Renew On Line (UK) 29a

Extracts from the Jan-Feb 2001 edition of Renew
These extracts only represent about 25% of it

11. Climate Change : COP 6

The sixth session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention of Climate Change (COP 6) ran from 13-24 November 2000, in The Hague, the Netherlands. The Hague conference was expected to be the most important session since the Kyoto Protocol was adopted in 1997- resolving the various issues that had emerged in subsequent rounds of negotiation. However, in the run up to the meeting, it became clear that some key issues would not be easy to resolve, not least the issue of carbon sinks. Forests absorb carbon dioxide gas, so forestry projects could be one way for countries to meet their Kyoto commitments. Planting new forest can sequester carbon dioxide, and arguably this should be counted against the emission reduction the targets set by the Kyoto accord. But should countries also be able to claim carbon savings from forestry and other agricultural and land use changing activities, when these were just incidental gains which would have occurred anyway?

LULUCF

At the preliminary meeting in Lyon in Sept, the US had officially notified the UN Convention that their national ‘Land use change and forestry' ('LULUCF’) activities would create emission permits of 300 million tonnes of Carbon (mtC) annually. For comparison, the Kyoto commitment of all industrialized countries requires a mere 200 mtC per year reduction below 1990 levels. So the USA was, in effect, saying it could meet all its obligation and more if LULUCF was included - without having to change the way it generated and used energy. Moreover, muddying the water even more, the US insisted that separating the natural effect of atmospheric carbon and nitrogen fertilization from direct human induced activity is not possible. This natural global carbon sink amounts to 2,300 mtC per year globally. Commenting on this issue the Climate Action Network’s journal ECO suggested that ‘seeking credits for the natural carbon uptake occurring in Northern forests makes a mockery of the Kyoto Protocol.’

Canada went one stage further threatening that, without access to credits for all forest, soil, and agriculture-related activities in the first commitment period, it would not ratify the Kyoto agreement. And Japan continued to insist that the commercial forest cycle be included for credits. Thus, said ECO ‘they seek credits for both harvest activities by claiming wood products are an ultimate carbon storage and for re-establishing forest on previously harvested land.’

Worse still, there were also a move for carbon saving by forestry and agricultural projects to be included in the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) - so that companies from the industrialised world could get credits for LULUCF activities in the developing world. That could be fine it it was clearly aimed at carbon sequestration, but the CDM was surely not meant to cover more general agricultural projects and processes. Quite apart from anything else it would be impossible to measure and ratify any alleged emission savings.

The other big issues were Supplementarity and Additionality - to what extent need carbon saving projects be additional to those already underway before they are counted, and what proportion of each countries projects could be done overseas and still get credit: the US had earlier implied that it wanted to be able to carry out most of its carbon saving overseas. But at the Lyon meeting they declined to elaborate on this concept, or discuss the issue of Baselines e.g. how to assess the value and desirability of new projects within the CDM, including large hydro and nuclear .

And confusion also reigns on the key issue of Compliance with the Kyoto agreements. As ECO reported, at Lyon ‘Australia, Japan and Russia suggested that there should be no binding consequences for non-compliance.’ The Lyon session also downplayed the idea that guidelines for reporting on ‘demonstrable progress’ would be agreed at COP-7, so that a full report on demonstrable progress could be made in 2005. So the scene was all set for avoiding key issues.

NGO’s apply pressure

Never the less, as the COP-6 delegates headed for the Hague in Nov, the NGO’s - and the 120 young people formally invited to COP-6, along with 200 US students - tried to focus the participants minds on the key issues. Two days before COP-6 started, activists from the ship MV Greenpeace boarded a bulk carrier carrying a cargo of Australian coal into nearby Rotterdam harbour. They chained themselves to the hatch covers to prevent the ship unloading its cargo of coal. Then Greenpeace activists on the docks started shovelling up coal and putting it back on the ship.

Local campaigns also tried to link up to COP-6. In London Greenpeace campaigner Rob Gueterbock made a surprise appearance on the platform of the fuel protesters rally in Hyde Park which coincided with the second day of COP-6. He told the protesters that they were wrong to argue for lower taxes on dirty petrol and diesel but right to support new green alternative fuels. The protesters' invitation to Greenpeace to speak at the rally marked the culmination of 5 days dedicated campaigning by Greenpeace who trailed the fuel protesters' convoy with a biodiesel-powered truck and reasoned with the protesters person-to-person throughout their journey from Newcastle. In parallel Greenpeace took over a disused garage in London and offered free biodiesel to delighted taxi and van drivers. In most of Europe biodiesel is zero-rated for tax purposes. In the UK biodiesel is taxed at the same rate as petrol-diesel, despite being much better for the environment.

