ECO NEWSLETTER CLIMATE TALKS GENEVA - AUGUST 1993 NGO NEWSLETTER INC 8 August 20, 1993 ISSUE #5 TABLE OF CONTENTS .1 UV-B Increase Observed Over Populated Areas .2 Towards a Fossil Fuel Free Future .3 JI: The Explosive Cocktail .4 Cities Complete Local CO2 Inventories .5 Leman .6 Editorial .7 Working Group I .8 Working Group II .9 Contacts .10 Credits ECO has been published by Non-Governmental Environmental Groups at major international conferences since the Stockholm Environment Conference in 1972. This issue is produced cooperatively by Climate Action Network groups attending the Climate Talks in Geneva, August, 1993. ****************************************************************** UV-B Increase Observed Over Populated Regions by M. Oppenheimer, Senior Scientist, EDF Seven years of intensive research on the stratosphere have established that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and related chemicals produced by industrial societies are depleting the ozone layer. The cause and effect relationship between CFCs and the genesis of the Antarctic ozone hole is certain. Recent studies confirm that these chemicals are causing ozone loss in the Arctic as well. Furthermore, a downward trend in annual ozone levels at mid latitudes since 1979 has been observed. According to the 1991 Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion, published by WMO and UNEP, the weight of the evidence is that this trend is largely attributable to chlorine and bromine originating in the very same CFCs and related chemicals. In addition, record low ozone values in 1992 may reflect the effect of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. One key uncertainty in scientific understanding of ozone depletion has been the precise extent of changes in the level of ultraviolet radiation reaching the surface of the Earth. All other things being equal, depletion of the ozone layer must cause an increase in biologically active ultraviolet radiation (UV-B) at Earth's surface. But long-term monitoring of UV-B has been inadequate to determine the actual trend, and all other things may not have been equal. Cloudiness or levels of air pollution could have increased at some locations over the period since the onset of ozone depletion. Since clouds and some pollution absorb and reflect UV-B, both changes could have negated part of the expected increase in UV-B due to ozone depletion over the same period. The difficult task of accounting for cloud cover in UV-B measurements has been accomplished and reported in a recent article in the Journal of Geophysical Research by John Frederick of the University of Chicago and his co-workers, based on observations at Ushuaia in Southern Argentina. The results are surprising and disturbing. They find that average UV-B at noontime in December 1990 (near summer solstice) was 45% higher than it would have been had the ozone layer been "normal." This large change in UV-B probably arose from processes occurring in the nearby ozone hole over Antarctica, which had dissipated earlier in the year, affecting a broader region of the Southern Hemisphere. Variations this large may not occur every year, as they likely depend on the size of the ozone hole and on the manner in which it dissipates. This finding is very important because it is the first reliable determination of an absolute change in UV-B associated with ozone depletion over a populated area (Ushuaia has over 11,000 residents; nearby Punta Arenas, Chile, is home to nearly 100,000 people). Second, it occurred not in winter, but when the sun was highest, both in terms of season and time of day, a prime condition for biological damage to occur. Third, the large size of the change and the fact that it occurred in an unpolluted region means that the observed increase in UV-B radiation indicates the consequences of a depleted ozone layer. While a downward trend in ozone levels has been detected over the mid latitudes, the expected increase in ultraviolet radiation in these regions may have been partly offset by the effect of air pollution. "If true," note the authors of the Ushuaia study, "this fortuitous situation seems unlikely to continue." Indeed, as pollution levels fall over industrialized countries in the northern hemisphere, this UV-B masking effect may disappear. ****************************************************************** Towards a Fossil Fuel Free Future Global warming is above all a fossil fuel problem. Unless we drastically reduce carbon emissions, unprecedented climate change is predicted. Fossil fuels are not a viable long-term energy option for the planet. Could the world as we know it be run on renewable energy? Is it really possible to maintain our transportation, industries, appliances, and homes with a range of natural energy flows such as solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, and hydro? A new study from Greenpeace International confirms that this is indeed the case. Fossil Fuels in a Changing Climate - available to delegates at INC 8 - concludes that in spite of the use of conventional assumptions for economic and population growth (which Greenpeace does not support), it is technically and economically feasible to halve the current global use of fossil fuels within 40 years. Global emissions of CO2 could fall by 52% by 2030, and 71% by 2075. This scenario is based on a major