January 2001

"It is crucial that companies that have taken early action to reduce emissions should be rewarded rather than penalised relative to their more polluting competitors. The best way of achieving this goal is through auctioning the permits. Grandfathering based purely on historical emissions is totally unacceptable."
CNE Position paper on emissions trading in the EU, Oct 2000

The consultation was opened by a Commission green paper on
emissions trading last spring (ENDS Daily 8 March 2000).
Submissions from interested parties have now been published
on the Commission's website.

Comments received run to over 700 pages.  The vast majority
comes from businesses and industrial associations likely to
be affected by the trading system, which is projected to
start in 2005.  Ten EU governments plus Norway have also
sent position papers, as have a small number of NGOs.

The overwhelming preoccupations among industry groups are
the allocation of permits and the scheme's sectoral scope,
both of which could have powerful influences over its
business impacts.  Governments, meanwhile, put more stress
on the need for administrative simplicity and
practicability.

Whether permits should be bought or inherited before being
traded splits the two groups.  "Auctioning would be
equivalent to taxation," says European paper industry lobby
Cepi.  It would "deprive industry of the money need to
further invest in the control of emissions," says European
cement-makers' body Cembureau.

The two industries are among six sectors picked out by the
Commission as candidates for early inclusion in the trading
scheme.  First in the Commission's sights is the electricity
and heat sector, accounting for 29.9% of EU carbon dioxide
emissions.

Power industry body Eurelectric also prefers grandfathering,
since it avoids "stranding" investments and can reward
industries that have taken early action to reduce emissions.
However, some national associations, such as the Swedish
Power Association, in fact reject it as "too complicated".

Governments such as Denmark - the first to put a national
trading scheme in place - claim auctioning should be a
"fundamental point" of any EU initiative.  "Sale of all
quotas [permits] would.create equal competitive conditions
for industry," it says, while revenue could be recycled to
iron out any unfairness created by the system.

Sweden, Finland and Austria also come down in favour of
auctioning, while the UK point out its "economic efficiency"
and benefits in terms of state revenue, but does not state a
preference.  Ireland and Germany propose a hybrid system to
initiate trading with a gradual move to full auctioning of
permits.

The Commission's overall idea of launching an EU trading
system meets with general approval, not only from
governments but also from industry bodies such as
Eurelectric, which has already begun various trading
simulations.  Europe's chemical sector, however, continues
to regard trading as anathema.

"Exposure to international competition along with dependence
on energy make the EU chemical industry particularly
vulnerable to the Kyoto Protocol commitments," says industry
body Cefic. "Absolute targets of greenhouse gases emissions
[implicit in a trading regime] would run the risk of
severely limiting growth of the European chemical industry."
Long term voluntary agreements towards energy efficiency are
better, it says.

Follow-up:
emissions trading green paper
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/0087_en.htm)
and responses to public consultation
(http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/docum/0087_en.htm#com
ments).
 

 January 30, 2001 New York Times
Why San Diego, Where Rates First Rose, No Longer Conserves Energy
By LAURA M. HOLSON
SAN DIEGO, Jan. 25 - It was here, in the heat of last summer, that consumers
got their initial lesson in how painful California's experiment with
deregulation could be.

With electricity supplies short and the state's power grid on the brink of
collapse, wholesale electricity costs nearly tripled, and the San Diego Gas
and Electric Company, the first utility in the state freed by deregulation,
passed those costs on to its customers. Homeowners took to the streets, and
businesses threatened to leave the city, California's second largest.

Logic would suggest that San Diego consumers, having felt the price shock
that the rest of the state so far had been shielded from, would be wiser
about using electricity than other Californians. But the price shock was too
short.

In September, California legislators called off the experiment, capping
retail electrical rates at 6.5 cents a kilowatt hour, the average market
price paid in the month before the summer crisis.

Now, six months later, San Diegans are back to their old ways.

Electricity use, which dropped 9 percent in August, is back up to precrisis
levels, according to San Diego Gas and Electric. Rather than investing in
insulation or energy-efficient air-conditioners, consumers here seem to be
hovering between denial and defiance.

"I feel I do all that I can to conserve," said Vicki Barber, an escrow
coordinator for a real estate broker in San Diego. "But I'm not going to
spend all this money upgrading my house when it doesn't matter anyway."

As a test laboratory of consumer behavior when the cost of a necessity
skyrockets, San Diego seems confused by how politicians reacted when
consumers here revolted last summer, demanding relief.

In September, when California legislators restored the lower rates,
residential and small-business rate payers received credits on their utility
bills - even though the credits are really a postponed debt that is expected
to come due as soon as 2002. And it is true that the utility's largest
customers are already paying market rates.

Still, Jeannie Thompson's reaction was typical. In August, Ms. Thompson, the
branch manager of a Coldwell Banker real estate office in the Pacific Beach
district, made it her business to turn off office lights and computers every
night. "When the news first came out, you wanted to do your part," she said.

Then, in October, the office got its credit, and "we started to go back to
the way things were before."

Economists look at San Diegans' behavior and draw this lesson: Consumers
must suffer a lot before they willingly give up comfort and conveniences
they have grown used to.

"Summer should have been a wake-up call," said Peter Navarro, associate
professor of economics and public policy at the University of California at
Irvine. "You can't blame San Diego consumers for not doing anything, because
legislators stepped in and lowered prices. If the discomfort isn't of a
lengthy duration, the adjustments to behavior that need to take place
won't."

