U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Office of the Spokesman
For Immediate Release
February 27, 2002
STATEMENT BY RICHARD BOUCHER, SPOKESMAN
CLIMATE ACTION PARTNERSHIP ANNOUNCED BETWEEN AUSTRALIA AND THE UNITED
STATES
Following is the text of a joint statement released today by the United
States and Australia.
Begin Text:
The governments of the United States and Australia today announced an
agreement to establish a Climate Action Partnership. The agreement was
reached following meetings on climate change held in Washington this
week between Dr. David Kemp, Australian Minister for the Environment
and Heritage, and several senior members of the U.S. Administration,
including: EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman, Chairman of the
White House Council on Environmental Quality James Connaughton, Deputy
Secretary of Energy Francis Blake, and Under Secretary of State for
Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky.
The U.S.-Australia Climate Action Partnership will involve the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Commerce, the
U.S. Department of Energy, and the U.S. Department of State and their
Australian counterparts.
The initial meeting will be coordinated by Under Secretary of State
Dobriansky and Dr. Kemp.
The partnership will focus on practical approaches toward dealing with
climate change.
Informal working groups will involve officials, under senior-level
leadership, from the Departments of Commerce, Energy and State and the
Environmental Protection Agency, and their Australian counterpart
agencies, as well as research bodies and industry. They will focus on
such issues as emissions measurement and accounting, climate change
science, stationary energy technologies, engagement with business to
create economically efficient climate change solutions, agriculture and
land management and collaboration with developing countries to build
capacity to deal with climate change.
-------------------------
Dutch government confident over Kyoto
Environment Daily, 28/02/02
-------------------------
The Netherlands remains on track to meet its formal commitments under
the UN Kyoto protocol on climate change, according to an evaluation
published last week by the environment ministry. The conclusion
contradicts recent warnings from independent researchers.
The Netherlands has a steep hill to climb to meet its obligations
under Kyoto, with national emissions currently up some 3% on 1990
levels compared with the 2008-12 target of minus 6%.
Acknowledging this, the government has planned to meet only half the
required emissions cut at home, and the other half abroad under the
protocol's "flexible mechanisms" of joint implementation and the clean
development mechanism.
At issue is whether the half required at home - equivalent to a 20m
tonnes per year cut on business as usual projections - is actually
achievable. The environment ministry says yes. While acknowledging
that present policies will not entirely fill the gap, it says that new
measures still being prepared should do so.
Researchers at the national public health and environment institute
(Rivm) and energy consultants ECN are less sure. In January they
forecast a shortfall of 6.5m tonnes per year based on existing actions,
and 3m even with the government's new policies.
* In a related development, the Dutch economics ministry this week
released a report calling for a big expansion in renewable energy and a
completion of energy market liberalisation by 2003. The report targets
increases in output especially from wind power and biomass and offers
financial support to the renewables sector.
-------------------------
"Pay-as-you-drive" proposed to unblock UK roads
Environment Daily, 25/02/02
-------------------------
An innovative plan to tax UK motorists according to the time and place
they use their cars was published today by a government advisory body,
the Commission for integrated transport (Cfit).
Under the scheme, congestion could be reduced by 44% within ten years,
the report estimates. Overall, motorists would not end up paying more,
as congestion charges would be offset by a reduction in fuel tax and
other road taxes.
Motorists would be charged up to UK£0.28p (euros 0.46) per kilometre
driven on busy roads at peak times, while no charges would be made when
there is no congestion. All road vehicles would be fitted with a unit
linked to a satellite system covering the whole network. Tolls would
be collected via a smart card on board the car, or billed monthly.
The scheme could start no earlier than 2011, after at least UK£180bn
has been spent to improve public transport services, the report said,
and the government's ten-year transport plan has been implemented
According to recent research on Europe's roads, the UK is the country
with the biggest congestion problem. The mayor of London is due to
announce this week the introduction of flat-rate charges for motorists
who drive into the city centre at peak times
Follow-up: report
http://www.cfit.gov.uk/reports/pfru/pdf/pfru.pdf.
-------------------------
Trittin bullish over 2005 climate target
Environment Daily, 22/02/02
-------------------------
German environment minister Jürgen Trittin yesterday insisted that an
ambitious national target of cutting carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by
25% between 1990 and 2005 could be achieved. The minister was
responding to an independent assessment suggesting the opposite.
The gap between current CO2 emissions and the 2005 target is large -
some 100m tonnes - but Mr Trittin said there were no grounds for
pessimism. Measures already in force or due to be introduced held out
every hope of making up the difference, he said.
Most strikingly, said Mr Trittin, German transport CO2 emissions fell
in 2000 and almost certainly again in 2001, in part thanks to the
government's ecological energy tax programme. This is a major and
possibly unique achievement. Transport CO2 rose everywhere in Europe
during the 1990s and the sector presents among the most intractable
challenges to all countries' efforts to restrain or cut overall
emissions
In other areas of the economy, much larger emission savings were
already being achieved, said Mr Trittin. Private household emissions,
for example, decreased by 11.5% between 1990 and 2000. More savings
could be expected from other government initiatives, including more
combined heat and power (CHP), greater buildings energy efficiency and
development of Germany's offshore wind power potential.
-------------------------
Another record year for European wind power
Environment Daily, 21/02/02
-------------------------
Europe's wind power sector grew by 35% in 2001, the trade association
Ewea reported yesterday. Total wind power capacity grew by a record
4,500 megawatts (MW) to reach 17,300 MW - equal to the electricity
consumption of 10m average households. More than half of world-wide
wind power capacity growth in 2001 occurred in Europe.
Germany continues to be the main motor for Europe's wind industry,
Ewea's figures show. The country added 2,650 MW of capacity during
2001 to reach a total capacity of 8,750 MW, equivalent to 3.5% of
national electricity consumption. Spain grew second fastest, for the
first time displacing Denmark behind Germany in terms of installed
capacity. No other country added more than 100 MW capacity during the
year.
-------------------------
Commission clarifies greenhouse trading scheme
Environment Daily, 20/02/02
-------------------------
The European Commission's environment directorate has sought to quell
criticism that its plans for an EU-wide carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions
trading regime are incompatible with requirements under the 1996
integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) directive.
In a "non-paper" published yesterday and aimed at government officials
currently sizing up the trading proposals, the directorate explains in
detail the relationship between the two.
A main goal of the paper, according to a Commission official today,
was to counter claims from some industry sources that the IPPC
requirement for firms to use energy efficiently meant there should in
theory be no scope to further improve efficiency. Under this
interpretation, installations complying with the law would be
effectively barred from any trading market as sellers of emission
allowances.
But the paper says the efficiency requirement is a "baseline or bottom
line" below which firms should not drop rather than an obligation to
make sure energy efficiency is as high as possible. Firms should have
ample additional room to cut consumption and sell the resulting
credits, it says.
Secondly, the paper confirms that firms included in a future carbon
trading regime would not have CO2 limits imposed on them by local
pollution authorities through IPPC. This is because some operators
will have to be allowed to increase their CO2 emissions from current
levels for the trading system to function properly.
This exemption from the IPPC rules is justified because CO2 does not
cause local environmental impacts, the paper states. But the
Commission official acknowledged that for a similar exemption to be
granted in future to other greenhouse gases that may come under the
trading system it would have to be established that local effects of
increased levels of these pollutants were negligible.
Follow-up: European Commission environment directorate non-paper
http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/climat/non-paper_ippc_and_et.pdf
Insurers press for climate-change controls
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 20, 2002
LONDON - Having extracted government action on exposure to terrorist attacks,
the insurance industry must now press politicians for climate-change controls,
one of its leaders said this week.
Most scientists say emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse"
gases are causing a rise in global temperatures, which in turn are responsible
for more frequent natural catastrophes that insurers must pay for.
"The threats to our economies and lifestyles from climate change are no
less consequential than terrorist threats," Carlos Joly, the chairman of
the United Nations Environment Programme's (UNEP) insurance industry initiative,
told Reuters in an interview.
U.S. President Bush, while leading a war against terrorism, has been criticised for rejecting the Kyoto Protocol and its mandatory targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions, and proposes an alternative plan for voluntary reductions.
Without a reduction, insurers will be forced to protect themselves by cutting cover, leaving companies and individuals without insurance for the increasing number of weather catastrophes, said Joly.
Devastating forest fires in Australia and the U.S., floods in Brazil and Turkey, snow in central and southern Europe and a typhoon in Singapore provided further evidence in 2001 of catastrophic weather events caused by climate change, says Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurer.
Last year, according to statistics compiled by the World Meteorological Organization, was the second-hottest year since records began in 1860. The hottest was 1998, and nine of the 10 warmest years have occurred since 1990, it said.
SETTING GOALS
At a meeting in Rio de Janeiro next month, members of UNEP's insurance initiative will discuss what measures they have each taken to help tackle global warming and decide what issues they should concentrate on leading up to the September World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg.
Joly expects insurers to come up with a strong statement on the roles of business and government in controlling climate change for the "Rio +10" summit in South Africa, which will discuss how much progress has been made since the ground-breaking "Earth Summit" held in Brazil a decade ago.
But the industry does not speak with one voice.
"While most European insurance leaders accept that human action has caused global warming...the U.S. insurers buy into that claim much less," said Joly.
The prevailing consensus there on the environment is very different from that in Europe, he acknowledges.
That is illustrated by the fact that only two U.S. insurers signed UNEP's October 2001 Statement of Environmental Commitment by the Insurance Industry, compared to eight Russian insurers.
But a group of over 80 insurers from across the world have signed the commitment and are sharing their plans and experiences to create a benchmark for ways to tackle environmental problems.
FLEXING THEIR MUSCLES
Through their control of vast life insurance and pension funds, insurers are among the world's most powerful investors and can flex their muscles.