programme for improving energy efficiency in all regions of the world. This would mean developing efficient cars, giving 4.2 to 3.6 litres/100km, and developing a solar-hydrogen energy system. It would mean constructing highly insulated buildings needing less than 30% of today's energy average for heating, lighting, and cooling. It would mean advanced industrial processes using less materials, and perhaps a quarter of the average energy intensities of today. Most of these technologies are either already available, or likely to be in use in the near future. The challenge is to ensure their widespread adoption around the world. Making such a future a reality will, however, require major policy changes, such as: * The introduction of pollution controls in the form of energy taxes. * The removal of subsidies to fossil fuels and nuclear power. * The introduction of minimum efficiency standards for a range of appliances, lighting, electrical motors, and vehicles. * New incentives to gas and electrical utilities to sell energy efficiency, for example, by introducing integrated resource planning. * The setting up of a new international agency for energy efficiency and renewable energy. To achieve such a fossil-free energy future, countries would need to set and maintain tough targets for the reduction of CO2. If we are not to become a fossil species of planet Earth ourselves, we need to embark on a fossil-free path without delay. ****************************************************************** JI: The Explosive Cocktail Report by Irving Mintzer, SEI Despite an initial spirit of cooperation, differences of opinion quickly emerged among the panelists at last night's JI Round Table. Several recurring themes ran through the discussion: the most important being cost-effectiveness. In general it was noted that JI can be used to insure "broader participation in mitigation measures", but it could also be used [by rich countries] to buy their way out of commitments. Despite this, the concept has survived, and may even have helped to get the Convention passed. One participant stated that his attendance was conditioned on the assurance that everyone would ratify the Convention before they left the room. We understand from the Secretariat that the instruments of ratification had not been deposited as of midnight. Eco hopes the chairs are comfortable to sleep in. Continuing the discussion of alternative criteria, termed the "Sons of Joint implementation", an early experiment in JI was compared unfavorably to the 1863 riots in New York. In this first instance, rich men tried to buy their way out of their legal responsibilities to serve their country as soldiers; this time, rich white men are trying to escape their responsibilities for fighting the pollution that their wanton consumption has caused. Does that mean that we can expect riots the next time the INC meets in New York? More seriously, participants reaffirmed the need to keep our "legal and moral obligations under the Convention. We can't create the political will throughout world [needed to save the atmosphere], unless everyone around the world is prepared to sacrifice and give up something." One concluded that developing countries will have to give up something valuable because pollution has closed the traditional path of development. Some felt that JI was not proceeding fast enough, that JI was the best mechanism to promote technology transfer, and that pilot projects should be encouraged. This seemed of particular importance for Central and Eastern European states who are eager for it. But others disagreed, noted "controversies over JI could leave us wondering at the end of the day, did we choose the best mechanism?" The participants debated whether Joint Implementation was actually cost-effective, or whether we were becoming confused, indiscriminately mixing the economic cost and the political cost of JI in the discussion. Some feared that developed countries are trying to avoid the political costs of tough domestic decisions. Left unanswered was the question: If Joint Implementation of commitments is really cost effective, are those commitments themselves adequate to achieve the objectives of the Convention? In this context, one participant asked whether it was consistent for countries to receive credit for overseas actions that reduce the risk of global warming but not be debited for actions that contribute to the risk of rapid climate change. One latecomer to the NGO community argued that Article 4.2(a) and (b) imply reports on two different kinds of commitments: one a commitment for domestic reductions, and the other a commitment to contribute to the global effort. If this point were generally accepted by the Parties, there might be a basis for consensus. The roundtable concluded with a general agreement that there was no such consensus on JI at this time. ****************************************************************** Cities Complete Local CO2 Inventories by Philip Jessup, ICLEI Cities in Canada, the US, Europe, and Turkey recently completed comprehensive baseline inventories of local CO2 emissions, revealing striking differences in urban energy patterns among the three regions. The cities - Toronto, Portland (Oregon), Minneapolis, San Jose, Denver, Miami, Helsinki, Copenhagen, Hannover, Saarbrucken, Bologna, and Ankara - have been