim basis now without fear of
inadvertently raising the total costs of avoiding climate
damages. These reductions can go well beyond the `no regrets'
policies which are justified on non-climate grounds alone. They
include both no regrets policies and policies justified at least
partially on climate grounds but which we have some confidence
are part of the bigger long-term picture of climate mitigation
policies.

Fortunately, it is not necessary to be able to draw this curve
precisely before proceeding with emissions reductions. All we
really need to know is that measures taken now would fall
somewhere within the broad range of options which ultimately
comprise a comprehensive plan. What matters most about this curve
is not the order in which the individual measures are adopted,
but the fact that they are all part of a least-cost package. And
even though the final optimum mix of emission reductions may not
be known now, we know enough about the magnitude of the task at
hand.

Our focus until now has been on the final package of measures
under a comprehensive approach, with costs determined
independently of when measures are implemented. However timing
affects mitigation costs in three ways:

* First, undertaking a full range of reductions at one time
significantly increases disruption costs. Phasing in the same set
of controls over a period of time would have a much smaller
impact on potential economic growth. Changes in economic
activities take time to occur and, in general, the more rapid the
rate of change, the greater the transitional or incidental costs
of the changes. Every year of delay in initiating reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions increases the rate of change necessary
to avoid climate instability.

* Second, many energy efficiency and other mitigation
opportunities that we fail to take now will be lost for decades
to come. Much of the energy-using equipment and infrastructure
which support industrialized economies -- from highway systems to
office buildings -- lasts for decades. Once built, it constitutes
a commitment to future energy demand. It is typically much less
expensive to build these commitments right the first time -- to
incorporate energy efficiency from the start -- than to modify
them down the road.

* Third, implementing inframarginal changes now has both
flexibility and experience in implementing additional controls
down the road. By lowering emissions today, we increase the time
available to work out more difficult responses in the future,
develop new (and often less expensive) technologies, and test new
science results.

It is possible for future investments to be less expensive than
current ones. The longer it takes to make actual reductions in
GHG emissions, the greater the global commitment to warming will
be when we do act. We can't `take back' the buildup of GHGs that
would occur in the interim. Delays in implementing even the
inframarginal reductions discussed above increases the chances
that by the time we act, it will be impossible to avoid severe
climate change damages. Acting now buys the time to ensure that
we are not left 5 or 10 years from now with an insufficient set
of options.

Given the cost advantages of introducing changes over time, a
comprehensive approach to mitigation can only be a least-cost
strategy if coupled with case-by-case or incremental introduction
of emissions reductions.

5) The View from Tuvalu

By Grace Matiru - Kenya Energy & Environment
and Ann Heidenreich - KCO

In a statement Thursday to the 2nd meeting of the
Inter-governmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Climate
Convention (INC) in Geneva, Ambassador T.A. Ogada, head of the
Kenyan delegation, echoed the feelings of many on his continent
when he said: "It is unfortunate that the developing countries
again find themselves in a situation where they have to cooperate
to save the planet from serious dangers caused by high levels of
emissions of greenhouse gases which they had nothing or very
little to do with ..."

Another kind of frustration was expressed in the note to the INC
from the Inter-Governmental Authority on Drought and Development
(IGADD), which is made up of six African governments. The South,
and in particular the African continent, says IGADD, are
continually confronted by new crises being announced in
scientific reports, magazines and conferences. No sooner are
people made conscious of one problem, such as desertification or
drought and its mitigation, than another problem, such as ozone
depletion, is announced. It is important to recognize that new
discoveries or issues such as these need time to be absorbed and
resources be allocated so that they can be addressed
appropriately. "For most of the countries South of the Sahara,
[this] is a great burden."

Commenting on the IGADD statement, Mr. Bruno Tseliso Sekoli of
the Lesotho Meteorological Services explained that the lag in
circulating information to policy makers leads to a lag in
planning response strategies. By the time resources are mobilized
and allocated to solving one problem, another has cropped up.
Informally, other African delegates at the INC reiterate that the
greatest issue for Africa, apart from Northern responsibility for
global climate change, is lack of information among African
governments on the implications of global warming for their own
countries. In this respect they have welcomed the NGO observers
from Kenya, Senegal and Zimbabwe who are present at the INC and
stated that NGOs have an important role to play in raising
environmental awareness at government levels.