Indeed, in a recent paper, a group of energy experts and economists,
including two Nobel Prize winners, made the same point, saying that if
consumers knew the true cost of electricity, they would conserve more.

Even Gov. Gray Davis seems to be backing away from his promise that rates
would not rise.

But San Diego consumers, once again insulated from rate increases, have
shrugged off the crisis, in part because they have taken to heart the
governor's oft-repeated claim that the problems are the fault of out-of-
state power generators that need to be reined in.

"Ask these people if they feel safe at night," Pete Phelps said wryly of
those generators. Mr. Phelps, an airline pilot, was, with his wife, Pat,
loading a 50-gallon water heater into the back of his pickup truck at a Home
Depot near the San Diego Sports Arena.

Mrs. Phelps added, "You don't know what is legitimate, who to believe."

So the Phelpses have done little in recent months to conserve, except
turning off lights, as their monthly electricity bill has climbed to $130,
from about $85, in the past two years. Their new water heater was billed as
"energy efficient," and while it should save them $150 a year, they did not
buy it with conservation in mind. "I spill that in beer money," Mr. Phelps
said.

High prices alone cannot change consumer behavior, Mr. Navarro, the
economist, said. If consumers, for instance, believe that turning off lights
benefits someone other than themselves, they will feel no incentive to
conserve. That, he said, is the situation in the Pacific Northwest, where
many residents believe that any power they save will simply be diverted to
hot tubs in the San Francisco suburbs.

But in San Diego, people have gotten a particularly mixed message. To begin
with, high rates did not last long enough to make an impact. Rather, the
lingering impression was that legislators would step in to protect consumers
at any cost.

The math, said Severin Borenstein, director of the University of California
Energy Institute, was simple.

"If you go from 6 cents to 22 cents to 6 cents, then the response will be to
weather the storm," Mr. Borenstein said, referring to the price of a
kilowatt hour. "But if it stays at 22 cents, then it makes sense for people
to go out and invest in ways to save energy."

Mr. Borenstein drew a parallel to the gasoline shortages of the 1970's. At
first, he said, motorists demonized Middle East oil producers, as lines of
cars snaked around gasoline stations, waiting for rationed supplies. Only
after high prices persisted did consumers begin to change their habits,
buying more fuel-efficient cars, he said.

Still, some San Diegans insist that they are pitching in.

"I have not put the heat on," said Ms. Thompson, the real estate agent. "I
close my doors and put on a sweater."

But she has not had an energy audit of her home, a service provided by San
Diego Gas and Electric, or bought energy-saving appliances.

During last summer's price spike, surveys by San Diego Gas and Electric
found that 91 percent of its 1.2 million users did not think the utility was
being wholly honest with them about the crisis, said Stephen L. Baum,
chairman of Sempra Energy, the utility's parent company. And there is bound
to be more anger, now that the utility has requested a surcharge of about 16
percent in March, to pay off $450 million it owes its power suppliers.

Higher rates will also make life harder for people who are just getting by.
At a recent outdoor farmer's market in El Cajon, a working-class town 15
miles east of San Diego, Heidi Van Horn, a massage therapist, and her
fiancé, Bernie Herloss, a handyman, were supplementing their $1,200 monthly
income by selling grilled bratwurst and hamburgers to hungry shoppers.

For the two-bedroom apartment they share, the couple have $200 in past-due
energy bills. Those bills hover at about $100 a month, up from $55 two years
ago. "We aren't one of these high-rollers who make $9 an hour," Ms. Van Horn
said. "We either pay the electricity or have the phone shut off."

Even so, she said, they do what they can to conserve, turning down the
thermostat or turning off the occasional light. But their apartment building
is poorly insulated. Cold wind seeps in through closed windows, and the
heating vents are near the ceiling, where the warmth is wasted. Their only
energy-efficient light bulb is the one that came in the mail from San Diego
Gas and Electric.

And the two birds and the iguana they keep, Ms. Van Horn said, would die if
she turned off any of the three heat lamps that run continuously in the
apartment.

She would never consider getting rid of the pets. Ms. Van Horn said. "They
are family."
 
 
 
 

Commission Green Paper on Security of Supply - Comments invited
The current Green Paper was adopted by the European Commission on 29
November 2000.  The Commission invites those,  who wish to provide comments
or proposals, to do so before 30 November 2001 (preferably by e-mail using
the form which has been prepared for this purpose).
e-mail address: tren-enersupply@cec.eu.int
Postal address:  European Commission
Directorate General for Energy & Transport
Ms Nina Commeau
200, Rue de la Loi
B-1049 Bruxelles
Fax : Ms Nina Commeau
+ 32 (2) 295.61.05
You can find the Homepage for the Green Paper, together with the above
mentioned form, at the following address:
http://europa.eu.int/comm/energy_transport/en/lpi_en.html
 