participating in the Urban CO2 Reduction Project, an initiative now two years old sponsored by the International Council of Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI). The Council is a UN-affiliated association of municipalities worldwide. The research aims of the Project sought to produce detailed, comparative baselines and were carried out by technical teams in each city working with a common protocol. The research provides the framework for each city's "local action plan" for reducing CO2 emissions, whose local councils will approve and begin implementing the plans over the next year. The first step was to develop a disaggregated breakdown of base year energy use and CO2 emissions by fuel and end use sector. From these base year calibrations, the teams generated reference projections of future emissions, based on local demographic and economic outlooks. Finally, the teams evaluated CO2 reduction measures ranging from management of transportation demand to installation of district heating systems, quantifying their impact. In order to account for remote emissions 'upstream' of energy consumption, the project pioneered the use of the TEMIS "full fuel cycle model", developed by the Oko-Institut in Germany. Quantifying energy use and emissions in the transportation sector presented the most difficult challenge. Municipalities, preoccupied as they are by traffic congestion, collect mostly peak traffic data. Furthermore, the urban auto driving cycle, with its many stops and starts, is a problem to model. The most important finding of the research is that per capita energy use goes down as population density goes up. The American cities in the Project, for instance, have half the population density of the European cities, but consume upwards of twice as much energy per capita. The factors that contribute to the lower per capita energy use in the European cities include: * the proximity of services and dwellings, * the higher proportion of row housing and apartment buildings, * the prevalence of district systems that recycle power generation waste heat, and * wider use of public transit, bicycles, and downtown pedestrian areas. The inverse relationship between population density and per capita energy use is especially striking in the transportation sector. The research found that energy intensity in the American cities is on average five times greater than in the European cities. As a result, transportation-related CO2 emissions predominate in the American cities, whereas emissions are more evenly distributed among other end uses in the European cities. The reasons for this gap are deeply rooted in urban form, local land use patterns, transit system design, and cultural and behavioral factors. The research also revealed, however, that car ownership and transportation-related CO2 emissions are rising fastest in the European cities and Ankara, Turkey. So the challenge of achieving "transit friendly" urban development emerged as the most compelling CO2 reduction issue in all the cities. These large differences in transportation energy intensity point towards the important role that municipal governments will need to play in national CO2 reduction programs. While gains in automobile efficiency mandated by national standards will reap quick and obvious results, strong municipal leadership will be needed to wean people from their automobile dependency through better land use planning and the provision of public transit systems, bicycle lanes, pedestrian areas. Cities in the developing world such as Ankara are likely to benefit most significantly from new infrastructure investments that reduce CO2 emissions. Car ownership has jumped 60% over the past decade in Ankara, resulting in a significant deterioration in local air quality. A new rapid rail system now being built will not only reduce traffic congestion and unhealthy air, but contribute to the city's implementation of its CO2 emission reduction plan developed under the Project. ****************************************************************** Leman Leman is relieved to hear he is not the only one at the INC experiencing visions. Some delegates at Working Group II today were reporting that their finance ministries were staffed by little green men from other planets. Others were requesting divine intervention. Dr. Owen, however, is occupied elsewhere in the building. ****************************************************************** Editorial It has become clear that one imperative item has gone unaddressed - the adequacy of commitments. During the week the need for additional commitments was raised in a variety of contexts. Prof. Bolin stressed that no new science has emerged that weakens the IPCC's statement that a reduction greater than 60% is required to stabilise the present concentrations of CO2. Others pointed out that JI must be viewed in the light of additional commitments. Victim countries voiced frustration over a process which deals with procedure but considerably less with substance. It is, as they point out, a very real problem out there. Then there is the discrepancy between the objective and commitments of the convention. Though no reduction figure has been set for the objective, it is abundantly clear that it will be considerably higher than the stabilisation of emissions required by article 4.2. This calls for a review