May 2001

The e-mission 55 group (also known as E55) has been formed by the European Business Council for a Sustainable Energy Future (E5), whose members have signed up to a broad charter to tackle climate change. The group's name derives from the percentage of emissions from industrialised countries required to ratify the 1997 Kyoto accord to allow it to enter into force.
 

An official at the organisation told ENDS Daily that about 10 companies had signed up this week since the campaign kicked off on Monday, including Swiss bank Sarasin, German renewable energy firm SolarWorld and US environmental consultancy First Environment. He said that the purpose of the group was to counter the impression that business was anti-Kyoto and send a visible signal that would help break the deadlock in negotiations.
 

Follow-up: E5 (http://www.e5.org), tel: +49 228 6049200
press release (http://www.e5.org/E5-e55_Presseerklaerung_010528.pdf).

----------------------------------------------
Denmark to ratify Kyoto global warming treaty
---------------------------------------------

DENMARK: June 1, 2001
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=11041
 

COPENHAGEN - Denmark`s parliament on Wednesday gave the go-ahead for the government to ratify the 1997 Kyoto Treaty on global warming by a sizeable majority.
In the 179-seat house, 88 voted for recommending that the government ratify the treaty, nine against with three abstentions. The remaining 79 members of parliament were absent for the vote.

The Koyoto Treaty is designed to fight global warming by limiting industrial nations emissions of "greenhouse gases" such as carbon dioxide. The treaty requires nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by at least five percent from 1990 levels between 2008 and 2012.

Denmark`s actual ratification of the treaty would take place along with that of other European Union member states at a later unspecified date, the environmental and energy ministry said in a statement.

The U.S. administration in March effectively abandoned the treaty, with President George W. Bush citing concerns that it did not apply to developing nations and that it would weaken the U.S. economy.

REUTERS NEWS SERVICE

-------------------------
Netherlands takes stock of climate progress
ENDS Daily - 30/05/01
-------------------------
Extra measures are needed to support combined heat and power
(CHP) and improve building energy efficiency, an interim
review of Dutch climate policy has concluded.

Presented last week to the Dutch parliament, the review says
the government is on track to implement all the climate
measures to which it has committed itself (ENDS Daily 23 June
1999).  But it warns that it is still too early to know how
effective they will be in cutting emissions.  A full-scale
evaluation will take place next year, after which additional
policy proposals could be made.

For the time being, the government is taking new steps to
safeguard the CHP sector as power prices fall.  Energy
minister Annemarie Jorritsma stressed that extra financial
support was necessary to protect the industry during the
early stages of energy liberalisation and thus reap the
carbon savings the sector will deliver.

Last week the energy ministry announced a plan to boost CHP
subsidies by 150% for a limited period.  If the move gets EU
clearance, operators will receive euros 0.57 (DF1.25) per
kilowatt hour of electricity generated, up from euros
0.22/kWh.  The increase will be backdated to 1 January.

CHP operators have been hit by heightened competition
following electricity market liberalisation in several
European countries.  Last year, the German government agreed
emergency support measures to stop a tide of plant closures
(ENDS Daily 30 January).

It is not yet known what further buildings energy efficiency
measures will be proposed by the Dutch government, but the
environment ministry has said it will present plans in July.

Follow-up: Dutch environment ministry
(http://www.minvrom.nl)
===========================
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH EUROPE
===========================
EMBARGO: May 30 2001

==========================================================================

LETTER TO US SENATOR JEFFORDS: HOPE AGAINST BUSH'S HARDLINE ON
ENVIRONMENT
==========================================================================

Millions around the world look to Senator Jeffords for a thaw in the US
freeze on World Climate Treaty

Today, Friends of the Earth International, the world's largest grassroots
environment network with groups in 68 countries, sent a letter to newly
independent US Senator Jim Jeffords, future leader of the Senate Committee
on the Environment asking for his
help in bringing the United States back to the world climate treaty. Senator
Jeffords rejected the Republican Party's increasing tilt away from public
health, social and environmental
safeguards, and has registered as an independent.

Dr Brent Blackwelder, President of Friends of the Earth US:
"Senator Jeffords has thrown the balance of power back towards a responsible
policy toward climate change. Jeffords' rejection of the current
administration's agenda reflects the outrage and disappointment felt by
millions of people around the world who watched in horror as President Bush
trashed the global climate
treaty. Friends of the Earth hopes that the political shift in the Senate
will send a clear message to Bush: the environment must not and cannot be
sold off."

Kate Hampton, Friends of the Earth International climate campaigner: "The
Kyoto Protocol must not be reduced to a bargaining chip with the US.
Presidents come and go, but Kyoto Protocol commitments have taken a decade
of hard science and hard politics. The EU
cannot afford to let Bush rule the day on what is the most urgent
environmental question of our times. European governments must agree to
implement the Protocol regardless of the US position at the EU summit in
Gothenburg, otherwise it is unlikely that
environmentally effective agreement  can be negotiated with the other
Parties."

Press Contacts:
Roda Verheyen, FOEE climate campaigner: + 49 179 465 2979
Howard Mollett, FOE Europe Press Officer: 02 542 01 89
Daniel Mittler, FOE Germany (BUND)
Organiser of the Friends of the Earth "LifeBoat Action" at the
next UN climate talks in Bonn: +49 30 275 86468

===================================
Text of FOE's letter to Senator Jim Jeffords:
===================================

Dear Senator Jeffords,

We congratulate you on your recent decision to take an
independent course.  We understand that a significant reason for
you decision was your concern about recent efforts to to weaken
environmental standards and increase energy supply through
drilling for oil in nature reserves, as well as expanding coal
and nuclear capacities.  We, Friends of the Earth International,
representing more than 1 million people all over the world, share
your disquiet at these plans.

The US, with 4% of the world´s population produces 25% of the
world´s climate-changing gases. President Bush´s energy plan
would certainly increase these emissions further and thus speed
up catastrophic climate change. The rest of the world therefore
cannot but take an interest in the US´s energy and climate
policies. We need the US to support international efforts to
protect our climate, polls show that US citizens support action
and the future of the planet demands it.

As you will be aware, international climate talks resume in Bonn,
Germany in July. Bonn will be the last chance to agree on rules
for the Kyoto Protocol, the only international agreement aimed at
reducing climate-damaging emissions. As the future head of the
Senate Environment Committee, we urge you to call on the Bush
administration to reverse its position on the Kyoto Protocol (as
announced on March 13th). The US must come to the UN climate
negotiations willing to negotiate in good faith. Obstructive
counter-proposals may spoil international efforts against the
most urgent environmental issue of our times.

We call on you to ensure that the Senate´s Environment Committee
clearly states its support for the Kyoto Protocol. The Senate
Environment Committee should call on President Bush to return to
the negotiations and ensure that an effective Kyoto Protocol is
agreed upon in Bonn.

If you are intending to participate in the negotiations yourself,
Friends of the Earth also invites you to the construction by
thousands of concerned citizens from all over the world of a huge
symbolic lifeboat for the climate treaty on July 21st outside the
UN conference centre (see http://www.foeeurope.org/lifeboat).
Climate change is the most urgent environmental issue of our
time. We hope that you will take a principled stance on this
important international issue, just as you have done in national
policy.

We wish you all the best in your new role and hope that you will
help us preserve our climate and planet for the well being of
future generations.

Yours sincerely

Dr. Gerhard Timm
Chief Executive, Friends of the Earth Germany
on behalf of Friends of the Earth International
 

World Rainforest Bulletin Newsletter 46, May 2001
- Congo, R.: Shell's eucalyptus plantations now provide even fewer jobs

Apart from its well-known oil operations, Shell company is also involved
in a less known activity: tree plantations. The company has planted --on
its own or in joint-ventures-- almost 150,000 hectares of mostly
eucalyptus and pine trees in Argentina (10,000), Chile (36,000), Republic
of Congo (42,000), New Zealand (23,000), Paraguay (8,000) and Uruguay
(28,000).

In the Republic of Congo (Brazzaville), Shell holds 90% of the shares of
Eucalyptus du Congo (ECO-SA), while the government owns the remaining 10%.
Its plantations are established on state-owned land near the coastal town
and port of Pointe Noire. The plantations are composed of clones of
Eucalyptus hybrids (Eucalyptus alba x Eucalyptus urophylla and Eucalyptus
tereticornis x Eucalyptus grandis). The main market for these clonal
plantations is the pulp industry and nearly half a million cubic metres of
raw logs are exported each year to Norway, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal
and Morocco for the production of pulp and paper.

As usual in this type of plantations, job creation by this company is
poor: a mere 400 jobs. This means that --counting only the planted and not
the entire area covered by the plantation-- it requires 105 hectares to
create just one job. But things have now got even worse. Last month, the
company's administration decided to stop cutting and selling eucalyptus
wood because of a fall in the international price, allegedly due to
overproduction of this type of wood. As usual too, the cost will be borne
by the workers. According to the company's manager Mr Perrin, the number
of workers will decrease until "the price of wood returns to a correct
level". In other words, "the market" will decide the fate of those
workers.

This is one of the numerous examples regarding the unsuitabily of the
large-scale monoculture plantation model as a means for the improvement of
local peoples livelihoods. In this case the company, with support and
participation of government, has appropriated more than 50,000 hectares of
land for an activity that produces very few jobs and generates very little
export-incomes because it exports unprocessed logs. While the
international price is high the company makes profits that do not
"trickle-down" to local workers and communities. When the price is low,
workers are dismissed.

Additionally, this situation offers yet another example of the pulp and
paper industry's strategy to ensure a cheap and constant supply of raw
material: to promote large-scale plantation of eucalyptus in countries
that can produce vast amounts of cheap wood. This implies that trees must
grow fast, that labour and land must be cheap and that environmental
controls must be lax. Those needs of the pulp and paper industry are
certainly met by the Republic of Congo. But they are also met by many
other countries, which are encouraged, through different mechanisms, to
dedicate vast areas of their territories to tree plantations. The result
is a worldwide competition to sell the same commodity, which lowers the
price --to the benefit of the global industrial and trade actors.

Article based on information from: Panafrican News Agency (Dakar), April
12, 2001 ( http://209.225.9.134/stories/200104120354.html ).
Shell's web page: http://www.shell.com/rw-br/directory/0,6125,30421,00.html
 
 

Sink hopes sink
Nature, 24th May 2001

JOHN WHITFIELD
Forests can only do so much for carbon emmissions.

Some environmental policy-makers hope that forests might counter global warming by absorbing much of the extra carbon dioxide that humans are adding to the atmosphere, and that planting forests could substitute for reducing emissions. Two studies of North American pine forests suggest that such hopes are overly optimistic (1,2. see below)

Loblolly pine trees (Pinus taeda) planted in air containing 0.06% carbon dioxide, as opposed to the current 0.04%, grew faster for only three years, Ram Oren, of Duke University in Durham, North Carolina, and colleagues have found. The trees then reverted to their original growth rate.

The results show that we can't expect forests "to allow us to emit carbon dioxide without a thought", says ecologist Adam Hirsch of Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts. Preserving existing forests, or letting them regrow where they have been cleared, may make a greater contribution to soaking up carbon than planting new trees, Hirsch believes.

A shortage of other nutrients, notably nitrogen, limited the pines' response to carbon fertilization. When the researchers added nitrogen to plots, the trees grew faster again. The stimulating effects of extra carbon dioxide were also weaker in dry years.