In the USA the election issue was still rumbling on. Vice President Gore restated his opposition to nuclear power saying it was neither clean nor sustainable and should not be part of climate change policy. However, even though the US delegation at COP-6 admitted that there were problems with nuclear waste, nuclear proliferation and public acceptability, it still advocated transferring nuclear technology to developing countries in return for emissions credits under the CDM, although it did say that its position was ‘open to discussion’ - not like the Dutch police who saw off an anti-nuclear demo.

To move things on, US environment groups issued an invitation to President Clinton to attend COP-6, arguing that Clinton's personal leadership was crucial to the success of the Kyoto negotiations and his presence at the Hague would signal to the US and the world the urgency of the problem. But no one seemed to want to invite Bush. What they did want was to make it clear to the COP-6 delegates that the issues were urgent - so, in the Hague, thousands of volunteers erected a 400m sand bagged dyke around the conference site, to highlight the threat of floods. Not something UK delegates needed to be reminded of, as John Prescott said when he turned up.

An even more practical, and entirely real, demonstration of what could and should be done to head off climate change, was to be found at nearby Middelgrunner, where a 40MW offshore wind farm was being constructed - with 20 giant 2MW turbines, half of them funded by the local utility, the other half by a Danish wind co-op. With nearly 9,000 members, this is the worlds largest wind co-op so far.

There’s a live Webcam view available at http://www.windpower.dk/news/webcam.htm

For details see the INforSE newsletter ‘Sustainable Energy News’ or http://www.middlegrunden.dk.

Vague in the Hague

The COP-6 meeting was dominated by the US trying to get support for extra sinks to be included, in addition to domestic forests - a proposal which the Climate Action Network claimed would in effect wipe out the entire Annex I target, changing the 5.2% overall reduction target to an actual increase over 1990 levels.

This, despite the first session being told that the latest scenarios in an upcoming report from scientists charged with forecasting global temperature increases due to climate change, projected temperature rises of almost double those in the worst-case scenarios outlined in their last assessment for the IPCC in 1995. The latest projections to 2100 range up to 6 degrees C increase in global average temperatures. In 1995, the projections ranged up to 3.5 degrees. The new report also evidently suggests more strongly than in the past that human induced climate change is actually occurring.

But some delegates seemed more concerned with other issues, such as including sinks in the CDM. As ECO put it ‘Most of us are now accustomed to the fact that the main purpose of the Kyoto Protocol is to devise ever more bizarre and complex ways for developed countries to avoid reducing emissions at home. Even so, to include sinks in the CDM is probably the worst possible way for developed countries to evade their obligations.’

On behalf of the NGO’s present, ECO reintroduced its "fossil of the day" awards, for worst positions or behaviour, as in previous COP’s, and they give a good idea of what the negotiations were like. For example, first place (drowning fossil) on Monday 20th was given to the United States, ‘for failing to shift their position on loopholes in the negotiations, despite its own study (US Dept. of Energy), released this week, and completed by the five major US Government laboratories, which states that the US can reach 75% of its Kyoto target at no cost to the economy. The US continues to be a leader in pushing for loopholes (such as hot air, domestic sinks activities and sinks projects in the CDM) that could more than cancel out its Kyoto commitment..’ Second place, (wet belly fossil), went to Canada for their press statement that ‘Nuclear has been a very effective supplier of energy for Canada and it is one of the best [energy sources] in the world.’ ECO commented ‘if nuclear power is such a reliable source of energy, how come about half of Canada's nuclear plants have been "temporarily" shut down for the last 3 years?’

Earlier on, the "drowning fossil" award was presented to Saudi Arabia ‘for taking obstructionism to a higher (or perhaps lower) level than has been seen for quite some time.’ In one discussion session they had evidently stated that ‘if the chairs did not accept their demands we will destroy the other discussion groups.’ The runners-up award was awarded jointly to the US, Canada, New Zealand and Australia, ‘for "forgetting" that the Kyoto Protocol should conform with other Conventions such as Desertification, Biological Diversity, Wetlands, Forests and Agenda 21. They suggested removing references to these agreements from the eligibility rules for LULUCF’.