Joly is also senior vice president of the investment arm of Norway's Storebrand, which, like other insurers, is adopting 'green' investment criteria.
Joly said firms are setting up funds to invest in alternative energy companies, such as waste-to-energy producers, or creating products to trade carbon emissions.
The key principle, he said, of an investment philosophy in line with UNEP's idea of sustainable development is not to avoid polluting companies, but to choose the most responsible, the "best in class".
"You can't live without a chemicals industry, but you want one with processes and products that result in less pollution and toxic impacts."
Apart from being investment giants, insurers are also among the biggest real-estate owners, particularly of city centre office buildings, and are beginning to use this power to promote green building practices and energy efficiency in those they run.
But while there is now a greater awareness of environmental issues, Joly said the environment is just one concern that managers must deal with in a difficult economic environment.
"Its prominence on their agenda has increased during the past decade, but is still not overwhelming. Perhaps it should be more, but that is simply a fact of life," said Joly.
Only a major catastrophe - a major oil spill, big fire or devastating storm - would galvanise them to dramatic action, he said.
Story by Simon Challis, European Insurance Correspondent
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Keep the train on the Kyoto tracks
Globe and Mail Lead Editorial, Canada
Tuesday, February 19, 2002 - Print Edition, Page A18
What a pathetic spectacle Canada's premiers created last week in Moscow. Led
by Alberta's Ralph Klein, they blind-sided Prime Minister Jean Chrétien
during the trade mission to Moscow, presenting a letter demanding that he drop
his support for the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement to cut greenhouse-gas
emissions.
As political theatre, it was as subtle as a swarming. The Prime Minister, responding
with some grace (and a nervous giggle) in front of his Russian hosts, tried
his best to shrug it off.
Most disturbing, this farce seemed to encapsulate Canada's confusion over Kyoto.
Not to blame the hapless hero of this tale, but in part Mr. Chrétien
brought it on himself. He has not yet set out a strong, clear vision of what
Kyoto means to Canada and how Canada can reach the emissions targets set out
in the 1997 agreement. He has yet to make Kyoto the subject of a major policy
speech. Although his government has made a small start by publishing newspaper
inserts promoting Kyoto, he has not personally made the case he should be making:
This is not altruism, folks, it's self-interest.
Enter the premiers (with the exception of Quebec's Bernard Landry) to steal
the vacant stage, which begged to be purloined sooner or later -- especially
after U.S. President George W. Bush last week unveiled his new plan to fight
climate change, a voluntary, gradualist approach that seeks to cut the rate
of growth of emissions rather than actually cut emission levels. Add to that
yesterday's unfortunate statement by Environment Minister David Anderson that
more consultations are needed before Canada will ratify Kyoto, and we risk jeopardizing
the very accord we fought to establish.
This is not to say the provinces don't have legitimate concerns. Kyoto requires
Canada to cut its carbon emissions to 6 per cent below 1990 levels. A world
hungry for fossil fuels is one in which Alberta thrives, and it is understandably
nervous about what is to come. There are similar worries in British Columbia,
Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan, all of which are pinning
some hopes on oil and gas supplies. Extracting oil is notoriously energy-intensive.
And Ontario, a net importer of energy, may pay higher prices, depending on Kyoto's
impact. Only Quebec, with its vast hydro-electric supply, is behind Kyoto.
But some of the Kyoto cuts can be made easily, by counting as "credits"
this country's plentiful forests, which draw carbon out of the air. Industry
will be allowed to trade emissions credits; those who cut beyond targeted levels
derive bonus points that they can sell, in Canada or abroad. That means cutting
pollution at the lowest possible cost.
The City of Toronto has proved a stellar example of no-nonsense pollution-cutting.
Without breaking a sweat, it has cut its emissions by 67 per cent since 1990,
largely by installing pipes to collect the greenhouse gas created by its garbage
dumps -- and then, as a further benefit, routing this gas to power plants, where
it is burned to create electricity.
Ottawa needs to make the case that there are substantial benefits in combatting
global warming: a huge international market in new technologies (hydrogen-powered
fuel cells) and the thriftier use of old ones (from gas to wind), not to mention
the savings from making industry more efficient. This is a terrific opportunity
for Canada's new innovation agenda.
And what of the costs of not signing Kyoto -- in health problems caused by poor
air quality, or the longer-term possibility that the Atlantic coast will be
devastated by rising sea levels, or that parts of Alberta will become a desert?
That, like the federal debt, is something future generations will not be able
to evade.
Copyright © 2002 Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved
John Bennett Director, Atmosphere and Energy Sierra Club of Canada #412, 1 Nicholas
St. Ottawa, Ontario K1N 7B7 voice: 613-241-4611 cell: 613 291 6888 fax: 613-241-2292
email: aajb@magma.ca
Section of Bush speech relating to climate 'plan',
14th Feb 2002
White
House Fact sheet on clear skies and global climate change initiative, 14th
Feb 2002
NEWS REPORTS/GVT REACTION
US Department of
State round up of reaction to the Bush Plan (web link)
Reuters: Britain says Bush climate plan too little,
21st Feb 2002
Margaret Beckett, UK Min of Enviornment: Comments on US
, 19th Feb 2002
Reuters: Kyoto coalition seen safe from Bush's
climate plan, 17th Feb 2002
ENDS Daily: EU dismisses Bush's alternative to Kyoto, 15th
Feb 2002
BBC
14th Feb
Centre for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo
NGO RESPONSE
Open letter to President Bush from Japanese NGOs, 17th
Feb 2002
Climate Network Europe, 15th Feb
2002
RAC Maghreb, 15th Feb 2002
Center for International Environmental Law,
14th Feb 2002
Environmental Defense, USA, 14th Feb 2002
Redefining Progress, 14th Feb 2002
RSPB, UK, 14th Feb 2002
World Resources Institute press release, and
analysis of Bush Administration
ghg target 14th Feb 2002
WWF, 14th Feb 2002
Greenpeace Analysis, 14th Feb 2002
Climate portion of Bush's speech:
Now, global climate change presents a different set of challenges and requires
a different strategy. The science is more complex, the answers are less certain,
and the technology is less developed. So we need a flexible approach that can
adjust to new information and new technology.
I reaffirm America's commitment to the United Nations Framework Convention and
it's central goal, to stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at
a level that will prevent dangerous human interference with the climate. Our
immediate goal is to reduce America's greenhouse gas emissions relative to the
size of our economy.
My administration is committed to cutting our nation's greenhouse gas intensity
-- how much we emit per unit of economic activity -- by 18 percent over the
next 10 years. This will set America on a path to slow the growth of our greenhouse
gas emissions and, as science justifies, to stop and then reverse the growth
of emissions.
This is the common sense way to measure progress. Our nation must have economic
growth -- growth to create opportunity; growth to create a higher quality of
life for our citizens. Growth is also what pays for investments in clean technologies,
increased conservation, and energy efficiency. Meeting our commitment to reduce
our greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent by the year 2012 will prevent over
500 million metric tons of greenhouse gases from going into the atmosphere over
the course of the decade. And that is the equivalent of taking 70 million cars
off the road.
To achieve this goal, our nation must move forward on many fronts, looking at
every sector of our economy. We will challenge American businesses to further
reduce emissions. Already, agreements with the semiconductor and aluminum industries
and others have dramatically cut emissions of some of the most potent greenhouse
gases. We will build on these successes with new agreements and greater reductions.
Our government will also move forward immediately to create world-class standards
for measuring and registering emission reductions. And we will give transferable
credits to companies that can show real emission reductions.
We will promote renewable energy production and clean coal technology, as well
as nuclear power, which produces no greenhouse gas emissions. And we will work
to safely improve fuel economy for our cars and our trucks.
Overall, my budget devotes $4.5 billion to addressing climate change -- more
than any other nation's commitment in the entire world. This is an increase
of more than $700 million over last year's budget. Our nation will continue
to lead the world in basic climate and science research to address gaps in our
knowledge that are important to decision makers.
When we make decisions, we want to make sure we do so on sound science; not
what sounds good, but what is real. And the United States leads the world in
providing that kind of research. We'll devote $588 million towards the research
and development of energy conservation technologies. We must and we will conserve
more in the United States. And we will spend $408 million toward research and
development on renewables, on renewable energy.
This funding includes $150 million for an initiative that Spence Abraham laid
out the other day, $150 million for the Freedom Car Initiative, which will advance
the prospect of breakthrough zero-emission fuel cell technologies.
My comprehensive energy plan, the first energy plan that any administration
has put out in a long period of time, provides $4.6 billion over the next five
years in clean energy tax incentives to encourage purchases of hybrid and fuel
cell vehicles, to promote residential solar energy, and to reward investments
in wind, solar and biomass energy production. And we will look for ways to increase
the amount of carbon stored by America's farms and forests through a strong
conservation title in the farm bill. I have asked Secretary Veneman to recommend
new targeted incentives for landowners to increase carbon storage.
By doing all these things, by giving companies incentives to cut emissions,
by diversifying our energy supply to include cleaner fuels, by increasing conservation,
by increasing research and development and tax incentives for energy efficiency
and clean technologies, and by increasing carbon storage, I am absolutely confident
that America will reach the goal that I have set.
If, however, by 2012, our progress is not sufficient and sound science justifies
further action, the United States will respond with additional measures that
may include broad-based market programs as well as additional incentives and
voluntary measures designed to accelerate technology development and deployment.
Addressing global climate change will require a sustained effort over many generations.
My approach recognizes that economic growth is the solution, not the problem.
Because a nation that grows its economy is a nation that can afford investments
and new technologies.
The approach taken under the Kyoto protocol would have required the United States
to make deep and immediate cuts in our economy to meet an arbitrary target.
It would have cost our economy up to $400 billion and we would have lost 4.9
million jobs.
