Renew On Line (UK) 29

Extracts from the Nov-Dec 2000 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

COP-6

Last Chance to slow Climate Change?

In the run up to COP-6, the sixth meeting of the Conference of Parties to the UN Climate Change Convention, to be held in the Hague from 13-24th Nov, the USA's representative Frank Lay was reported as saying that the US would not be able to meet the carbon dioxide reduction quota agreed at Kyoto through emission reductions. However, there was talk of the US being able to meet its Kyoto commitments through carbon sinks, in the form of forestry - with carbon dioxide gas being absorbed by new tree planting and changed agricultural practices.

In August the US government announced that it wanted to absorb 300m tonnes of carbon a year in this way - that’s equivalent to 15% of its current carbon emissions and twice its Kyoto reduction target. But, as New Scientist commented (26/8/00) verification would be a problem: it could be 50 years before anyone could tell whether the claimed savings had actually been achieved- and as yet the details of how (or even if) these types of carbon sinks can be dealt with within the Kyoto accord have not been agreed. And, with forest fires raging in may parts of the world over the summer, possibly in response to global warming, the risks of relying on trees for long term carbon storage have become clearer. A study by the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, quoted by New Scientist, suggest that in fact by the middle of the century many forests could be leaking large amounts of carbon. So the USA may lose this particular battle.

Much hangs on the USA’s position, since the Kyoto protocol need the support of major polluters like the US to get final ratification. But US policy will not be clear until after the Presidential election. Bush is against Kyoto ratification, Gore is for it. The influence of the ‘carbon club’, the Climate Change Coalition, may have been muted by the defection of Shell, BP, Texaco, DaimlerChrysler, General Motors and Ford (see Lester Browns report later) but the outcome of COP-6 is still very uncertain. See http://www.igc.apc.org/climate/Eco.html for coverage of events as they unfold during Nov.

EU climate policy

The European Union has been somewhat more progressive in terms of its stance on Climate Change than the USA- see report later- indeed it may turn out that the EU and other progressive countries may have to go it alone after COP-6. Even so the EU strategy is not without its internal critics.

For example, a key member of the European Parliament, Jorge Moreira da Silva, has made a sharp attack on the European Commission's efforts to co-ordinate EU climate change policy. He said that the Commission's outline for a European climate change programme is "unambitious and non-committal" and that too much attention was being paid to developing an emissions trading scheme. He suggested that the effect has been to "relegate [domestic] policies and measures to an unacceptably insignificant role."

There is certainly plenty of room for improvement at the national level. For example, quite apart from Germanys continued subsidy for coal, take the situation in Greece. Although most houses have solar heating, we were told on a recent visit that there are now incentives to switch to oil for heating, since Greece is getting oil from wells in the Aegean sea but, on the basis of an agreement with Turkey, is not allowed to export any. So the industry can only expand if domestic demand is stimulated. The risk is that local issues like this will be swept under the carpet in order to achieve the appearance of a co-ordinated high level EU stance at COP-6.

EU on CDM

In the run up to COP-6, the European Union took a position that effectively excludes nuclear power from the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the Kyoto mechanism under which industrial countries would be entitled to claim emission credits for investing in emissions reduction projects in developing countries.

However, the EU did not excluded nuclear explicitly, as the Irish delegates had suggested. The text of the EU’s position says the CDM should be "based on" renewables. This appears to be a de facto exclusion for nuclear power. The UK and France were evidently not prepared to accept the explicit exclusion of nuclear but had to bow to the will of an 11 to 4 majority and accept its effective exclusion. The agreed text reads as follows: "COP-6 should adopt a positive list of safe, environmentally sound eligible projects based on renewable energy sources, energy efficiency improvements and demand side management in the fields of energy and transport".

The EU also said that the use of forests as "sinks" to absorb carbon dioxide emissions and offset fossil fuel burning should not be used before 2012, which marks the end of the protocol's first "commitment period". for the Kyoto accord. EU ministers noted "serious concerns" expressed recently in an IPCC report on this issue - for example, concerning how to measure the level of sequestration actually achieved. More generally, allowing sinks to be claimed against the CDM could let some countries off the hook as far as making reductions in emissions from power stations.