Ironically, further pollution ? the nitrogen in acid rain ? may allow trees to take advantage of extra carbon dioxide. But it wouldn't be wise to count on it ? the myriad interactions between plants and their environment are poorly understood.

Nevertheless, studies such as this highlight the processes that we need to understand. Says Hirsch: "There's a good chance that we'll be able to make generalizations."

Leaf it out

About half the carbon taken up by trees goes into their leaves. Climatologists are curious about how long this carbon stays there ? is leaf litter on the forest floor broken down quickly and the carbon dioxide returned from whence it came, or does the litter linger and become incorporated into the soil?

Again, the news regarding climate change is disappointing. Studying the same trees as Oren's group, Duke University's William Schlesinger and John Lichter, of Bowden College in Brunswick, Maine, have found that in CO2 -rich air the total amount of litter increases. But it is broken down so quickly that, once a leaf falls from the tree, its carbon is back in the atmosphere in little over three years.

The limits to the capacity of coniferous forests as carbon sinks is a "reality check", says Jim Ehleringer, a biologist at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Ehleringer, a leader of the Global Change and Terrestrial Ecosystems project of the International Geosphere*Biosphere Progam, says that large-scale, long-term studies such as these are just what is needed to work out how ecosystems interact with the atmosphere.

Under the influence of other factors, such as nutrient limitation or temperature, environmental change might even switch an ecosystem from a net carbon sink into a carbon source, Ehleringer points out. "Assuming that sinks will be there forever will send us down the wrong policy path," he says.
 

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

Oren, R. et al. Soil fertility limits carbon sequestration by forest ecosystems in a CO2-enriched atmosphere. Nature 411, 469*472 (2001).
 

Schlesinger, W. & Lichter, J. Limited carbon storage in soil and litter of experimental forest plots under increased atmospheric CO2. Nature 411, 466*469 (2001).
 
 
 

-------------------------
Dutch propose nation-wide congestion charging
ENDS Daily - 23/05/01
-------------------------
The Dutch government yesterday proposed nation-wide traffic
congestion charging as part of a 20-year national transport
plan, reviving ambitions first raised in the 1980s.

Under the plan, motorists would pay to use all main roads,
with charges varying according by region and vehicles'
environmental credentials.  Cutting carbon dioxide emissions
and noise nuisance are the plan's two other environment
related priorities.

A transport ministry spokesperson stressed that the full
details of the congestion charges proposal had still to be
finalised by the cabinet before parliamentary scrutiny this
autumn.  After many years of development, the technology to
make congestion charging workable was now available, she
said.

Congestion charging is promoted by many policy makers and
environmental groups as a potentially effective tool to curb
ever-growing demand for road transport by internalising
external costs.  No EU member state has yet introduced
congestion charging, although plans for such a system in
central London are well advanced.

The draft transport plan also allows for construction of new
roads or widening of existing ones at 13 hotspots around the
Netherlands.  In some cases, new traffic management measures
could be employed instead, said the spokesperson, such as
converting a three-lane motorway into four-lanes during
morning rush hours.

Follow-up:  Dutch transport ministry
(http://www.minvenw.nl)press release
(http://www.minvenw.nl/cend/dco/nieuws/data/nieuwsarchief/010522_nwnvvp.shtml).

Danes welcome "positive" traffic statistics
ENDS Daily - 21/05/01
-------------------------
The total volume of road traffic in Denmark fell slightly in
2000, the first such decline since the oil crisis of the
early 1980s, the Danish Road Directorate said today, citing
higher fuel prices as a possible cause.  The news follows
hard on the heels of a similar report from France (ENDS Daily
14 May).

According to Bo Ekman, head of the traffic and transport
section in the directorate, higher petrol prices, taxes,
interest rates and other cost-of-living increases are equally
likely reasons for the fall, totalling 0.7%.  Provisional
figures showed a further 1.7% fall in the first quarter of
2001, he added.

However, the figures mask a difference between secondary
roads and main roads, which actually saw a slight rise in
traffic.  "On the whole, we see this as a positive sign in
environmental and safety terms," Mr Ekman told ENDS Daily.
"More traffic is using the roads that are designed for it,
which avoid more densely populated areas."

According to Jyllands-Posten newspaper, which reported the
new road figures in an interview with Mr Ekman this morning,
commuting by rail is also on the rise and recent declines in
cycling appear to have levelled out.  Several traffic experts
have speculated that all of these trends could signal an
economic slowdown.

Follow-up:  Danish Road Directorate (http://www.vd.dk).

Sunday May 20 3:48 PM ET
U.S. Has Special Role in Global Warming Fight-Annan

Full text of speech
 
By Christopher Noble

MEDFORD, Mass. (Reuters) - The United States, as the world's biggest polluter, has a special responsibility to help fight global warming and promote conservation, U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan (news - web sites) said on Sunday.

``The United States, as you probably know, is the world's leading emitter of greenhouse gases, largely because it is the world's most successful economy,'' Annan said in a commencement address at Tuft's Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy in Medford, Massachusetts.

``That makes it especially important for it to join in reducing emissions and in the broader quest for energy efficiency and conservation,'' he said.

In a speech extending his criticism of President Bush (news - web sites)'s decision in March to reject the 1997 Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) on global warming, Annan warned that ignoring conservation could damage economic growth around the world. He added that the international community was in danger of losing hard-won gains in the fight against climate change.

``There is concern throughout the world about the decision of the new administration to oppose the Protocol,'' Annan said, according to prepared remarks.

Annan has called the Bush administration move ``unfortunate'' and after coming under intense and widespread criticism about its decision, the United States agreed recently to attend the next round of international talks on climate change in Bonn, Germany in July.

Bush pulled out of the Kyoto pact after criticizing it as faulty and harmful the U.S. economy. The administration also said it was unfair that developing nations were exempt from the first phase of restrictions on emissions of pollutants.

'GREAT BENEFITS AT LITTLE OR NO COSTS'

But Annan attacked the assertion that cutting emissions and other conservation measures would hurt economies.

``In fact, the opposite is true: unless we protect resources and the earth's natural capital, we shall not be able to sustain economic growth,'' he said.

``It is also said that conservation, while admirable, has only limited potential. But economists how broadly agree that improved energy efficiency and other 'no regrets' strategies could bring great benefits at little or no costs,'' Annan said in what appeared to be a rejection of remarks by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites) that conservation was a personal virtue but not the basis of a sound energy policy.

Annan dismissed arguments that global warming is an unproved phenomenon and that more studies should be undertaken to be sure it a real threat.

``Imagine melting polar icecaps and rising sea levels, threatening beloved and highly developed coastal areas such as Cape Cod with erosion and storm surges,'' he said. ``Imagine a warmer and wetter world in which infectious diseases such as malaria and yellow fever spread more easily.

``This is not some distant, worst-case scenario. It is tomorrow's forecast. Nor is this science fiction. It is sober prediction, based on the best science available,'' he said.

Annan called on all world leaders to show that they take climate change seriously but said developed nations had to lead the way because they release most of the pollutants that cause for global warming.

He also said developing countries were not getting a pass on their responsibilities.

``Developing countries will have to do their part in due course; their exclusion from emissions commitments, it should be stressed, is only for the first phase,'' Annan said, noting that China and other developing nations were taking steps to limit the growth in their emissions.

The Kyoto Protocol calls for industrialized nations to cut emissions by an average of 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2012, to slow the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
 
 

***************************************
FRIENDS OF THE EARTH INTERNATIONAL
***************************************
Embargo: Friday 18th 00:01AM

************************************************************
LIFEBOAT TO RESCUE THE WORLD CLIMATE TREATY !

Friends of the Earth bring thousands to Kyoto Protocol
negotiations, Bonn, July 21st
*************************************************************

Today Friends of the Earth International [1] launches a massive
mobilization effort towards this year's largest mass action on
climate change ! Thousands of people from all over the world are
expected to participate in the mega-BOAT ACTION, July 21st at the
UN Kyoto Protocol negotiations in Bonn.

Participants will physically construct the Boat in the town
centre and drag it to the UN conference. The Boat will be
decorated with banners, flags and slogans from groups and
individuals around the world: an unavoidable message from the
outside world to politicians on the inside of the negotiations.
Supporters of the Boat action have already booked buses in
countries as far apart as England and Estonia.

Daniel Mittler, Climate Action organiser, Friends of the Earth
Germany (BUND):
"The Boat is a simple symbol.  The disastrous consequences of
man-made global warming are the result of our own hubris,
unrelenting pollution without thought of the consequences.  The
Boat will serve as a symbol of rescue and hope, it is only
through collective action and human innovation that we may cope
with the catastrophic impacts of accelerated climate change."

Over 150,000 people participated in last month's FLOOD BUSH!
e-protest campaign, initiated by Friends of the Earth, targeting
the White House for the US attempt to wreck the climate treaty.
The BOAT action's message is simple: Don't Sink The Kyoto
Protocol !

Last November's climate talks in The Hague saw Friends of the
Earth bring over 5000 members of the public for the construction
of a sand-bag dike around the UN conference hall.  People came
from over 45 countries, from Norway to Nigeria, and from Chile to
the Czech Republic to build the dike. Klaus Toepfer, the Head of
UNEP, and Jan Pronk, the Chair of the UN climate talks also
participated.  Sandbags from the dike decorated the podium in the
plenary sessions and became a symbol of hope for the conference.

Ricardo Navarro, Chair of Friends of the Earth International:
"People all over the world are outraged at the scandalous
attempts of fossil-friendly governments, in particular the US,
Canada and Australia, to sabotage the Kyoto Protocol. Friends of
the Earth's Boat will be built with the determination and
sincerity that we expect from the politicians inside the UN
climate conference. Political lip-servicing and a weakening or
abandonment of the treaty from any of the Parties will not be
acceptable. The climate will not wait."

Friends of the Earth believes that the Kyoto Protocol rules to be
negotiated in Bonn must ensure:
- fossil fuel emissions targets agreed at Kyoto are maintained;
- investment is accelerated in renewable energy and energy
efficiency not nuclear power, so-called "carbon sinks", large
hydroelectricity or coal projects;
- industrialised countries make most CO2 emission reductions at
home;
- funding is made available to vulnerable countries for climate
disaster preparedness and management;
- the inequitable use of the world's resources is recognised:
developing countries have a right to develop sustainably and
industrialised countries must encourage greener energy
consumption.

=======================
http://www.foeeurope.org/lifeboat
=======================

More information:
Kate Hampton, Climate Change expert: +44 207 490 1555
Mark Helm, Friends of the Earth US, Washington press contact: + 1
202 270 3650
Howard Mollett, Press Officer, FOE Europe: +32 2 542 01 89 / 32
4786 03374
Daniel Mittler, Action Organiser in Germany:  +49 30 275 86468

=======================

Climate Press Packs available containing:
"What next !" A guide to citizens' climate activism,
Pictures from last year's mass DIKE action + sandbags in the UN
climate talks in The Hague,
Politics of Climate briefing
 
 

Bush plans energy explosion
Vision for oil rigs and power plants raises fears for environment
Julian Borger in Washington and Paul Brown
Friday May 18, 2001
The Guardian

Addtional links
Text of the energy plan
Greenpeace USA response to Bush/Cheney energy plan
Pronk comments on US energy plan
The US Natural Resources Defense Council statement Bush/Cheney energy plan
The US Union of Concerned Scientists statement on Bush/Cheney energy plan
The US Centre for International Environmental Law statement
Heinrich Boell Foundation - Washington Office. Brief analysis (in German)
Friends of the Earth US analysis of energy plan
Redefining Progress - Principles for Evaluating the Plan
WWF US - press release on energy plan
Japanese reaction
Bush Energy Plan. - see the cartoon of the consequences!
 

