Renew On Line (UK) 30

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

Fallout from COP-6

There seem to be many views about what actually happened at COP-6, the sixth gathering of the Conference of Parties to the UN Climate Change Convention in the Hague last Nov. Especially on who was to blame for its collapse and what are the implications. Was it the USA, Prescott, or the French who were at fault? Is it the end for Kyoto? Are such meetings a waste of time? All these views and more were heard at a post-COP-6 meeting at the Royal Institute of International Affairs in London last December.

Evidently COP-6 was deemed to have been "too political for the technocrats and too technical for the politicians", and now, without a headline agreement, city finance interests will be sceptical about investing in emissions reduction. So the status quo remains, for the moment. Interestingly, it was noted that there had been 200 representatives of oil companies at COP-6 in various guises. Also interesting is the rumour that some NGO’s are beginning to wonder whether it was worth attending any more COP's. With around 100 million air miles having been clocked up by attendees so far, you can see their point.

The prospects for progress subsequently suffered a further serious blow when the United States backed out of emergency talks with European ministers in Oslo- set up to try to move things on after the debacle at COP-6. Although the European negotiators declared themselves ready to meet in Norway, they insisted the new summit take place without preconditions. That was rejected by their US counterparts, backed by Canada, Japan and Australia. This meeting was seen as the last chance to get some movement before the advent of a new US administration led by George W Bush, who is widely seen as unlikely to be sympathetic to the Kyoto accord. Interestingly (given it’s role in the election) the outgoing President Clinton had indicated that Florida could be swamped by floods because of climate change. But the next election is years away...

For RIIA’s COP-6 coverage see http://www/riia.org/Research/eep/quantifying.html

But not all is lost….

Although negotiations stalled at COP-6, it did at least lead some countries to try a bit harder with their commitments to the Kyoto agreement on reducing emissions.

For example, one of the ‘bad guys’, Canada, tried to redeem itself by announcing that it was planning to expand the use of renewable energy by 400% in order to help reduce the country’s emission of greenhouse gases (GHG). The federal government said it will invest up to $500m on measures to reduce GHG emissions. When combined with the $625m for climate change activities announced in the spring budget 2000, the investment increases Canada's commitment to $1.1 bn to reduce GHG emissions.

(For details see http://wire.ises.org/entry.nsf/E?Open&renews&04470A263A063BC1C1256973006A7450 .)

There were also rumblings from Australia that something ought to be done to reduce the 8% increases that had been agreed at Kyoto: see our Groups section (Renew 130) for coverage of the new energy strategy proposed by the Institute for Sustainable Futures at the University of Technology, Sydney - which suggested that Australia could and should cut its emissions by 50% within 30 years.

Back in Europe, Industrialists, environmentalists and academics submitted a joint proposal for Europe-wide action to tackle global warming, which would allow the EU to achieve its Kyoto target, but without the need for controversial solutions such as nuclear power or tree planting projects.

The statement was submitted in response to the consultation on the EC’s European Climate Change Programme. Signatories to the joint statement include the World Wide Fund for Nature, Cogen, The European Alliance of Companies for Energy Efficiency in Buildings (EuroACE), and Friends of the Earth. Demands included:

* a directive on energy efficiency in buildings, as the contribution of insulation to reducing emissions is often overlooked;

* a directive to double cogeneration, as the efficient production of heat and electricity in power plants can save electricity and cut emissions;

* efficiency standards for electric appliances and mandatory energy labelling, evolving with best available technologies;

* the rapid implementation of a European kilometre charge for heavy goods vehicles and increased investments on public transports;

* the strengthening and rapid adoption and implementation of the proposed directive on electricity from renewable energies.

"The ECCP must not reinforce the sins of the past, simply because they are easier to understand, and thus model, than alternative solutions," says the joint statement. "Instead, the ECCP must be the turning point for the EU in staring serious implementation of policies and measures to cut GHG’s emissions in the EU. To this extent, we believe that the ECCP provides a unique opportunity for giving priority to domestic action, with the objective of achieving real reductions in emissions."

US Can Cut Emissions

While at COP-6 the USA tried to insist on loopholes to avoid taking action at home, a major new US government study shows that domestic policies could achieve a majority of the reductions needed to meet its Kyoto target- at no net cost to the economy. "Scenarios for a Clean Energy Future" was released during the COP-6 sessions by the US Department of Energy (DOE) and the five national research laboratories that conducted the study. It shows that the US could significantly reduce its emissions through a cost-effective set of national policies to promote more rapid deployment of energy efficiency and renewables.

The two year study concludes that the US could bring its carbon dioxide emissions almost three-quarters of the way back to 1990 levels by the year 2010 with overall economic savings in excess of incremental costs. In fact, under this "Advanced Scenario", the national energy bill would be about 3% below "business-as-usual".

The report also finds that these policies would improve air quality and public health. Further, thanks to reductions in petroleum consumption, the US also would be less vulnerable to disruptions in oil supply and spikes in oil prices. A follow-up analysis by the Center for a Sustainable Economy finds that by 2010, 96% of US industry as measured by employment would enjoy net cost reductions (increasing to 99% by 2020).

The new DOE study provides important confirmation of the arguments of NGO’s, the EU and others that the US can and should meet its emissions targets primarily through domestic emissions reductions, rather than through use of the flexibility mechanisms. The NGO’s saw it as another nail in the coffin of US negotiators’ insistence on unlimited availability of the flexibility mechanisms. As described in the US NGO analysis "Legacy of Loopholes", abuse of these flexibility mechanisms, together with business-as-usual sinks credits, could render the Kyoto targets nearly meaningless, seriously undermining the environmental integrity of the Protocol and dampening the technology transition essential to meet the long term goal of climate stabilization.

Moreover, reliance on these loopholes would not provide the lower energy bills, improved air quality and reduced dependence on imported oil associated with the study’s energy efficiency and renewable energy policies.

The study was commissioned by DOE’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy and included researchers from Argonne National Laboratory, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

The "Advanced Scenario" included policies such as voluntary agreements to promote energy efficiency in vehicles, buildings, and industrial processes, enhanced appliance efficiency standards, "pay at the pump" auto insurance, renewable portfolio standards for electricity supply, and a domestic carbon cap and trading system.

The authors of the study concluded that the full reduction to meet the Kyoto target could be met by stronger domestic policies. Indeed, other recent studies commissioned by the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy and the Tellus Institute show that a larger and more aggressive set of such policies would achieve greater reductions in carbon emissions, air pollution, oil dependence and technological progress with net economic savings.

The Climate Action Network’s journal ECO commented ‘Given this overwhelming evidence that the US would benefit from policies to substantially reduce its carbon emissions, a top US negotiator's response was stunning. White House global warming coordinator Roger Ballentine was quoted as saying that the new US government report "does not in any way reflect the Administration’s policy". This is a shame. For the domestic policies outlined in the report would result in real emissions reductions, more than can be said for the US strategy of business-as-usual sinks, hot air trading and other loopholes as the main way of meeting its Kyoto commitments.’

Source ECO’s COP-6 coverage.

It’s not all bad news though from the USA. Before he left office, Clinton did get agreement for a $4bn programme to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.