As President of the United States, charged with safeguarding the welfare of
the American people and American workers, I will not commit our nation to an
unsound international treaty that will throw millions of our citizens out of
work. Yet, we recognize our international responsibilities. So in addition to
acting here at home, the United States will actively help developing nations
grow along a more efficient, more environmentally responsible path.
The hope of growth and opportunity and prosperity is universal. It's the dream
and right of every society on our globe. The United States wants to foster economic
growth in the developing world, including the world's poorest nations. We want
to help them realize their potential, and bring the benefits of growth to their
peoples, including better health, and better schools and a cleaner environment.
It would be unfair -- indeed, counterproductive -- to condemn developing nations
to slow growth or no growth by insisting that they take on impractical and unrealistic
greenhouse gas targets. Yet, developing nations such as China and India already
account for a majority of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, and it would
be irresponsible to absolve them from shouldering some of the shared obligations.
The greenhouse gas intensity approach I put forward today gives developing countries
a yardstick for progress on climate change that recognizes their right to economic
development. I look forward to discussing this new approach next week, when
I go to China and Japan and South Korea. The United States will not interfere
with the plans of any nation that chooses to ratify the Kyoto protocol. But
I will intend to work with nations, especially the poor and developing nations,
to show the world that there is a better approach, that we can build our future
prosperity along a cleaner and better path.
My budget includes over $220 million for the U.S. Agency for International Development
and a global environmental facility to help developing countries better measure,
reduce emissions, and to help them invest in clean and renewable energy technologies.
Many of these technologies, which we take for granted in our own country, are
not being used in the developing world. We can help ensure that the benefits
of these technologies are more broadly shared. Such efforts have helped bring
solar energy to Bangladesh, hydroelectric energy to the Philippines, geothermal
electricity to Kenya. These projects are bringing jobs and environmental benefits
to these nations, and we will build on these successes.
The new budget also provides $40 million under the Tropical Forest Conservation
Act to help countries redirect debt payments towards protecting tropical forests,
forests that store millions of tons of carbon. And I've also ordered the Secretary
of State to develop a new initiative to help developing countries stop illegal
logging, a practice that destroys biodiversity and releases millions of tons
of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
And, finally, my government is following through on our commitment to provide
$25 million for climate observation systems in developing countries that will
help scientists understand the dynamics of climate change.
To clean the air, and to address climate change, we need to recognize that economic
growth and environmental protection go hand in hand. Affluent societies are
the ones that demand, and can therefore afford, the most environmental protection.
Prosperity is what allows us to commit more and more resources to environmental
protection. And in the coming decades, the world needs to develop and deploy
billions of dollars of technologies that generate energy in cleaner ways. And
we need strong economic growth to make that possible.
Americans are among the most creative people in our history. We have used radio
waves to peer into the deepest reaches of space. We cracked life's genetic code.
We have made our air and land and water significantly cleaner, even as we have
built the world's strongest economy.
When I see what Americans have done, I know what we can do. We can tap the power
of economic growth to further protect our environment for generations that follow.
And that's what we're going to do.
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
Britain says Bush climate change plan too little
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UK: February 21, 2002
LONDON - The British government this week criticised U.S. President George
W. Bush's plan to tackle global warming and said it remained committed to the
Kyoto Protocol.
Several developed nations have slammed the U.S. leader's rejection of Kyoto
- and his alternative - but from Britain, often America's staunchest ally, criticism
is rare.
Bush unveiled proposals last week for a voluntary scheme to curb greenhouse
gases, setting goals for gas reductions tied to U.S. economic growth and giving
firms incentives to meet them.
Last year he rejected the mandatory cuts demanded by the 1997 Kyoto treaty as harmful to the U.S. economy.
"Since their economy is projected to grow so much, the result of their target appears to be a continued increase in greenhouse gas emissions, expected to total some 25 percent over the period 1990-2010," Britain's Environment Secretary, Margaret Beckett, said in a statement.
"This is in contrast with the net reduction in greenhouse gases that other developed world countries have agreed under the Kyoto Protocol and the seven percent reduction the U.S. originally agreed for that period."
The United States is by far the world's biggest polluter, generating roughly a quarter of the globe's man-made "greenhouse gases". The 1997 Kyoto treaty set a target for it to reduce emissions by about seven percent below 1990 levels in 10 years.
Although Bush pulled out of the treaty last year, America remains signed up to the 1990 climate change convention which his father signed up to at the Rio "Earth Summit".
That convention commits developed countries to try to stabilise their greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels. U.S. emissions are already around 13 percent higher than then.
"In the UK's view, the Kyoto Protocol, with its legally binding targets and timetables, remains the only workable basis for taking forward international action on climate change," Beckett said.
"The UK intends to ratify the Protocol along with our EU partners shortly."
Environmental campaigners Friends of the Earth were quick to praise Beckett's stand. "The UK government has not been fooled by Bush's climate con and is right to champion the Kyoto agreement," Kate Hampton, international coordinator of the group's Climate Change Campaign, said.
Story by Mike Peacock
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
US climate change plan does not alter UK's
commitment to Kyoto
Statement by Rt Hon Margaret Beckett MP, Tuesday 19 February 2002
Commenting today on the US Climate Strategy "A New Approach" issued
on Thursday 14 February, Secretary of
State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Margaret Beckett,
said:
" I welcome President Bush's recognition that climate change is a
serious problem, and the programme of research,
domestic action and international funding that has been outlined.
" The US have created a new form of target by measuring the
carbon-intensity of their economy. However, since their
economy is projected to grow so much, the result of their target
appears to be a continued increase in greenhouse
gas emissions, expected to total some 25% over the period
1990-2010. This is in contrast with the net reduction in
greenhouse gases that other developed world countries have agreed
under the Kyoto Protocol, and the 7% reduction
the US originally agreed for that period.
" In the UK's view, the Kyoto Protocol, with its legally binding
targets and timetables, remains the only workable
basis for taking forward international action on climate change.
This approach has been agreed by most of the
developed world and developing countries. The UK intends to ratify
the Protocol along with our EU partners shortly."
NOTES:
1. The 18% cut in emissions per unit of GDP between 2002 and 2012
may not be beyond current US trends - US
emissions per unit of economic activity have been falling faster
than this rate since the mid 1990s anyway. It should
therefore be easy for the US to achieve the 18% figure.
2. The policy could leave US emissions 25% higher in 2010. This is
compared to the 7% cut that the US agreed to
in Kyoto.
3. The overall effect could be that an extra 500 million tonnes of
carbon a year - 10% of developed country emissions
in 1990 - are reaching the atmosphere by around 2010, over and
above what would have happened with the US
meeting the Kyoto agreement
4. Countries still with Kyoto commitments have agreed to reduce
their emissions by an average of 4% between 1990
and 2010, with an 8% cut for the EU as a whole (and 12.5% for the
UK's share). Actual cuts are needed if we are
ever to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
It is misleading to say that the US policy, with its
very substantial increase in emissions is comparable to the effort being made
by others.
Neil Verlander
Press Office
Friends of the Earth
020 7566 1649 (t)
020 7490 0881 (f)
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
ANALYSIS - Kyoto coalition seen safe from Bush's climate
plan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EU: February 18, 2002
BRUSSELS - A new U.S. strategy to slow the rise in its greenhouse gas emissions
will not deter the rest of the world from pushing ahead with the Kyoto global
warming pact that Washington has rejected, European analysts said last week.
President George W. Bush pulled out of Kyoto, the United Nations pact agreed
in 1997, last year, saying it would harm the U.S. economy. At the time, many
people believed the treaty would shrivel and die without the support of the
world's biggest polluter.
The United States emits one third of the developed world's manmade greenhouse
gases. To come into force, Kyoto must be ratified by countries producing at
least 55 percent - requiring support from almost all major economies in Washington's
absence.
Supporters of the pact feared that when Bush revealed his alternative climate strategy it would cause other nations to abandon their Kyoto commitments.
But the European Union used a combination of diplomatic clout and shameless concessions at U.N. talks in Germany and Morocco last year to persuade key potential waiverers Russia and Japan to stick with Kyoto and isolate the United States.
But with a U.S. climate strategy now on the table - Bush has proposed slowing down the growth in emissions, rather than an actual cut as agreed at Kyoto - and as most countries have yet to ratify Kyoto, will the EU-led coalition hold?
JAPAN STILL KEY
Analysts said it was unlikely countries would dump Kyoto in preference for a Bush-style approach.
"The crucial countries are going to be Japan and Canada, and there's essentially nothing on offer here for them," Rob Bradley of Climate Network Europe, a group campaigning for action against global warming, said.
"The U.S. could have posed that danger if it had come out with a more credible plan. It would be very difficult for any country that had previously made positive noises about the Kyoto protocol to turn around and take this seriously."
Kyoto requires developed countries to cut their emissions of the "greenhouse gases" blamed for causing global warming, particularly carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning, by an average of five percent of 1990 levels by 2012.
Green groups believe the U.S. strategy would allow U.S. emissions to rise by 29 percent above 1990 levels by the end of the decade, rather than the seven percent cut Washington agreed to in Kyoto.
Bush is due to meet Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi in Tokyo on Monday as part of a tour of the region where the war on terrorism is likely to dominate the agenda, but where global warming may well also be discussed.
"It's bound to be mentioned and Japan is such a key country," Bradley said. He said it would be a diplomatic coup for Bush if he could bring the Japanese around to backing away from the Kyoto Protocol. But Bradley added: "It would be an outrage if Japan were to do that now."
Initial reaction from Japan suggests it is unimpressed by the White House strategy. Environment Minister Hiroshi Oki said: "It's not as if we are extremely happy with it."
Russia, whose emissions have dropped sharply since 1990, is considered a safe supporter of Kyoto as it will be able to sell those extra emissions to other countries struggling to meet their targets.