 Monday 22 January 2001
ENDS
  Global climate change warning confirmed 
Members of the inter-governmental panel on climate change (IPCC) today issued a ringing warning over climate change in their first full scientific assessment of the issue since 1995. Global warming is more likely to be underway already, they conclude, and human-related emissions are more likely the cause. Furthermore, the potential temperature increase over the 21st century much higher than previously forecast.  The conclusions confirm the thrust of early drafts of the assessment leaked last autumn (ENDS Daily 27 October 2000). It was significant that they had not been watered down in final political bartering during four days of talks in Shanghai, China, a source told ENDS Daily. The scientists' new more pessimistic view will put increased pressure on industrialised countries to reach a deal on implementing the Kyoto climate protocol after the collapse of last autumn's talks in the Hague (ENDS Daily 18 December 2000).  Copies of the IPCC's summary report are posted on its web site (see link below). In essence, it concludes that:  * There is more evidence of actual warming and other changes in the global climate system, and new and stronger evidence that most warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.  * The ability of computer models to predict future trends has increased.  * Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in 2100 are projected at 540-970 parts per million (ppm). Stabilising concentrations at 650ppm would require global emissions to drop below 1990 levels within a few decades.  * Global average temperature and sea level are projected to rise under all scenarios. Projections for the latter are similar to the IPCC's previous estimates, but temperature is forecast to rise by 1.4-5.8 degrees centigrade between 1990 and 2100, compared with an increase of 1-3.5 degrees in the previous assessment. This rate of increase is very likely without precedent during at least the last 10,000 years.
 

 Address by Kjell Larsson, Swedish Minister for the Environment and Chair
 of the Environment Council, to the European Parliament's Committee on
 Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy in Brussels on 24 January
 2001
 

 Madam Chair, Members of the Committee,

 I flew from Stockholm to Brussels yesterday. The air was clear; the sky
 was blue; visibility seemed endless. A narrow ray of light crept along the
 horizon.

 But the air we were flying through was not clean and pure. We were flying
 through a laboratory, in which the human race is conducting its greatest
 ever experiment - an experiment which more and more of us now realise will
 have horrendous results.

 Do we have the right to change the chemical composition of the atmosphere
 so greatly when we know the riskd involved? Of course we don't.

 Can we use the word sustainable to describe a development which leads to
 the kind of climate change predicted by IPCC and which has more and more
 inevitable consequences? Of course not.

 We currently face a challenge which places great demands on our capacity
 to act and on our creativity, a challenge which also promises economic
 development and new jobs, a challenge which can improve global
 co-operation and help us to solve other environmental problems.

 This is also a question of every individual's responsibility and desire to
 create a better future. I believe that many Europeans who have read and
 heard about the latest IPCC report in the last day or so not only have
 feelings of anxiety about the future, but also feelings of inadequacy
 today - a nagging feeling that they are contributing to the problems
 without actually being able to do much about them. Many of us have to
 drive to work; many of us have jobs which cause carbon dioxide emissions;
 many of us depend on fossil fuels for heating and electricity. Here we see
 our important, common tasks: to combat climate change, the greatest threat
 to sustainable development, with a policy which offers opportunities for
 people to use democracy and their own choices to influence our common
 future.

 That is how we must face the challenge.

 I appreciate this opportunity to discuss the environmental issues in the
 Swedish presidential programme with you in my capacity as Chair of the
 Environment Council. I wish to underline the great importance that the
 Swedish Presidency attaches to a constructive co-operation with the
 European Parliament, which has played and plays a vital role in the
 decision making process, not least in the field of environment.

 The Swedish Presidency has prioritised three issues that are crucial to
 people's everyday lives and to the vision of the European Union of
 tomorrow. These issues are enlargement, employment and environment. As
 Sweden's Minister for the Environment, it gives me particular pleasure to
 know that the environment will be a focus for our efforts and will be a
 major theme of the European Council meeting in Gothenburg in June of this
 year.

 These three prioritised areas are closely linked. Environmental action
 creates employment. Enlargement can contribute to a better environment.

 One issue that is of particular concern to me is the link between
 environment and health. Good health is directly dependent on a good
 environment - the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat.
 Some time ago, a British study showed that air pollution is responsible
 for 6% of deaths in Europe, and that the medical costs are close to 15
 billion Euro. Another current issue is noise, and it is reported that 90
 million persons in the European Union consider themselves victims of noise
 pollution.

 We need to increase awareness of the links between environment and health
 still further. But we have already sufficient evidence to justify powerful
 measures. Children are especially at risk, as they are more sensitive to
 the effects of exposure to chemicals and pollutants. Bioaccumulable
 chemicals with long life cycles in breast milk; dramatic increases in the
 numbers of children suffering from asthma and other respiratory diseases
 caused by air pollution are problems which must guide our overall
 environment policy. An environment policy for the future is an environment
 policy for children.

 Using this vision of the development as our starting point, the Council
 and the Parliament must work together to increase our endeavours for an
 ambitious environment policy within the Union. We need to tighten the
 legislation and clarify the objectives, but we also need to extend
 environmental responsibility to other sectors and policy areas. We must
 make it clear that the responsibility for a better environment rests with
 all parts of the society: the public sector, business, organizations and
 individual citizens alike. We must also be open to the use of new policy
 instruments while retaining existing instruments for as long as possible.
 Legislation will be a core instrument, but financial and market-based
 instruments should be developed further.

 Parliament has often spoken of how important it is that the European Union
 's environmental regulations are implemented properly by the Member
 States, and it has pointed out failings in the implementation of a number
 of directives. I agree that this is an extremely important issue. We will
 be discussing implementation issues in the Council when we debate the new
 Environmental Action Programme. I also know that the Commission is working
 on its annual report on implementation, and I believe that there are good
 reasons for discussing this report in the Council as well.

