[] TL: CLIMATE CONVENTION COMMENTARY (GP)
SO: Greenpeace International (GP)
DT: 1992 (?)
Keywords: atmosphere climate change conventions politics gp smog air
global warming un /

   Issue 1
   Greenpeace International

Climate Convention Commentary reports on progress towards the
first-ever agreement to protect the world's climate from global
warming. It also high lights steps to tackle the related air
pollution problems of acid rain, urban smog and destruction of
the ozone layer.

The scientific urgency of halting global warming was
acknowledged in 1990. Talks on a world climate agreement opened
in February 1991. Governments aim to sign the agreement in Rio
de Janeiro in mid 1992.


Contents

Greenpeace check-list: five principles to halt global warming
PLUS US policy favours fat-cat consumers over peasant farmers

Paradise islands form survival coalition PLUS Global Warming:
The Greenpeace Report or what IPCC policymakers should have said

BRIEFING: GLOBAL WARMING A summary of the vital facts, figures
and action needed now

Consumption not efficiency, fuels US energy policy

Dutch presidency may push EC to adopt previously blocked energy
tax

US could reduce carbon emissions by one third, says Congress
study


US fiddles while the world burns

No agreement to 'halt global warming'

Greenpeace labelled the first round of talks on a global climate
agreement a 'diplomatic disaster'. After 10 days, and at a cost
of over $2 million, the meeting from February 4-14 in Chantilly,
Virginia, ended without even reaching agreement on procedural
arrangements for future work. There was no discussion of
mechanisms actually to cut emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) nor
other 'greenhouse gases' that contribute to global warming.

It is also unclear whether full international participation can
be guaranteed in meetings already scheduled over the next nine
months. The problem was the failure to obtain sufficient finance
to assure attendance by developing countries, without which a
global agreement cannot be concluded.

The United States, host of the meeting and the largest single
contributor to global warming, played the leading role in
blocking progress. The delegation opposed:

ù commitments to cut CO2 emissions;

ù funding to assist developing countries with 'anti-greenhouse'
technologies;

ù new institutions to monitor and assess greenhouse gas
emissions.

All western industrialised nations, except the United States,
have made political commitments to stabilise or reduce their CO2
emissions; some are pledging cuts of at least a fifth over the
next 15 years. In contrast, without steps being taken, US carbon
dioxide emissions may rise by more than this amount over the
same period.

The Bush Administration's 'just say no' approach to global
warming is no solution. It is time the White House realised that
the New World Order has to include radical changes in energy
policy. Time is already running out for international cuts in
CO2 because of the:

ù ENVIRONMENTAL IMPERATIVE scientific studies confirm the
urgency of drastic reductions in emissions of 'greenhouse
gases', without which the Earth is predicted to experience a
rate of warming unknown in human history;

ù DIPLOMATIC URGENCY the United Nations has set June 1992 as the
target date for signature of a global climate convention.
The second round of talks in Geneva, from June 17-28, will see
delegates under mounting pressure to make up for lost time. 

Greenpeace has prepared a checklist of five principles essential
to any effective agreement to protect climate. The express goal
of the convention must be to halt global warming

What global climate convention must say

Global warming is the most serious environmental threat ever
faced by humanity. It raises fundamental questions not only of
energy use, industrial output, transport policy and agricultural
production, but also basic issues of economic growth, equity
between rich and poor nations and debt. But taking the first
practical steps is not difficult - nor is establishing the
essential principles of an effective climate convention.

1. RECOGNITION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC ENVIRONMENT

The Earth's atmosphere must be recognised as a fragile and
integral part of the environment that requires urgent
protection. Scientific evidence increasingly shows that the
atmosphere cannot be treated as a limitless dumping ground for
largely invisible, hazardous waste.


2. PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE

Governments must undertake to anticipate and prevent damage to
the atmosphere rather than wait for scientific 'proof' of
events, which may be unpredictable or unprecedented.

3. CARBON DIOXIDE FIRST

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single largest contributor to global
warming. Its sources are readily identifiable. Emission levels
are known. It must be the central target for national and
international cuts.

4. REDUCTION TARGETS

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), immediate cuts in CO2 emissions of over 60 per cent
would be necessary just to stabilise present concentrations in
the atmosphere. An international agreement must ensure that
global emissions are reduced in line with the best available
science.