NOT FOR EXPORT
Paul Metz of the European Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future said the Bush strategy lacked an international aspect and had nothing to either deter countries from Kyoto or allow them to link up with the U.S. policy.
"Bush should have made a much more far-reaching and international proposal. This (policy) is absolutely not for export and I would be very surprised if it had any impact on (Kyoto) ratification by other countries."
Thomas Legge, a climate policy expert at independent think-tank Centre for European Policy Studies, agreed.
"I don't think that the Bush plan is either substantial enough in terms of emissions cuts or international enough to offer an alternative to waivering countries like Japan where there is political momentum behind ratification."
But the Bush plan did not exclude some kind of cooperation with the United States' close neighbours on greenhouse gas abatement, Legge said.
"Anything that the United States does is likely to include Canada, but I can see Canada happily taking part in both systems - the international and a regional North American system."
This might include in the future an emissions trading plan, similar to that included, at U.S. insistence, in the Kyoto pact: the right for countries or companies to buy and sell the right to pollute.
However, without mandatory reduction targets, analysts said it was difficult to see why United States firms would want to spend money on buying emissions permits.
"There is talk of a NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement)-wide trading system in the future. The likelihood of this is much stronger if mandatory targets, possibly along the lines of what some U.S. senators are proposing, get introduced in some form in the U.S.".
Story by Robin Pomeroy
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
-------------------------
EU dismisses Bush's alternative to Kyoto cuts
Environment Daily, 15/02/02
-------------------------
European politicians have dismissed as ineffective a new plan to
reduce American greenhouse gas emissions, outlined yesterday by
president George Bush. A series of senior figures have been unanimous
in reiterating that the UN Kyoto protocol provides the only framework
to reduce global emissions. Several have complained that the plan will
fail even to stabilise America's rising emissions.
Mr Bush's proposal is to reduce US emissions relative to national
economic growth by 18% between now and 2012. This would be achieved by
industry sectors voluntarily improving their emission intensity in
exchange for tax breaks. Most aspects of Mr Bush's plan require
congressional approval.
Responding, EU environment commissioner Ms Wallström said the
president's proposal would result in a "significant increase" in US
emissions. She once more disagreed with Mr Bush that US participation
in Kyoto would harm its economy and his assertion that 4.9m jobs across
America could be lost.
Germany's environment minister Jürgen Trittin described the plan as
"disappointing" and agreed with Ms Wallström that it would result
in
further emission increases. However, he argued against "slamming the
door shut" against America eventually deciding to participate sincerely
in the battle against climate change.
The UK environment ministry restated that Kyoto remained "the only
workable option". French environment minister Yves Cochet has
requested that EU environment leaders draft a "firm" response to Mr
Bush's plan when they meet next month in Brussels.
Europe-based environmental groups have attacked the plan in stronger
terms, with Friends of the Earth (FoE) describing it as a "con".
Drawing on official US statistics, Greenpeace claimed that the
emissions intensity target would in fact mean no change from the
existing trend, and would in any case be dwarfed by economic growth.
Including economic growth projections, the group estimated that US
emissions would reach 20% above current levels by 2012. Under Kyoto,
America was required to cut emissions by 7% from a 1990 baseline by
2008-12. In practice, levels are already nearly 15% above this
benchmark.
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
Letter from Japanese NGOs to President Bush
Mr. George W. Bush
President of the United States of America
2002.2.17
Mr. President,
We, Japanese environmental NGOs concerned about climate change, were
terribly dismayed by your new climate change plan.
We think this plan cannot be an “alternative” to Kyoto Protocol because
it
would allow the current greenhouse gas emissions of the United States to
increase by around 30% compared to 1990 level in 2010. It is not only
against the Kyoto Protocol but also violates the United Nations Climate
Change Convention which requires stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations to “a level that would prevent dangerous anthoropogenic
interference with the climate system”.
Therefore as global citizens, we demand of you, Mr. President, to
reconsider
your climate policy plan immediately and re-enter the Kyoto Protocol.
The
Kyoto Protocol is the only existing international framework to prevent
dangerous climate change.
The vast majority of the Japanese people strongly support the Kyoto
Protocol
and expect the United States to take serious action to reduce greenhouse
gas
emissions in order to save our planet.
Yours sincerely,
Mie Asaoka, President
Kiko Network
Yurika Ayukawa
WWF Japan
Tetsunari Iida
Green Energy Law Network
Hanna Jongepier
Peace Boat
Masaaki Nakajima
FoE Japan
Mika Ohbayashi
Institute for Sustainable Energy Policies
Harumi Suda
Citizens Movement National Center
CENTER FOR INTERNATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL LAW (USA)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
February 14, 2001. The Bush Administration today released its long-delayed alternative
to the Kyoto climate change treaty. The proposal was immediately derided by
activists throughout the world as wholly inadequate to deal with the threats
of global warming and as an attempt to distract nations from their commitment
to Kyoto.
The Administration proposes a voluntary system that would lower U.S. emissions growth to no more than a third of its gross domestic product growth. However, as Center for International Environmental Law attorney Glenn Wiser observes, "The industrialized countries' fossil fuel emissions have brought us to the brink of a climate catastrophe, and the United States produces more of this pollution by far than any other nation. Voluntary policies have failed in the past, and would allow the United States and any other country that followed our lead to continue increasing emissions, which is exactly the wrong approach."
Because the Administration plan would codify continued emissions growth instead of reductions, it not only fails in comparison to the Kyoto treaty, but also would put the United States in breach of our existing legal commitments under the 1992 Rio Climate Convention. Signed in Rio de Janeiro by then-President George H. W. Bush and promptly approved by the U.S. Senate and ratified by the United States, the Rio Convention requires us and other industrialized nations to develop plans to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. According to CIEL attorney Donald Goldberg, "By planning to reduce only the growth rate of emissions while allowing actual emissions to continue increasing indefinitely, the Administration's new plan would violate both the spirit and letter of the Rio treaty, which, like all treaties ratified by the United States, is part of our 'law of the land.'"
The President's plan would allow U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to increase to about 30% above 1990 levels over the next ten years (about 10% higher than they are today). The White House claims that "this goal is comparable to the average progress that nations participating in the Kyoto Protocol are required to achieve." This is, at best, highly misleading. The Kyoto climate treaty, which President Bush rejected in March 2001 as "unfair" to U.S. economic interests, requires industrialized countries to lower their emissions, on average to 5% below 1990 levels. Rules to implement the Kyoto treaty were finalized and accepted late last year by over 180 countries. The governments of Britain, Canada, Japan, Germany and nearly all other U.S. allies have announced their intention to ratify the Kyoto treaty with the hope that it will enter into force before the World Summit on Sustainable Development later this year.
Yesterday, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer indicated that the Administration might expect to distract the world community from Kyoto when he said, "The president will make an announcement tomorrow about a new approach, new policy, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions throughout the world, led by the United States." To the contrary, says Wiser, "the plan released today reveals that the Administration has no intention of reducing emissions at all, but would lead the United States¾and any government willing to follow¾down a path of continued emissions growth and continued consumption of coal and oil, and toward an increasing threat of uncontrollable climate change."
The Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) is a public interest, not-for-profit environmental law firm founded in 1989 to strengthen international and comparative environmental law and policy around the world. CIEL is a member of the Climate Action Network (CAN), a coalition of more than 285 nongovernmental organizations throughout the world committed to limiting human-induced climate change to ecologically sustainable levels.
For further information, please contact:
Glenn Wiser, 202-785-8700, gwiser@ciel.org
OR
Donald Goldberg, 202-785-8700, dgoldberg@ciel.org
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
To: Reporters and Editors
From: Steve Cochran, Joe Goffman, Environmental Defense
Telephone: 202-387-3500
Date: 14 February 2002
Subject: "Bold New" Proposal On Climate Is Neither "Bold"
nor "New"
The Bush administration calls its proposal for addressing the greenhouse pollution that is already causing global climate change "bold" and "new." Unfortunately, a truly "bold" plan would not include as its target continued increases of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Yet this is what the President's plan does.
Equally unfortunate, the Bush administration's "greenhouse gas intensity" policy contains no new plan, no new requirement, and no new strategy whatsoever that would bring about changes from the current U.S. trend of steadily increasing greenhouse gas emissions. How then, will the U.S. achieve even a lessening of emissions increases?
Background
The United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse pollution. It
is important however to realize that while U.S. emissions have grown by a hefty
12% in the past decade, the greenhouse gas intensity of our U.S. economy --
not the nation's total emissions, but its emissions per unit of Gross Domestic
Product (GDP) -- has actually declined by 15%. This improvement in greenhouse
gas intensity has occurred under existing voluntary programs that are virtually
no different from what the President outlined today. The U.S. is already doing
-- and has been doing for nearly 10 years -- essentially what the President
is claiming as a "new" initiative, as the pollution that causes climates
change is continuing to increase.
Even during President Bush's tenure as Governor of Texas his voluntary air pollution proposals failed so badly in reducing emissions that the state had to quickly replace them with mandatory programs.
So, while today's proposal sounds positive, in fact, as the attached graphs illustrate, it is most likely to result in emissions levels that are virtually no different from what the government was already predicting, and what existing policies were already producing.
Even under the most optimistic projections from the administration proposal, total actual emissions of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will increase by at least 12% over the next decade.
Climate change is an urgent challenge. It demands not rhetoric disguising inaction, but real reductions in total emissions of greenhouse gases. The administration's "bold new strategy" would not change current trends of the largest man-made increases in greenhouse gas emissions the globe has ever seen.