 The sixth Environmental Action Program and the sustainable development
 strategy are examples of how we would like to deepen and broaden
 environmental work.

 I would like to emphasise here that the Environmental Action Program will
 indicate key priorities and contain objectives and indicators which enable
 continuous monitoring. The Programme must be clear and simple enough for
 the people of Europe to understand and to participate in the work ahead.
 Transparency is a key factor for the participation and commitment of the
 people and therefore, by definition, for the credibility of the Union.

 Subjects which require particular focus in the Programme are climate;
 biological diversity; environment and health; and the use of natural
 resources. I am pleased that the Commission is emphasising the link
 between health and environment.

 Chemicals policy and the issue of an integrated product policy are two
 areas which illustrate the need for greater legislation and new
 approaches. During the Swedish Presidency, one of our aims is to make
 further advances in developing preventive measures which will mean that we
 no longer have to work reactively when problems have already arisen.

 On the subject of chemicals policy, I would just like to outline some
 points which are important for our continued work in this field:

 - powerful efforts must be made to increase awareness of the properties of
 chemicals on today's market if their use is to be allowed to continue
 - industry must be given clearer responsibility for conducting risk
 analysis
 - the use of certain substances should be phased out due to their inherent
 properties - for instance they may have long life cycles or they may leave
 residues in the body

 The sixth Environmental Action Plan is an important cornerstone of the
 overall sustainable development strategy. The Council and the Parliament
 have to work together. I am anxious that there should be an open dialogue
 before the Environment Council makes its decision on the sixth
 Environmental Action Plan and that both Council and Parliament will
 endeavour to utilise and build upon good ideas as early as possible. It is
 my ambition that the Environment Council will make a clear contribution
 regarding the ecological dimension of sustainable development before the
 Gothenburg Summit. The position of the European Parliament is crucial in
 this context.

 I clearly realise that the time schedule is very tight. Nevertheless, I
 call on the Parliament to work together with the Council so that we both
 can deliver a good environmental input to the Göteborg Summit.

 The strategy for sustainable development consists of a policy for social
 and economic development while simultaneously protecting the environment.
 We must identify unacceptable trends and propose new measures; at the same
 time we must break the link between increased growth and environmental
 damage. The transition to a sustainable society is one of the greatest
 challenges of our time, but it is also an opportunity for development,
 technological advances and increased employment.

 Our aim is that the heads of government will be in a position to approve a
 strategy for sustainable development at the meeting of the European
 Council in Gothenburg. It is a question of how long-term and global
 considerations will be able to impact the politics of the day so that we
 can change course towards a sustainable society. We must be able to meet
 the challenges currently facing Europe and the world. We must use our
 resources more efficiently; we must reduce emissions significantly; we
 must find a better social and population balance. Our strategy must
 contain long-term guidelines for the achievement of sustainable
 development. Overall objectives and clear explanations of the links
 between the economic, social and ecological dimensions should form an
 important basis for this work.

 The Commission has identified six themes for the work currently in
 progress: social exclusion and poverty; health; population structure and
 ageing; climate and renewable forms of energy; depletion of natural
 resources; and mobility and local planning. These are themes which
 encompass the ecological challenges we face.

 I look forward to the contributions from the Parliament on this issue,
 which to a great extent relates to the Environment Committee but also to
 other Committees.

 We also need to specify our objectives for the World Summit on Sustainable
 Development, which is to be held next year in South Africa, ten years
 after the conference in Rio de Janeiro. We welcome the European Parliament
 's commitment to these issues. We feel that it is important to gain broad
 support both within the European Union and in society in general before
 the Gothenburg Summit on 15 and 16 June.

 Globalisation today is not sustainable. In particular, there is a need for
 a stronger and more coordinated global environmental policy as well as a
 clear ambition to fight poverty, the depletion of natural resources
 biological diversity, and the pollution of air, water and soil.

 Without a better environment there will be continued poverty. Without a
 succesful fight against poverty, there will be continued environmental
 degradation.

 Climate is one of the most important issues in sustainable development.
 Increased needs for mobility and legitimate demands for secure energy
 supplies must be combined with significant reductions in emissions of
 greenhouse gases. Otherwise, we will face grave problems which will change
 the conditions for life on earth. We have an important task. Together with
 the rest of the world, we must find solutions which entail a fair
 allocation of measures and responsibilities while also showing clear
 potential for achieving desired results. The European Union must strive to
 make agreement at the climate negotiations possible when COP 6 resumes.
 The Union must continue to play a powerful role there as the foremost
 defender of the environmental credibility and integrity of the Kyoto
 Protocol. Furthermore, it is crucial that the European Union takes
 significant steps towards reducing its own emissions of greenhouse gases
 as the international negotiations progress. Further measures are required
 for this.

 The European Union is undergoing a transition in values which are
 fundamental for the people of Europe, such as peace, democracy and
 participation, fair distribution of resources and the quality of life. In
 many ways, enlargement is the most important issue in this change. For the
 people of the European Union and the candidate countries, the expected
 environmental improvements will be one of the most tangible effects of an
 enlarged Union. With this in mind, I feel it is important that any
 transitional solutions granted to candidate countries be as few and as
 short-term as possible. This is especially important when it comes to
 legislation which regulates pollution across borders. In conjunction with
 the Council meeting in March, I intend to invite the Environment
 Ministers of the candidate countries to attend a meeting to discuss
 current developments in the European Union's environment policy.

