TL: CAMPAIGN BRIEFING - INDUSTRY DIVIDED ON CLIMATE CHANGE SO: GREENPEACE INTERNATIONAL, (GP) DT: AUGUST, 1997 Some of the world's biggest and wealthiest companies attend the international climate negotiations. They are industry lobbyists with a clear agenda: to prevent governments taking swift action at the Kyoto Climate Summit in December1 to cut steadily rising emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) - the main greenhouse gas. Many of the companies are well known oil, coal and car companies. They ignore the fact that the continued expansion of their fossil fuel activities runs counter to the central carbon arithmetic of climate protection. Precautionary action based on staying within ecological limits would only allow around a quarter of currently known economic reserves of fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas) to be used if we are to avoid dangerous climate change. * contre la terre: since the last round of UN climate talks in March the there has been a major advertising effort in the US by big business seeking to stall decisions in Kyoto (see appendix II for copies of adverts); big oil, coal and car interests are consistently at the forefront of these efforts. * green rhetoric: while BP has acknowledged the scientific rationale for precautionary action; and Shell has admitted they have a dilemma over exploring for new oil in a world facing climate change - neither company has yet supported binding CO2 reductions at Kyoto, nor intends to curb oil exploration activities. * on the other side - the progressive industry lobby view action on climate change as both responsible and as an opportunity - UNEP's 70 company Insurance Industry Initiative has spawned an Association, which will actively present the industry's voice in different fora - including the climate negotiations. It already has over 25 members since its launch in early July. * an expanded voice for the progressive business lobby is evident: both the European Wind Energy Association; the Business Council for Sustainable Energy with the International Cogeneration Alliance and the International Institute for Energy Conservation are presenting workshops to delegates at the UN climate negotiations. * the fossil fuel industry dominance in the climate debate is evident in the OECD in the ongoing use of public funds as subsidies, or corporate welfare, to promote and expand fossil fuel development. This runs counter to climate protection and the competitiveness of alternatives. This presents an updated membership list of lobby groups and adds some new positions into the matrix. KEY ISSUES FOR THE KYOTO CLIMATE SUMMIT 1. More action agreed by Kyoto: governments have already agreed that commitments under the climate convention are too weak to protect the climate and that new agreements to reduce emissions would be agreed at the third Ministerial meeting, December 1997. Attempts to delay cutting CO2 emissions seriously undermine the world's ability to prevent dangerous climate change. 2. Binding emissions reduction targets and timetables: it is essential that new agreements are legally binding , reduce CO2 emissions and set a specific timetable for progressive cuts. Without this there will be no political or market incentives to act. Work by the Dutch government indicates that a 20 to 60% reduction in CO2 emissions is necessary by 2010 to stay within the world's safety limits. 3. Precautionary approach: industry's call for 'more science' or more economic analysis before action is taken to protect the climate runs counter to the precautionary approach. 4. Same goal for all industrialised countries: there is currently an attempt to have different targets for different industrial countries, often referred to as "differentiation" or "flexibility". Proposals put forward, for example by Australia, indicate that they seek a formula where their emissions are allowed to rise. Greenpeace believes that there is significant untapped potential for energy efficiency, renewable energy and more efficient transport in all industrialised nations and therefore no justification from moving away from a common target for all. 5. "Historic responsibility" : all parties have agreed that industrialised nations must act first as they have been principally responsible for the 30% increase in CO2 levels since the 1850s. "Fossil" Industry has been aggressively pushing the line that the main increase in future emissions will come from developing countries therefore they should make commitments too at an early stage. This is an obvious attempt to deflect attention away from action to curb fossil fuel expansion in the developed world. 