of the adequacy of commitments and a simple calculation indicates the urgency: with 50 ratifications likely by the end of the year, the COP1 would be held at the latest in March '95. Amendments need to be circulated to the parties at least six months before COP1, and this means that adequacy of commitments needs to be discussed at INC9 - INC10 could well be too late. So how should the INC deal with this? We consider that the answer lies in one of the interventions made yesterday. Switzerland considered JI important enough to justify a subsidiary body to fashion a consensus. A review of commitments is at least as important. INC8 must therefore give a mandate to either a working group or body to produce a paper for consideration by INC9. This will allow the first Conference of Parties to narrow the gap between the objective and the commitments of the convention. ****************************************************************** Working Group I Report Joint implementation (JI) encountered further obstacles as major proponents - the US, Canada, Japan, the Nordic countries, Australia, and New Zealand - entered the debate, clashing with members of the G77 and the EC. It was clear the Parties will leave INC8 having aired their views on JI for the first time, but with little agreement on when and how to implement it. The major issue of the session was whether the developed countries could legally and morally meet part of their commitments to return their emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000 through JI projects. Most developing countries saw such shifts as one more effort by the North to delay or buy their way out of their 'day of reckoning'. Canada set the pace by suggesting that all parties may engage in JI activities to fulfil 1990 commitments as long as they contribute to real, verifiable, net reductions in emissions. China noted that participation by non-Annex I countries could give rise to new obligations not included in the Convention, i.e. an exchange of carbon credits implies commitments undertaken by both parties. The EC countered with a surprisingly strong statement that it should meet its 1990 commitments at home. In an unusual move, the Chair of the INC, Ambassador Estrada, delivered a poignant statement on behalf of Argentina stating that JI will allow those who have the money to continue to do as they like. He also introduced the notion, supported later by the French, that 'cost-effectiveness' in Western terms often denies environmental costs and hidden subsidies. The much-awaited U.S. statement also endorsed universal eligibility, as well as application of credits to commitments prior to the year 2000. (In the later round table debate, the Head of Delegation assured worried delegates and NGOs that the primary focus of the U.S. plan will be domestic measures.) Japan immediately followed with a strong endorsement of JI. Mexico, which is participating in a project with Norway, broke with the G77, in a surprisingly pro-JI statement. Japan also made a recommendation that the INC secretariat develop an expert technical paper elucidating the issues for INC9, which was batted about. Ultimately, it was decided that the co-chairs would draft a summary of the JI debate thus far, which could then form the basis for future discussion. Many delegations made suggestions regarding criteria for JI including: * separation of JI financial flows from those involving the Global Environment Facility and existing aid programs; * 50/50 sharing of the carbon credit in the case of Annex 1 and non-Annex 1 JI activities; * that JI should facilitate emissions reductions greater than each Party would achieve on its own; * employment of socio-economic impact assessment to determine the broader effects of JI projects; After conclusion of this debate, the chair moved on to the last agenda item, 'First Review of Information'. Depleted if not somewhat weary, the delegates failed to rise to this dry and technical matter. After Canada's presentation and circulation of a 'non-paper' on the subject - and a few half-hearted interventions - the chair concluded the session early. Maybe a robust discussion tomorrow on jump-starting a review of industrial country commitments would liven up the debate. ****************************************************************** Working Group II The real issues of Thursdays debate focused on who controls the money and accountability for how its spent. Working Group II focused debate around the ex-ante review of projects. Not surprisingly, developed countries were arguing against the COP having this kind of pre-review authority over the operating entities' work program. No need for bureaucracy, double-decision-making or extra work for delegates, they argued. This is not the way the developing countries felt the process would work. The COP is the body which has supremacy over the operating entity or entities. Based on this, many developing countries felt it was critical for the COP to have ex-ante review over the work programs. The interim operating entity, the GEF, is located at the World Bank. Delegates were not only not thinking up new and creative possibilities for open, transparent and independent new operating entities, they actually gave in to the hidden agendas and used the GEF whenever they spoke of this concept. The GEF is dominated by the World Bank. The