 In conclusion, it is my sincere hope that the Swedish Presidency will mean
 a further step forward in the development of a modern European environment
 policy. A good and close co-operation between myself as Chair of the
 Environment Council and the members of the European Parliament's Committee
 on Environment, Public Health and Consumer Policy is crucial if this
 ambition is to be achieved. I will therefore place great importance on
 openness and dialogue with you and other interested parties.

 Thank you very much ladies and gentlemen.
 
 
 
 
 

U.N. Reports That Global Warming May Heap Disasters on Africa
 By REUTERS

1/24/01
 

NAIROBI, Kenya - Africa may face more natural disasters if the world's main economic powers do not ratify a key protocol on climate change as soon as possible, the top United Nations environmentalist said Tuesday.

Klaus Toepfer, executive director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), was speaking after scientists released a report this week warning that average global temperatures could rise 5.8 percent in the 21st century.

``It is a very dramatic situation,'' he told a news conference in the Kenyan capital Nairobi, where the UNEP is based. ``The evidence is absolutely clear that the speed of global warming is going faster and faster.''

``Africa's share of the global population is 14 percent but it is responsible for only 3.2 percent of global CO2 emission. They (Africans) face the most direct consequences with regard to extreme weather conditions, with regard to drought and storms.''

Last year floods battered Mozambique and prolonged drought in the Horn of Africa pushed millions to the brink of starvation.

Toepfer said developed countries, which were responsible for the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions, had a moral obligation urgently to tackle the scourge of global warming.

U.N. climate talks called to plan ways of coordinating cuts in greenhouse gas emissions ended acrimoniously in The Hague in November and major economic powers blamed each other for the collapse of the negotiations.

The Hague conference had sought agreement on implementing a pact reached in 1997 in Kyoto, Japan, which called for developed nations to cut their emissions of gases such as carbon dioxide by an average five percent from 1990 levels by 2010.

Toepfer said the report, compiled by scientists for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, showed conclusively that global warming was linked not to natural fluctuations but to human activities in the form of greenhouse gas emissions.

``My strong appeal, especially to developed countries, is that they have to resume their meeting and start as soon as possible to come to a solution to ratify the legally binding Kyoto protocol against global warming,'' he said.
 
 

CLIMATE CHANGE TO DRIVE UP DISASTER PAYOUTS
Financial Review
Jan 15
Internet: http://afr.com/financialservices/2001/01/15/FFX5PFBLXHC.html

The combination of booming urban populations and global climate
change has led the world's biggest reinsurers to warn of an
escalation in natural catastrophe payouts. The warning comes after
one of the industry's better years in recent times. According to a
report by Munich Re, economic losses from natural catastrophes
fell from $US100 billion ($179 billion) in 1999 to $US30 billion
in 2000, causing insured losses to tumble from $US22 billion to
$US7.5 billion. But the improved result was achieved despite a
record number of catastrophes last year. The 850 disasters
recorded in 2000 was 100 more than 1999 and about 200 above the
1990s average.

"The lack of major earthquakes and the moderate cyclone season,
combined with a general absence of losses in heavily populated
areas, made 2000 a comparatively inexpensive year as far as losses
are concerned," said Munich Re. But the company warned that future
years were unlikely to be so fortunate. "In spite of the overall
loss balance being favourable in 2000, there is no justification
for speaking of a change of a trend as far as loss and damage from
natural catastrophes [are] concerned."

"On account of the growth in the world's population which, in the
highly exposed areas of the world and in particular in the major
conurbations, is even increasing at an over-proportionate rate and
the rise in the concentration of property values, the losses
generated by natural catastrophes must be expected to continue
increasing in the future." The 1998-99 financial year was the
worst on record for the global reinsurance industry, thanks to low
premiums and massive property claims. In the local market, New Cap
Re went into liquidation, Reinsurance Australia was placed into
run-off and GIO Re's losses became AMP's nightmare.

In its review of 2000, another global reinsurer, Swiss Re, said:
"The accumulation of storms and earthquakes striking highly
populated areas in 1999 was purely random as was their absence in
the year 2000. "[But] it is assumed that the trend towards high
losses will continue uninterrupted, particularly as many risk
factors will persist: higher population densities [and] higher
concentrations of insured values, especially in endangered areas."
Munich Re also warned that the prospect of rising temperatures and
sea levels "show that the subject of climate change must be taken
even more seriously than before".