The nuclear issue continued to roll. At the start of the conference, the US unexpectedly announced that it was "open to discussing" the nuclear power issue. "We have long had concerns about nuclear energy. These concerns relate to safety, waste disposal, non-proliferation, costs and public acceptance. In order for us to succeed in these negotiations, all parties are going to have to show flexibility."

Given that in September, the U.S. was still adamantly insisting that nuclear power be treated on par with renewables, this seemed a rather significant statement, even if the U.S. evidently would not say publicly what it means by "flexibility."

France also made an unexpected intervention. At the beginning of the second week, when the ministers took over from the experts, French President Jacques Chirac parachuted into the Hague and delivered a surprisingly ‘Green’ speech. He called for binding consequences on countries that fail to meet their commitments; a 50% cap for the flexible mechanisms; increased funding for the World Banks Global Environment Fund; no sinks in the first commitment period; a tax on kerosene (aviation fuel); and movement towards a more equitable system for per capita emissions. He was critical of the US, and invited them to "join the large industrialised countries, so as to achieve together the transition to an energy efficient economy..."

He proposed a large-scale "North-South partnership for sustainable development"- and even hinted that adaptation to the necessary changes should be financed by a share of proceeds from all the mechanisms!

COP-6 Outcomes

Michael Meacher, representing the EU, pointed out during one session that the scale of the sinks proposals currently on the table had the potential to "blow open the entire Kyoto Protocol," Greenpeace meanwhile claimed that, by blockading local coal imports, they had ‘done more to stop fossil fuel emissions in the past four days than the climate negotiations has ever done’. It looks like they both may have been right.

Compromise was the name of the game. When it became clear that detailed agreements on mechanisms were not going to emerge, the emphasis shifted, somewhat desperately, back to more general principles. A last minute compromise paper by the Conference president, Dutch Environment Minister Pronk, initially looked like it would save the day. It proposed that only some domestic sinks be allowed, in effect limiting the US demands to meet half it obligation from domestic and overseas sinks. In addition, no sinks would be allowed in the CDM, and nuclear power was not to be included in the CDM, but neither was it to be formally excluded.

But with compromises there is usually a down side. For example, there was no mention of criteria on social and environmental impacts, so the potential still existed for sink projects which undermined biodiversity and trampled on local land rights. Overall, ECO warned that ‘many of the loopholes fought for by the US remain in this proposal, and if the EU allow them to stay in, the resulting document could sanction an increase in emissions of up to 8.6%, rather than a decrease if 5.2%.’

John Prescott then stepped in to try to move things on, but, having won US backing for a compromise position which meant they could only use domestic sinks to meet their obligation, he was then thwarted by the Euro greens, led by France, who would not accept the deal, which they saw as letting the US off the hook. With no time left for further negotiations, COP-6 was suspended, pending a continuation meeting in Bonn in May, and then COP-7 in Morocco later in the year.

During the last sessions, Greenpeace had a banner across from the meeting complex imploring the delegates ‘Don’t Let Us D(r)own’. Sadly, it looks like they did, with the US being widely seen as the main villain.

* see our Forum section (below), in which Stephen Peake from the OU Energy and Environment Research Unit gives his analysis of what happened at COP-6.

For more details see the ECO site: http://www.igc.apc.org/climate/Eco.htm   and the UNFCCC http://cop6.unfccc.int

UK Climate Policy

The UK’s position, put at COP-6 by John Prescott and Michael Meacher, was that ‘real cuts in emissions at home’ were the key to tackling climate change. Following this line, the UK governments main national contribution to COP-6 was the final version of its UK Climate Change Programme.

It projected a 23% cut in emissions of the six Kyoto gases by 2010, compared with the formal EU requirement for the UK of only 12.5%. The 23% projected emissions cut is 1.5 % higher than forecast in March, when the DETR’s draft programme was released for consultation (see Renew125/ 126). The DETR is also now predicting a 19% cut in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010, compared with 17.6% in the March draft. This is still below the UK's unilateral 20% target, but ministers claim that the target remains achievable.

At the launch of the plan, Environment Minister Michael Meacher said that he took pride in the UK's likely large exceedence of its Kyoto target, but warned against complacency - industrialised countries might well have to make much larger emission reductions of in the region of 60-70% after the period 2008-12, rising as far as 90% if developing countries were to develop their economies.

As ENDS Daily reported ‘Sounding a new note of caution compared with the draft programme's launch in March, Mr Meacher played down the likelihood that the UK would become a major seller of carbon emission credits under the Kyoto protocol flexible mechanisms. No decision would be taken immediately on what to do with surplus credits, he said. Banking them to help in achieving longer-term, deeper emission cuts might be the more prudent option’.

