🚀 go-pugleaf

## Nachricht vom 01.08.97 weitergeleitet
## Ursprung : K.THIELKING@P-KTHI.cl.sub.de
## Ersteller: larris@igc.apc.org


                          ECO NEWSLETTER

                           AGBM7 - BONN
                          NGO NEWSLETTER

                               AGBM7

                          August 1, 1997
                             ISSUE #4

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.            Scientists Call for Early Action
2.            Impacting the Economy?
3.            Ludwig
4.            AGBM Rolls Up Sleeves
5.            Contacts
6.            Credits

Eco has been published by Non-Governmental Environmental Groups
at major international conferences since the Stockholm
Environment Conference in 1972. This issue is produced
co-operatively by CAN groups attending the climate negotiations
in Bonn, July-August 1997.

******************************************************************

Scientists Call for Early Action

By Kelly Sims, Ozone Action

Over 2,600 scientists have joined in calling upon the US to take
global leadership in reducing emissions of the heat-trapping
gases that are causing global climate change. While this
statement was aimed primarily at the United States, as the
largest emitter of greenhouse gases, it serves as a remarkable
warning to all governments about the folly of delay. In fact, the
scientists "urge other nations to join in similar actions with
the purpose of producing a substantial and progressive global
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions beginning immediately."

Scientists do not often join in calling for governmental
leadership on environmental questions of global concern. The
scientists who signed the Scientists' Statement on Global
Climatic Disruption are all experts with broad experience in
addressing various aspects of the disruptions of climate.
Thirty-six of the signatories are members of the United States
National Academy of Sciences. Three are Nobel Laureates. They
range in specialities from physical chemistry and biochemistry to
oceanography and climatology to geography and ecology. They are
university presidents, chairs of scientific societies, advisors
to governments, members of governmental staffs, and scientific
participants in the private sector. But above all, they are
seriously concerned that failure of the United States to act now
will be a very costly error for us, and our children.

The statement is clear that "the further accumulation of
greenhouse gases commits the earth irreversibly to further global
climatic change and consequent ecological, economic and social
disruption. The risks associated with such changes justify
preventive action through reductions in emissions of greenhouse
gases." This statement and a list of signatories will be
available during the AGBM.

******************************************************************

Impacting the Economy?

One major reason the US is reluctant to state a position on
targets and timetables is the uncertainty regarding the economic
impact of climate protection policies. According to some studies,
stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions in the US at 1990 levels (a
much studied policy) could impose losses of over 2% of domestic
GDP. According to other analyses, the same policy could lead to
improvements in GDP of over 2%. In recent months, interest groups
have been touting their preferred predictions, leaving the public
and policy makers confused as to the real economic impact of
emissions reduction strategies. A new analysis by the World
Resources Institute helps lift some of the fog from this debate.

Despite their complexity, economic models are nothing more than
consistent sets of assumptions reflecting different beliefs about
how the economy functions. Not surprisingly, the economic impacts
the models predict depend totally on the assumptions built into
them.

WRI examined 162 different simulations using sixteen widely-used
economic models, including all three of the models used by the
Clinton administration to analyse its climate policy options.
They found that just eight basic assumptions account for more
than eighty percent of the differences in the models'
predictions, determining whether their economic results are large
or small, positive or negative.

Among the key assumptions:

* whether non-fossil energy alternatives are available at a
competitive price;

* how efficiently businesses and consumers reallocate their
expenditures in response to energy price increases;

* whether flexibility instruments, such as emissions trading and
joint implementation, are available;

* whether revenues from energy taxes or auctioned emissions
permits are used to reduce economically burdensome taxes on lab
or and capital;

* and whether the economic benefits of reduced air pollution and
avoided environmental damages from climate change are reflected
in the analysis.

The WRI study shows that models incorporating the most
unfavourable assumptions consistently project that stabilizing
carbon dioxide emissions at 1990 levels by 2010 and holding them
steady thereafter would result in economic losses of about 2.5
percent in GDP in the year 2020. On the other hand, models
incorporating all the most favourable assumptions project such a
policy would increase 2020 GDP by about 2.5%. These projections
should be viewed in the context of substantial real GDP growth
over this period; the authors note that even under the most
unfavourable assumptions, "the economy in 2020 would be 75%
larger than today's." Hardly the doom-and-gloom scenario being
put forward in fossil fuel industry advertisements!

The authors draw some clear implications for policymakers and the
public from their analysis: "People need not accept all the
best-case or all the worst-case assumptions. It is more
reasonable to predict that with sensible public policies and
international cooperation, carbon dioxide emissions can be
reduced with minimal impacts on the economy."

* One of the report's authors, Duncan Austin, will present the
WRI analysis at 1:00 pm today in Salon Haydn.

******************************************************************

Ludwig

Ludwig is intrigued by the size of the delegation from the
Japanese Foreign Ministry, and the large number of bilateral
meetings held or being held with other developed country Parties.
Could they be using the opportunity of this meeting to sell some
advanced piece of new technology that only these countries can
afford? Or could they be selling something else...

Far more importantly, the Secretariat is to be congratulated on
heeding Eco's warnings at the last session. Ludwig is delighted
to be able to report that the canapes at last night's reception
came from fresher stock this time: indeed he observed one tray
being carried across the room followed by an eager line of hungry
delegates. Many of them may have been from countries (most
countries, probably) with economies below the Maritim's menu
price level, but this must reflect in some way on the food
quality.