"It is ... feared the risk situation will deteriorate in many
regions of the earth and thus affect insurers, too. At any rate,
Munich Re reckons on a distinct increase in weather-related and
climate-related natural catastrophes. Already today, these are
responsible for the lion's share of insured catastrophe losses."
The company rated last year's worst catastrophes for insurers as
the September typhoon and floods in Japan, Russia and Korea, which
lead to $US925 million of insured losses, and the November floods
in Britain, which generated $US700 million in claims.
Scientists raise alarm of climate catastrophe
Rapid warming trend could be reversed
by move to alternate power sources
ALANNA MITCHELL
EARTH SCIENCES REPORTER
Globe and Mail Page 1 top story (Canada's national newspaper)
Monday, January 22, 2001
The planet is moving harder and faster than scientists first imagined toward a troubling new climate era that, if unstopped, could be as catastrophic in its own way as the last Ice Age.
Hundreds of the world's top scientists concluded yesterday in Shanghai that average temperatures in at least the Northern Hemisphere are rising more resolutely than predicted just five years ago.
A report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, set for release today, warns that the average temperature could rise between 1.4 and 5.8 degrees over the next 100 years. Five years ago the panel predicted the change would come in at a maximum of 3.5 degrees over that same period. The average global temperature has risen 0.6 degrees over the past 100 years.
If the new predictions come to pass, it will mean that the Earth will be in the throes of the scale of climate change that prompted the Ice Age 20,000 years ago.
"At the upper end of the range, it's in the same order of magnitude as that," Henry Hengeveld said in an interview from Shanghai. He is Environment Canada's science adviser on climate change.
While the panel, which includes more than 500 of the world's top scientists, couched blame for the newly irritable climate, its members also concluded that the "observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gases," Mr. Hengeveld said.
That means humans -- who produce greenhouse gases from such activities as burning petroleum -- bear most, if not all, the responsibility for altering the climate, the scientists agreed.
The IPCC also believes that humans have the potential to reverse the warming trend by using alternate power sources and less energy.
This IPCC document, the first revision of its statement from 1996, is by far the strongest warning ever issued on climate change by an international body.
It is considered the definitive scientific standard that serves to advise government policies around the world.
"This is an extremely important document for policy internationally on climate change over the next few years," said Matthew Bramley, a PhD in chemistry and senior policy analyst on climate change at the Pembina Institute in Ottawa.
"Science is the primary driver for action on climate change," he said, adding, "The science is getting stronger."
In Shanghai, the document was accepted unanimously by the panel, including 123 of the world's leading authorities on climate.
The lead scientists were pushing for even stronger wording because of the overwhelming evidence that the climate damage is "very likely" to be caused by human activity, Mr. Hengeveld said.
But they backed down as a compromise.
Nevertheless, the document makes it clear that climate change has already begun.
"This gives a fairly clear signal that this isn't just a future issue, it's happening now," Mr. Hengeveld said.
Among the strongest evidence is the fact that the past century has likely been the warmest in the Northern Hemisphere in the past millennium, he said.
Not only that, the 1990s ranked as the warmest decade of the millennium, and 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium in the Northern Hemisphere, which is where most of their data have been acquired.
Already, the effects of climate change are indisputable.
In a speech to delegates at the climate-change negotiations in The Hague on Nov. 20, 2000, IPCC chairman Robert Watson listed these: The sea level is rising, precipitation patterns are changing, Arctic sea ice is thinning, and many parts of the world are experiencing major heat waves, floods, droughts and other extreme weather that is causing huge loss of life.
In the future, he said, tens of millions of people stand to be displaced by sea levels that will rise even further, especially in low-lying deltas and small island states.
Agriculture will be disrupted in many tropical and subtropical countries. And water stores in arid and semi-arid countries will decline.
The effects are expected to be unevenly felt around the planet. Warming is expected to be more intense on land than on water, and also at mid- and high-northern latitudes, such as Central and Northern Canada.
The IPCC came to its conclusions through reviewing published and peer-reviewed technical scientific literature. It does not do its own research.
The IPCC was set up in 1988 as governments became wary of the potential changes humans were making on the climate and sought to understand the risks. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program.
The IPCC is set to announce further key findings at two meetings coming up. On Feb. 14 and 15 in Geneva, it will publish conclusions on how vulnerable humans are to the changes to come.
A few weeks later in Accra, Ghana, it will discuss how to mitigate climate change.

Scientists Issue Dire Prediction On Warming
 
 
By Philip P. Pan
Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, January 23, 2001; Page A01
BEIJING, Jan. 22 -- In the most forceful warning yet on the threat of global warming, an international panel of hundreds of scientists issued a report today predicting brutal droughts, floods and violent storms across the planet over the next century because air pollution is causing surface temperatures to rise faster than anticipated.
The report, approved unanimously at a U.N. conference in Shanghai and described as the most comprehensive study on the subject to date, says that Earth's average temperature could rise by as much as 10.4 degrees over the next 100 years -- the most rapid change in 10 millennia and more than 60 percent higher than the same group predicted less than six years ago.
If new scientific models are accurate, rising temperatures will melt polar ice caps and raise sea levels by as much as 34 inches, causing floods that could displace tens of millions of people in low-lying areas -- such as China's Pearl River Delta, much of Bangladesh and the most densely populated area of Egypt. Droughts will parch farmlands and aggravate world hunger. Storms triggered by such climatic extremes as El Niño will become more frequent. Diseases such as malaria and dengue fever will spread.
"The scientific consensus presented in this comprehensive report about human-induced climate change should sound alarm bells in every national capital and in every local community," said Klaus Topfler, head of the U.N. Environment Program. "We should start preparing ourselves."
The report was drafted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of hundreds of scientists established by the United Nations in 1988 to assess warming. The Shanghai survey relies on complex new computer simulations based on weather records from the last 150 years, as well as data collected from ice corings, coral and tree rings -- all of which can provide information on climate going back millions of years.
The results of the new models persuaded the panel to declare unequivocally for the first time that mankind is responsible for global warming rather than changes brought by the sun or other natural factors. "We see changes in climate, we believe we humans are involved, and we're projecting future climate changes much more significant over the next 100 years than the last 100 years," said Robert T. Watson, an American scientist who is chairman of the panel.
The report cited "new and stronger evidence that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is attributable to human activities," primarily the burning of oil, gasoline and coal, which produces carbon dioxide and other gases that trap heat in Earth's atmosphere.
Carbon dioxide levels have increased by 31 percent over the past 250 years, reaching a concentration unseen on the planet in 420,000 years and perhaps as far back as 20 million years, the report said. In 1995, by contrast, the panel reported only a "discernible human influence" on global warming.
At that time, the group predicted a temperature rise of no more than 6.3 degrees by 2100.
The panel raised that prediction by more than 4 degrees in part because successful efforts to reduce the air pollutant sulfur dioxide, a common element of smog, have had the unintended effect of reducing particles in the air that help deflect the sun's rays, the report said.
The global warming issue has proved highly contentious among environmental scientists, with many respected figures arguing that Earth undergoes periodic climatic changes with or without contributions from mankind.
Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service, called the new report "a political statement" based on theoretical models that does not conform to existing scientific data from thermometers at weather stations, Earth-circling satellites and high-altitude balloons. Almost all instrumental data, he said, show no warming trend in the past 60 years, and he called data that do "suspect."
But David Easterling, principal scientist at the Commerce Department's National Climate Data Center, noted that reductions in airborne sulfates, which act to cool temperatures, are expected this century because of such factors as the burning of cleaner coal. He called the "physics pretty well established."
The new calculations add urgency to international treaty talks on curbing greenhouse gas emissions that collapsed in November as participants disagreed over how to cut such emissions under a commitment made by industrialized countries in 1997. Negotiations have been complicated by a U.S.-led effort to soften the impact of required cuts by adjusting for the amount of carbon dioxide that is absorbed by each nation's forests and farmlands. New climate talks are scheduled in Germany in May.
"Only a few countries, such as Britain and Germany, are on track to meet their targets," said Watson, who is the chief science adviser to the World Bank. "The United States is way off meeting its targets."
The United States is the largest producer of greenhouse gases, accounting for a quarter of the world total. China ranks second, but its per capita amount is relatively low.