6. Binding policies and measures: industry is strongly opposed to binding or mandatory policies and measures. Measures to speed up the introduction of renewable energy or energy efficiency - like carbon taxation, and minimum energy efficiency standards - are opposed despite recognition of the role of energy efficiency in helping to cut CO2 emissions. Industry favours voluntary agreements and market measures, however most countries with voluntary agreements with industry are failing to meet current emissions goals. [NOTE THAT THE FOLLOWING TWO TABLES HAVE BEEN OMITTED, AND INDUSTRY POSITIONS ON THE ABOVE ISSUES HAVE BEEN ENTERED AFTER THE INDUSTRY LOBBY'S NAME] THE TRADITIONAL INDUSTRY LOBBY - KEY ISSUES FOR KYOTO GCC 1 1. no, more policy researchnot advocated: uncertain benefits and 2. no, voluntary programmes 3. no, "flexibility" 4. no, developing countries now 5. no, economic development first 6. no, "more effort on energy efficiency" IPIECA2 1. not advocated: uncertain benefits and high costs 2. no, not advocated 3. 4. no, developing countries "must" participate in "mutually beneficial" effort 5. not advocated: wants more science 6. not advocated: wantspublic discussion on policy trade offs ICC3 1. no, too soon 2. no, not by Kyoto, more analysis 3. no, flexibility 4. ambiguous: "participation should be accepted by developing countries 5. no: economic and trade assessed first 6. no, advocates voluntary approach with gov't support U.S. CEOs4 1. not advocated: much more economic analysis required 2. more analysis 3. no 4. no: "any action must be predicated" on timetable + role for developing countries 5. no, science uncertainties reduced first 6. not advocated ICCP5 1. no, too soon, wants all details determined first 2. not endorsed, but any emissions (reduction?) priod should have 2020 as earliest endpoint 3. no 4. want developing country emission budgets + role defined before further developed country action 5. no, long term goal "combination of adaptation, impacts,[?]and concentrations 6. no - definitely not in the FCCC - not even voluntary ones WBCSD6 1. depends 2. not opposed to mandatory targets. BUT not advocating early action: vague : realistic, achieved over time" 3. not advocated, emphasises different starting oints 4. not clear: wants JI for credits agreed now nationally, by 2000 int'lly 5. advocates action now, but no specifics. Wants a long term goal based mix of factors. 6. not advocated: does agree with policies like subsidy removal 1.Global Climate Coalition (GCC )press release, December 1996, at the fifth negotiating session under the FCCC in the run up to the Kyoto meeting (formally known as the Adhoc Group on the Berlin Mandate, AGBM5) 2. International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association (IPIECA) paper distributed at AGBM5, conclusions drawn by IPIECA from a symposium it held in October 1996 [note IPIECA maintains these may not represent its own views however this was widely circulated at political negotiations] 3. International Chamber of Commerce ( ICC) briefing, AGBM5 (Dec 96). 4.Open letter by 104 U.S. CEOs sent to President Clinton, before AGBM5 (Dec 96) 5. International Climate Change Partnership (ICCP), testimony to Senate Foreign Relations Committee, July 1997; submission to Hon Tim Wirth, June 1997. 6. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, position paper released at AGBM6, March 1997. THE NEW VOICE OF BUSINESS - STRATEGIC INTEREST IN CHANGE KEY ISSUES FOR KYOTO Insurance Initiative1 1. yes 2. "early substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions" 3. no position 4. no position 5. yes: not possible to quantify impacts before taking action 6. supports precautionary measures BCSE2 1. yes 2. yes, a CO2 target should be agreed for a 2005 deadline, tight as possible 3. an overall target for industrialised countries 4. yes 5. yes 6. in some cases CoGen Alliance3 1. yes 2. yes, no view on % but the tougher the better 3. differentiated targets 4. every country can act, incentives for developing countries, technology transfer to lower emissions 5. yes, economic considerations taken into account 6. yes to remove marked distortions eg. subsidies to fossil fuels,; include env. costs, trading programme, incentives IIEC4 1. yes 2. yes, tough as possible 3. no position 4. yes 5. yes 6. yes EWEA5 1. yes 2. yes, 3. differentiated targets 4. yes 5. yes, governments should act now 6. yes, especially full environmental pricing, removal of subsidies, renewable energy obligations 1. UNEP Insurance Industry Initiative, statement released at COP2, 9th July 1996. 2. Business Council for a Sustainable Energy (note the American Wind Energy Association are members of the US BCSE). 3. International Cogeneration Alliance 4. International Institute for Energy Conservation 5. European Wind Energy Association August 1997 Update Original report: "Governments - the puppets of industry?", March 1997, available from Greenpeace International. NOTES: 1 This meeting is formally known as the third Conference of Parties (COP3) under the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). The Conference of Parties is the annual Ministerial level meeting of all parties to the Convention.