World Bank's voting system is based on the amount of money a member contributes. Although developed countries argued that the Participants Assembly of the GEF is open to 'universal membership', the reality is, as Brazil pointed out, that the PA has many members beyond just the parties to the convention. The issue raised is that control for funding of projects outlined by the Climate Treaty should be in the hands of the Parties to the convention only. Developing countries argued that if the COP does not have ex-ante review with a regular, outlined reporting procedure, it is likely that work programs chosen will not necessarily be compatible with the COP's requirements. As the delegates finish the first week of work preparing for the COP, they also have the spectre of the GEF restructuring process overshadowing their lack of consensus. It is vitally important that this working group set up a process for review which is inside of an open, fair and transparent process before the end of 1993, when the GEF will be restructured and replenished. It is also important that the delegates come to a decision on the contentious issue of amount of money needed to fund climate change and mitigation of the effects of global warming. They will also need to figure out how to collect the funds from the developed countries who are, after all, the responsible parties. There is still great hope that Working Group II will live up to the challenge and make these decisions in order to prevent business-as-usual and to live up to the spirit as well as the letter of the convention. ****************************************************************** FOR MORE INFORMATION: For enquiries and response to ECO: Eco can be contacted at: Hotel de Longchamp, 7 rue Butini, 1201 Geneva . Tel: +41 22 731 9228. Fax: +41 22 738 0007 PLEASE NOTE CHANGED REVERSE POLL FAX NUMBERS BELOW! Dial-a-Fax Service: "Reverse poll" dial to +44 374 506 517 (outside UK) or 0336 413706 (inside UK) to receive the latest copy of ECO. See your fax manual for 'Reverse poll dialing' or call +44 374 506506 for a recorded guidance message. The 336 number is a 'premium' line in the UK only, charged at UKL 0.36/minute cheap rate and UKL 0.48/minute at all other times -- a proportion of this charge supports the ECO project. International calls are not charged any premium, and are therefore sponsored by the equipment suppliers. Every issue of ECO will be posted in full to the en.climate and climate.news conferences on the APC networks, and the Usenet news group sci.environment. It will also be available via anonymous ftp from IGC.APC.ORG (192.82.108.1), subdirectory /pub/ECO. Binary PageMaker files are also available via Applelink, on the APC conference climate.news, and via ftp from IGC.ORG For information about electronic mail, conference, and ftp distribution of ECO, contact E-mail coordinator, Lelani Arris APC Networks/Internet/Fidonet - larris@igc.apc.org Bitnet - larris%igc.org@stanford For information about Pagemaker files via Applelink, contact ECO staff: applelink:UK.REGION1. For information about Pagemaker files via APC, contact Media Natura ECO staff, email: cta@gn.apc.org ****************************************************************** CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Editorial & Production Managers: Alister Sieghart and Richard Elen Production Assistant: Andrew Gettelman Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet North American Distribution: Wes Dowling & EESI Assistance from: Beth Zilbert, Deborah Good, Karan Capoor, Scott Hajost, Kalle Hesstvedt, Alden Meyer, Liz Barratt-Brown, Bill Hare, Phil Jessup, Lyn Goldsworthy and Irving Mintzer Published by: Media Natura, Tel: +44 71 240 4963, for the Climate Action Network. The Climate Action Network would like to thank the following, who have provided funds and facilities for Eco: Environmental & Energy Study Institute * Environmental Defense Fund * National Wildlife Federation * World Resources Institute * World Wide Fund for Nature * Natural Resources Defense Council * Climate Network Europe * Swedish NGO Secretariat on Acid Rain * Union of Concerned Scientists * Greenpeace International * Rockefeller Brothers Fund Special thanks to: Hotel Longchamps * UN Nongovernmental Liaison Service with resources donated by: Aldus UK, Apple Computer, Creative Technology Associates, Computers Unlimited, Dial-a-Fax, EcoNet, Industrade AG, Microsoft, Shades & Characters Ltd. ****************************************************************** PLEASE LET US KNOW IF YOU ARE RECEIVING THIS NEWSLETTER!! We are interested in tracking ECO electronic distribution. If you find this newsletter of value, please return the following report. Thank you for your help!! ****************************************************************** ECO NEWSLETTER - GENEVA AUGUST 1993 (INC 8) How did you get the newsletter? _________e-mail _________________________________address _________conference or list _____________________name _________ftp or other file server _______________location 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 * GAIN Sustainable Transport Internet/Fidonet: larris@igc.apc.org * & Energy Project (STEP) BITNET: larris%igc.org@stanford * Box 42 Telephone: 604-968-4380 * Dunster, BC V0J 1J0 Fax: 604-968-4390 * Canada ******************************************************************