President George Bush yesterday launched an energy plan that would dramatically increase the number of oil rigs, power stations and nuclear plants across the country. He warned of a "darker future" ahead for the United States unless something was done about "the worst serious energy shortage since the 1970s".
Outlining his much-anticipated plan in Minnesota, Mr Bush claimed that it was possible to dramatically increase oil drilling and coal mining without serious damage to the environment, and restated his intention to open up the Arctic wildlife refuge in Alaska to oil rigs.

"The truth is, energy production and environmental protection are not competing priorities. They're dual aspects of a single purpose - to live well and wisely on the planet earth," Mr Bush said.
However, environmentalists and congressional Democrats were quick to portray the plan - drafted by a taskforce led by the vice-president, Dick Cheney - as a polluters' charter, drawn up in secret in the interests of businesses such as the oil industry, in which Mr Bush and Mr Cheney used to work.
Writing in the Washington Post, former president Jimmy Carter called into question the White House's claims that the country was facing a crisis comparable with the oil shocks of the 1970s when energy prices doubled over the course of a few months, and there were long lines of cars outside petrol stations.
"No energy crisis exists now that equates in any way with those we faced in 1973 and 1979," Mr Carter wrote. "World supplies are adequate and reasonably stable, price fluctuations are cyclical, reserves are plentiful and automobiles aren't waiting in line at service stations."

The White House report argues that energy consumption is projected to increase by a third over the next two decades and that if it continues to grow at the same rate as the past decade, energy supplies would run out.
Mr Bush pointed to the current wave of power blackouts in California as a foretaste of national energy shortages to come, denying "the routine everyday expectation that when you flick on a light-switch, the light will come on".
The threat was serious enough, Mr Bush said, to jus tify relaxing environmental constraints. The Arctic national wildlife refuge should be opened for drilling he argued, because new technology allowed oil extraction with far less environmental damage.
The refuge could produce up to 600,000 barrels of oil a day, he said, as much as the US now buys from Iraq - an example of how new oil exploration would reduce the country's dependence on unfriendly foreign powers.
Under the plan, regulations governing coal mining and the licensing of new nuclear power plants would be relaxed and streamlined. The federal government would be given the power to requisition land for the construction of power transmission cables, and to clear the way for 38,000 miles of new natural gas pipelines. The plan envisages the need for up to 1,900 new power plants over the next 20 years, more than one a week.

Such measures, combined with fresh investment in green technologies, would allow energy production to increase in line with supply without severe harm to the environment, Mr Bush said. Financial incentives would provide a "market-based" means of fighting pollution.
The plan earmarks $10bn in tax credits to reward fuel-efficient homes and companies.
Friends of the Earth in London and the Worldwatch Institute in Washington said the EU and other developed countries would gain a competitive advantage by embracing new technologies such as solar and hydrogen power, leaving the US with sunset industries such as coal, oil and nuclear power.
FOE climate campaigner Kate Hampton said: "Instead of seriously trying to tackle the waste of energy by the world's most profligate economy, the Cheney energy strategy simply gives a green light for ever faster consumption of fossil fuels and greater use of nuclear power.
"The US administration will face protests at home and across the world if it ever tries to put this plan into action."
Worldwatch said: "The US risks falling behind its economic competitors and compromising its political credibility on the international stage. Wind and solar power are growing at double digit annual rates globally but mostly in Europe and Japan where government support is creating vibrant markets, hi-tech jobs and exports."
The Democrats derided the plan as a juicy bone thrown to the oil and coal companies which helped bankroll Mr Bush's election campaign.
"It's very unfortunate, we now have an administration that is more concerned about big oil companies making record profits than worrying about average American working families and their bottom-line budget," the party's national chairman, Terry McAuliffe said yesterday.

But British Nuclear Fuel chairman Hugh Collum said: "If the full potential of the proposed changes are realised in the United States, BNFL will be well-positioned to provide nuclear reactor technology and associated fuel, equipment and services through Westinghouse, with their recently licensed advanced reactor system."
 

NETHERLANDS: May 18, 2001

US Energy Plan 'disastrous' for climate - says Pronk
AMSTERDAM - The head of the U.N. forum on climate change Jan Pronk yesterday
dubbed President George W. Bush's new energy plan a "disastrous development"
for international efforts to slow output of global warming gases.

Pronk, who is also the Dutch environment minister, told a Dutch television
news program the Bush plan would "undoubtedly" lead to increased output of
carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, although he still awaited proposals
from the world's biggest polluter on how to cut emissions.
In a speech earlier yesterday, Bush called for increasing U.S. reliance on
oil, coal and nuclear power, while offering $10 billion in tax credits for
conservation measures.
"In terms of the possibility of forming an integrated policy (to cut
emissions), this is a disastrous development," Pronk said.
A United Nation's scientific body has said greenhouse gases, such as carbon
dioxide produced by the burning of fossil fuels, will contribute to warming
of the earth's surface. That in turn will lead to higher ocean levels,
dramatic changes in weather patterns and greater frequency of severe storms.
In March, Bush drew an international outcry by rejecting the Kyoto Protocol,
which calls on industrialised countries to cut output of carbon dioxide by
an average of 5.2 percent from 1990 levels by 2010.
Bush said he rejected the pact, which has not been formally adopted by the
international community, because it did not require emissions cuts by
developing nations and would damage the U.S. economy.
Pronk reiterated earlier statements that he would press other countries to
move forward with the Kyoto pact without the United States, but hoped to
draw the country back into the treaty at later date.
"I'm trying now to keep the rest of the group together," he said.
Negotiations to add teeth to the Kyoto Protocol broke down in November in
The Hague after the European Union balked at U.S. proposals to use forests
and farms as 'sinks' to soak up carbon from the atmosphere.
Those talks are set to resume in Bonn in July, although many countries are
showing reluctance to join the pact without the United States.
Pronk said he would travel to Japan on Saturday to try keep the U.S.
negotiating partner in the talks on board.
"If that is successful then we have a good basis for an agreement with
Europe and Japan which can pull in other countries. But if that fails, then
there isn't really any reason to start the Bonn conference," he said.
Pronk also took aim at the U.S. administration's claim that cutting carbon
dioxide emissions to slow global warming would be too expensive.
"The cost of prevention is much lower than the cost of the consequences from
a worsening of the climate," he said.
 

Statement of Alden Meyer,
Union of Concerned Scientists, Director of Government Relations
May 18, 2001
 

President Bush’s energy plan is a cynical effort to use our current short-term energy problems to push bad long-term policies.  It is a smorgasbord for the coal, oil and nuclear industries, while providing only table scraps for energy efficiency and renewable energy.  The plan downplays the potential of both energy efficiency and renewable energy, because otherwise it would be obvious there is no need for building more coal and nuclear power plants or opening up sensitive public lands to oil and gas drilling.  The White House and Republican leaders in Congress want to rush legislation through committee and to the floor this summer, not because it will address the current price of gasoline or the electricity problems in California – it won’t – but because they want to rush these unpopular policies through before gas prices fall and the rolling blackouts end.

The plan claims that “the United States will need about 393,000 MW of new generating capacity by 2020 to meet the growing demand.”  The plan fails to note that the same agency that produced this business-as-usual forecast – the Energy Information Administration – also reports that 189,827 MW of new capacity, or 48 percent of the projected need over the next 20 years, is already under construction or planned for completion by 2004.  The plan also fails to note the analysis by five national laboratories documenting how most of the need for additional generating capacity could be eliminated by a set of energy efficiency and renewable energy policies.  Thus the plan makes selective use of data in an attempt to create the perception of a dire need for more coal and nuclear plants

Instead, our goal should be maximizing demand-side efficiency and rapidly ramping up renewable electricity production, so that we can retire the older dirty coal plants that don’t have to meet current Clean Air Act standards.  Clean coal is an oxymoron, especially when it comes to global warming.  The President’s plan to spend $2 billion on coal technologies, while slashing the efficiency and renewable energy budgets by up to 50 percent, would be a gross misallocation of public resources.

Renewable Energy: The plan sets no goal for renewable electricity production, but Vice President Cheney, in his April 30th Toronto speech, said that boosting non-hydro renewable electricity production from the current 2 percent of total generation to 6 percent by 2020 would require “R&D breakthroughs.”  The reality is that breakthroughs aren’t needed; the very DOE programs he and President Bush want to cut have already produced tremendous declines in the price of wind, geothermal, solar, and biomass power.  Wind power, for example, has come down in price from 40 cents per kilowatt-hour two decades ago to a range of 4 to 6 cents today.  New geothermal plants can be developed at a cost of 3 to 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.  Biomass power ranges in cost from 2.5 to 7.5 cents per kilowatt-hour, and the cost of solar photovoltaic power, while still higher than these other sources, has fallen by 90 percent since the early 1970s.

More can be done to further develop these technologies  – R&D support is still important – but federal policies are the key to moving these technologies more rapidly into the market.  These should include net metering and interconnection standards for renewable technologies, and a renewable portfolio standard that would require electricity suppliers to produce an increasing share of their power from renewable resources.  The Bush plan is very weak on renewable energy – tax incentives alone, while important, won’t get us where we need to go.

By contrast, state utility regulators and legislators are already acting.  Twelve states have adopted renewable energy standards, and fourteen have created funds totaling nearly $4 billion over the next 11 years to spur new renewable energy development.  UCS estimates these state policies alone will more than double non-hydro renewable capacity in these states over the next decade.  But with federal leadership, we could achieve the goal of meeting 20 percent of our electricity needs in 2020 from non-hydro renewable energy sources, as called for in the bipartisan bill sponsored last year by Senators Jeffords (R-VT) and Lieberman (D-CT).  A 1999 UCS analysis, A Powerful Opportunity, estimates the overall costs of meeting this goal to be quite reasonable: $1.33 per month for a typical residential household using 500 kWh a month.  For households that use natural gas for heat, their combined natural gas and electricity bills would actually fall by 13 cents a month, as the reduced demand for gas in the electric sector would lower average natural gas prices by 5 percent in 2020.

Nuclear Power: The president’s plan places disproportionate emphasis on reviving the nuclear power industry, including the highly controversial suggestion that we reconsider longstanding US policy against reprocessing of nuclear waste.

No new nuclear plants have been ordered since the mid-1970s, not because of opposition from environmentalists, as some would claim, but because nuclear power priced itself out of the market.  In states that have deregulated power generation, billions of dollars of nuclear plant construction costs have been defined as “stranded,” and allowed to be charged to consumers over a number of years.  With capital costs thus removed from the equation, operating and maintenance costs of less than 2 cents per kilowatt-hour have made nuclear electricity quite competitive.  Many of the 103 currently operating reactors will probably apply for 20-year license extensions, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will likely grant them.

But the president’s plan goes beyond relicensing, calling for “the expansion of nuclear energy as a major component of our national energy policy.”  In our view, the burden of proof is on the nuclear industry to demonstrate that new reactor designs are in fact safer than current plants, that nuclear regulators start responding to safety problems as they arise, rather than sweeping them under the rug, and that a long-term solution to nuclear waste disposal has been demonstrated.  What’s not acceptable is additional public subsidies for this technology, including Price-Anderson federal liability protection for new merchant nuclear plants.  We should give renewables a first chance before we give nuclear a second chance.

