April 2002

US, EU AT ODDS ON GLOBAL WARMING DESPITE MEETING
New York Times
April 23, 2002
Internet: http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-environment-climate-usa.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. and European Union officials on
Tuesday resolved none of their fundamental differences over how to
respond to global warming, basically agreeing to disagree, a State
Department official said following a three-hour meeting. ``We
agreed we have two different approaches,'' said the U.S. official,
who asked not to be identified. The two sides did agree, however,
to try to create working groups by June that would discuss ``areas
of common interest,'' including climate modeling and renewable
fuels.

The United States is the world's largest emitter of so-called
greenhouse gases, mostly from utilities and factories. Last year,
the Bush administration announced the United States would not
participate in the Kyoto Treaty, an international attempt to limit
greenhouse gas emissions by industrial countries. At the time,
President Bush said the Kyoto Treaty's goal of reducing U.S.
emissions by about 5.2 percent of 1990 levels during 2008-2012
would be too costly to the American economy.

The move irked the EU and other countries who embraced the Kyoto
pact. In its place, Bush earlier this year unveiled a ``Clear
Skies'' initiative calling for mandatory 70 percent cuts in
emissions of three major pollutants by 2018 using a cap-and-trade
system. The plan, however, would not require reductions in carbon
emissions from power plants and factories linked to global
warming, which scientists warn could lead to massive flooding and
rising ocean levels.

JOINT RESEARCH PLANNED
Holding their first bilateral meeting on the subject Tuesday, U.S.
officials met with Margot Wallstrom, European commissioner for
environment, as well as representatives from Spain and Denmark.
Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd
Whitman, Undersecretary of State Paula Dobriansky, and Council on
Environmental Quality Chairman Jim Connaughton were among the U.S.
officials at the meeting. The United States already has held
similar bilateral meetings with Japan, Italy, Australia and
Canada. The State Department official said the EU team
``welcomed'' U.S. moves to reduce greenhouse gases but noted the
Clear Skies plan ``still would lead over the next 10 years to an
absolute increase in emissions.''

``We responded that an absolute reduction in emissions was
economically unrealistic for us,'' the U.S. official added.
Instead, he said, the Bush administration was taking the ``first
step by slowing growth'' of emissions. In a statement Monday,
Wallstrom said, ``It is important that we work together with the
U.S., even if we disagree on some specific issues, such as climate
change. There is scope for cooperation on many issues and we can
make a decisive impact to ensure a successful outcome at the
Johannesburg Summit if we join forces.''

U.S. and EU officials also said they would hold a meeting later
this year to identify specific areas for joint research, such as
carbon sequestration. Other areas of cooperation may include
analyzing market-based incentives for companies to reduce
emissions and ways to accurately measure emissions, the officials
said. A global summit in Johannesburg is planned for August with
60,000 delegates and 100 heads of state to discuss climate change
issues.

PACHAURI ELECTED AS GLOBAL CLIMATE PANEL HEAD
The Times of India
Apr 21, 2002
Internet:
http://globalarchive.ft.com/globalarchive/article.html?id=020421000249&query=kyoto

WASHINGTON: India's pre-eminent energy specialist Rajendra
Pachauri was elected to head a global climate panel on Friday
after the Bush administration backed him against an American
incumbent. Pachauri defeated Robert Watson 76-49 in a bitter and
controversial election in Geneva that saw Washington support the
Indian to chair what is formally called the International Panel on
Climate Change, a UN-mandated body that oversees rules and
regulations relating to global climate changes.

The election outraged many NGOs and European countries that
believe Watson, a World Bank executive who is an atmospheric
scientist, was a victim of lobbying by American automobile and oil
companies because of his tough stand against emissions. Britain
and Germany among other countries tried to effect a compromise by
pushing for Watson as a co-chair, but American clout carried
Pachauri to a comfortable win in a three-way election. Seven
nations voted for Jose Goldenberg, a Brazilian.

While being neutral on Pachauri, environmental groups pointed an
accusing finger at the oil giant Exxon-Mobil for ousting Watson.
"The fossil fuel industry and the US government will be
celebrating their success in kicking out Bob Watson, an
experienced scientist who understood that urgent action is needed
to tackle global climate change," Kate Hampton, international
climate coordinator for British-based Friends of the Earth said in
a statement.

"The Bush administration and its friends would rather shoot the
messenger than listen to the message." But the Bush administration
defended its choice saying the US was only one of the 76 countries
that voted for Pachauri. "We weren't against Dr Watson. We were
for Dr Pachauri, who is an eminently qualified individual having
previously served as vice chairman of the climate panel. For the
first time, the developing countries brought forward a very strong
candidate and we felt it was time for them to be given a chance,"
Harlan Watson, the US delegation leader, told Associated Press in
Geneva.