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
REDEFINING PROGRESS
MEDIA RELEASE
CONTACT:
Craig Cheslog (510-444-3041, ext. 305)
Janet Graesser (510-444-3041, ext. 322)
communications@redefiningprogress.org
www.RedefiningProgress.org
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
February 14, 2002
PRESIDENT BUSH'S CLIMATE CHANGE PLAN IS SERIOUSLY FLAWED AND
IS BASED ON THE FALLACY THAT CLIMATE ACTION WILL HARM THE U.S. ECONOMY
OAKLAND, Calif.--Redefining Progress argues that the climate change policy outlined
today by President Bush is seriously flawed. The proposal is the latest remarkable
failure by the United States to deal with an issue requiring immediate action.
"Despite the president's claim, his climate change plan will not put the
United States on the road towards a sustainable economy," said Redefining
Progress Executive Director Michel Gelobter. "It will lead to greater national
security risks, enhanced dependency on foreign energy sources, and increased
health and economic hardships having a disproportionate impact on low-income
households, communities of color, and Indigenous Peoples."
"The United States, to our detriment, has once again refused to take the
lead on climate change. As the greatest emitter of greenhouse emissions, we
appear willing only to be the largest contributor to the problem," added
Gelobter. "Our failure to act, moreover, is based on the false premise
that taking action will seriously harm the U.S. economy."
The White House continues to ignore the wealth of research explaining how the
United States can make significant cuts to greenhouse gas emissions while strengthening
the economy, protecting jobs, and promoting social justice.
In fact, over 2,500 economists signed the "Economists' Statement on Climate
Change" to make the point that there are market-based solutions, unlike
those proposed today by President Bush, that can be used to make credible and
significant greenhouse gas emission reductions. The statement, drafted in 1997
before the Kyoto negotiations as testimony to the power of such policies, declares
in part:
"For the United States in particular, sound economic analysis shows that
there are policy options that would slow climate change without harming American
living standards, and these measures may in fact improve U.S. productivity in
the longer run."
Subsequent studies sponsored by Redefining Progress and other organizations
have outlined various policy solutions. For example, one Redefining Progress
study examined the effect on 498 industries of using revenue from greenhouse
gas emission charges to reduce payroll taxes and/or corporate taxes on capital
income, such as retained earnings and dividends. The study found that 73-80
percent of industries, employing 78-92 percent of workers, would benefit from
such environmental tax shifting plans.
###
Ansje Miller
Campaign Manager
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
RSPB (UK) Press release on Bush plan:
For immediate release
Thursday 14 February, 2002
Bush global warming plan: just what it says, claims RSPB
Today, President Bush will announce his long-awaited "alternative"
to Kyoto.
In fact, it will not be an alternative but will lead to an increase in US
emissions, rather than the decrease agreed under the protocol.
In announcing his plan, Mr Bush will not only be re-emphasising his
rejection of the Kyoto protocol and the views of the rest of the world, but
he will be reneging on commitments made by his father when he signed the
Climate Change Convention in Rio in 1992.
The Convention, of which the USA is a full member, commits its signatory
nations to put in place policies and measures with the aim of returning to
their 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions. The USA spectacularly failed
to do this under the Clinton Administration but Bush is now going one step
further and planning to increase emissions.
The aim of the Bush plan is to cut greenhouse gas "intensity" by
18 per cent
over the next ten years. This sounds excellent but "intensity" means
emissions per unit of GDP and Mr Bush intends to massively increase US GDP,
as announced in his recently published economic plan.
The forecast rate of US GDP growth over the next decade is 38 per cent which
will swamp an 18 per cent improvement in greenhouse gas intensity. Between
1990 and 2000 US greenhouse gas intensity improved by almost the same (17.4
per cent) as Bush's new target for 2002 to 2012, but real emissions still
rose by 14 per cent.
If US emission intensity is cut by 18 per cent and GDP rises by 38 per cent,
emissions will rise by another 14 per cent in the next decade.
A 14 per cent emission increase in US emissions is equivalent to about one
and a half times all UK emissions.
John Lanchbery, the RSPB's head of climate change policy, said: "This
is not
an alternative to Kyoto but a travesty of it. It is aptly named the 'global
warming plan' because that is precisely what it will lead to."
Back to CNE latest news
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
WRI Says Bush Plans Will Increase Greenhouse Emissions
By 14%
WASHINGTON, DC, February 14, 2002 - President George Bush's new global
warming plan will increase greenhouse gas emissions by 14%, said
officials at the World Resources Institute (WRI) today.
"I wish the President's plan were a serious effort to deal with
global warming. But it is not. The plan will only succeed in confusing
the American people, and our allies overseas, with misleading
statistics," Dr. Nancy Kete, director of WRI's Climate, Energy, and
Pollution Program.
She added that Pres. Bush's boast that the amount of greenhouse
gases in relation to gross domestic product growth would fall by 18%
over the next 10 years is misleading. "Emissions under Bush's plan
would actually increase by 14% during the time period. And far from
being comparable to the efforts by others under the Kyoto Protocol, US
emissions would be 33% above the Kyoto baseline in 2012, compared with a
5% cut for industrialized countries," Dr. Kete said.
Pres. Bush unveiled his plans today, the results of a year-long
cabinet review, before departing for a trip to Asia this weekend. The
announcement was also timed to influence the on-going Senate debate on
his energy plan and to ease the passage of new controls on emissions
from power plants.
"What the President called an aggressive new strategy for the
next ten years is really warmed-over business as usual. Over the last 10
years greenhouse gas intensity fell by 17%, the same amount Bush is
calling for now. So there's nothing really new or bold about this
strategy," Dr. Kete said.
The President did not set out a long-term goal for US policy
even though last year, in dismissing the Kyoto Protocol as " fatally
flawed," he had said that the US approach "would be consistent with
the
long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere." Today's announcement was silent on this point, but WRI
experts point out one cannot have a viable global strategy for
protecting the climate system that allows US emissions to increase
indefinitely.
They also said that Pres. Bush failed to justify why a
market-based system was necessary to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide,
nitrogen oxides, and mercury from power plants by 70% but not applicable
to carbon dioxide emissions.
"Pres. Bush's plan will give no clear signal to business that it
needs to start preparing for a less carbon-intensive world. We will lose
a decade by failing to require all companies to begin investing in
cleaner technology," said Dr. Kete.
Many major corporations are already demonstrating that emissions
trading is a very cost-effective means to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. WRI experts said that they would be disappointed that the
President took no steps towards setting up a US-wide trading scheme.
Pres. Bush's plan also calls for voluntary emissions reporting.
However, the US already has voluntary reporting programs for greenhouse
gases that attract only the proactive companies.
"We need a mandatory and accurate system that catches the
laggards and establishes a proper emissions baseline," said Janet
Ranganathan, senior associate at WRI. There are already internationally
accepted standards such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol developed by WRI
and World Business Council for Sustainable Development. This tool would
provide the necessary basis for an emissions-trading scheme.
"The Bush Administration came into office emphasizing
uncertainties about the science of global warming and declaring its
objections to the Kyoto Protocol," said Dr. Kete. "A year later, after
an extensive review, the Administration had a golden opportunity to set
out a coherent plan showing how America would set about fighting global
warming. Unfortunately, it failed to do so."
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
PRESS RELEASE
For immediate release 14 February 2002
WWF Dismayed by Expected White House Climate Change Policy
Washington DC - The U.S. climate change policy, expected to be announced today by the Bush Administration today, is a woefully inadequate response to the problem of global warming, according to WWF, the conservation organization.
After a year of what the Bush Administration has termed "intensive deliberations," it is producing a policy that will allow global warming pollution from the U.S. to increase indefinitely. Just how much U.S. emissions will increase will be clear later today.
"This is a Valentine's Day gift to the polluters and a rebuff to the rest of the world," said Jennifer Morgan, Director of WWF's Climate Change Campaign.
While the Bush Administration's plan is expected to increase U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) substantially, all other industrialized nations are in the final stages of introducing the first binding international law on climate change- the Kyoto Protocol - containing mandatory targets to reduce CO2 in the coming decade. Despite being the world's largest global warming polluter, the Bush Administration turned its back on this international effort to fight global warming early last year. The Bush proposal, as WWF currently understands, will hardly see U.S. emissions deviate from the 'business-as-usual' trend.
"This policy is a step backwards from what the first Bush Administration agreed to over a decade ago at the Rio Earth Summit," said Jennifer Morgan. "It is shocking in light of the firm scientific consensus, agreed by governments including the U.S., that climate change is already happening and is likely to cause enormous damage in the future."
Other countries, like Germany and the United Kingdom, are continuing to achieve significant reductions in their CO2 emissions while growing economically, shattering the myths being cited by the Bush Administration that cutting emissions harms economic development.
Key U.S. companies are already committed to more aggressive emission reduction targets than those expected in the Bush Administration's plan. As part of WWF's "Climate Savers" program, for example, major corporations such as Johnson & Johnson, Nike and Lafarge have pledged significant absolute reductions in their CO2 emissions. They expect carbon dioxide reductions to have a positive impact on their bottom line.
"To effectively fight global warming, the United States must join the rest of the world in implementing the Kyoto Protocol. Domestically, the US should pass legislation that significantly cuts carbon pollution from U.S. power plants, increases reliance on clean, renewable energy resources, and significantly increases the fuel economy of vehicles," stated Jennifer Morgan. "Measures like these, currently on the table in the U.S. Congress, would simultaneously reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil and increase national security while reducing the air pollution that causes acid rain, smog, and respiratory illnesses."
For more information:
Kathleen Sullivan, Climate Change Press Officer. Tel: +1 202 778 9576; mobile:
+1 202 257 9959
COMMUNIQUE de RAC-Maghreb
Le Plan Bush sur les CC :
de la poudre aux yeux pour la
Communauté internationale !
Le plan Bush du 14 février 2002 n'apporte rien de nouveau ! De la poudre
aux yeux pour la communauté internationale qui finira par découvrir
le leurre !
Deux points dans ce plan :
1- ''the clear skies initiative'' : une simple continuité du ''clean
air act'' relatif aux trois polluants incriminés dans les problèmes
de santé des américains (SO2 , NOx et le mercure).