The real shock in the plan’s nuclear recommendations is the call to revisit nuclear waste reprocessing, which would extract uranium and plutonium from spent fuel to re-use in nuclear power plants.  The ready availability at low costs of uranium ore for fresh fuel has made reprocessing uneconomical, and reprocessing creates high-level wastes that have historically caused problems at Hanford, Savannah River, West Valley and other sites.  But the major concern about reprocessing is that the separation of plutonium from spent fuel increases the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.  This was the major factor in decisions against reprocessing made in the Ford, Carter and Reagan administrations.  It’s hard to understand why President Bush wants to re-open this hornet’s nest.

The President’s energy plan, with its heavy emphasis on fossil fuel production, would likely result in substantial increases in US emissions of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas that is causing current and projected global warming.  The US is already failing to meet the goal set in the 1992 Rio treaty – signed by the President’s father and ratified by the Senate – of returning our greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels.  This energy plan abdicates any pretense of concern about the dire threat of climate change, and would establish the United States as a global warming scofflaw in the eyes of the rest of the world.

The bottom line is that the president’s plan is bad for the environment, does virtually nothing for consumers, jeopardizes our long-term economic competitiveness by abdicating leadership on clean energy technologies, and will worsen global warming.  Congress and the American people must reject this unbalanced, back-to-the-future set of proposals, and move forward with a positive agenda focused on energy efficiency and renewable energy development.
 

Bush Energy Plan Violates International Law

Statement by Donald Goldberg, Senior Attorney, Centre for International Environmental Law, USA
May 17, 2001

When President Bush reneged on his promise to regulate CO2 emissions from power plants and turned his back on the Kyoto Protocol, he promised that the US would remain committed to fighting global warming. Today, it is clear he did not mean it. The Bush energy plan, if implemented, would send U.S greenhouse gas emissions through the roof, increasing overall emissions by 35% or more, and emissions from power plants as much as 65%. If this plan is enacted, the fight against global warming may well be over.

The plan places the US clearly in breach of its obligations under the UN Climate Convention, which President Bush (senior) ratified in 1992. This treaty requires industrialized countries to develop plans to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels. US emissions are currently about 15% above 1990 levels, and would rise to 50% above 1990 levels under the Bush plan. Besides breaching the specific obligations of the treaty, the plan violates international and domestic law by defeating the object and purpose of the treaty. The president of the international climate negotiations, Dutch Environment Minister Jan Pronk, has called the plan a "disastrous development"
for international efforts to slow output of global warming gases.

The White House acknowledges that greenhouse gas emissions are directly linked to global warming. Surely they know that global warming inevitably leads to rising sea levels, violent storms, melting glaciers, loss of biodiversity, and adverse impacts on human health. The message from today’s action appears to be: the President of the United States just doesn’t care.
 
 
U.S. thumbing nose at world with its new energy policy
 

May 26, 2001

The new U.S. energy policy unveiled by President George W. Bush does not
seem to gel with the vision of a cleaner future that America and the world
should be embracing.

Bush's long-term national energy strategy would open up part of a wildlife
refuge in Alaska to oil and natural gas drilling. It also aims to extend the
life of nuclear power plants, build new ones, and sharply enhance the
capacity of thermal power plants-without imposing any carbon dioxide
emission controls.

In short, it is an unabashed and emphatic call for an enormous increase in
the nation's energy supply. The rationale for all this is a U.S. belief that
it is in the grip of the most severe energy crisis since the oil shocks of
the 1970s.

A protracted period of cheap oil and tighter environmental standards has
slowed the development of oil and gas fields and the construction of power
plants and pipelines, according to the U.S. government.

Furthermore, the share of imported oil in domestic consumption recently
exceeded 50 percent, which the government perceives as a threat to U.S.
national security.

While the Bush energy program is designed to address a domestic problem-the
growing gap between energy supply and demand-it inevitably will have
colossal global consequences because the United States is the world's
largest consumer of energy.

In light of the implications for the entire planet, Bush's energy program
should be viewed with skepticism. One of the most questionable items on the
Bush energy agenda is a proposal to start constructing new nuclear power
plants, ending a period of inactivity that has been in place since the Three
Mile Island accident in 1979.
 

Any energy policy that goes against the current cannot expect a warm
reception. If the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry or the power
industry in Japan is betting that the domestic climate for nuclear power
will improve significantly, they are in for a big disappointment.

Particularly troubling about the new U.S. energy policy is that it caters
for a rapid growth in energy consumption. The Bush administration says more
than 1,300 new power plants will be needed on the assumption that demand for
oil, natural gas and electricity will rise 33 percent, 50 percent and 45
percent, respectively, in the next 20 years. The figures may seem a little
overblown due to the shock from the devastating electricity crunch in
California. Still, an increase of this magnitude in energy use in the United
States, which spews out about a quarter of the world's CO2 emissions, would
be an environmental disaster.

This selfish posture was also demonstrated by Washington's decision to drop
out of the Kyoto Protocol, which aimed to cut global greenhouse gas
emissions. The U.S. withdrawal from the treaty would stymie international
efforts to stop global warming.

Carmakers are eager to sell large gas-guzzling vehicles that give them fat
profit margins, while consumers care little about fuel efficiency because of
low gas prices.

But the environmental imperative requires the United States to abandon its
mass consumption ethos and start reining in the soaring demand for energy.
That means changing the sacrosanct American way of life.
 

The responsibility for global sustainability is, of course, shared by Japan
as well. The Japanese government should also shift the focus of its energy
policy from meeting growing demand to curbing energy use by consumers, for
autos or air-conditioning in office buildings, for instance.
(The Asahi Shimbun, May 25)
 

 17 May 2001 Press release Royal Society
  Royal Society backs international call for action on climate change
 
  The Royal Society and 16 other science academies have today (18 May)
  issued a joint statement that pledges support for the Intergovernmental
  Panel on Climate Change, and calls for policy-makers to honour their
  commitments under the Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
 
  In the statement, published in the 18 May issue of the journal Science,
  the academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean,
China,France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New
Zealand,Sweden, Turkey and the United Kingdom together recognise the IPCC as
"the  world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its
  causes", and endorse both its method of achieving consensus on climate
  change science and its conclusions. The statement adds: "It is now
evident that human activities are already contributing adversely to global
climate change. Business as usual is no longer a viable option."
 
  The statement urges "individuals, businesses and governments" to take
  action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. It describes
ratification of the Kyoto Protocol as "a small but essential first step towards
  stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases" and "a firm
  basis upon which to build an agreement between all countries in the
  developed and developing world for the more substantial reductions that
  will be necessary by the middle of the century."
 
  Sir Robert May, President of the Royal Society, urged policy-makers to
  heed the academies' statement. He said: "Contrary to some recent
  suggestions, the science of climate change is not too uncertain to
justify  reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Global climate change is a worrying
  reality and nobody can afford to delay action in tackling it."
 
  Sir Robert added: "Some people have unjustifiably sought to undermine
the work of the IPCC, but governments should be left in no doubt that it
  offers the best source of expertise on climate change. It has brought
  together scientists from all over the world, and their deliberations on
  this global issue transcend national boundaries and the interests of
  individual countries or organisations."
 
  "The IPCC's scientists have recognised and embraced dissent about the
  science of climate change, and acknowledged its uncertainties.
  Nevertheless, they have clearly demonstrated that there is an
overwhelming consensus about the likely course of climate change and this provides a
  mandate for urgent action by us all."
 
  Sir Robert also highlighted the academies' support for the Kyoto
Protocol. He said: "The developed countries have been responsible for more than
  two-thirds of emissions over the last two hundred years, and it is
morally  right that they should lead the way towards meeting human energy needs
  while preserving environmental and natural resources for future
  generations.
 
  "The signatories to the Kyoto Protocol recognised that it will be
  difficult to curb emissions and therefore established modest reduction
  targets. These are less than one-tenth of the cuts that will be required
  if we want to stabilise eventually the concentration of greenhouse gases
  in the atmosphere at twice pre-industrial levels, which might prevent
  global temperatures from rising by more than two degrees celsius.
Without  ratification of Kyoto, it would be much more difficult for us to find a
  way of achieving these larger reductions."
 
The text of the statement:
  THE SCIENCE OF CLIMATE CHANGE
 
  For further information, contact:
  Bob Ward/Lize King
  Press and Public Relations
  The Royal Society, London
  Tel: 020 7451 2516/2508
  -ENDS-
 
 
 
  A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal
  Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy
of  Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Chinese  Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of
Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian
Academy  of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei
(Italy),
  Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of
New  Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences,
  and Royal Society (UK).
 
 
  The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
  represents the consensus of the international scientific community on
  climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable
  source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse
its  method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the
  science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have
  been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by
  global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.
 
  There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of
  changes in such a complex system as the world's climate. Nevertheless,
we  support the IPCC's conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that
  temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface
  temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990
  levels by 2100. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels,
  more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of
  drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water
  resources.
 
  In May 2000, at the InterAcademy Panel (IAP) meeting in Tokyo, 63
  academies of science from all parts of the world issued a statement on
  sustainability in which they noted that "global trends in climate change
  ... are growing concerns" and pledged themselves to work for
  sustainability - meeting current human needs while preserving the
  environment and natural resources needed by future generations. It is
now  evident that human activities are already contributing adversely to
global  climate change. Business as usual is no longer a viable option.
 
  We urge everyone  -  individuals, businesses and governments  -  to take
  prompt action to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. One hundred and
  eighty-one governments are Parties to the 1992 UN Framework Convention
on  Climate Change, demonstrating a global commitment to 'stabilising
  atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at safe levels'.
  Eighty-four countries have signed the subsequent 1997 Kyoto Protocol,
  committing developed countries to reducing their annual aggregate
  emissions by 5.2% from 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
 
  The ratification of this Protocol represents a small but essential first
  step towards stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases.
  It will help create a base on which to build an equitable agreement
  between all countries in the developed and developing worlds for the
more substantial reductions that will be necessary by the middle of the
  century.
 
  There is much that can be done now to reduce the emissions of greenhouse
  gases without excessive cost. We believe that there is also a need for a
  major co-ordinated research effort focusing on the science and
technology  that underpin mitigation and adaptation strategies related to climate
  change. This effort should be funded principally by the developed
  countries and should involve scientists from throughout the world.
 
  The balance of the scientific evidence demands effective steps now to
  avert damaging changes to the earth's climate.

UK Royal Society Press Release on climate change

Calling Coal "An Environmentally Attractive Fuel Source," World Bank Votes to Finance Massive Coal Mine in China
INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES

FRIENDS OF THE EARTH

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE MAY 17, 2001

CONTACT: Daphne Wysham or Jim Vallette, Institute for Policy Studies 202-234-9382, ext. 208, or Jon Sohn, Friends of the Earth 970-349-0376
Washington, D.C. - Falling rapidly in line with a White House energy plan that emphasizes dirty fossil fuel development, the World Bank's private sector arm today voted to finance a massive coal mine project in China using U.S. taxpayer dollars. The executive directors of the taxpayer-supported International Finance Corporation (IFC) voted to finance $25 million in a scheme to develop the Daning coal basin in Shanxi Province, 370 miles southwest of Beijing. Most of the coal will fuel the massive Yangcheng power plant, controlled by the U.S. company AES, which the U.S. Export-Import Bank has backed with $374 million in loans.

Ignoring all evidence that coal is one of the biggest contributors to global warming, and that coal-fired power plants cause a host of other problems from acid rain to asthma and other health hazards, the IFC called coal "an environmentally attractive fuel source" in project documents.