IPCC  Major Report (Third Assessment Report)

22nd Jan 2001
The policymakers' summary of the TAR is available on the IPCC web site at
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf

Read the Washington Post report on TAR
Read Canada's Globe and Mail on TAR
Read BBC report on TAR
Read UNEP on TAR
Read Swedish Environment Minister addressing European Parliament on TAR
Read ENDS Daily on  TAR
Read IISD Linkages on TAR
The TAR  re-emphasises the effects of human activities
    "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human acitivities"

TAR projections for global surface temperatures indicate an increase of 6°C over the next 100 years.
    "The globally averaged surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 to 5.8°C over the period 1990 to 2100"
    "Temperature increases are projected to be greater than those in the SAR, which were about 1.0 to 3.5°C."
    "The projected rate of warming is much larger than the observed changes during the 20th Century and is very likely to         be         without precedent during at least the last 10 000 years, based on paleoclimate data."

Press release  from 16th Jan 2001
              A UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group today opens
         a four-day meeting in Shanghai to begin completing a 1,000-page report on climate
         change (IPCC release, 16 Jan), its contribution to the panel's third assessment
         report. A preliminary summary of this latest IPCC assessment was distributed to
         government officials worldwide in October (UN Wire, 26 Oct 2000).
              Several hundred expert and government reviewers are expected to accept the
         draft Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, and a policymakers' summary will
         also be approved. The summary will be on the IPCC Web site beginning 22
         January, and a press briefing will be held in Shanghai.
              A second working group will finalize other sections of the report on impacts,
         adaptation and vulnerability in Geneva 14 - 16 February, while a third working
         group will finalize the section on mitigation of climate change in Accra 28 February -
         3 March. The results of all three working groups will be adopted by the full IPCC
         plenary when it meets in Nairobi from 4 - 6 April (IPCC release).
 
IISD Linkages Report January 2001
ipcc WORKING GROUP i - meeting on the third assessment report: Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – which focuses on the science of climate change – met from 17-20 January 2001 in Shanghai, China, to finalize and adopt its part of the IPCC’s Third Assessment Report (TAR). One hundred and fifty delegates from 100 countries adopted the report, “Climate Change 2001:The Scientific Basis” as well as the summary for policymakers.  The report, which is based on three years of work by 123 Lead Authors and more than 500 contributors, notes that “an increasing body of observation gives a collective picture of a warming world” and that the climate is changing more rapidly than predicted in the Second Assessment Report (SAR) of 1995.

Other key findings of the report include that: most of the warming experienced over the past 50 years is due to human activities; climate change models have improved; the 1990s were the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year on record and the increase in temperature in the 20th century is likely to have been the greatest of any century during the past 1000 years; carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere has increased by 31% since the mid-eighteenth century to 367 ppm, which is higher than any concentration over the past 420,000 years and possibly much longer; global surface temperature is projected to increase by 1.4 - 5.8°C from 1990 to 2100, which is higher than projected in the SAR because projections of future sulfur dioxide emissions are now lower; water vapor concentration and precipitation are projected to increase, and more intense precipitation events are likely over many land areas in the mid- to high-latitudes in the northern hemisphere; sea-levels are projected to rise by 0.09 - 0.88 meters from 1990 to 2100, which is slightly lower than projected in the SAR.