100,000 already killed by global warming?

In his new book, Catastrophe, David Keys claims that Climate Change has already had a huge impact -in 1998 melting snow killed 4000 people in China, 1,400 in India, 1000 in Pakistan, while typhoons killed 500 in the Philippines, monsoons killed 1,300 in Bangladesh and torrential rain in Venezuela led to floods which killed 30,000. Then thousands more died in the flooding in Mozambique (See the Observer 16 July)

Obviously there have always been major climate related disasters, but Keys claims that the rate is increasing dramatically. He estimates that 50-100,000 have been killed by exceptionally severe weather since 1997, and 300,000 made homeless. Add to that the increasing longer term impacts of droughts and the spread of diseases, and the the future looks grim, with massive population movement being one result- environmental migrancy will dwarf all the other sorts.

COP 6- Aims

The COP-6 conference is the most important session since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997.

As the UN Climate Change Secretariat note on the UNFCCC web site, it is expected to ‘bring to conclusion the Buenos Aires Plan of Action, an ambitious programme of work that was agreed to at COP 4 in Buenos Aires in 1998, and thereby set the stage for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol’. So it is hoped that COP-6 ‘will trigger the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by developed countries (Annex I Parties) in sufficient numbers to bring it into force and motivate significant action by developing countries (non-Annex I Parties) to enhance their contributions to the achievement of the Convention's objective’.

The Kyoto Protocol provides a framework on how Parties can meet their commitment and on the issue of how to monitor compliance with its provisions; however, it is the finer detail of this framework that had to be ironed out at COP 6.

One of the other practical requirements is for progress on developing guidelines for the transfer of technology, with the Clean Development Mechanism in mind. OECD countries (Annex II parties) have been requested to provide a list of environmentally sound technologies that are publicly owned, while developing countries have been asked to submit prioritized technology needs especially related to key technologies for addressing climate change. There was also a call for "country driven" assessments of capacity building needs for developing countries and for the countries with economies in transition.

Finally there is the issue of carbon sinks - should forestation be allowed to count against national emission reduction targets and if so, on what basis?

For more details see http://cop6.unfccc.int

Sinking in the Sea- Carbon sequestration by the Oceans

With COP-6 looming, what looks like increasingly desperate attempts are being made in the USA and elsewhere to find ways to reduce carbon dioxide levels without having to tackle the apparent basic cause - fossil fuel combustion. For example, there’s the idea of storing the Carbon Dioxide gas in undersea strata - see Scientific American’s coverage of the well injection ideas of MIT’s Morris Adleman (Feb 2000).

A more outlandish idea being touted is to seed the seas with iron in order to stimulate the growth of photoplankton, which absorb carbon dioxide, and (it is claimed) trap it when the plankton dies and sinks to the sea bed. One advocate is Dr Michael Markel, who told the Sunday Telegraph (July 23) that although at present 2% of the world oceans contain 60% of it plant life, ‘if we can make the other 80% as fertile as that 2%, we will not only increase the amount of catchable fish by a factor of several hundred, we will also dramatically cut down the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere'.

Sounds like a wonderful technical fix for two key problems- Climate Change and overfishing. Certainly adding iron can stimulate algal growth, by helping to create chlorophyll. Markel says that 1.5 m tons of iron based fertilizer spread over a patch of 550kms by 1,850kms, would produce enough plankton to lock up a years carbon dioxide emissions from the USA. But what else might it do? The critics argue that irreversible and adverse biological changes could be one outcome-for example the plankton could dominate other biological organisms, with unknown longterm impacts on the ocean eco-system. And in any case not all of the dead plankton may end up on the sea bed- so some of the carbon dioxide may be released again

The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution looked at this idea in its recent report on Climate Change policies. It noted that, although the oceans have the theoretical capacity to absorb all anthropogenic carbon dioxide, this could only be achieved over a time-scale of several thousand years. It added 'Modelling studies have indicated that attempts to increase carbon uptake in this way would be expensive and inefficient. In addition, there may be significant environmental impacts such as reduced biodiversity in surface waters, changes in community structure, the creation of oxygen deficient waters, and the generation of other greenhouse gases'.