African NGOs who form the Climate Network Africa have already
actively embraced that task. However, the African NGOs
participating in the Geneva meeting feel that, while they have a
responsibility to understand the phenomena of global warming and
take adaptive measures at home, there is little they can do in
the short term to mitigate the danger. As Grace Matiru, NGO
delegate to the INC from the Kenya Energy and Environment
Organization (KENGO) says, "All this talk about reforestation,
transfer of technology, international funding mechanisms and
other forms of cooperation is a waste of time unless Northern
governments make strong commitments to reduce their
energy-related CO2 emissions now."

Abou Thiam, NGO delegate from Environment Development Action in
the Third World (ENDA) in Senegal, explains: "A convention is
certainly important, but the fundamental question is: how do you
change the lifestyles of a substantial number of people on this
planet especially in the industrialized countries whose way of
life has serious impacts on the global climate? Another, equally
important question is what to do to stop developing countries
from imitating this destructive behaviour. If it is urgent to
conclude a convention, it is even more pressing to take strong
action at all levels to stop climate deterioration."

Despite all their rhetoric, very few Northern governments have
made the meaningful commitments to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Rindaye Chimonyo, attending the INC on behalf of
Zimbabwe Energy Research Organization (ZERO) says that the main
aim of Africans at the INC meetings, at the Ministerial Meeting
on the Environment scheduled for Cairo in July and at the
Commonwealth Heads of State Meeting in Harare in October should
be to try and persuade Northern governments to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. "Such reductions," says Chimonyo, "are the sine
qua non for any real cooperation on the global climate change
issue."

6) US Thinking on Tech Transfer

By Eco Reporter

The United States is attempting to mobilise developed-country
support for a redefinition of `technology transfer', an idea
causing controversy at both INC climate talks and in the
preparations for the UN CED Earth Summit. OECD countries meet to
discuss the issue at climate talks in Geneva last week

In a recent cable to diplomatic posts in OECD country capitals,
the State Department asks staff to seek the opinion of other
governments on its ideas for `technology cooperation', a `two way
process in which parties identify common interests to share
information, knowledge, know-how, equipment and management
skills'. The State Department notes that `technology transfer
suggests a more limited, one way process in which one gives and
the other receives'. It adds that `it would be helpful to develop
among donor nations a common approach to the issue of technology
cooperation'. The US has set up a Technology Cooperation Sub
Group of its Interagency Policy Coordinating Committee Working
Group (PCCWG) on climate. The US has `begun an inventory of US
resources dedicated to climate change technology cooperation'.

Friction

The US briefing looks at technology cooperation in terms of
cost-effectiveness, and notes that experience with the Montreal
Protocol (where a fund was set up to finance a switch away from
reliance on production of ozone-depleting chemicals in developing
countries) was that the most effective country studies were where
`target countries designed or conducted the studies with the help
of sponsors, staff and/or consultants'. It also notes the
benefits of involving the private sector. Observers believe the
degree to which the aid agencies and donor countries seek to
control this `cooperation' is likely to be a source of friction
between developing and developed nations.

The State Department points out that the OECD is developing a
standard methodology for conducting national greenhouse emission
inventories, which the US sees as an essential step to be
undertaken before `technology cooperation' can occur. This could,
one observer commented, "be a mechanism for delay". Developing
countries that might benefit from such a scheme included
`Argentina, Burkina Faso, Congo, Costa Rica, Gambia, Mexico,
Nigeria, Senegal, Tanzania and Venezuela'.

The US perceives four priorities: first, the need to clarify and
define a country study process; second, the need to inventory
existing technology cooperation processes and procedures; third,
the need to `identify how existing resources devoted to
technology cooperation might be better coordinated and utilized';
fourth, the need to `identify resources and/or services that
might be required from existing resources'. It is unclear whether
this last point would outlaw the provision of `new and additional
resources', the demand of the developing nations within INC and
the Prepcoms for the UN CED Earth Summit.

The State Department believes country studies should focus on
identifying `technology needs and related technical assistance,
training, and policy measures,' needed to support new technology
on a sector by sector basis. Such an emphasis would allow
selection of strategies to be made on the basis of two criteria:
net emissions benefit and cost effectiveness. Observers note that
no mention is made of examining which technologies may be
appropriate to the economic, social and environmental situations
in individual countries, a point that other country submissions,
notably the Indian `non-paper', emphasize.

The document advocates undertaking a thorough inventory of
existing resources directed toward technology cooperation. Such
an inventory would help put existing resources to better use, and
would also aid in developing a database of relevant bilateral and
multilateral resources and programs.

In order to utilize country studies and inventories, the State
Department suggests that a `representative group of developed and
developing countries might join together to assess how current
activities and programs can be better coordinated and utilized.'
The document concludes by suggesting that the process of
developing country studies and inventories would allow gaps in
the current structure of technology cooperation to be filled by
appropriately `redirected bilateral and multilateral responses.'