******************************************************************

AGBM Rolls Up Sleeves

As the AGBM opened yesterday morning, delegates listened to
Chairman Estrada lay out the framework for his vision of how to
move forward this session on the way to Kyoto.

Reminding us of where we have come from, the Chairman noted that
we are to comply with the Berlin Mandate, not reform it.

He observed that the world does not begin and end with the Berlin
Mandate and that there is indeed the possibility of achieving
progress toward objectives outside of the Berlin Mandate through
other decisions under the COP or Subsidiary Bodies. He emphasized
however, that within AGBM we must be restricted to the Berlin
Mandate.

Estrada said it is reasonable to expect that once developed
countries have shown with facts that they have decided to reduce
emissions and provide adequate support for the financial
mechanisms to assist developing countries, developing countries
will then, and only then, be able to assume a more active role in
the undertaking before us.

Parties are quietly showing their willingness to cooperate and
move issues forward. Indeed the lack of accusations in yesterday
morning's AGBM session was deafening. Each intervention
highlighted certain important elements of the agreement in Kyoto
and began the list of wishes for an effective protocol.

G77 and China began by bringing us back to Berlin to remind us
what we are here for -- lining up the principles, scope and
outline of the Berlin Mandate -- and ensuring us that they will
keep this negotiation true to the spirit of Berlin. Looking into
the eyes of their children, the EU reminded us that failure here
would be an abdication of our responsibility to future
generations. They demonstrated their seriousness and willingness
to make progress in this round, by tabling their 2005 target to
reduce CO2, CH4 and N20 by at least 7.5%, thus highlighting their
contribution to a long-term global solution to the problem.

Brazil brought us a bit further, gazing into the eyes of,
perhaps, its grandchildren, with its interesting new approach to
the core elements of a Kyoto agreement and its willingness to
continue to be in the forefront of the process. While emphasizing
that present concentrations are due mostly to Annex I countries,
he called for a practical mechanism in the Kyoto Protocol to
ensure that non-annex I countries make real contributions to
meeting the objective of the Convention. He also noted that in
the longer term developing country participation might be
significantly enlarged in an objective manner. All those curious
souls should report to the Reger Room today at 6pm to hear the
details.

The quiet positive feeling continued with Slovenia, as a
potential Annex I country, calling for action without delay and
indicating its support for the EU proposal . Zimbabwe, on behalf
of African countries, reminded us why this is so crucial.
Indicating their concern for the lack of action up to this point,
Zimbabwe cut through it all by stating that "Human suffering
cannot be valued in dollars and cents." African countries are the
most vulnerable to climate change and indeed have the most to
lose.

According to Russia, a legally binding target must include an
effective, verifiable, implementation agreement. Add that to the
list of protocol wishes, plus the US call for an effective
compliance regime (even independent of flexibility). The US also
believes that you can have a strong compliance mechanism with all
gases included. This positive attitude is either admirable or
naive, especially in the face of the uncertainties in the
inventories they seem comfortable in utilizing. One certain
thing, in US eyes, is that the ill-defined terms of Article 4.1
must be better defined. Searching for the middle ground with its
Annex B approach, the US emphasized it is not looking for new
commitments but rather offering voluntary opportunities for
non-annex I countries to engage in the process. The US long-term
vision includes future new negotiations, following this one,
involving all countries.

Japan was also in a positive mode and gave a slight first hint
that there may be potential for leadership by its appeal that all
countries reject the net approach, a position they will hopefully
keep on their protocol wish list until Kyoto. Let's add to that
their call for linking scientific developments with commitments
in the protocol, and Japan came out looking pretty good today in
the AGBM session. More quiet positives.

Of course the heart of the protocol was brought to us by Samoa
through its call that the guiding objective of this protocol
ensure that global mean sea level rise resulting from climate
change does not exceed 20cm above 1990 levels, and that the
global average temperature does not exceed 2 degrees celsius
above the pre-industrial level.

The overall tone of the day was well in keeping with the
chairman's opening remarks, together offering a framework which
leaves room for cooperation in the journey towards the Kyoto
protocol.

******************************************************************

FOR MORE INFORMATION:

For enquiries and response to ECO:

Eco can be contacted at:

ECO Editorial Office
Gustav-Stresemann Institut
Langer Grabenweg 68
53175 Bonn
Germany
Tel: +49 (0) 228-373080
Fax: +49 (0) 228-8107197
email: asieghart@gn.apc.org

ECO is available electronically via the following routes:
  World Wide Web      http://www.igc.apc.org/climate/Eco.html
  anonymous ftp       ftp://ftp.igc.apc.org/pub/ECO
  gopher              gopher://gopher.igc.apc.org:70/11/environment/climate
  APC networks        conferences <climate.news> and <climate.forum>
  Usenet              newsgroup sci.environment
  email               by request to larris@igc.apc.org

For information about ECO on WWW or adobe Acrobat files, contact 
Richard Elen, email: relen@igc.apc.org

For information about electronic mail, conference distribution, ftp,
and gopher availability of ECO, contact: Lelani Arris, 
email: larris@igc.apc.org.

A glossary of terms used in ECO can be obtained via anonymous ftp (see
above) or by email from larris@igc.apc.org.

******************************************************************

CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Editorial/Production: Alister Sieghart, Elderon Bartholomew

World Wide Web Edition: Richard Elen

Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet

North American Distribution: Wes Dowling & EESI

Published by: The Climate Action Network.

THANKS

The Climate Action Network would like to thank the Environment
Ministries of Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands, who have
provided funding for Eco.

With resources contributed by: APC Networks and EuroFax.