The first steps must be taken by industrialised nations. They
produce three quarters of total greenhouse gases. Developing
nations must be assisted in efforts to control greenhouse
emissions.

5. UN WATCH-DOG

An independent climate organisation should be established under
the auspices of the United Nations to assess data, provide
scientific and technical advice, review progress in protecting
climate and enforce agreements.


Criticism of US 'comprehensive' ploy

The White House wants to give carbon dioxide emissions from
US gas-guzzling cars and CFC production from US chemical
industry, equal status with methane emissions from rice-farmers
struggling to survive in the world's deltas

In February, the US launched its counter to calls for cuts in
carbon dioxide emissions with its so-called 'comprehensive
approach' to climate change.

The essence is simple: all greenhouse gases should be included
in combating global warming but the appropriateness of action on
different gases may differ from country to country, as may the
implications. An argument that few would disagree with, on the
surface.

Here's the catch: 'appropriate' to the Bush Administration means
that the strongest greenhouse gases, like CFCs and methane,
should be tackled before carbon dioxide, which is emitted in
greatest quantity. In this way, the US hopes to pass the blame
to developing countries for their agricultural methane, cash in
on existing CFC reduction obligations, and avoid action against
domestic CO2 emissions. According to the White House, the
alternative to the so called 'comprehensive approach' would be
'piecemeal policies' which have 'often proved environmentally
ineffective or counterproductive'. Yet it is difficult to see
how the largest polluter dealing with the largest source of the
problem could be either ineffective or counterproductive.

DEFICIENCIES OF THE US 'COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH'

ù KNOWLEDGE it ignores international scientific consensus on the
causes and seriousness of global warming;

ù PRIORITY it fails to target leading pollutants such as CO2 and
CFCs as priorities for action, though more is known about the
sources, quantities and reduction possibilities than for other
greenhouse gases;

ù DOUBLE-COUNTING the US wants to avoid cutting CO2 by claiming
credit for cuts in other greenhouse gases already required under
domestic and international regulations:

ù DIFFERENTIATION there is no effort to distinguish between the
'luxury-emissions' of rich nations and 'survival-emissions' of
the poor;

ù EQUITY 80 per cent of all greenhouse gases come from the 25
per cent of people in the industrialised world. The rich nations
must take the lead in cutting emissions.


'Victim' states form coalition

Frontline 'victim' states have formed a new 28-nation coalition
to press industrialised countries to cut emissions of greenhouse
gases: the association of Small Island States (AOSIS)

Accelerating rates of sea level rise, increasing severity of
storms, and salt water finding its way into freshwater reserves
could spell disaster for the inhabitants of low-lying islands.
In the front line of those who stand to lose everything unless
action is taken to halt global warming are peoples of islands in
the Pacific, Caribbean and Indian Oceans and the Mediterranean.

Speaking at the first round of climate talks in February, first
chairperson of AOSIS, Ambassador Robert Van Lierop of Vanuatu,
predicted a 'massive surge of environmental refugees' if global
warming was to continue unchecked. 'We do not have the luxury of
waiting for conclusive proof,' of global warming, he said. 'The
proof, we fear, will kill us'.

The concerns of AOSIS states are common to many developing
countries. Similarly, according to predictions from regional
climate models, farmers and residents of coastal regions in
industrialised countries could join the list of victims.

AOSIS - the six demands

immediate and significant cuts in carbon dioxide emissions and
other greenhouse gases from industrialized countries

precautionary action now, despite uncertainties in the detail of
global warming

financial compensation for vulnerable states

fast and fair transfer of environmentally-sound techniques

application of the 'polluter pays principle'

required international reliance on energy conservation,
efficiency and alternative energy sources


Greenpeace global warming report is best seller

While experts involved in last year's IPCC climate studies
compiled material on the science, impacts and responses to
global warming, Greenpeace contracted 20 leading international
experts to contribute what has become a best-seller

Styled 'what policy-makers should have said', Global Warming:
the Greenpeace Report includes many authoritative figures such
as climatologist Dr Stephen Schneider. Together they outline the
scientific and environmental imperatives of immediate action to
halt global warming. On impacts, the Greenpeace report includes
the little-documented effects on health.