"Just as the Bush-Cheney White House unveils an energy strategy that ignores clean energy, U.S. taxpayers are being forced to finance a dirty coal project in China-a project that will significantly contribute to climate change," said Daphne Wysham, Fellow of the Institute for Policy Studies.

The IFC plans to contribute 40 percent of the cost of the mine's development. In turn, the World Bank will receive an eight percent share in the consortium, headed by Asian American Coal Inc. (AACI), that is developing the mine.

(MORE)

COAL / 2

International finance institutions have pumped billions of dollars into the development of coal mining and coal-fired power in China since the Earth Summit in 1992, when world leaders signaled their concern over global warming by signing the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Despite the fact that coal produces more global warming gases than the other fossil fuels, oil and gas, the World Bank has continued to invest in this polluting energy resource. Since 1984, the World Bank has invested 2% of its $7 billion in energy sector lending to energy efficiency and renewables in China. The remainder is concentrated in fossil fuel extraction and power projects, most of it focused on coal.

"To the outrage of many other nations, President George W. Bush recently scuttled the Kyoto Protocol, saying developing nations were not going far enough to cut their own greenhouse gas emissions," Wysham said. "But the IFC's decision to finance a major coal project in China shows the hypocrisy of the President's action - the U.S. is encouraging developing nations to produce more greenhouse gases, and U.S. corporations are benefiting."

Critics of the Daning coal project are also outraged that the deal primarily benefits Asian American Coal. This group is loaded with former executives of A.T. Massey, whose Martin County, Kentucky coal mine spawned a major environmental disaster last October when one of its coal sludge dikes burst, sending 250 million gallons of coal sludge oozing towards Cincinnati. The spill devastated ecosystems of downstream rivers and poisoned water supplies. A Massey official named the United Mine Workers on its "enemies list" in a 2000 speech before the West Virginia Chamber of Commerce.

"No one should subsidize Asian American Coal to export their horrible environmental record," said Caroline Johnson of the Citizens' Coal Council. "The idea of putting money behind them is ridiculous."

"Instead of using taxpayer dollars to support dirty fossil fuels, why not use those tax dollars to support the export of renewable energy technologies to China, via the World Bank and other financial institutions," said Jon Sohn of Friends of the Earth. "This would create a growing renewables manufacturing base, create more U.S. jobs, bring down the cost of renewables, and benefit the environment. That would be a domestic energy policy alternative with global benefits."

###

FOR A COMPLETE BACKGROUNDER ON THE DANING COAL PROJECT VISIT www.seen.org.
 

EU Energy/Industry Council 14th May 2001
Relevant Energy sections

(for complete version go to http://ue.eu.int/en/summ.htm Follow link 'latest news'

ENERGY ITEMS

GREEN PAPER - "TOWARDS A EUROPEAN STRATEGY FOR THE SECURITY OF ENERGY SUPPLY" - COUNCIL CONCLUSIONS

The Council had an exchange of views on the security of energy supply. This discussion was based on the Commission Green Paper on a European strategy for the security of energy supply which was presented at the Industry/ Energy Council in December 2000 (see document 14000/00 Presse 466).

In order to structure the debate, the Presidency had invited the Ministers to consider questions pertaining to
- the scope for and modalities of an enhanced co-ordination between the Member States, taking into account the creation of an open and integrated internal energy market and new developments, such as enlargement and environmental challenges;
- measures that could be envisaged at Community level as a matter of priority in the energy field for alleviating the acknowledged increasing dependence of the Union on external energy sources;
- the contribution that could  be expected from other policies, such as policies directed to the demand side and new technologies, in order to improve long-term security of supply;
- measures that could be taken  in order to enhance and render more effective the dialogue with all supplier countries and regions, at Member States', as well as at Community level , with a view to increasing the diversification of supply sources and ensuring greater transparency of markets (price volatility)
 

The Presidency summed up this exchange of views by noting that:

- The issue of security of supply has to be seen as an integral part of other challenges such as climate change and an integrated market. There is agreement that a more coordinated effort seems needed for the Community, taking all the challenges into account , even though there are different views as to the extent of this effort

- Action and measures at Community level on security of supply should
§ reflect the subsidiarity principle and proportionality,
§ take into account regional, geographical, structural and climate differences of Member States,
§ be consistent with other policies,
§ be cost-reflective and transparent;

- As to import dependency, measures to be undertaken would include, for example, the strengthening of the dialogue with supplier countries, OPEC and Russia. The importance of a stable framework, in supplier countries, conducive to both private and public investments, was stressed;

- Not much support was expressed as regards stock management and stockpiling for anti-speculative purposes, neither for oil, nor for coal or gas;

- Transit and transport facilities and related instruments, such as the TEN's programme need to be reinforced. In this context, the need to encourage Russia's  speedy ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty was stressed;

- Member States recognise the importance of demand management. The contribution of renewable and energy efficiency to the security of supply is widely acknowledged, i.a. with respect to diversification of energy sources. The importance of actions in the building and transport sectors is acknowledged;
 

- All energy sources must be taken into account on their own merits, taking into account the imperatives of sustainable development, due attention being paid to national characteristics and to national preferences as to the adequate energy mix.  R&D has also an important role to play particularly with respect to the development and promotion of renewable energy sources and clean, efficient technologies.

The forthcoming Belgian Presidency was invited to bring forward the examination of this consultative document, taking into account contributions from all the relevant formations of the Council including Transport, Ecofin, Environment and Research.

After the discussion, the Council adopted the following conclusions:

"THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

1. RECALLS the priority objectives of the energy sector in the European Union: security of supply, competitiveness, and protection of the environment, taking into account the principle of subsidiarity as established in the Council Resolution of 8 July 1996 on the White Paper “An Energy Policy for the European Union( 1) 1.

2. WELCOMES the Commission’s Green Paper entitled “Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply( 2) 2 and SUPPORTS the Commission’s initiative to launch a broad debate on security of supply in 2001.

3. RECALLS the conclusions from the European Council in Stockholm.

4. NOTES that according to current forecasts the European Union will become increasingly dependent on external energy sources; that enlargement is not expected to change the situation; and ACKNOWLEDGES that Member States and the EU in its present and future composition are and  will be affected as regards security of supply, while being aware that measures being undertaken, such as those in the field of further opening and integration of the markets for energy, energy efficiency and renewable energy, contribute to alleviating this problem.
 

5. RECOGNISES the need to take into account the views of the European Parliament, the Economic & Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions and to conduct a thorough debate with all interested parties.

6. BELIEVES that there is a need for a shared view on how to reach the objective of security of supply and UNDERLINES the need for a long-term strategy at national and Community level for improved security of energy supply in the EU.

7. CONSIDERS that a shared view on a strategy should respect Member States' geographical, economical, regional, climate and structural differences; promote further market opening in the EU; be consistent with sustainable development as well as climate change commitments within the energy sector; and add value over action by individual Member States.

8. BELIEVES that, with a view to defining possible shared priorities, the debate on a long-term strategy should focus on the means to control demand growth and to manage supply dependence by addressing issues both within the Community, including the possible contribution of indigenous energy sources in line with the priority objectives of the energy sector as recalled in paragraph 1, and with supplier countries. To this end the debate should consider the effect on security of supply of policies and measures that already exist or are under preparation, as well as the desirability of integrating the security of supply aspect into these policies.

9. IS OF THE VIEW that possible future long term strategies will benefit from a strengthened risk-analysis of the security of supply and improved monitoring and assessment of, and information on energy supply and demand.

10. INVITES relevant Council formations to give further guidance inter alia on the following priority areas:
- Promoting research and development on energy efficient technologies
- Developing alternative transportation modes, facilities and fuels
- Use of fiscal instruments.

11. INVITES the Commission to submit to the Council a progress report on the consultation process by mid-2001 and INTENDS to further its contribution to a long term strategy for security of supply at its December meeting with a view to enabling the Commission to assess fully the outcome of the consultation by the end of this year."

INTERNAL MARKETS FOR ELECTRICITY AND GAS - COMPLETING THE INTERNAL ENERGY MARKET

The Council held a debate on completing the internal markets for electricity and gas.

This debate was based on the Commission Communication: "Completing the internal market", containing a proposal for amending the electricity (96/92/EC) and gas (98/30/EC)  Directives, and a proposal for a Regulation on conditions for access to the network for cross-border exchanges in electricity. This Communication is a response to the request of the European Council at Lisbon to accelerate the liberalisation of the electricity and gas sectors with a view to achieving a real and effective internal energy market. The proposals for amending the gas and electricity directives contain quantitative provisions with regard to a full opening of the markets to all customers by 1 January 2005, as well as qualitative provisions relating to the unbundling of transmission and distribution, third party access and regulatory tasks, public service obligations as well as trade with third countries.

The proposal for a regulation on conditions for access to the network for cross border exchanges in electricity contains provisions with respect to the establishment of fair, cost-reflective, transparent and directly applicable rules with regard to tarification and the allocation of available interconnection capacities.

In order to give further guidance to the works in the Council bodies on this issue,  and taking into account the conclusions adopted at the European Council in Stockholm, the Presidency had invited the Ministers to address a set of questions focusing on:

- qualitative aspects which would need to be addressed in order to ensure a balanced opening of the electricity and gas market, and the balance to be kept between quantitative and qualitative aspects  in the negotiation process;

- the proposed provisions regarding unbundling and third party access, in order to  ensure a level playing field and effective competition; the necessary  common minimum standards and criteria for performing regulatory tasks;

- the need for additional measures at national and Community level to ensure high standards of public services and security of supply;
 

- a need for enforceable rules at national and/or European level to facilitate cross border trade in electricity and gas;and in this context,
§ the role of  the Florence and Madrid Fora  for further contribution  to developing solutions to relevant issues in the electricity and gas markets respectively, and the role the Council should play;
§ the appropriate balance to be struck between measures to handle capacity allocation and mechanisms to stimulate investments; and
§ the role to be assigned to the Trans European Networks (TENs) in order to ensure the implementation of an appropriate level of cross border interconnections;

- conclusion of bilateral agreements between the EU and third countries ia an adequate solution in trade of electricity; and

- the realistic timeframe for making substantive progress on the various measures required for completing the internal energy market and how the Energy Council could contribute to the preparation in view of the Spring 2002 European Council.

The Presidency concluded the debate by noting the following :

- There is broad consensus that the market opening concerning both gas and electricity should be actively pursued and accelerated. To this end, the Swedish Presidency, in consultation with the incoming Belgian and Spanish Presidencies, will take initiatives to find ways and means within the existing Council framework to accelerate this process and will come back with appropriate ideas to be presented to the Council;

- Quantitative measures related to market opening (such as thresholds) and qualitative aspects (such as unbundling, Third Party Access and regulators, potential socio-economic impact) are interdependent;

- As always, when deciding on measures to be taken at Community level, the cost of the various options needs to be assessed;

- The principle of unbundling meets general agreement, whereas its concrete modalities still have to be clarified; unbundling of the gas sector may not necessarily follow the same model/approach as for electricity;
 

- Non discriminatory third party access to the grid without transparent and published tariffs is not feasible; public service obligations need to be taken into account when defining the practical modalities of tarification systems;

- To ensure improved security of supply through further integration at Community level, infrastructure requirements need to be carefully assessed, with particular regard to the revised TEN programme;

- Benchmarking and monitoring are useful tools for ensuring a proper assessment of progress and follow-up, in particular with respect to public service obligations and security of supply and congestion management, which can be facilitated by increasing the transparency on available interconnection capacity;

- A fully functioning integrated single market for gas and electricity cannot be achieved without efficient cross-border trade. Rules to that effect should be sought at an appropriate level, which are based on simplicity, non-discrimination, transparency and effective reflection of costs, allowing for proper allocation signals and ensuring adequate reciprocity;

- When deciding on the most appropriate way to deal with trade (in electricity) with third countries proper consideration should be given to environmental aspects, reciprocity and legal implications;

- Although a legally binding regulatory framework is required to address several of the issues raised by the achievement of the internal market, the Florence and Madrid processes have demonstrated their usefulness and we expect them to continue to do so.