2- ''Global Climate Change'' : cette ''nouvelle'' approche, basée sur
des programmes volontaires réduirait ''l'intensité des émissions
GES'' ! En termes clairs, cela veut dire que l'objectif du plan est de réduire
la croissance des émissions de GES (dans le meilleur des cas). On est
loin de l'engagement des E.U. vis-à-vis de la communauté internationale
quand le Sénat américain a ratifié la CCNUCC: celui d'adopter
des politiques et mesures qui réduiraient effectivement les émissions
de GES pour les ramener à leur niveau de 1990 (art. 4, § 2.b de
la Convention).
Le plan Bush correspond à une rupture de cet engagement de l'Administration
américaine. Au lieu d'une réduction des émissions du plus
grand pollueur du monde (avec plus de 25 % des émissions), ce plan nous
assure que la croissance des émissions serait ralentie, moyennant une
série de mesures (dont curieusement une réduction du budget fédéral
de R&D pour le développement de technologies propres : efficacité
énergétique et énergies renouvelables notamment). La Communauté
internationale doit prendre acte de ce manquement de l'Administration américaine
à ses engagements.
Nous n'avons rien à attendre de l'Administration Bush dont on espérait
un retour à la table des négociations sur le Protocole de Kyoto
; mais nous avons tout à espérer des Etats de la Fédération
qui ont l'occasion de faire preuve de plus de responsabilité et de faire
basculer à terme la politique fédérale en matière
d'énergie et de CC.
Rabat le 15 février 2002 La Coordination régionale de Rac-Maghreb
Back to articles on Bush 14 feb climate speech
-------------------------
UK advisors call for 40% energy efficiency goal
Environment Daily 1158, 14/02/02
-------------------------
The cheapest method of cutting UK greenhouse gas emissions and
safeguarding security of energy supply would be to improve household
energy efficiency and increase the proportion of renewably generated
electricity, concludes a report published today on the future of
British energy policy. However, the options of replacing existing
nuclear power capacity or investing in clean coal should not be ruled
out, it adds.
The report is the work of the government's so-called performance and
innovation unit (PIU) of policy advisors. Commissioned by prime
minister Tony Blair, its publication officially launches government
efforts to formulate a long-term energy policy
A series of consultations will begin soon, with an energy white paper
planned for the autumn. Several media outlets, including Environment
Daily, obtained a leaked copy of today's report late last year and the
main conclusions in this final version remain unchanged
Its authors call for a 2010 target to improve household energy
efficiency by 20%, followed by a further 20% improvement by 2020. They
also argue that "economic instruments" should be introduced "to
bring
home" the cost of carbon emissions for "all energy users".
On renewables, the report calls for 20% of supply to come from
renewables by 2020 and for the government to "urgently address"
existing institutional barriers to investment in renewables and
combined heat and power. The government has thus far limited itself to
a 10% by 2010 indicative target for renewable supply.
The report hedges its bets on the hugely controversial issue of
nuclear power. It emphasises its high cost, but advises the government
not to close the door on the possible need to replace ageing nuclear
capacity with new reactors over the next two decades.
British Energy, which is the country's largest electricity generation
and owns most of its nuclear power stations, called today for "major"
developments in both nuclear and renewable generation.
Reactions from environmental groups have been mixed. Those advocating
greater energy efficiency, such as the Energy saving trust (EST), were
pleased, while those with long-standing anti-nuclear campaigns, such as
Greenpeace, were much less positive.
Follow-up:, report
http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/innovation/2002/energy/report/index.htm;
.
UPDATE - EU extends exemptions to German energy
tax
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EU: February 14, 2002
BRUSSELS - Energy intensive industries in Germany will retain reduced eco-taxes
as long as they respect voluntary initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions,
the European Commission decided yesterday.
The Commission approved Germany's eco-tax regime, which levies lower rates
to some sectors, because it was satisfied there would still be a net benefit
for the environment.
"Germany's request for a prolongation of the current tax exemptions has
been an important test for the Commission's guidelines for environmental state
aid," EU Competition Commissioner Mario Monti said in a statement.
Germany introduced the tax in 1999 on the consumption of electricity and increased tax on consumption of mineral oils, as a way of tackling the emissions of greenhouse gases associated with global warming.
But it allowed a range of exemptions for industry to protect German companies that had to compete with firms from other EU countries where such taxes do not exist.
In November Monti, who is in charge of vetting state aid in the EU, told Germany it had to alter its eco-tax exemptions to ensure industries were not getting tax breaks without making an effort to help the environment.
GREEN CONCERNS MET
These concerns had now been met, and the decision to approve Germany's eco-tax breaks showed EU governments were allowed to "relieve companies from some of the burden of extra taxes" as long as this did not compromise the tax's original goal of environmental protection.
Under the scheme, manufacturing sectors, coal, steel, agriculture, forestry and fishery, will all get an 80 percent reduction on the mineral oil tax and 20 percent reduction on the electricity rate for 10 years.
The Commission decided this would still mean such companies were paying more than the statutory EU minima for energy taxes and that the reduced taxes still provided incentives to save energy.
A tax cap for the most energy intensive sectors was allowable until 2005 because they had signed up to voluntary commitments to reduce emissions of the greenhouse gases blamed for causing climate change.
The Commission would consider allowing this tax cap to be extended beyond 2005 if the environmental commitments proved valid, it said.
The tax plan also provides tax reductions for environmentally friendly combined
heat and power plants as well as railways and local public transport.
-------------------------
Finnish debate over new nuclear heats up
Environment Daily, 13/02/02
-------------------------
A cross-party group of 12 Finnish parliamentarians, including three
government ministers, today voiced dissent over a government decision
last month to approve in principle construction of a fifth nuclear
power plant. The group asked instead for increased investment in
natural gas-fired plants and renewables
In a poll reported yesterday by news agency FNB, public opinion was
split on the project, with 49% opposing a new nuclear plant and 45%
supporting it. A sizeable majority of 65% thought the issue should be
put to a referendum.
On Monday, environmental groups WWF Finland, Greenpeace Nordic and the
Finnish association for nature conservation issued a joint alternative
climate strategy calling for energy-saving measures and greater use of
renewable energy sources. The NGOs' plan responds to two strategic
climate policy options identified by the government, one based on more
use of natural gas and the other on increased nuclear capacity
Based on the same research the NGOs draw radically different
conclusions. They argue that energy-saving measures "neglected" by
the
government could reduce demand by 4.5 terawatt hours (TWh) compared
with the 90TWh in 2010 projected by the government. Finnish industry
thinks 2010 demand is more likely to be 94TWh.
The groups also place greater emphasis on renewable energies.
Biomass, they suggest, could produce 17TWh - 40% more than in the
government strategies - as well as "develop profitable exports and
create employment". The role of natural gas would be significantly
reduced compared with the government's projections. Wind power
capacity would rise to at least double the level planned by the
government, to reach 2.2TWh.
Follow-up: Greenpeace Nordic http://www.greenpeace.se/fi/index.asp,
and press release
http://www.greenpeace.se/templates/template_27.asp?template_12.asp?lang=21&number=2161;
Association for nature conservation http://www.sll.fi/;
WWF Finland http://www.wwf.fi/, and
energy strategy http://www.wwf.fi/www/uploads/pdf/KIOtahti.pdf.
-------------------------
EU plots route to world sustainability
Environment Daily, 13/02/02
-------------------------
The European Commission today published a draft EU strategy for global
sustainable development with an overall aim to "reverse the trend of
environmental degradation" by 2015. The document outlines the
Commission's desire for a "global deal" at September's planned
Johannesburg follow-up to the Rio earth conference.
Presented by EU development commissioner Poul Nielsen, the paper sets
out how EU policies should support sustainability in third countries.
If approved by EU leaders at next month's Barcelona summit, it will
form an "integral part" of the "domestic" EU sustainable
development
strategy adopted last year.
At the plan's heart is an array of initiatives to tackle specific
environmental problems. This includes a "strategic partnership" with
international organisations, governments and stakeholders to promote
sustainable water management on river-basin principles. Cooperation in
the energy sector should support savings, clean technologies and
development of renewables.
There are plans for a 50% replenishment of the global environment
facility and for its mandate to be broadened to cover land degradation,
deforestation and the Stockholm convention on persistent organic
pollutants. The Commission will develop EU strategies on distant water
fisheries and illegal logging and timber trade.
The Commission says it will also look inwards to increase the
"coherence" of common EU agricultural and fisheries policies with
development objectives. By the end of the year it will present a
methodology for submitting policy options to a "sustainability
analysis". EU member states will be pushed to implement a longstanding
pledge to raise overseas development aid to 0.7% of national income -
the current average is 0.33%.
Other priorities include greening global trade through the "Doha
development agenda" agreed in Qatar last year. Under this heading the
Commission proposes common rules on environment and export credit
guarantees. More efforts should be made to reduce poverty, which the
paper says is a major contributor to environmental damage in less
developed countries.
Toronto emissions decrease by 67 per cent
Historic reduction in greenhouse gases, MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT reports, is the result of treating methane from garbage dumps
By MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT
Wednesday, February 13, 2002
Globe and Mail
While Canada struggles to meet its commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases, the city of Toronto has cut its discharges by an eyepopping 67 per cent
since 1990, says a new report commissioned by the municipality.
Part of the huge reduction was achieved by such simple steps as improving the
energy efficiency of city buildings and streetlights. But the biggest portion
was due to changes in the treatment of gas seeping from the millions of tonnes
of rotting garbage in municipal landfills.
All told, the city has cut annual emissions from the equivalent of 2.3 million
tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, to only 765,000 tonnes in
1998, according to the report, which is to be publicly released today.