Meanwhile however there was plenty to be getting on with. The action side of plan takes on board the various new provisions agreed in the recent spending review - e.g. the new Carbon Trust (to recycle £130m of climate change levy receipts to accelerate the take-up of low carbon technology), the new Energy Efficiency Commitment, (which aims to improve home energy efficiency and reduce fuel poverty); the £30m allocated for the UK emissions trading scheme; the £89m capital grants to support offshore wind and energy crop installations; and the proposals to establish a Kyoto Mechanisms Office to encourage the UK private sector to invest in innovative energy projects abroad.

The DETR plan is at http://www.environment.detr.gov.uk/climatechange/cm4913/index.htm

Reactions

The reactions were mixed. ENDS Daily commented ‘Despite the public relations fanfare accompanying it, the climate programme contains no new proposals compared with the previous published draft. The larger projected emissions cuts are due, instead, to altered forecasts. These include lower offshore oil and gas production than previously expected and the effects of recently proposed stricter building regulations and an industrial carbon dioxide emissions trading scheme to be launched next year.’

And though the overall emissions forecast is down, ENDs reported that Meacher acknowledged that transport emissions would likely be higher than predicted in March.

Greenpeace said that the new plan still did little to break the UK’s dependence on fossil fuels or to build a strong UK renewable energy industry. "The Labour government is still dining out on the accidental carbon dioxide reductions that came from Thatcher's battle with the miners. John Prescott continues to play a positive role at the international climate negotiations, but back home things are going from bad to worse. The Chancellor slashes the cost of petrol just as our public transport system collapses, and whilst the renewable energy industry blossoms in Europe, it struggles to stay alive in the UK."

According to the Climate Change Programme, UK emissions of carbon dioxide have fallen from 168 million tonnes to 154 mt. But Greenpeace noted that ‘of the 14 mt reduced, 12 mt have come from the energy supply industry, largely as a result of the switch from coal to gas in power stations’.

Certainly the DETR’s position was not helped by the DTI’s announcement that, now that the governments controls on the ‘dash for gas’ had been lifted, six new combined cycle gas turbine plants could go ahead, totalling 3.5GW of capacity.

Friends of the Earth commented that these plants would ‘keep UK emissions at a significantly higher level and delay the take up of much more efficient combined heat and power (CHP) plants. CHP technology utilises heat that would otherwise be wasted and as such is around 50% more efficient than its conventional gas-fired stations.’ They added ‘This type of power plant is based on a second rate technology which wastes rather than recycles heat. Whilst natural gas remains an important fuel, it must be used in the most efficient way if we are to tackle climate change effectively. These six new stations fail that test and so will seriously blow our efforts to curb emissions in the UK’.

* The DETR also announced a £69m programme for supporting the development of cleaner and greener transport fuels: details in Renew 130

The last word...Global Impacts

‘Fifty-six countries were affected by severe floods and at least 45 by drought during 1998, the most recent year for which figures are available. In China, the worst floods for 44 years displaced 56 million people in the Yangtze basin and destroyed almost five per cent of the country's output for the year, for which climate change was one of the causes. In Bangladesh, an unusually long and severe monsoon flooded two-thirds of the country for over a month and left 21 million people homeless.

Paul Epstein of Harvard Medical School has estimated that in the first eleven months of 1998, weather-related losses totaled $89 billion and that 32,000 people died and 300 million were displaced from their homes. This was more than the total losses experienced throughout the 1980s, he said. The rate of destruction will accelerate because greenhouse gases are still being added to the atmosphere at perhaps five times the rate that natural systems can remove them. By 2050, annual losses could theoretically amount to anywhere between 12 per cent and 130 per cent of the gross world product. In other words, more than the total amount the world produces that year could be destroyed and life as we know it could collapse. For the industrialized countries, the damage could be anywhere between 0.6 per cent and 17 per cent of their annual output, and for the rest of the world, between 25 per cent and 250 per cent’.

From Aubrey Meyer’s ‘Contract and Converge’ campaign document, Global Commons Institute, Oct 2000

http://www.gci.org.uk

UK 20% not on..

The DETR’s earlier draft Climate Change plan was reviewed by the House of Commons ETRA Select Committee, which commented that the official confidence about being able to achieve the 20% carbon dioxide reduction target. ‘appears complacent’ in the light of the view of the Royal Commission on Environmental Protection that there were ‘holes’ in the programme.