STRATEGY FOR INTEGRATING ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS AND SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT INTO ENERGY POLICY - COUNCIL RESOLUTION

The Council adopted the following resolution to be submitted to the Göteborg European Council on 15-16 June 2001 :

"THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION

1. RECALLS the strategy on the integration of environment and sustainable development into energy policy adopted by the Council on 2 December 1999 which was approved by the European Council of Helsinki (10–11 December 1999)( 3) 1.

2. CONFIRMS its commitment to submit to the European Council in June 2001 a comprehensive strategy for environmental integration and sustainable development.

3. WELCOMES the initiative of the Commission in presenting the Green Paper: "Towards a European strategy for the security of energy supply"2 also as a valuable contribution in the context of integrating environmental aspects and sustainable development into the energy sector.

4. STRESSES the importance of rapid progress on the sixth Environment Action Programme of the European Community 3 and the European Climate Change Programme4, including the Green Paper on greenhouse gas emissions trading within the European Union5.  TAKES note in this respect of the Commission's recent "Consultation paper for the preparation of an EU Strategy for sustainable development 6", in particular the specific topic "climate change and clean energy".
 

5. RECALLS that the concept of sustainable development includes treating economic, environmental and social aspects in a balanced way and that sustainable development is directly linked to the goals of energy policy:

- security of supply
- competitiveness
- protection of the environment

as established in the strategy for integrating environmental aspects and sustainable development into energy policy.

6. WELCOMES the Commission's "First Review Report 2001" on the strategy for integrating environmental aspects and sustainable development into energy policy from 1999, which UNDERLINES progress made in priority areas, and notably the
– implementation of the electricity and gas Directives,
– promotion of electricity from renewable energy sources and
– promotion of energy efficiency.

7. UNDERLINES the importance of energy efficient measures and ACKNOWLEDGES in this respect the contribution to this strategy of the Commission's Action Plan to improve energy efficiency in the European Community7.

8. ACKNOWLEDGES achievements of the Member States in abatement of greenhouse gas emissions; NOTES however with concern the contrast between current emission trends and the commitments of the Community and Member States to modify longer-term trends in anthropogenic emissions consistent with the objective of the UNFCC Convention and in particular with the commitments under the Kyoto Protocol.

9. HIGHLIGHTS that –  without proper implementation of existing instruments and additional policies and measures at Member State or Community level – the positive development towards sustainability outlined in the "First Review Report" will not continue, in particular due to the expected trend of growing fossil energy consumption and energy related greenhouse gas emissions.

10. HIGHLIGHTS the need to contribute to break the link between environmental pressure and economic growth.
 

11. RECOGNISES the need for strengthening the strategy, in particular giving priority to those policies and to common and coordinated measures which take into account national characteristics, are cost-effective and will contribute to a sustainable energy system:
– in promoting the efficient use of energy,
– in developing an efficient internal energy market,
– in increasing the competitiveness and use of renewable energy sources and alternative fuels,
– in internalising external costs/environmental benefits,
– in combating climate change and other environmental problems, also by means such as flexible mechanisms, including developing experience through national and regional testing initiatives taken in this area,
– in giving adequate priority to energy research and development under the new Framework Programme for Research and technological development and demonstration activities in Europe (2002–2006), currently under discussion.

12. UNDERLINES that enlargement is a political priority and therefore INVITES the candidate countries to follow the integration principles developed by the Community when formulating national and local strategies during the pre-accession period.  To this end it RECOGNISES the need to facilitate early implementation by candidate countries of the Community acquis and policies and measures which are consistent with the strategy.

13. RECALLS the conclusions from the European Council in Stockholm.8

14. UNDERLINES that actions to be implemented in the short term should aim both to speed up the market opening and development of a fully operational internal energy market, and at the same time to continue promoting renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market and activities to promote energy efficiency, including combined heat and power.

15. RECALLS the Council's intention to strengthen its efforts to agree an appropriate framework for energy taxation at European level9.

16. INVITES the Commission to come forward with proposals, inter alia in the following specific areas and report to the Council prior to the next review:

§ Propose further common and/or co-ordinated measures on energy efficiency as envisaged in the Council conclusions on the Action Plan to improve energy efficiency in the European Community 10.
 

§ Consider new measures to promote efficient combined heat and power production (CHP) including developing best practice.

§ Foster the contribution of renewable energy sources to overall energy supply, in particular those of high and exploitable potential such as biomass, in areas such as cost-effective bio fuels, short rotation forestry crop and waste.

§ Consider an adequate follow up to the Energy Framework Programmes which will expire by the end of 2002.

§ Present the results of studies undertaken on the feasibility and environmental efficiency of a greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme in CO2 and continue to develop such a scheme within the Community with a view to establishing a Community framework as soon as possible and preferably by 2005; at the same time examine the possibilities of involving the candidate countries in the trading scheme and analyse, as soon as possible, the practical implications of a possible emissions-trading regime in the context of the internal energy market.

§ Undertake the benchmarking of existing schemes for the promotion of renewable energy sources in the EU, as well as, i.a., examining the feasibility of pilot projects on international trade with green certificates for electricity from renewable energy sources at European level.

§ Ensure that trade in electricity with third countries is based on the principle of reciprocity concerning  market opening and environmental standards.

17. URGES the Commission to progress further and to come forward with initiatives in the following areas, and report to the Council prior to the next review or as soon as possible thereafter:

§ Review the compatibility and consistency of relevant energy legislation with sustainable development objectives, including climate change, with a view to removing inconsistencies which could hinder the achievement of such objectives.

§ Improve the monitoring of energy markets with qualitative and quantitative indicators, reflecting energy policy targets, based on energy and emissions statistics and specific characteristics at both Community and Member State level.

§ Facilitate the use of the Kyoto Joint Implementation and Clean Development mechanisms.

§ Provide early information to the candidate countries on all initiatives related to this strategy.

§ Review energy subsidies in Member States with regard to their compatibility with an appropriate balance between security of supply, competitiveness and protection of the environment.
 

18. AGREES that the horizontal criteria in the Council Conclusions of 5 December 2000 on the Action Plan to improve energy efficiency in the European Community 11should be applied when selecting measures within the energy policy field.

19. AGREES to continue to review the strategy, including its set of indicators, looking whether sectors are on track vis à vis energy policy objectives and existing indicative targets, regularly on the basis of reports from the Commission. The next review should be prepared with a view to be adopted by Council in December 2002 at the latest.

The Commission took note of the Council's numerous requests, which it will study with all due attention. However, it would emphasise that it reserves the right to respond in accordance with the rules laid down in the EU Treaty regarding its right of initiative, and taking account of the resources, both budgetary and human, at its disposal."

ENERGY EFFICIENCY IN BUILDINGS

The Council took note of an oral presentation by Vice President DE PALACIO of a Commission proposal for a directive on improving energy efficiency in buildings.

This proposal, which is to be seen in the context of overall efforts to fulfil the Kyoto commitments will supplement measures on energy efficiency. It provides for a framework that will increase co-ordination of Member States' efforts towards reducing growth in energy use in the building sector.  Its main elements, the practical application of which will remain the responsibility of Member States, are:

- a common methodology for the development of integrated minimum energy performances for each building type;

- the application and updating of minimum standards based on this methodology for new and for existing buildings over 1000m3 when renovated;

- certification schemes for new and existing buildings, to be displayed in public buildings and other kinds of buildings frequented by the public; and

- specific inspection and assessment of heating and cooling installations by qualified personnel.
 
 

REGIONAL COOPERATION

The Council took note of the information on the following two areas of cooperation:

- EURO-MEDITERRANEAN COOPERATION ON TRANSPORT AND ENERGY

The Commission presented its Communication "Enhancing Euro-Mediterranean co-operation on transport and energy", which has as its objective to define the broad lines of Euro-Mediterranean Cooperation for the period 2000-2006 and to boost the existing momentum of the partnership. It should also be seen in the context of the overall review the Commission is carrying out in the framework of the Green Paper on security of energy supply in the European Union.
 

- NORTHERN DIMENSION:  ENERGY SECTOR

The Commission presented its inventory of implementing actions, both existing and those to be taken, in this field. It is recalled that five working parties at the Council  also have made an inventory of the actions already undertaken and which could be taken, in preparation of the Northern Dimension Ministerial Conference held in Luxembourg on 9 April last.
 
 

ENERGY CHARTER TREATY

The Council took note of a progress report on this dossier and agreed to review the situation during the second semester of 2001, in particular regarding negotiations on a Transit Protocol and the process of ratification of the Energy Charter Treaty.
On 11 May, the Charter Conference took stock of the last negotiation round on a Transit Protocol, held by the Transit Working Group on 7-9 May.
 

ANY OTHER BUSINESS

- INTERNATIONAL ENERGY AGENCY MINISTERIAL MEETING

The Council took note of the information given by the Presidency on the next IEA Ministerial meeting on 15-16 May which will focus on the key issues of Energy security, Evolving energy markets and Meeting the challenge of sustainable development.

- EU-RUSSIA ENERGY DIALOGUE

The Council took note of the information presented by Vice-President DE PALACIO on the preparation of the EU-Russia Summit in Moscow on 17 May which, inter alia, is due to take stock of ongoing work within the energy dialogue. The Commission will shortly adopt a Communication on this dialogue

EURO 1.6 billion to coal and steel research programme
Press release from Swedish Presidency website
Date: 15/05/2001
Policy area: Industry and energy
News item: Press release

As a result of its intensive efforts, the Swedish Presidency has successfully united the Member States on the financial activities that will be carried out after the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) expires on 23 July 2002, marking the end of the treaty which laid the foundation of the European Union nearly fifty years ago.
"As a result of the decisions, the experience gained in the current research programme will be transferred to the new coal and steel research programme, which will begin in the summer of 2002. An estimated EURO 1.6 billion will be transferred to the EC and the earnings are earmarked for further research," said Lars Rekke, who chaired negotiations during the Industry Council meeting.

With the expiry of the ECSC Treaty at hand, the Commission has tabled three decisions regarding future financial and research activities. The Commission's original proposal has been modified as a result of a new legal basis being established at the intergovernmental conference in Nice last year. The Council cannot formally adopt the decisions before the Nice Treaty has been ratified by the Member States and the European Parliament has been allowed to express its opinion. The Swedish Presidency has, however, managed to unite the Member States and solve any outstanding issues with regard to all the decisions. This means that the Council can adopt the decisions as soon as the formal requirements have been satisfied.

Contact information:
Marinette Andersson
+46 8 405 2262

Jessica Larsson
+32 2 289 57 46
+32 478 88 63 00
 
 

High oil price seen impacting transport trends
ENDS Daily - 14/05/01
-------------------------
The "virulence" of last year's fuel tax protests can be
explained by the fact that people were being forced to change
their transport behaviour in response to higher prices,
according to France's industry ministry.  National energy
statistics for 2000 record no growth in oil consumption for
transport for the first time since the second world oil shock
of the late 1970s.  The total number of kilometres driven by
road vehicles fell.  For the first time since 1974, so did
transport carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions.