The drop is one of the largest cuts in greenhouse gases ever achieved in Canada,
and it exceeds by more than three times a goal the city adopted in 1990 to cut
emissions of planet warming gases from its operations by 20 per cent. The achievement
is being heralded by city officials as a sign of what a government committed
to environmental improvements can accomplish.
"When Toronto follows through and implements its policies it can do some
outstanding things," said Phil Jessup, head of the Toronto Atmospheric
Fund, a city body that bankrolls energy efficiency steps.
The biggest reductions came from improvements at landfills, which are major
sources of methane, a greenhouse gas that scientists say is 21 times more potent
than carbon dioxide.
Methane, also known as natural gas, seeps out of the ground in large quantities
from most landfills, where it is produced when garbage containing organic matter
-- such as orange peels, newspapers and wood -- decays in the absence of oxygen.
In 1990, about 75 per cent of Toronto's greenhouse gas emissions came from waste
methane escaping from landfills and other parts of its garbage collection system.
Since then, the city has had contractors install piping into three of its largest
landfills, to collect methane and route it to power plants, where it is burned
to create electricity. The city has also started composting more organic material,
an activity that doesn't produce methane if done properly.
These actions have reduced the city's emissions from garbage collection activities
by 92 per cent.
Mr. Jessup said the methane-fuelled generating stations at the city's landfills
have the capacity to produce about 20 megawatts of electricity, or the amount
that would supply the power needs of about 7,000 typical residences.
The city is currently mulling over whether to install methane collectors at
a fourth landfill, which would reduce emissions by a further 20,000 tonnes a
year.
Toronto isn't alone among cities trying to reduce greenhouse emissions, which
come from the operation of everything from transit buses to heat for social
housing and lights in libraries.
In Calgary, for instance, the city transit system has contracted with a wind-energy
producer for electricity, a step that will eliminate carbon-dioxide emissions
from the operation of its light-rail C-train system.
And around the world, about 500 cities have pledged to cut greenhouse gas emissions
by 20 per cent, the same goal Toronto has set.
"Municipal governments are the level of government that has taken climate
change the most seriously," said Robert Hornung, a climate-change program
director at the Pembina Institute, an Alberta-based based environmental think
tank. "This is the first clear example that I know of in Canada of a municipality
claiming that it significantly exceeded that [20 per cent] target."
Canada emits about 700 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year, a figure that
has grown by more than 10 per cent since 1990. Under the Kyoto agreement on
climate change, Canada must cut emissions by 6 per cent below 1990 levels between
2008 and 2012. Mr. Jessup said the city has also saved energy through such steps
as converting 30,000 streetlight lamps to high efficiency bulbs. In addition,
100 city owned buildings have been given energy-efficiency upgrades, cutting
power use by 8 per cent.
The city is mulling over further actions to reduce greenhouse gases, such as
using cold water from Lake Ontario instead of air conditioning to cool office
towers.
Global Warming Plan Due
White House Seeks Flexibility on Emissions Limits
By Dana Milbank and Eric Pianin
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, February 6, 2002
The Bush administration is readying a proposal on global warming to issue before
President Bush leaves for Asia next week, hoping to ease concerns by allies
and
environmentalists following the administration's rejection of the Kyoto accord
restricting
emissions.
Administration officials cautioned that they still have not finished deliberations,
but
several officials said Bush will probably roll out the proposal next week. The
optimism follows a meeting Monday night of Bush's Cabinet-level global warming
working group, which narrowed differences over proposals for limiting pollutants
and greenhouse gases that cause the atmosphere to warm.
According to those familiar with the administration's discussions, Bush continues
to
oppose an international accord setting tough mandatory limits but will outline
various measures the United States will take to limit the release of greenhouse
gases,
principally carbon dioxide.
One idea winning favor would replace the notion of setting fixed targets for
power plant
emissions of carbon dioxide with "emission intensity" targets -- measures
that
would expand or contract with economic growth.
Another proposal, dealing with pollutants such as nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide
and
mercury, calls for an emissions trading program that would allows big polluters
that exceed mandatory emission targets to buy credits from cleaner companies
whose
emissions come in lower than the targets. Officials said Environmental
Protection Agency Administrator Christine Todd Whitman argued persuasively in
favor
of a trading approach with mandatory targets during Monday's meeting.
Department of Energy officials oppose mandatory targets in favor of an incentive
system.
The intensifying deliberations underscore Bush's efforts to grapple with an
issue that
has caused him trouble abroad with leading U.S. allies and at home, where his
poor standing on environmental issues is one of the few chinks in his otherwise
lofty
public standing.
The administration has been under pressure to develop an alternative to the
Kyoto
accords, which were concluded last November and require about 40
industrialized countries to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping
gases by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels.
"We're looking at a wide range of options, including new technologies
for reducing
greenhouse gas emissions in a way that won't harm our economy and encourages
the widest possible global participation," said White House spokesman Scott
McClellan. "Anything at this point is simply speculation because final
decisions have not
been reached."
A preview of the administration's alternative was offered in the Council of
Economic
Advisers' annual report to the president, released this week, which includes
a
chapter on environmental policy.
"The uncertainty surrounding the science of climate change suggests that
some
modesty is in order," the report said. "We need to recognize that
it makes sense to
discuss slowing emission growth before trying to stop and eventually reverse
it."
The report suggests an approach to setting targets for greenhouse gas emissions
that
would tie them to economic output or other measures of economic activity.
Under this system, the United States would have easier targets to meet as long
as
growth in the economy outstripped growth in emissions -- which has been the
case
for the last decade.
Such a gradual approach, the report concluded, would allow more time for research
and technological gains and "to develop stronger institutions for a long-term,
global solution."
Analysts said an "emissions intensity" proposal for carbon dioxide
releases would, if
adopted globally, resolve many American concerns with the Kyoto accords.
Bush has complained, for example, that India, China and other developing countries
are not covered by Kyoto's emission targets. Also, countries such as Russia
that
were major polluters during the 1990s but now have diminished production levels
get
credit while far exceeding the targets.
"The U.S. does very well under the intensity standard," said Fred
Smith of the free-
market Competitive Enterprise Institute. The administration's proposal would
"show America is out of Kyoto but not ignoring concerns about global warming."
But Eileen Claussen of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change said that U.S.
emissions relative to gross domestic product have decreased substantially during
the
past decade as the economy expanded, and that the administration approach would
barely put a dent in the problem.
She said she doubts the administration is willing to support the kinds of measures
necessary merely to cut back emissions to last year's levels, let alone the
huge
reductions needed to meet the Kyoto targets.
"I don't think the things the administration can propose give [environmentalists]
much
comfort," she said. "I don't think it's going to be nothing, but I
don't think it's
going to be a great deal, either."
Follow up: Report available at http://w3.access.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy2003/pdf/2002_erp.pdf
Pages on climate change 244-9
-------------------------
Anti-Kyoto business lobby "deactivates"
Environment Daily, 06/02/02
-------------------------
The Global climate coalition (GCC), the world's highest profile
business group opposed to the UN Kyoto protocol on climate change, has
closed after 13 years. Though mainly a US-based organisation, the body
achieved world renown for its efforts to head off binding greenhouse
gas emission cuts of any kind.
According to an announcement posted on the GCC website last month, the
group has been "deactivated" having "served its purpose by contributing
to a new national approach to global warming", meaning America's
decision last March to pull out of the Kyoto protocol
Since the Kyoto protocol is very much alive and the possibility of
future American participation still real, another factor is probably
declining support for the GCC within the business community. A series
of members left in recent years, eventually prompting the organisation
to alter its membership rules to end any more resignations.
High-profile departures since 1996 have included Shell, BP,
DaimlerChrysler, Ford and Texaco
As the GCC's membership has declined, so the fortunes of pro-climate
action business groups on both sides of the Atlantic have been rising.
In Europe, the European business council for a sustainable energy
future, or E5, has increased its membership to 110, each of which has
to stipulate that it supports the Kyoto protocol.
Last spring, E5 launched an initiative it called E55, aiming to get 55
firms to sign up to a charter on climate change
According to spokesperson Delia Villagrassa, the project has been so
successful, with 180 companies participating so far, that the goal has
now been extended to 550 signatories by the time of the Johannesburg
sustainability summit.
Similar initiatives have been launched in various countries, including
the Partnership for climate action in America
Meanshile, a new Business council for sustainable energy (BCSE) was
launched last week in Britain.
Follow-up: GCC http://www.globalclimate.org/E5
http://www.e5.org/,BCSE http://www.bcse.org.uk/,
Japan reaffirms it's commitment to ratification of KP
Extract from Koizumi's speech to the Diet 4th Feb 2002
The issue of global warming requires an urgent response and I will aim to see that this session of the Diet approves the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol and provides for the necessary domestic legislation. Furthermore, I will continue to make maximum efforts to seek a constructive response from the United States, and to formulate international rules with the participation of developing countries. At the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be held in September, I will call for the achievement of both environmental protection and development.
It will be no easy task to achieve the goals of the Kyoto Protocol. The government, local public bodies, enterprises and the general public must unite and work together in this endeavor. We must aim to create a scheme in which a balance can be achieved between the environment and the economy, so that our efforts to achieve these goals may result in a revitalization of our economy and the creation of employment, using technological innovation and the creative ingenuity of the business community. At the same time, we will actively promote the growth and preservation of healthy forests to absorb carbon dioxide emissions.
Approximately 90 percent of greenhouse gases come from carbon dioxide emissions resulting from energy consumption. That is why we will powerfully advance measures to conserve energy and measures to promote new energy sources while, premised on ensuring safety, we will also steadily advance nuclear power generation, which emits no carbon dioxide. The fuel cell is the key to opening the doors to an era in which hydrogen will be used as source of energy. We will aim to achieve its practical use as a power source for automobiles and a source of electric power for households within three years. In addition, we will promote the introduction of new energy sources by electrical power suppliers.
