TL: GREENPEACE NAMES THE CLIMATE CRIMINALS SO: Greenpeace (GP) DT: November 1990 Keywords: greenpeace reports gp atmosphere ozone reductions cfcs production us ussr japan saudi arabia uk europe middle east / Greenpeace has branded five countries, all leading players in international negotiations on the atmosphere, as climate criminals. The USA, USSR, UK, Japan, and Saudi Arabia are pursuing policies which, taken together, are preventing an effective response to the threat of global warming. Their motives? Protection of their production or consumption of fossil fuels (fossil fuel combustion is the single largest emitter of greenhouse gas emissions). The USA: World's largest emitter of C02 from fossil fuels (22% of total). Chair of the IPCC's working group on policy responses, the USA opposed all references to 'global warming' (preferring euphemisms such as 'possible climate change'); opposed commitments to limit C02 emissions; opposed commitments to aid-based transfer of technology and finance to the Third World to prevent climate change. opposed any reference to Global Warming Potential of substances being included in the Montreal Protocol. Motives: Oil world's largest consumer (16.5 million barrels/day) world's largest importer (8 million bls/day) world's second largest producer (9.2 million bls/day) Coal world's largest producer (23.9% of total) world's second largest consumer (21.2% of total) Nat Gas world's second largest producer (25.5% of total) world's second largest consumer (28.6%) world's second largest importer (37.9 bn cubic metres) The USSR: World's second largest emitter of C02 from fossil fuels (18.5%) Chair of the second IPCC working group, on effects, the USSR: opposed the setting of targets for C02; generally supported the US position. Motives: Oil second largest consumer (8.8 million barrels/day) largest producer (12.4 million bls/day) Coal third largest producer (13.9% of total) third largest consumer (12.9% of total) Nat Gas largest producer (37.5*% of total) largest consumer (33%) largest exporter (100 billion cubic metres) (Figures for coal, gas, and oil are for 1989, from BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 1990. C02 figures from Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge, USA). The USA and USSR are the key players in global warming, emitting 40% of the world's C02 from fossil fuels. Other key players are: Japan: World's fourth largest emitter of C02 from fossil fuels (4.3%). Japan plans to stabilise its per capita emissions of C02 by 2000 (= a 5 - 7% total increase, depending on population growth). In IPCC, chaired the energy and industry subgroup of working group three - policy responses. Japan did not support commitments to reduce C02 emissions; opposed commitments to transfer technology. Motives: Oil third largest consumer (5 million barrels/day) second largest importer (4.5 million bls/day) Coal 4th largest consumer (3.4% of world total) Nat Gas 6th largest consumer (2.5% of world total) United Kingdom: World's seventh largest emitter of C02 from fossil fuels (2.5% of total). Operates as the 'Dirty Man' of the European Community, slowing down progress towards C02 stabilisation and reduction. Has been the major block in the EC towards stabilisation by 2000. Is also opposed in international negotiations to commitment of financial assistance and aid-based transfer of technology to developing countries. Motives: Oil largest European producer (1.9-million barrels/day) Coal third largest producer of hard coal in Europe (100 million tonnes/year). Nat Gas fourth largest consumer in world (2.6%) Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia was the vice-chair of IPCC, and opposed calls to reduce C02 emissions; opposed any reference to "climate change" in the IPCC reports, seeking to use more abstruse terms. Its delegations to international meetings include oil company representatives, and it works in close cooperation with US energy and industry representatives. Motive: Oil World's third largest producer (5.26 million bls/day, 8.3% of world total. Largest OPEC producer. RHETORIC VERSUS REALITY - POLITICIANS COOL ON GLOBAL WARMING Background: In the face of a growing scientific consensus during the late 1980s on the magnitude and risks of global warming, governments held an unprecedented series of high level meetings to consider the issue. Initially, these reflected reasonably accurately the dimensions of leading scientific opinion. There were bold rhetorical calls for urgent action, including proposals for new institutions and instruments to halt global warming. Subsequently, however, the clarity of the scientific message was compromised by short-term, sectoral economic and political interests, reflecting increased US and UK influences. Although scientific consensus grew rapidly, the first major meeting between governments on the issue took place in 1989. This paper summarises the main meetings since Toronto (1988). Toronto Conference on the Changing Atmosphere, June 27-30 1988. More than 300 scientists and policy-makers from 48 countries. Final conference statement included these comments: "Humanity is conducting an unintended, uncontrolled, globally pervasive experiment whose ultimate consequences could be second only to a global nuclear war". "If rapid action is not taken now by the countries of the world, (climate) problems will become progressively more serious, more difficult to reverse, and more costly to address." "In order to reduce the risks of future global warming, energy policies must be designed to reduce emissions of C02 and other trace gases ... It is currently estimated to require reductions of more than 50% from present emission-levels ... An initial goal should be to reduce C02 emissions by approximately 20% of 1988 levels by the year 2005." Comment: The Toronto Conference was the first to call for specific targets for C02 cuts. The 20% reduction by 2005 is frequently quoted: however, this was an initial