Of key importance is information on the wealth of readily
available options to cut greenhouse gases. Professor Jose
Goldemberg and Dr Amory Lovins report on the vast untapped
potential of energy efficiency. Carlo LaPorta outlines the scope
for renewable forms of energy, such as solar power, which
despite little institutional support are on the verge of an
economic 'explosion' point.

An analysis from energy expert Dr Bill Keepin demonstrates why
nuclear power has no role to play in combating global warming.
Michael Walsh highlights the significance of air pollution from
motor vehicles. Additional chapters cover tropical forests,
developing countries, agricultural contributions to global
warming and what the issue means for global economics.

ù Global Warming: the Greenpeace Report, ed. Dr J Leggett,
Oxford University Press, August 1990. 554 pp. ISBN-0-19-28611
9-0. 



Briefing: Global Warming

The world's atmosphere is 'sick'

Global warming is arguably the greatest threat confronting
humanity. Like acid rain and the destruction of the ozone layer,
it shows how dangerous and irresponsible it is to use the air as
a dumping ground for billions of changes in tonnes of
pollutants. Both the quality and structure of the atmosphere are
being uncontrollably and irreversibly altered. Unless there is
action now to halt global warming, climate scientists fear that
there may be sudden, dramatic and unpredicted changes in
climate.

What the climate scientists say

Climate scientists - most of them from governments - have
confirmed that large and urgent cuts are needed in emissions of
greenhouse gases. Without action, the world will be committed to
rates of warming unknown during human history. It will cause
serious disruption to regional climates.

Damage is likely to occur on a scale never before experienced.
Natural responses triggered in a warming world are expected to
reinforce the warming trend.

Who's to blame?

Emissions from industrialised countries account for the vast
majority of greenhouse gases. There is no excuse for delaying
action. Decision-makers who refuse to act when in a position to
do so are 'climate criminals'. Among them - President Bush, who
proposes cuts in US CO2 emissions; Du Pont and other chemical
corporations that persist in producing CFCs; and the motor car
makers, who push for more private transport and keep their fuel-
efficient models hidden from consumers.

How to halt global warming

 ù prompt action to cut CFC emissions and forego all chemical
substitutes which are new global warming gases;

 ù reversing deforestation, and then considerable afforestation; 

ù reducing the rate of increase of methane and nitrous oxide
emissions;

ù phasing out the use of all fossil fuels as early in the next
century as possible.

Q: Is nuclear power the answer? A: No

Based on well-quoted US Department of Energy forecasts of global
energy demand to the year 2025, how feasible would it be to
replace just coal (not oil or gas) with nuclear power and what
would be the implications for CO2 emissions? The answer: 

ù more than 5000 nuclear plants would have to built - a 12-fold
expansion compared to today; 

. it would mean completing one new reactor every 2.5 days for
the next 35 years;

. CO2 emissions would still rise, as a result of a projected
expansion of oil and gas use to meet energy demands not
satisfied by electricity;

. energy efficiency can cut CO2 emissions much quicker and much
more cheaply than nuclear power.

Greenpeace demands immediate action

The first steps to protect global climate must be taken now. In
summary, Greenpeace demands:

ù a commitment from governments to halting global warming, and
to making initial 30 per cent cuts in current levels of carbon
dioxide emissions by 2000 as the first stage of a move away from
the use of fossil fuels;

. switching energy research and development budgets away from
fossil fuels and nuclear power to energy efficiency and
renewables;

ù an immediate and complete halt to production of all substances
that destroy the ozone layer. They are also powerful global
warming gases; 

ù outlawing chemical industry plans to introduce substitutes for
CFCs (such as HFCs) which are also new and powerful global
warming gases. 

HALT GLOBAL WARMING

If we don't act now to halt global warming, 'consequences could
be second only to a global nuclear war' (Toronto Conference) 8
'climate chaos' * droughts * prospect of irretrievable damage to
the atmosphere, to the oceans and to the Earth itself' (M
Thatcher) * crop failures and famine * hurricanes * 'all regions
of the world will suffer dramatic consequences' (German
Bundestag Enquete Commission)* floods * millions of 'climate
refugees' * massive species extinctions * nature's triggered
responses to warming could accelerate warming * Global Warmers:
oil, coal and gas burned in cars, power stations, factories and
homes; CFCs and other chemical industry products; agricultural
emissions; tropical forest burning * stop making CFCs! * large
CO2 cuts needed to protect climate 8 George Bush (self-styled
'environmental President'): leader of the only rich nation not
taking even first steps against CO2 emissions * 'climate
criminal' * '... technically feasible and cost-effective to
reduce CO2 emissions in all countries ...' (700 scientists at
the Second World Climate Conference) * we have the technology *
US could cut CO2 emissions by almost 40% without harming the
'American way of life' (US OTA) * substitute energy efficiency
and renewables for coal, oil, and gas! * rich countries to
assist the poor * why the delay? 