Pachauri is an engineer and an economist who founded the Tata
Energy Research Institute in New Delhi. While the enviromental
community is not against him and concede that he too has a tough
stand on emissions, it fears that it will be easier for the US
industry and the Bush administration to marginalise him because he
is from a developing country. Watson, they say, was a Washington
insider who could not be wished away. He was an outspoken critic
of the Republican line on emissions that sought to deny that
global warming was because of human activity.

Soon after he took office President Bush repudiated the
international climate agreement, the Kyoto Protocol, which is the
only political instrument so far to result from the IPCC's work.
Many Americans, especially Republicans, believe the pact if
implemented would hurt the American economy by recommending
stricter standards on emissions.

Republished with permission of Environment Daily
http://www.environmentdaily.com

-------------------------
Britons urged to prepare for climate change
Environment Daily 1205, 26/04/02
-------------------------
British businesses, local authorities and others need to start
factoring climate change into their everyday decisions, UK environment
minister Margaret Beckett warned yesterday. She was commenting on new
scenarios of global warming to the 2080s prepared under Britain's
climate impacts research programme.

Based on four emissions scenarios, the study concludes that summer
temperatures in Britain could rise by as much as five degrees
centigrade. There will also be more flooding, higher sea levels and
more frequent extreme weather events.

Overall, the picture is slightly more worrying than that painted in a
similar study four years ago
"Today's report tells us that change will be earlier and sharper than
we thought," Ms Beckett said.

"The government has already started work on adaptation, which we will
need to further review in the light of this research," she added.

Follow-up: UK environment ministry http://www.defra.gov.uk/, tel: +44 20 79
44 30
00, a press release
http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/latest/2002/020426a.htm, briefing report
http://www.ukcip.org.uk/climate_change/future_uk.html and full report
http://www.ukcip.org.uk/scenarios/sci_report/sci_report.html.

Republished with permission of Environment Daily
http://www.environmentdaily.com
-------------------------
EU climate emissions take wrong turning
Environment Daily 1206, 29/04/02
-------------------------
The EU reputation as the world's leading combatter of climate change
took a knock today as its latest greenhouse gas inventory figures
showed a rise in total emissions of greenhouse gases in 2000. Releases
of the six gases in the Kyoto protocol "basket" rose by 0.3% from 1999
levels, the European environment agency reported (see table).
Emissions had fallen by 2% the previous year

On the other hand, the report shows that, as expected, the EU has met
a target set in the 1992 UN climate change convention to stabilise
emissions at 1990 levels by 2000 - emissions were actually down 0.3%
over the decade. Very few other industrialised countries have managed
this.

A major reason for the emissions upturn in 2000, according to the
agency, is a 2.4% year-on-year increase in carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions from electricity and heat production, caused in particular by
a rise in coal-fired power generation in the UK. Overall EU emissions
of CO2 rose by 0.5% in 2000.

EU environment commissioner Margot Wallström called the rise
"worrying," adding that many member states still had to make
"substantial efforts" to reduce emissions. Jason Anderson of Climate
action network said the EU needed to "examine the policies and measures
being proposed and get them in place."

Despite being the chief culprit behind the total rise in EU emissions
during 2000, the UK still emerges with plaudits from the EEA report as
one of only six member states making a "positive contribution" to the
long-term EU emissions trend. The others are Sweden, Luxembourg,
Germany, France and Finland.

This trend shows that midway between the Kyoto protocol's base year to
its 2008-2012 compliance period, the EU has reduced emissions by 3.5 of
the 8 percentage points it needs to fulfil its target. This leaves it
0.5 points adrift of a "distance-to-target" indicator tracking the
ideal target path of emission reductions.

* In a related development, EU justice ministers last week formally
adopted as a binding common position a political agreement made by
environment ministers last month to ratify the Kyoto protocol. The
step will be taken once all 15 national parliaments give their assent.

----------------------------------------------------
Change in GHG emissions and distance to Kyoto target
(where minus sign denotes currently within target):

                Change             Distance to target indicator
               1999-2000             2000*
                 (%)          (percentage points)
----------------------------------------------------
Luxembourg       -0.6               -31.1
Germany          -0.2                -8.6
UK               +0.4                -6.3
Finland          -2.9                -4.1
Sweden           -1.6                -3.9
France           -1.1                -1.7
Netherlands      -0.4                +5.6
Italy            +0.7                +7.2
Greece           +4.8                +8.7
Denmark          -6.0                +8.8
Austria           0.0                +9.2
Belgium          +0.5               +10.0
Portugal         -1.1               +16.6
Ireland          +1.5               +17.5
Spain            +4.1               +26.2