goal, to be achieved on the way to a more than 50% C02 reduction. The Declaration of the Hague on the Protection of the Atmosphere 11 March 1989: Heads of State, Government and ministers representing 23 nations signed a Declaration which began: "The right to live is the right from which all others stem ... Today, the very conditions of life on our planet are threatened by the severe attacks to which the earth's atmosphere is threatened". The Declaration called for the development of "new principles of international law including new and more effective decision-making and enforcement mechanisms". The meeting also undertook to promote the establishment of a new institutional authority within the UN charged with "combatting any further warming of the atmosphere". Comment: The Hague meeting, which the UK and USA did not attend, broke new ground by recognising the seriousness of the issue at the highest political level and endorsing the need for new international instruments. The EC Council Resolution on the Greenhouse Effect, 8-9 June 1989. The Council of the European Communities, noting that internationally "a very broad consensus had been reached on the need for urgent measures to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases", invited the Commission to present a report by the end of 1990 on proposals for "concrete action ... for example reducing C02 with a view to making an effective contribution to the wider international debate". Comment: The EC Summit Resolution was the first international Ministerial meeting at which the role of C02 emissions was specifically acknowledged, although no commitment was made to action. The Resolution referred to the "Greenhouse effect": subsequent international meetings use the blander "climate change". Environmental statement of the G7 summit, Paris July 1989. Leaders of seven industrialised countries, including the USA, Japan, and the UK, stated: "We strongly advocate common efforts to limit emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which threaten to induce climate change, endangering the environment and ultimately the economy... The complexity of the issues related to the protection of the atmosphere calls for innovative solutions. New instruments may be contemplated". Comment: While heralded as a major step forward, the restraining US influence is clear from the 'bundling' of C02 in with other greenhouse gases, which were to be 'limited' (not reduced), and the retreat from the Hague Declaration on the issue of new institutions. The Noordwijk Declaration on Atmospheric Pollution and Climatic Change, 7 November 1989. Environment ministers and representatives from 67 countries agreed that while uncertainties remained about the magnitude, timing and regional effects of climate change, "delay in action may endanger the future of the planet as we know it." In the view of many industrialised nations, C02 stabilisation "should be achieved as a first step at the latest by the year 2000". The Toronto interim target of 20% by 2005 was referred to. Comment:_ The Declaration marked the deep international division of opinion on C02 reduction targets. The US, Japan and USSR (with UK sympathies) resisted consensus wording on stabilisation by 2000, and prevented debate on the Toronto targets on C02 reduction. Bergen ministerial Declaration on Sustainable Development in the ECE region, 16 May 1990. Ministers from over thirty ECE nations agreed that environmental measures must anticipate, prevent and attack the causes of environmental degradation. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing measures to prevent environmental degradation." Ministers also stated that, in the view of most ECE countries, C02 *stabilisation "at the latest by the year 2000 and at present levels must be the first step." Comment: This meeting covered similar ground to the Noordwijk conference, reflecting the same political dynamics. The Houston G7 Summit Economic Declaration, 11 July 1990. "We agree that, in the face of threats of irreversible environmental damage, lack of full scientific certainty is no excuse to postpone actions which are justifiable in their own right ... Climate change is of key importance. We are committed to undertake common efforts to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide." Comment: The Houston Declaration reached a new low-point in diplomatic doublespeak. While confirming the danger of global warming, and the need for preventive action, the Summit endorsed policies which would only be justified if the greenhouse threat did not exist - US influence ensuring that the importance of C02 was played down, and that there was no reference to target reductions. The first IPCC Assessment Report: Overview, 31st August, 1990. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up in 1988 with a mandate to investigate the science and impacts of climate change, and to prepare response strategies for governments to consider. The IPCC Working Group on Science concluded that immediate cuts in C02 emissions by over 60% would be required to stabilise the atmospheric concentration of the gas (ie to stabilise climate change). In spite of the clear implications of this conclusion, the Working Group on Response Strategies, chaired by the USA, was unable to recommend reduction of C02 emissions. In the First Assessment Report Overview, the overview notes lamely that "one option that governments may wish to consider is the setting of targets for C02 and other greenhouse gases." Comment: After the most intensive international scientific review of global warming in history, involving hundreds of leading climate scientists, the conclusion was reached that global warming is irreversible and will lead to a rate of atmospheric warming unprecedented in human history. Only immediate cuts in greenhouse gases can prevent this. However, no single recommendation to cut C02 emissions -such as that made two years earlier at Toronto - was put forward.