US National Energy Strategy will lead to 'dinosaur economy

'More energy, more energy' is the cry of the White House
National Energy Strategy, 'and forget the economic and
environmental consequences'

President Bush's National Energy Strategy (NES), released in
February, is a dream come true for the oil, auto, nuclear, coal
and electricity utility industries.

Although US energy use has been roughly stable since 1973, while
gross national product has grown by 40 per cent, the NES
foresees a growth in demand of up to 85 per cent between now and
2030. The strategy is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It provides
billions of dollars in subsidies for expanding nuclear power and
reserves of coal and oil. It would mean opening to oil drilling
the protected Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the Outer
Continental Shelf. This would fuel US cars for only a year and
a half.

In contrast, all mention of energy efficiency, whether over
national lighting standards or improvements in fuel economies by
US gas-guzzling cars, have been purposely deleted from the
strategy.

So too were proposals to create incentives of renewable energy.
President Bush has produced a strategy that drives US industry
further towards a 'dinosaur' economy. The NES promotes, at great
expense, products whose performance other countries may soon
outlaw. Leading competitors to the US, Japan and Germany,
currently use roughly half as much energy as the US for each
unit of economic output. Their albeit limited goals on carbon
dioxide will force further advances in efficiency. 

Bush is in danger of leaving the US with no 'new frontier'
industries for the 21st century. The US share of the world
market for solar photovoltaics, for instance, dropped from 75
per cent in 1980 to 32 per cent in 1988.


US NES reality check

unless oil consumption is reduced, reliance on oil imports will
grow. Only 4 per cent of the world's oil reserves are in North
America while two thirds of reserves lie in the Middle East

the US, with 5 per cent of the world's population, uses 25 per
cent of the world's oil. Half of this is for gas-guzzling cars
and trucks

after $500 billion dollars of investments US nuclear power
produces less energy than firewood 


EC may consider energy tax under Dutch Presidency

Adoption of an energy tax in the EC has to be among the top
priorities for the Dutch government's forthcoming term
of presidency in the final six months of the year

Unless concrete plans are outlined soon, the European Community
risks wasting a year since it agreed to freeze carbon dioxide
emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. Greenpeace has
warned, however, that this must be just the first step in
achieving significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, if
global warming is to be halted. 

Top environment and energy officials from the European
Commission - the executive of the Community - outlined their
ideas late last year in a proposal which was blocked within the
Commission. The cornerstone was a tax primarily on energy
supply. It would include oil, coal, gas and nuclear power but
exclude renewable sources of energy. For oil, this would
translate into a $10 per barrel price increase. The economic
impacts of the tax would be neutralised by financial adjustments
in other sectors.

Meeting the freeze target would also help safeguard the security
of Community energy supply and improve the Community's
competitive position, according to the officials. They see
substantial improvements in energy efficiency as the key and
recognise 'considerable commercial opportunities' for the market
leaders.

The transport sector was singled out for stronger measures to
'control the significant increase in the number and use of
cars'. Transport accounts for nearly a quarter of EC carbon
dioxide emissions. 

Community energy-saving programmes will clearly have to be
strengthened. The officials were critical of the prospects for
existing plans to meet the initial stabilisation requirement on
carbon dioxide emissions.


NEWS

NORWAY--ENERGY CUTS POSSIBLE Norway s energy consumption could
be cut by half by the end of the century, without reductions in
services, according to the study Energy Productivity and
Norwegian Market Potentials.

It focuses on the economic potential of energy efficiency and
concludes, 'Some of the investments required will pay off in
less than one year, and all in less than five years. No other
energy source is so cheap'. This would render additional hydro
or new gas-fired power plants unnecessary.