Meetings of the IPCC Working Groups II and III as well as an IPCC Plenary meeting will take place during the next three months. For more information on the IPCC Working Group I meeting contact Michael Williams, UNEP; tel: +41-22-9178-242; e-mail: michael.williams@unep.ch; Internet: http://www.ipcc.ch/press/pr16-01.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/press/pressreleasedraft.htm
http://www.unep.org/Documents/Default.asp?DocumentID=189&ArticleID=2747

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1126000/1126669.stm

2000
 
 

Belgium "must increase renewables ten-fold"
 ENDS Daily - 11/01/01
 -------------------------
 A commission set up in Belgium to advise on the future of
 electricity generation has recommended a massive increase in
 renewables to partially compensate for a planned phase-out
 of nuclear electricity production. The share of renewables
 should climb to 10% of electricity supply by 2020, a report
 by the Ampere commission says.

 Belgium is Europe's most electricity-intensive country and
 globally is eclipsed only by the USA. Over 50% of its
 electricity is generated in atomic energy plants, all of
 which are due to close by 2030 according to a government
 decision. But Belgium is also one of Europe's renewable
 energy laggards, producing only 1% of its electricity
 renewably.

 In the report, published last month, the commission says
 Belgium must massively expand its wind energy sector, from
 8.5 megawatts (MW) of installed capacity a year ago to 1,500
 MW by 2020. Two-thirds of this capacity would be in
 offshore wind farms, it says. Electricity production from
 biomass must also increase five-fold to achieve the target,
 it says. Belgium has few options to develop other renewable
 energies.

 To promote the shift, government subsidies would have to
 rise substantially to between euros 0.025-0.074 (BFr1-3) per
 kilowatt hour, it says. In a forthcoming EU directive to
 promote renewable electricity generation Belgium has been
 set an indicative target of reaching a 6% by 2010 (ENDS
 Daily 7 December 2000).

 Follow-up: Ampere commission
 (http://mineco.fgov.be/energy/ampere_commission/home_fr.htm)
 ).
 
 

 
Norway turns its back on hydropower
 ENDS Daily - 03/01/01
-------------------------
Comments from Friends of the Earth Norway  point out
that the Prime Minister's comments, while welcome, are not
so sensational. It is time to turn to the energy efficiency record.

Norwegian prime minister Jens Stoltenberg has created a
mini-sensation in Norway by declaring in his traditional New
Year's Eve national address that "the era of large-scale new
hydropower development is over" and that several big hydro
projects are to be abandoned.

The prime minister said construction of hydropower stations
at Beiarn, Bjøllåga and Melfjord in Nordland county would be
halted.  The futures of several other projects are also in
doubt.  "I know that this is a decision that will provoke
controversy.  But the benefits of these development projects
are not sufficiently great to justify irreversible
encroachment on the natural environment," Mr Stoltenberg
said.

Norway produces virtually all of its electricity from
hydropower, averaging 115 terawatt hours annually.  Last
year, however, Mr Stoltenberg's minority Labour government
made clear its intention of promoting natural gas technology
for electricity production, and approved the construction of
two gas-fired power stations at the west coast sites of
Kollsnes and Kårstø (ENDS Daily 10 October 2000).
State-owned power utility Statkraft, which was to have built
the three new hydropower installations, described Mr
Stoltenberg's announcement as "frustrating".
 
 

Follow-up:  Norwegian prime minister's office
(http://odin.dep.no/smk/engelsk/index-b-n-a.html)

The Norwegian environmental movement were very pleased with the Norw.Prime
ministers announcement in his new years speech that the age of large scale
hydro power development in Norway is over. However, he probably saved the
developer from three major lossmaking projects. None of the three projects
which Mr. Stoltenberg mentioned will be profitable within the next 10-20
years with the expected electricity prices in Norway and neighbouring
countries. So, his announcement was not a big sacrifice for anyone. On the
other hand, it is quite clear that he hopes to gain support for building gas
fired power plants instead. The argument is that without hydropower, gas
power will be necessary to cover Norways increasing consumption of
electricity. Nobody pays much attention to the fact that Norway already has
one of the absolute highest consumption of elecricity per capita in the
world, and that we use it for direct space heating in a very extragavant
way. Since 1970, most new homes in Norway has been built with only electric
heating. In contrast to this, direct electric heating is forbidden by law in
new houses in Denmark. The need for a fundamental change in Norways
consumption of electricity in a more sustainable direction is obvious.
Regretably, this is not a solution which the Social Democratic government is
pushing with great enthusiasm.
 

Tore Braend
Energy Campaigner
Norges Naturvernforbund/Friends of the Earth Norway
P.O. Box 342 Sentrum
0101 OSLO
NORWAY
Visiting adress: Skippergata 33, Oslo
Telephone No: + 47 22 40 24 13 (direct)
Telephone No: + 47 91 68 53 17 Mobile Phone
Telephone No: + 47 22 40 24 00 (Operator)
Telefax No:   + 47 22 40 24 10

Danish wind energy 13% of national consumption
 

Denmark has just released figures showing that wind energy
now contributes 13% of national energy consumption, the
highest proportion of any country in the world.  About 6,000
turbines were operating in 2000.  Further planned turbine
installation is expected to take wind's proportion of all
energy to 15% by the end of this year.

The Danish Wind Turbine Owners' Association (DV) reckons
that wind power spared 4m tonnes of polluting emissions last
year and generated 4,500 gigawatt hours, the equivalent of
over 1.4m tonnes of coal delivered in a train 590 kilometres
long. See http://www.windpower.dk/news/index.htm