It concluded that 'although it has been suggested that iron fertilisation in the Southern Ocean has the potential to lower atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by 6-21%, the critical factor being the rate of vertical mixing, the IPCC concluded that this was not a viable method for carbon sequestration. It would require fertilisation of 25% of the world’s ocean continuously and indefinitely and even if it was entirely successful, would only reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide levels by 50 ppmv.'

Finally it noted ‘there are large uncertainties about the costs of deploying these methods on a large-scale. Estimates from two studies range from £30 to £120 per tonne of carbon. ‘

Climate Wobbles

The media’s traditional summer silly season took on a new aspect this year, with the Climate Change debate throwing up opposing bits of data. First came the news that some of the Pacific Islands thought to be under threat from sea level rise due to global warming, had in fact been experiencing lower sea levels than normal. For example the sea level at Tuvalu had fallen by nearly 2.5in in recent years, and similar falls had been seen in Nauru and the Solomon islands (see the Sunday Telegraph 6/8). But then came the news that the polar part of the Artic icecap has melted- for the first time for aeons there has been unfrozen water at the pole (see the Observer 20/8)

G8 RENEWABLES TASKFORCE

The recent G8 summit in Okinawa called for 'all stakeholders to identify the barriers and solutions to elevating the level of renewable energy supply and distribution in developing countries' and agreed to set up a Renewable Energy Taskforce to identify the barriers to increasing the level of renewable energy supply and distribution. Its goal is to prepare firm practical recommendations for making a step change in level of renewable energy supply and distribution. The taskforce will have a small core group of business and government representatives but from the start will involve developing countries, non governmental organisations, international finance institutions and other energy experts.

Sir Mark Moody-Stuart, Chairman of the Royal Dutch/Shell group, has been appointed as co-chair. Shell recently launched a new charity, the Shell Foundation which includes a Sustainable Energy Programme to support projects that either encourage environmentally cleaner energy use or help tackle poverty by providing sustainable energy to poor communities in developing countries. The taskforce will report to the next G8 Summit in Genoa in 2001.

* The highest U.S. federal government official responsible for renewable energy, Dan Reicher, assistant secretary of energy, commented that the G8 leaders's focus on renewables is an important move. and that renewable technologies have a brilliant future, given their endorsement by G8 . For more details see:

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jul2000/2000L-07-25-03.html

THE RISE AND FALL OF THE GLOBAL CLIMATE COALITION

Lester R. Brown from the Worldwatch Institute has written this interesting update, recycled here in slightly edited form*

In August 1997, a few months before the Kyoto Conference on Climate Change, the Global Climate Coalition (GCC) helped launch a massive advertising campaign designed to prevent the United States from endorsing any meaningful agreement to reduce global carbon emissions. This group, including in its ranks some of the world's most powerful corporations and trade associations involved with fossil fuels, concentrated its efforts on a series of television ads that attempted to confuse and frighten Americans. Among other things, the ads indicated that "Americans will pay the price ...50¢ more for every gallon of gasoline", even though there was no proposal for such a tax. The campaign was successful. The so-called Carbon Club had effectively undermined public support of U.S. efforts to lead the international effort to stabilize climate.

While the public image of the GCC at the time was that of a unified group, there was already dissent within the ranks. John Browne, Chairman of British Petroleum, in a speech at Stanford University on May 19, 1997, announced that: "The time to consider the policy dimensions of policy change is not when the link between greenhouse gases and climate change is conclusively proven, but when the possibility cannot be discounted and is taken seriously by the society of which we are part. We in BP have reached that point."

Browne's talk shocked other oil companies and pleasantly surprised the environmental community. BP withdrew from the Global Climate Coalition. DuPont had already left. The following year, Royal Dutch Shell announced that it, too, was leaving. Its corporate goals, like those of BP and Dupont, no longer meshed with those of the GCC. Like BP, it no longer viewed itself as an oil company, but as an energy company.