European policy makers were taken by surprise by the
strength of the protests that swept most countries in 2000, a
year in which world oil prices climbed 22%.  Fuel tax levels
remain a hot political issue in many countries, for example
in the UK's current general election campaign.

The significance of the French data is that it bucks a
cast-iron trend virtually throughout Europe for increased
transport energy consumption and CO2 emissions as well as an
increasing share for road transport and rising distances
travelled (ENDS Daily 11 May 2000).

Average kilometres driven by all road vehicles in France
fell by 1.2% in 2000, while growth in private motorists'
vehicle kilometres was only 0.9% after increasing by around
3% in each of the previous two years.  As a result of this
plus other changes such as a continued increase in the ratio
of diesel to petrol vehicles, transport carbon dioxide
emissions dropped for the first time since the first world
oil shock in 1974.

These trends do not show any reduction in demand for
mobility, the industry ministry stresses.  Public transport
use grew significantly in 2000, it says - for example by 6.2%
on the national railways and by 3.9% on urban public
transport outside the Paris region.

Other trends revealed in the 2000 energy statistics include
a drop of nearly 1% in national CO2 emissions, which still
remain about 3% above France's target for 2008-12 under the
Kyoto climate protocol.  Primary energy consumption rose by
1.7% compared with economic growth of 3.2%, yielding a 1.4%
improvement in energy intensity.  Nuclear power stations set
a new record for electricity output of 415 terawatt hours.

Follow-up:   2000 energy report (pdf)

-------------------------
US firms targeted in Spanish climate protest
ENDS Daily - 10/05/01
-------------------------
Spain's main trade union confederations and environmental
NGOs yesterday urged the Spanish government to put pressure
on America to return to the Kyoto climate talks process by
blocking US power firms' plans to build new generating
plants.

In a letter to prime minister José Maria Aznar, the groups
demanded that he demonstrate commitment to the Kyoto protocol
by using his powers to prevent nine American companies from
building a projected 13 gas-fired power stations worth euros
4.8bn and with over 10,000 megawatts of generating capacity.
Signatories include the principal union confederations, UGT
and CCOO, along with Greenpeace, WWF Adena and Ecologists in
Action.

The campaign has a double motivation according to José Luis
García of Greenpeace.  "First, the US power sector has been
active in lobbying the Bush administration to renege on
Kyoto".  Also, he said, because, if built, the power stations
would increase national carbon dioxide output by 36m tonnes
per year.  Recent figures show Spanish emissions rising
faster than any other EU country (ENDS Daily 20 April).

Ladislao Martinez of Ecologists in Action told ENDS Daily
that further actions were "under consideration" but that a
consumer boycott campaign against US oil companies had been
rejected as ineffective "because of their insignificant
presence in the Spanish market".

Greenpeace is lobbying the 40 largest US enterprises in
Spain to position themselves on US climate policy.  One firm,
Coca-Cola Spain, has already publicly distanced itself from
the Bush administration's position.

The Spanish prime minister's office declined to comment on
the letter.

Follow-up:  Greenpeace Spain (http://www.greenpeace.es),
tel: +34 91 444 1400;  UGT (http://www.ugt.es), tel: +34 91
589 7723;  Ecologists in Action
(http://www.ecologistasenaccion.org), tel: +34 91 531 2739;
Spanish prime minister's office (http://www.la-moncloa.es),
tel: +34 91 321 4000.
May, 2001

Australian govt creates carbon sink plantations in Vietnam to avoid emission
reductions
By Chris Lang
WRM Bulletin - During the intergovernmental negotiations on climate change
(COP-6) at the Hague last November, the Australian government sided with the
US, Japan and Canada in refusing to negotiate reductions of its own carbon
emissions. Five months later, the Australian government announced five
projects aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Predictably enough, the projects, which are funded through the government's
International Greenhouse Partnerships (IGP) Programme, are not aimed at
reducing Australia's emissions, but are to be carried out in Peru, Fiji,
Malaysia and Vietnam.
Launched in May 1998, and working from within the Department of Industry,
Science and Resources, the IGP Programme aims "to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions through projects overseas" that will in future be considered as
carbon off-set projects under the Kyoto protocol.
Announcing the projects, Nick Minchin, the Australian Minister for Industry,
Science and Resources, said that "not only will the projects be addressing
global climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions, they will be
helping to develop Australia's expertise in clean, green technologies
through sound, commercially viable projects."
One of the IGP Programme projects will establish fast-growing tree
plantations in Vietnam. The $242 000 project is to be carried out by the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) with
the Research Centre for Forest Tree Improvement of Vietnam.
According to Minchin, CSIRO "will increase the carbon dioxide uptake of
planted forests in Vietnam through the use of genetically improved planting
stock."
CSIRO will supply acacia and eucalyptus seeds - the favoured trees of the
pulp and paper industry - and will establish four seedling orchards, each
covering five hectares, two in Quang Tri province in central Vietnam and two
in Binh Thuan province in the south.
Seedlings from these orchards will be planted over a total area of 8 250
hectares on a range of sites in Vietnam.
CSIRO estimates that the plantations will remove "an extra 21 500 tons of
CO2" from the atmosphere per year compared to other tree plantations. The
calculation is based on a 15 percent increase in volume growth, which CSIRO
expects from using improved tree seeds.
Recent research published in the journals "Nature" and "Science", however,
indicates that forests are much better than plantations at absorbing carbon
dioxide. Yet, the publicly available information on the IGP project makes no
mention of any attempts to compare the amount of carbon stored in natural
forests to that stored in plantations.
CSIRO also anticipates developing predictive models for "other major
plantation species", and argues that "such a capability will assist in the
successful growth of plantations, enabling higher yields from the forests
planted and greater carbon sequestration in the longer term."
Even assuming plantations are useful in absorbing carbon dioxide, the logic
is flawed - higher yield plantations make no difference if the trees are cut
after five years to produce short-lived commodities like woodchips, pulp and
paper.
Elsewhere in Vietnam, private investors are finding it difficult to find
enough land for their tree plantations. For example, the $14 million
Japanese-funded Quy Nhon Forest Plantation in Binh Dinh province aims to
plant 13 000 hectares of acacia and eucalyptus plantations to produce wood
chips for export to Japan. So far, in the seven years since the project was
licensed, the company has received only around 8 000 hectares of land.
"The land problem is increasing the risks for projects in plantations,"
Hironobu Ohara, the director of the project told the Vietnam Investment
Review. According to a recent article in the Thai newspaper, the Nation, the
Vietnamese government stated that any carbon sequestration plantation
projects in Vietnam must include support for communities that would be
affected by the plantations. No such support is mentioned in the publicly
available information on the IGP plantation project in Vietnam.
CSIRO receives 75 percent of its funding from the Australian government, and
is explicit about where its loyalty ultimately lies. In the organisation's
own words: "CSIRO's primary functions are to assist Australian industry,
contribute to Australia's national objectives and facilitate the application
of the results of research."
The message is clear: the Australian government will not negotiate
reductions in Australian carbon emissions, but CSIRO will "assist Australian
industry" through planting eucalyptus and acacia trees in Vietnam -
supposedly to absorb those emissions.
Further information on this project should be available from IGP
igp.office@isr.gov.au  and CSIRO
stephen.midgley@ffp.csiro.au
Coca Cola breaks ranks, others run for cover on climate

Amsterdam, 9th May, 2001: In a letter to Greenpeace yesterday, Coca Cola Spain stated that it fully backed the European government's support for the international climate change agreement - the Kyoto Protocol, an agreement US Presiddent Bush rejected six weeks ago today.

This action effectively set Coca Cola Spain in direct opposition to Coca Cola US, which belongs to an Exxon (Esso) led business group - the US Council for International Business (USCIB) - that is in public support of Bush's rejection of the international climate change agreement.

"This is the first clear signal that not all American multinationals agree with Bush, and are willing to put the clear will of their customers ahead of any pressure from the US administration and Exxon," said Greenpeace climate campaigner Steve Sawyer. "We will continue to pressure US companies and their subsidiaries worldwide to come clean on their stance on the global climate agreement."

In letters to Greenpeace, many US companies claim not to take a position on the Kyoto Protocol, but in fact reject the global climate agreement through their membership of the USCIB, which has strongly supported the Bush position.

"Companies cannot claim on the one hand to have no position, and on the other hide behind Exxon and the USCIB," said Sawyer. "If a company doesn't want to be associated with the destruction of the climate, the first thing they have to do is publicly support the Kyoto protocol."

In a related development, Ford yesterday took out a full-page advertisement in The Financial Times, claiming that it was unique for realising that "climate change is an issue that we must address". However, it is clear that Ford opposes real action via the global climate agreement, both in its correspondence with Greenpeace and by association with the USCIB.

"Companies, like Ford and other members of the USCIB, confirm by the advertising and marketing dollars spent that their consumers do care about the climate. But this is just a cynical public relations exercise until they finally waking up to the overwhelming public and political calls for serious action on the climate. Like Coca Cola, the first thing they must do is dissociate themselves from the USCIB, Bush, and publicly support the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol."

Greenpeace has now received 20 responses to its letters to the US Fortune 100 companies asking that they state their position on the Kyoto Protocol. It is pursuing the remaining companies for a response.

This activity is part of Greenpeace's global campaign to pressure corporate America and George W Bush to work with the rest of the world to save the climate. The first step must be the ratification and entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol by 2002.

For further information:
Steve Sawyer +31 653504715
Bill Hare +49 1709057015
Susan Cavanagh +31 621296910

Notes to Editors:
For the list of Fortune 100 companies, their replies and policy on climate change,
and the subset which belongs to the USCIB, go to:
http://cybercentre.greenpeace.org/climate/summarizeCorporate100
 

CONSUMER BOYCOTT TO 'STOP ESSO'

Stop Esso website

BBC News
8 May, 2001
Internet:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/business/newsid_1318000/1318360.stm

Environmental pressure groups are launching an international
campaign against the world's largest oil corporation, which they
say has opposed moves to combat global warming. Greenpeace and
Friends of the Earth are asking consumers to stop buying petrol
and other products from Exxon Mobil, which in Britain trades under
the name Esso, until the company changes its stance on climate
change.

The boycott is backed by controversial artist Damien Hurst, comic
Rory Bremner, singer Annie Lennox, actress Bianca Jagger the
former wife of Rolling Stones singer Mick, and Anita Roddick
founder of the Body Shop, which plans to publicise the campaign in
its UK stores. Exxon Mobil confirmed its bogeyman status among
environmental campaigners by taking out a series of full-page
advertisements in American newspapers, opposing US participation
in the Kyoto protocol on climate change.

Campaigners say that lobbying by Exxon played a major part in
President Bush's subsequent decision not to ratify the protocol
despite the fact that America accounts for a quarter of all
"greenhouse" gas emissions. The protocol would have obliged the US
to cut emissions of the gases, which some scientists believe to be
the cause of global warming, by 5% from 1990 levels.

Renewable energy
Ms Jagger said that Esso had "never invested a single penny in
renewable energy". But the company said in a statement that it had
previously invested £350m in a range of ventures, including solar
power. "We believe that the type of actions we are taking in our
business now, including the development of cleaner fuel
technology, leading edge fuel cell research and substantial energy
efficiency projects, will make a significant contribution to long-
term global emissions reduction," Esso added.