EU-15 +0.3 +0.5
----------------------------------------------------
Source: EEA
*The distance-to-target indicator (DTI) is a measure of the deviation of actual greenhouse gas emissions in 2000
from the linear target path between 1990 and the Kyoto Protocol
target for 2008-2012, assuming that only domestic measures will be used (see Figure 1).
For example, Spain is allowed a 15% increase from 1990 levels by 2008-2012, so its
theoretical "linear target" for 2000 is a rise of no more than 7.5%. Its actual emissions in
2000 show an increase of 33.7% since 1990, hence its "distance to target" is 33.7-7.5, or
26.2 index points. Germany’s Kyoto target is a 21% reduction, so its theoretical "linear
target" for 2000 is a decrease of 10.5%. Actual emissions in 2000 were 19.1% lower than
in 1990, hence its distance to target is 19.1-10.5, or 8.6 index points.
----------------------------------------------------
Follow-up: EEA news release
http://org.eea.eu.int/documents/newsreleases/greenhouse_gas_emission; which includes summary tables and link to the main report

Republished with permission of Environment Daily
http://www.environmentdaily.com

-------------------------
G8 ministers prepare the way for Johannesburg
Environment Daily 1197, 16/04/02
-------------------------
Environment ministers from the G8 group of leading nations agreed
priorities for the Johannesburg world sustainability summit at a
meeting in Banff, Canada this weekend. The session included detailed
discussions on environment and health, environmental governance and
environment and development, plus an unscripted row over climate
change.

The ministers reaffirmed their desire for the summit to deliver a plan
of action for global sustainable development, throwing their weight
behind development of "concrete proposals" in key sectors, which they
said should include sustainable use of water, energy and forests.

Ministers also backed partnerships with business. Noting the
"critical role that private sector players committed to sustainable
development can play", the meeting communiqué urges creation of
"opportunities for these leading companies". Partnerships have come
strongly to the fore in the formal summit preparatory process
but are viewed with suspicion by the environmental movement.

At Johannesburg, governments should agree a global information
exchange initiative on current environment and health research,
ministers said. They also agreed to G8 expert discussions on
environment and health in the context of the sustainability summit and
to "collectively advance work" on developing indicators of children's
environmental health.

The ministers backed calls for the UN environment programme (UNEP) to
be given additional, and more reliable, funding so as to strengthen its
global coordinating role. France used the occasion to announce a
doubling of its payments to UNEP.

However, EU pressure for agreement on a broadening of the global
ministerial environmental forum did not win through. The meeting
statement instead marks backing only to "consider" what it calls "the
important but complex issue of universal membership" of the forum.

With the USA already definitively out of the Kyoto protocol, the
ministers kept climate change off the agenda to avoid unnecessary
fights. In their formal statement, they "reaffirm the need to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions", which, "for most countries" will mean entry
into force of the Kyoto protocol while "for other countries, it means
taking strong, realistic domestic actions."

Despite this the EU and Canada got into a public spat over the
latter's desire to amend the protocol so as to gain emission credits
for exporting "green" energy to the USA. After giving private warnings
EU participants stressed publicly that there was no chance of any
further renegotiation of the agreement. With current emissions some
20% above 1990 levels, Canada faces a tough challenge to achieve
emissions 6% below 1990 levels by 2008-12.

The Banff meeting was attended by ministers from France, Germany,
Italy, the UK, Japan and Russia, as well as Canada and the USA, plus EU
environment commisisoner Margot Wallström.

Follow-up: Environment Canada G8 environment ministerial site
http://www.ec.gc.ca/g8env2002/index_e.htm

Republished with permission of Environment Daily
http://www.environmentdaily.com

-------------------------

Battleground laid out over future of "F-gases"
Environment Daily 1197, 16/04/02
-------------------------
Plans by the European Commission to regulate fluorinated (F)
greenhouse gases controlled under the Kyoto protocol through existing
legislation on ozone-depleting substances were discussed today at a
meetin in Brussels. The seminar was organised by F-gas industry lobby
the European partnership for energy and the environment (Epee).

Manufacturers fear the move would signal intent to phase out the
substances (HFCs, PFCs and SF6) in the same way as for ozone depleters
under the Montreal protocol. Chairman of the industry-led European
fluorocarbon technical committee, Nick Campbell, promised to fight the
idea all the way.

Perhaps for the same reason, environmental groups like it. Jason
Anderson of Climate action network urged industry not to fight a
"defensive battle" and called for "clear goals [on F-gas reduction] to
boost technological development".

What goals the Commission would like to achieve remain unclear, but DG
environment official Marianne Wenning implied that introducing controls
of whatever kind through EU's ozone depleter regulation was a pragmatic
choice. There were sufficient "scientific and policy" links between
the Montreal and Kyoto protocols to justify the proposed approach, she
told the meeting.

Widely used in refrigeration, air conditioning, thermal insulation,
semiconductor technology and some medical applications, the Kyoto
F-gases have a high global warming potential but are not ozone
depleters. Their current impact on climate change is small, but
growing.

Action to curtail this trend was discussed last year under the
European climate change programme, following which the Commission
pledged to come propose an EU regulation on the F-gases. This was
supposed to emerge before the middle of this year, but is now likely in
October, Ms Wenning told the meeting.

Prior to this, working groups on data reporting, containment of
emissions and marketing and use bans will meet in May, Ms Wenning said.
This would be followed by discussions on cost/benefit analysis in
June.