7) Montreal Fund 'Open'

Late News from Nairobi

Parties to the Montreal CFC Protocol meeting in Nairobi last
week, agreed to allow NGO observers at meetings of the Executive
Committee, with the reservation that portions of the meetings
involving `sensitive matters' may be closed. The Executive
Committee oversees the fund set up to help finance replacement of
CFCs in developing countries. This important decision recognizing
the valuable role of NGOs will serve as a positive precedent for
any finance mechanism employed in the climate convention, and
particularly for the Global Environment Facility (GEF), recently
established by the World Bank, UNEP , and UNDP.

A paper calling for reform of the GEF before it can be considered
a appropriate mechanism todeliver assistance under a climate
convention was tabled by the US Natural Resources Defense Council
today, and will be discussed more fully in the next issue of ECO.

8) 'Fate of Millions': Indonesian Warning to Bush

By Eco Reporter

150 Indonesian non-governmental organizations have warned US
President George Bush that `the fate of millions of people in
developing countries' depend on the US taking effective action on
cutting the CO2 which causes global warming.

The warning comes in a letter signed by M S Zulkarnaen, Executive
Director of the Jakarta-based NGO network WAHLI. Delivered to the
White House on June 3, the letter was sent to President Bush and
senior US Administration officials including White House Chief of
Staff John Sununu, Under-Secretary of State for Economic and
Agricultural Affairs Robert Zoellick, Director of the Office of
Management and Budget Richard Darman, and the Science Adviser to
the President, Allan Bromley. WALHI is still waiting from a
response from the US. Administration.

WALHI Observer at the Geneva climate talks Agus P. Sari says:

"Fishermen are virtually the lowest level in economical base, and
many of their villages will disappear. For Indonesia, many of her
30,000 islands will also be wiped out from the global map. The
luxury life-style of the US is affecting the poorest Indonesian
people, as well as other developing countries. This is the poor
subsidizing the rich."

Here is the text of the letter:

Dear Mr. President,

On behalf of WALHI, a network of more than 150 NGOs working on
the environmental issue, we would like to urge the US government
to produce an energy policy to reduce the emission of CO2 (the
main important anthropogenic green-house gas), and demonstrate
this commitment at the second negotiations on the INFCCC in
Geneva, June 19-28.

Our request to the US government is based on the fact that the US
is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and that emissions
accumulated by the US and other industrialized nations will have
greenhouse impacts for many years to come. Developing countries
must face the consequences of sea level rise on highly populated
deltaic areas, increased unpredictability and intensity of
storms, disruption of agriculture and cooking.net">food production for
populations that currently undergo frequent shortages and
famines. These countries are liable to bear the brunt of adapting
to climate change.

All other OECD countries except Turkey have committed to
stabilization or reduction of greenhouse gases. While the US has
accused these of being empty goals, the fact remains that
Germany, Netherlands and Denmark have produced specific
implementation programs. The European community is currently
preparing a common implementation program.

By contrast, the US "Action Plan" is devoid of any measures to
control CO2. In fact, the administration's plan would cause CO2
emissions to increase by the year 2000. The administration's
claim that it will stabilize emissions of all green house gases
by 2000 is based on including CFCs in the count - a commitment it
has already undertaken by signing the Montreal Protocol. Thus,
the so-called "comprehensive approach" as articulated by the US
administration is merely a device by which to claim double credit
for the elimination of CFCs.

The US Administration has ignored evidence presented by
international bodies and US organizations demonstrating the
scientific consensus on global warming and the feasibility and
advisability of immediate actions to reduce emissions of
greenhouse gases. The Office of Technology Assessment, US
Congress, has stated that the US could decrease CO2 emissions by
as much as 35% below 1987 by 2015. On the other hand, if the US
takes no action, emissions could increase by 50% in the next 25
years. The national Academy of Sciences - an august independent
body of US scientists - has stated that "global warming is a
potential threat sufficient to justify action now." It concludes
that "the US could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by between
10-40% of the 1991 level at very low cost. Some reductions may
even be at net savings if the proper policies are implemented".

The OTA and Academy reports stress the need for strong government
action aimed at increasing energy efficiency in end-use
technologies, changing use patterns and shifting energy supply
away from high CO2 emitting fuels. The Administration's National
Energy Strategy, by contrast, de-emphasises energy conservation
and efficiency measures and recommends greater oil exploration,
effectively stressing an increase in fossil fuel consumption.