The author, Jan Kerr Eckbo, points to the market and export
opportunities for industries which become leaders in energy-
efficient technologies.

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY PRETENDS SUPPORT FOR RENEWABLES Speaking at the
IPCC's fifth session in early March, the International Atomic
Energy Agency's (IAEA) representative stated: 'Of course,
renewables are an area for more intensive R&D funding'. By no
stretch of the imagination can the nuclear industry pretend to
be a defender or promoter of renewable energy.

According to figures from the International Energy Agency (IEA),
nuclear power absorbed virtually 60 per cent ($4.3 billion) of
energy R&D budgets from IEA governments in 1989 - up 13 per cent
on the previous year. This was five times the funding directed
to energy conservation and renewables, which suffered a 16 per
cent drop in funding compared to 1988.

POWER-SAVING REFRIGERATORS TAKE-OFF IN CANADA More than 50,000
energy-saving refrigerators have been sold under British
Columbia's 'Power Smart' programmes over the last two years.
Sears, the mail order and department store chain, now sells only
four models nationally in Canada, that do not qualify.

Sales have been pushed by incentives of $50 to the buyer and $5
to the sales assistant, per model. The programme now has 75 per
cent of new refrigerator sales in British Columbia. There are
further financial inducements to ensure that older, less-
efficient models are traded-in. The basis for the incentives are
the estimated savings over the next 20 years of not having to
build new power stations.

UN GREENHOUSE BODY SIDELINED FOLLOWING UNWELCOME CONCLUSIONS The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the expert
body whose conclusions in 1990 pointed to the urgent reality of
cutting emissions of greenhouse gases, has been sidelined by the
major contributors to global warming.

The IPCC's August 1990 report was the outcome of the most
intensive international scientific collaboration ever mounted.
The outcome predicted unprecedented global warming if emissions
of heat-trapping air pollutants were not significantly cut.

The findings were not welcome in the capitals of the major
greenhouse gas-producing nations. US, Soviet and Saudi
delegations attempted unsuccessfully to neuter the science
report late last year. They have consistently blocked consensus
on proposals for urgent cuts in carbon dioxide emissions.


Cutting US carbon emissions by over a third could save billions

The US Congressional Office of Technology assessment (OTA) has
concluded that US carbon emissions could be cut by more than a
third over the next 25 years. Far from crippling the economy,
the OTA predicts that such pollution reductions may actually
save consumers money 

After two years of study, the US Congress' Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA) recently published a major report: 'Changing by
Degrees: Steps to Reduce Greenhouse Gases'. It was requested by
six Congressional Committees in 1988 to answer questions such
as: 'Can the US reduce carbon emissions in the near-term?',
'what technologies and policies would be needed to achieve the
cuts?'; and 'how much would the reductions cost?'

According to the report, reductions of 29-36 per cent in the
current level of US carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are possible
over the next 25 years, in the main using currently available
technology. Many of the measures could be implemented at zero or
low cost. The report also points to possibly greater CO2 cuts,
based on technological breakthroughs over the next quarter
century.

The financial implications range from annual costs of $150
billion to savings of $20 billion a year. In terms of the effect
on estimated gross national product (GNP) in 2015 it would be
trivial: costing 1.5 per cent of GNP or increasing it by nearly
one quarter of one per cent. The financial benefits of avoiding
damage from global warming are not included.

The report's message to those worried about the 'American way of
life' is 'The United States described in this report does not
seem fundamentally different from what we know today'.


The financial side of US CO2 cuts

The OTA's cost figures are similar to other studies that use
both 'top-down' macro-economic, and 'bottom-up' modelling
methods

In 1990 the University of Lund, in Sweden, estimated that making
11 per cent reductions in US CO2 emissions by the year 2000
could save consumers $85 billion a year

The Battelle Memorial Institute concluded that cutting US CO2
emissions by a fifth would cost 0.5 per cent of GNP by the year
2010

Alan Manne and Rich Richels, frequently quoted by the Bush
Administration for their high cost estimates, have revised their
figures. In a recent paper to Energy Journal they conclude that,
if energy efficiency modestly improves by 1 to 1.5 per cent per
year, and renewable energy provides 10 to 20 per cent of energy
supplies, costs would range between $80 billion and $800
billion, spread over the next 110 years. This equates to less
than one sixth of one per cent of GNP