"The call for a boycott of Esso service stations can only be
counter-productive in that we do not believe it will have any
influence on the US Government - but it could harm the thousands
of independent British businessmen and women and their staff who
operate their stations in partnership with Esso in the UK."

Follow-up:  Stop Esso campaign (http://www.stopesso.com);
 
 

Extract from Prime Minister Koizumi's inaugural speech
I will do my utmost to address the issue of global warming, with a view to making the Kyoto Protocol enter into force by 2002
For full text go to
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20010508b6.htm
 

CABINET INTERVIEW
Kawaguchi optimistic on climate change talks

By MICK CORLISS
Staff writer

Climate change negotiations are steadily progressing behind the scenes and
some subtle changes could portend breakthroughs, reappointed Environment
Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi said.

Yoriko KawaguchiTalks focusing on the Kyoto Protocol, an international
climate change accord, will likely dominate Kawaguchi's time for the next
few months, as Japan and other countries prepare to resume climate change
talks in Germany in July.

Since the United States said in March it would abandon the agreement and put
together its own proposal, Japan and other countries have been struggling to
entice it back to mainstream negotiations.

"We need to continue to work on the United States and persuade it" to return
to the Kyoto process, Kawaguchi said in an interview, adding that this will
not be easy.

There have been some subtle, but potentially positive, changes in Washington
in response to the global backlash at U.S. President George W. Bush's
remarks against the protocol, she said.

"Bush and the U.S. government are reviewing their environmental policies and
trying to figure out what their positions will be. I think they are taking
the review seriously. When President Bush made those comments (in March), I
really wonder how far along that review was."

This is Kawaguchi's third consecutive term as chief of environment policy,
since she was first appointed in July, when the ministry was still an
agency. It is the second time a nonpolitician -- and the first time a woman
-- has been appointed to the Cabinet for a third term.

Asked what she expects of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Kawaguchi said
she wants him to talk climate change when he meets with Bush.

"Somewhere along the line I expect the prime minister and President Bush
will hold talks and I hope he broaches the topic (of the Kyoto Protocol),"
she said.

On issues at home, Kawaguchi said she wants to get more input from
nongovernment organizations, inject an environmental perspective into public
works projects, and increase recycling.

Kawaguchi said she hopes to lay the groundwork for NGOs to be able to
present their relevant environment policy proposals and that she plans to
continue holding citizens' meetings around the nation.

"I want to try to further dialogue with citizens. I hope to create a
mechanism through which NGOs' policy proposals can somehow be reflected in
real policy."

The minister will on Wednesday visit Nagasaki Prefecture's Isahaya Bay,
where water quality and seaweed crops have suffered following the
construction of a 7-km dike for a controversial reclamation project.

Kawaguchi hopes to come away with a "balanced impression" of the project.

"There are (some public works projects) in which the environment is not
satisfactorily taken into account, and it is important to make sure that
these, too, incorporate an environmental perspective."
 

The Japan Times: May 1, 2001

   Thursday May 3 3:14 PM ET
   US Unprepared for Health Impact of Climate Change

   By Merritt McKinney

   NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A panel of scientists from universities,
   government and the private sector has released its assessment of the
   health challenges the US faces as the global climate changes, calling
for sweeping improvements in the nation's infrastructure.

   The US is better prepared than less-developed nations for meeting the
   health needs expected to occur with future extreme weather events, but it still needs to improve its public health infrastructure, take steps to protect its most vulnerable residents and commit resources to further study the link between climate and health, a co-chair of the initiative told Reuters Health in an interview.

   The assessment was mandated by Congress and supported by the
   Environmental Protection Agency (news - web sites). Scientists at the
   Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in
   Baltimore, Maryland, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia, headed up the project. The
panel's conclusions are published in a special May supplement issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives.

   The initiative ``really cuts across many different fields of public
health,''
   according to Dr. Jonathan Patz, of Johns Hopkins, the co-chair of the
   assessment. Patz said that the guidelines ``should be viewed as a
consensus document.''

   Many scientists predict that in the decades to come, extreme weather
   events such as heat waves and heavier rainfalls will occur more
   frequently, Patz explained. The task of the team was to look at how
   health in the US might be vulnerable to these and other future climate changes, as well as to gauge the nation's ability to adapt to these challenges, he said.

   Although the US is equipped to deal with some of the consequences of
   climate changes, certain groups, including children, the elderly,
people with
 weakened immune systems and residents of flood plains may be more
 vulnerable than others, Patz noted.

 ``People still die in floods and heat waves,'' Patz said. ``We are not
   protecting everyone.''

   The panel identified several major concerns: heat-related illnesses and death, the health effects of extreme weather events such as floods and storms, water- and food-borne diseases, insect- and rodent-borne
diseases and air pollution-related health effects.

   For each of the problem areas, researchers identified several
strategies for reducing health risks. The panel suggests, for instance, that improvements in pollution control as well as increased use of mass
transit may reduce health problems related to air pollution.

   Other recommendations for minimizing the health risks of climate change include improved early-warning systems for severe weather and
pollution, better urban planning and development of community emergency plans.

   To view a brochure summarizing the recommendations of the panel, go to
   http://www.jhsph.edu/nationalassessment-health/.

Informal Climate Change Talks to Convene in June
UN FRAMEWORK CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE  Secretariat
PRESS ADVISORY
 
 

BONN, 4 May 2001 -- The President of the ongoing UN climate change
negotiations, Mr. Jan Pronk, Minister of the Environment of the
Netherlands, will convene a short informal meeting for all interested
Governments during the month of June.  The meeting will give Governments
an opportunity to explore how to move forward towards a political
compromise at the resumed sixth session of the Conference of the Parties
to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which will be held in
Bonn during the period 16-27 July. The exact date and location of these
informal talks is still to be decided.  Originally scheduled to take
place in Stockholm around the time of the 22-23 May Diplomatic
Conference on the new Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) treaty, the
meeting has been pushed back for logistical reasons. The last round of
informal talks held on 21 April in New York focused in large part on the
recent US statement that the Bush administration opposes the Kyoto
Protocol.  The June meeting will concentrate on advancing substantive
preparations for the resumed COP. Documents currently on the table
include the negotiating texts from The Hague and a paper entitled "New
Proposals by the President of COP 6" (see www.unfccc.int
<www.unfccc.int> ).  The President also plans to issue a consolidated
negotiating text in early June as an additional document for
consideration by the resumed COP.  In the meantime, he will seek advice
from various Parties on how to make progress in the negotiations.
Although the discussions will be closed to the press, Mr. Pronk and
UNFCCC Executive Secretary Michael Zammit Cutajar intend to brief
journalists immediately after the informal meeting ends. For more
information, please contact:  Michel Smitall, UNFCC Information Officer,
at +49-228-815-1005 or msmitall@unfccc.int; or Michael Williams, UNEP
Information Officer, Geneva, at +41-22-917-8242, +41-79-4091528 (cell),
or michael.williams@unep.ch.
 
Extract from Hansard  - daily transcript of speeches in the UK parliament (1st May 2001) in which John Battle, Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office pledges to go ahead on the Kyoto Protocol without the US if necessary

6. Mr. Nigel Griffiths (Edinburgh, South): What discussions he has had
 with his US counterparts on implementing the
 Kyoto protocol. [158613]
 
 10. Mrs. Linda Gilroy (Plymouth, Sutton): What recent representations he
 has made to the President of the United States
 about his position on the Kyoto agreement on climate change; and if he
 will make a statement. [158617]
 
 The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John
 Battle): The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is
 playing a full role in Government discussions with the United States on
 the Kyoto protocol. My right hon. Friend the Foreign
 Secretary has discussed the issue on several occasions with his American
 counterpart, Secretary of State Colin Powell.
 
 The Government are committed to tackling climate change through
 constructive engagement with the international community
 and, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has spelt out, we
 continue to believe that the Kyoto protocol provides the best
 framework for that. We will continue to discuss with the Americans their
 participation in international efforts to tackle climate
 change during their review of climate policy in Washington, and in the
 run-up to the resumed international negotiations in Bonn
 in July.
 
 ----------------
 
 Mrs. Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever the "W" in George
 W. Bush may stand for, he would do well to visit
 the WWW--the worldwide web? Will he urge him to look at the site
 www.kyoto-cola.org, where he would perhaps find that
 the only key that the world has to tackle climate change is the Kyoto
 protocol?
 
 Mr. Battle: I cannot restate often enough that we believe that the Kyoto
 protocol will provide the best framework. We want
 and intend to work with it. It is important to add that we are prepared
 to ratify the Kyoto protocol without the United States if
 necessary, and will continue to work towards its entry into force in
 2002, assuming that we can get an acceptable outcome at
 the resumed international negotiations in Bonn in July. Pulling all the
 countries of the world together is an international challenge,
 but it is important that the developed world provides the lead by
 example. I am glad to say that, under this Government, the
 United Kingdom has been doing that. We have exceeded the target
 commitments that we signed up to.
 
 ---------------------------------------------------------------
 
 Mr. David Chaytor (Bury, North): Has my hon. Friend had the opportunity
 to discuss these matters with his counterparts in
 the Australian Government, who I understand have stated in the past few
 days that Kyoto is dead because of President Bush's
 decision? Does my hon. Friend accept that it is not simply a question of
 persuading the American Government to see sense, but
 of persuading all the countries that constitute the American bloc in the
 climate change conference? Although it is possible to
 ratify Kyoto without the support of the United States, it may not be
 possible to do so without the support of all the other
 countries in the American negotiating bloc.
 
 Mr. Battle: I do not accept that Kyoto is dead, which is the term that
 has been used. The Kyoto protocol is the culmination of
 10 years of international environmental diplomacy. It is the best
 framework available for taking action to tackle climate change,
 and I do not believe that we can back out now. There is strong
 international support for Kyoto, as was evident at the informal
 ministerial meeting in New York attended by my right hon. Friend the
 Deputy Prime Minister. Japan and Canada were
 negotiating with America, and they strongly support Kyoto.
 
 All the key players are coming out in support of the agreement, and
 Britain and the EU remain committed to its ratification by
 2002. There is some time to go, and there is hard work to be done to
 persuade those countries that have signed up to Kyoto
 that it is the realistic framework and option for taking action. I am
 confident that we can make progress, and we are
 campaigning at every level to achieve that.
 

NZ UNIMPRESSED WITH US STAND ON KYOTO PROTOCOL, SAYS HODGSON
New Zealand Herald
26.04.2001
Internet:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/latestnewsstory.cfm?storyID=184893&thesection=
news&thesubsection=general

New Zealand has given the United States a strong message of
concern about its step away from the Kyoto Protocol, Pete Hodgson
said after an international meeting on climate change in New York.
Mr Hodgson, convenor of the Ministerial Group on Climate Change,
represented New Zealand at the talks in New York City last week.
The informal meeting of about 35 nations was called by Jan Pronk,
the Netherlands Environment Minister and president of the World
Conference on Climate Change (COP6) that broke up without
resolution last November. Mr Pronk asked selected ministers to New
York to work through outstanding issues in preparation for the
COP6 meeting in Bonn, Germany, in July.

Mr Hodgson said the meeting confirmed that the rest of the
developed world is unimpressed by the United States' unilateral
refusal to support the Kyoto Protocol. Mr Hodgson said it was
clear from the meeting that the US Cabinet-level review of climate