In 1999, Ford withdrew from the GCC. Its young Chairman, William C. Ford, Jr., the great-grandson of Henry Ford, went on record saying, "I expect to preside over the demise of the internal combustion engine." The company was already working on a fuel cell engine, one where the fuel of choice was hydrogen-not gasoline.

Ford's decision to withdraw was yet another sign of the changes occurring in major industries involved directly and indirectly with fossil fuels. A company-spokesman noted, "Over the course of time, membership in the Global Climate Coalition has become something of an impediment for Ford Motor Company to achieving our environmental objectives."

In rapid succession in the early months of 2000, Daimler Chrysler, Texaco, and General Motors announced that they too were leaving the Coalition. With the departure of GM, the world's largest automobile company, the die was cast. A spokesman for the Sierra Club quipped, "Maybe it is time to ask the last one out to turn out the lights."

The image created by this accelerating exodus of firms from the GCC was that of rats abandoning a sinking ship. It reflected the conflict emerging within GCC ranks between firms that were clinging to the past and those that were planning for the future.

Some of the exiting companies, such as BP Amoco, Shell, and Dupont, joined a progressive new group, the Business Environmental Leadership Council, now an organization of some 21 corporations. This new outfit, founded by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, says, "We accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about the science and environmental impacts of climate change for us to take actions to address its consequences."

Other leading companies that have joined the Council are Toyota, Enron, and Boeing. Membership requires individual companies to have their own programs for reducing carbon emissions. BP Amoco, for example, plans to bring its carbon emissions to 10% below its 1990 level by 2010, exceeding the Kyoto goal of roughly 5 % for industrial countries.

Dupont has one of the most ambitious goals of any company, going far beyond that of Kyoto. It has already cut its 1990 greenhouse gas emissions by 45% and plans to reduce them by a total of 65% by 2010, rendering hollow the claim that lowering carbon emissions to meet the Kyoto goal is not possible.

On the supply side, BP Amoco and Shell are investing heavily in new sources of energy. BP Amoco is now a leading manufacturer of solar cells. Shell, already a major player in both wind and solar cells, is also investing heavily in hydrogen and will likely open the world's first chain of hydrogen stations in Iceland.

To date, the net effect of the various public and private initiatives worldwide has been to check the growth in global carbon emissions. Since 1996, global carbon emissions have leveled off. The burning of coal, the most carbon-intensive fuel, dropped 5% in 1999. The next step is to reduce carbon emissions across the board.

Abandonment of the Global Climate Coalition by leading companies is partly in response to the mounting evidence that the world is indeed getting warmer. The 15 warmest years in the last century have occurred since 1980. Ice is melting on every continent. The snow/ice pack in the Rocky Mountains, the Andes, the Alps, and the Himalayas is shrinking. The volume of the ice cap covering the Arctic Ocean has shrunk by more than 40 percent over the last 35 years. To deny that Earth is getting warmer in the face of such compelling evidence is to risk a loss of credibility, something that corporations cannot readily afford.

In a thinly veiled effort to conceal the real issue - the loss of so many key corporate members - the GCC announced that it was restructuring and would henceforth only include trade associations in its membership. While the companies leaving the GCC are still represented by their trade associations, their loss of confidence in the GCC's ability to represent their corporate interests is all too evident. Thoughtful corporate leaders now know that our energy future is going to be strikingly different from our energy past.

There is a growing acceptance among the key energy players that the world is in the early stages of the transition from a carbon-based to a hydrogen-based energy economy.

In February 1999, ARCO Chief Executive Officer Michael Bowlin said in a talk at an energy conference in Houston, Texas, "We've embarked on the beginning of the Last Days of the Age of Oil." He went on to discuss the need to convert our carbon-based energy economy into a hydrogen-based energy economy.

Whether the GCC will survive as a collection of trade associations or whether it will join the Tobacco Institute, which closed its doors in January of 1999, is uncertain. What is clear is that the organization that so effectively undermined U.S. leadership in Kyoto, is no longer a dominant player in the global climate debate. The stage is set for the US to resume leadership of the global climate stabilization effort.

Lester Brown

* copyright Worldwatch, reproduced with permission

For more see: www.worldwatch.org/alerts/indexia.html

and www.worldwatch.org/chairman/index.html