Clearly the US Administration should take steps to match and
surpass the commitments of other OECD countries. This will
involve developing and implementing an energy strategy that - as
OTA and the NAS recommend - focuses on conservation and
efficiency on the demand side. In order for meaningful
negotiations on a global climate change convention, the US - as
the singe largest emitter of greenhouse gases - must demonstrate
the political will to cut its own emissions. The fate of millions
of people in developing countries is dependent on this political
will: particularly indigenous people of forest communities, those
who live in low-lying deltaic areas, island and arid zones.
Therefore, once more, we urge the US administration to change its
present stand to be more responsible and sensitive to the needs
of global action to arrest global warming...

9) Leman (editorial)

Leman hears that low-lying and island states may not be the only
`victims' at the climate change negotiations. It seems that
Australia, Italy and Norway have been selected by industry lobby
as `victims' for some concerted lobbying. These countries are
seen as the `weak links' holding together the `CO2 Club' of 22
nations which have made commitments to stabilize or reduce CO2
emissions.

Leman understands that these industrialized `victims' are the
focus of industrial efforts to highlight economic and scientific
uncertainties, and scare tactics on economic costs (particularly
for the fossil fuel industry and trade). The findings of the
scientific IPCC for example, have been coming under sustained
attack by industrial representatives in Italy. Leman hears from
the environmentalists that they hope these and other members of
the `CO2 Club' will maintain their commitments, recognizing this
shabby tactic for what it is.

Leman has recently met the personable `co-chairs' of the climate
change working groups. Leman notes that France, Japan and Canada
are all strongly pro-nuclear energy states. Mexico, Canada and
Japan all have major interests in fossil fuels. All are good
friends of Washington. Leman assumes that this interesting
juxtaposition is entirely coincidental and had no influence on
the way countries were selected for these honourable roles.
Confirmation of this faith will, Leman is sure, be seen in how
effectively the draft convention ensures that neither fossil
fuels and nuclear are given explicit (or even implicit) support.
Meanwhile shares in Jose Cuervo Tequila and Grizzly beers are
understood to have taken a hike in anticipation of increased
exports.

Leman wishes the newly appointed co-chairs of the negotiations
wisdom and success in their efforts to conclude a draft
convention by June 1992.

Lastly, Leman was entranced to make the acquaintance of several
`Observers' at the climate talks who seemed to be getting on
especially well with some of the delegates in favour of the
original new concept of `Pledge and Review'. Chief among these
were the delightful Paolo Ricci and Ms Connie Smyser of the
International Energy Agency. Leman understands from one of the
Japanese delegation that the author of Japan's interesting
`Pledge and Review' paper himself has a long standing
acquaintance with the IEA. Naturally there is no connection
between the IEA's participation and the mechanism of Pledge and
Review now in active circulation at the climate talks. The IEA
is, after all, not interested in coal or nuclear energy which
might be affected by environmentally-oriented policies. Leman
understands from a man in a bowler hat that the British were so
impressed with the Pledge and Review concept that their embassies
have been touting the concept around for some weeks. Leman looks
forward to visiting friends in London soon, to see how this
develops at the G7 meeting.

Leman reflects that it is pleasant to meet old friends of the
environment at these little gatherings down by Lac Leman,
recently renamed in your correspondent's honour. Take Mr David
Guthrie of the Agence Internationale de L'Energie Atomique for
example, and his friend Mr Merle Opelz. Apparently both were just
passing by and thought they might drop in to enjoy the atmosphere
of Working Groups 1 or 2. Similarly, Mr John Shiller who pedalled
over from the quaint International Organization of Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers, Mr saadalla Al-Fathi of the Organisation des Pays
Exportateurs de Petrole, and Mr John Kraus of the Chambre de
Commerce Internationale. Not to mention a Mr Don Perlman from
somewhere or something or the other. Indeed, sitting here penning
these words in Chateau Leman (see Eco 3) as its venerable walls
are lapped gently by the waters of the Lake, Leman wonders if
they shouldn't all be invited to drop in.

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Every day many of you help to get Eco out. Issue 4 would like to
thank the following:

Navroz Dubash, Richard Mott, Debbie Good, Annie Roncerel, Scott Hajost, Dan
Lashof, Agus Sari, Ann Heidenrich, Abbu Thiam, Bob Reinstein

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 #1

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



Fri, 10 Dec 1993 12:24:00 GMT
 
 [ 1 post ] 

 Relevant Pages 

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

2. ECO GENEVA (INC) #6 June 25, 1991 (

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

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

5. ECO GENEVA (INC) #7 June 26, 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. ECO NAIROBI #1 - Sept 9, 1991 (18K)


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software