In order to reduce the amount of energy that we unwittingly use in our every daily lives, I want to call on each and every person to re-examine the way he or she lives, such as by making utmost use of energy saving products. As for the government, we have implemented reforms of our own, such as deciding to replace all general official vehicles with low emission vehicles and introducing a recycling system in which leftover food is collected and provided to farmers for use as fertilizer and livestock feed. This year, the number of solar power generation devices installed in central government ministries will be increased by approximately five-fold and a 50 percent increase will be made to the number of environment-friendly devices purchased by the government as we promote green procurement.
In order to accelerate the creation of a recycling society we will establish a scheme for continually recycling the more than 5 million used automobiles that are disposed of each year. Furthermore, efforts will be made to promptly launch businesses that can be quickly implemented from those included in the Zero Waste City Project.
-------------------------
EU presidency castigated over climate policy
Environment Daily, 05/02/02
-------------------------
Spain's performance on climate change issues has come under attack
after the government approved ratification of the UN Kyoto protocol.
The move was mere "window dressing", according to environmental groups
Ecologists in Action and Greenpeace, which accused the government of
failing to show any real commitment to restraining greenhouse gas
emissions.
As it currently holds the EU presidency, the Spanish government is
overseeing preparations for all member states to ratify the Kyoto
protocol by 1 June, opening the possibility of entry into force by late
August when the world sustainability summit kicks off in Johannesburg.
At their next regular session in early March, EU environment ministers
should approve European Commission proposals for this process
The two environmental groups complain that Spain's initiative to
prepare for ratification - relatively early in comparison with other EU
states - is completely unmatched by domestic policies. The government
has yet to publish a formal climate change strategy, has presided over
a "vertiginous increase" in carbon dioxide emissions and is still
allowing construction of new fossil fuel-fired power stations, the NGOs
complain.
A national climate strategy was promised in late 1998 by then
environment minister Isabel Tocino, but its publication has been
repeatedly delayed
The current plan is for one to emerge by the end of 2002, senior
government official Javier Rubio recently told Spanish newspaper Cinco
Días.
In this policy vacuum, Spanish carbon dioxide emission have already
risen by 30% since 1990, twice Spain's ceiling for 2008-12 under the
Kyoto protocol, the NGOs note. Greenpeace is particularly critical of
government approval granted to 22 new, mainly gas-fired, power
stations, with a further 25 on the drawing board. If all these are
built, the group estimates, Spanish CO2 emissions would rise by
108-125m tonnes per year.
Follow-up: Greenpeace Spain
http://www.greenpeace.es/
Ecologists in Action
http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org/
UK sets utilities new targets on saving energy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UK: February 6, 2002
LONDON - British households could save over 100 pounds ($141.7) a year on their
heating bills after the government this week set new efficiency targets for
energy companies.
The government's Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) programme, which starts
in April, is expected to cost utilities 500 million pounds ($708.7 million)
as they take measures to meet efficiency targets between 2002 and 2005, energy
regulator Ofgem said in a statement.
The EEC forms part of the government's programme to reduce pollution and to
benefit people on low incomes.
The regulator said measures should include installing cavity wall insulation and energy efficient heating and lightbulbs in customers' homes.
"The individual EEC targets that have been set for companies are substantial," said Ofgem's director of social and environmental affairs Virginia Graham in the statement.
"The fact that at least 50 percent of the efficiency measures must be targeted to customers on benefits or tax credits will ensure that these measures will benefit those who really need it," she said.
She said the targets formed an important part of the government's Climate Change Programme and its Fuel Poverty Strategy.
The new targets applied to companies with more than 15,000 customers.
The need for greater energy efficiency was highlighted last week in the draft of a government-commissioned review of Britain's future energy policy, published by environmental group Greenpeace.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
Back to CNE latest news
Japan CO2 emissions up 1.1 pct yr/yr in 2000/01
JAPAN: February 4, 2002
TOKYO - Japan's emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) due to energy consumption
in the fiscal year ended March 2001 rose by 1.1 percent from a year earlier
to about 1.16 billion tonnes, the Trade Ministry said.
An official with the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry (METI) said that
it was the second consecutive year-on-year rise.
He attributed the rise in the latest data to expanded energy consumption in
both the private and industrial sectors.
"The economy was not doing so badly at that time...so consumption in the industrial sector rose as well," he said.
At a United Nations climate conference in December 1997, Japan pledged to cut emissions of six greenhouse gases, including CO2, by six percent by the 2008-2012 period from 1990 levels.
The METI official said that CO2 emissions in 2000/2001 were 10.1 higher than in 1990/1991.
In Japan, about 90 percent of CO2 emissions derive from energy consumption.
REUTERS NEWS SERVICE
-------------------------
Anglo-German CO2 rise accelerates
Environment Daily 1150, 04/02/02
-------------------------
German and British carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions rose in 2001 for the
second year running, and in both countries by more than in 2000,
according to independent forecasters. The data add weight to warnings
from the European environment agency and others that the EU is relying
dangerously heavily on Anglo-German emission reductions to meet its
overall Kyoto protocol commitment
In a report released today, independent British forecaster Cambridge
Econometrics put the 2001 increase in UK CO2 emissions at 3%, compared
with a 2% rise in 2000
On Friday, meanwhile, Bonn-based lobby group Germanwatch estimated
that German emissions rose by 1.5% in 2001, compared with 1% in 2000
The figures are potentially worrying because of the central role
Germany and the UK have played since 1990 in enabling the EU achieve an
overall cut in emissions. If this engine of European gas reduction
were to choke or even go into reverse then the EU as a whole would find
it much harder to meet its Kyoto protocol commitment to cut emissions
8% below 1990 levels by 2008-12.
Key factors behind the Anglo-German 2001 emission increases were more
use of brown coal (lignite) in Germany, and, for the second year
running, a shift away from natural gas towards coal in Britain's
electricity sector.
Germanwatch blamed policies of the previous government for approving
construction of new coal-fired power stations. Cambridge Econometrics
said the UK data reflected "inherent contradictions" in government
policies aimed simultaneously at providing cheaper energy and achieving
energy and emission savings.
The UK forecaster went on to reinforce previous warnings that the UK
is now looking less and less likely to meet its unilateral target of
achieving a 20% CO2 emission cut over 1990 levels by 2020.
This was disputed by the UK government, with an environment ministry
spokesperson claiming the current rise was a temporary development.
The government remained confident that the basket of all greenhouse
gases would decline by 23% by 2010 and CO2 by 19%, he told Environment
Daily.
Follow-up: Cambridge Econometrics press release http://www.camecon.com/whatsnew/releases/uke3021.htm;
Germanwatch press release http://www.germanwatch.org/pubpress/p020201a.htm.
-------------------------
UK emission trading moves a step closer
Environment Daily, 04/02/02
-------------------------
The UK environment ministry today announced that 46 companies had
completed the first stage of registration to take part in the country's
pioneering greenhouse gas emission trading scheme. All these so-called
direct participants had to get emission source lists approved by
Friday. Even by late last month only 30 firms were expected to meet
the deadline.
Direct participants will now take part in an auction of emission
allowances, due to start on 25 February. Each will bid five-year
emission reduction targets in order to win a share of the government's
UK£215m (euros 353m) incentive pot.
Once trading actually begins on 1 April, participating companies will
be able to trade allowances equal to their first annual target. They
must meet these annual targets in order to gain financial incentives,
and can do so either by reducing emissions themselves or by buying
surplus allowances from other participants.
The 46 companies include Barclays, British Airways, Caterpillar,
Dalkia, General Domestic Appliances, Ineos Fluor, Rolls-Royce,
Sainsbury's, Somerfield, Shell, TotalFinaElf and Whitbread Hotels.
Follow-up: UK environment ministry updated information pages
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/trading/auction.htm.
-------------------------
German buildings energy law enters into force
Environment Daily, 01/02/02
-------------------------
Germany's buildings efficiency ordinance entered into force today
marking implementation of a central element of the country's climate
protection strategy by making a contribution to carbon dioxide savings
of up to 25 million tonnes
The law is designed to reduce by nearly one third the energy
requirements of new buildings, while in older houses it will require
measures such as more insulation and the replacement of up to two
million inefficient domestics boilers over five years
New houses will require energy certificates in future. The method for
calculating energy consumption, based on primary energy, will favour
the use of energy from renewable sources, and the use of electric
heating will be penalised. A row with Grammy's big energy companies
over the penalisation of electric heating was one of the reasons why
the buildings energy law made slow progress through the legislative
process
-------------------------
France prioritises green energy investments
Environment Daily 1149, 01/02/02
-------------------------
Expanding the amount of renewably generated electricity, particularly
wind power, will be the top priority for state investment in the
electricity sector over the coming decade, the French industry ministry
said in a report to parliament yesterday.
With France's current generating capacity able to provide enough
electricity to meet projected base demand, it is logical that state
funds should focus on greening the sector, the report said. Wind power
will be expected to grow the most - to reach a 2010 installed capacity
of 7,000-14,000 megawatts - followed by increases in hydroelectric and
biomass generation.
Detailed plans of how funds will be allocated to renewables will be
set out in a ministerial plan, followed by a framework energy law to be
presented by the end of the year, the report said.
The greening process will have three aims: to assist France in meeting
its target under the EU renewables directive; to contribute to Kyoto
protocol compliance efforts; and to cut releases of pollutants leading
to poor local air quality.
The report also discusses the need to limit energy demand from 2006,
when some of the country's oldest nuclear power stations will begin to
be decommissioned. However, introducing broad energy efficiency
measures will not be necessary. Instead, the report outlines a strategy
for restricting electricity exports during periods of peak demand.
Follow-up: French industry ministry summary
http://www.industrie.gouv.fr/energie/electric/synth_ppi.htm