🚀 go-pugleaf

## Nachricht vom 04.08.97 weitergeleitet
## Ursprung : K.THIELKING@P-KTHI.cl.sub.de
## Ersteller: larris@igc.apc.org


                          ECO NEWSLETTER

                           AGBM7 - BONN
                          NGO NEWSLETTER

                               AGBM7

                          August 4, 1997
                             ISSUE #6

                        TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.            Editorial
2.            MDB's Hot Lending Policy?
3.            Japan: Truth or Dare?
4.            Economic Flood Damage
5.            Cutting Carbon for Fun and Profit
6.            L'Afrique et les Changements Climatiques
7.            Cities' Win-Win
8.            Ludwig
9.            Contacts
10.           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.

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

Editorial

>From the closed meetings on QELROS and advancing commitments
under Article 4.1. last week, we sensed a great deal of
depression and disappointment amongst developing country
delegations. These feelings perhaps stem from the strong desire
of many countries within the G77 and China group to see some
common ground in a united position on reduction targets.

You will recall that at AGBM-6, the Group of 77 and China came to
an agreement to a proposed text calling for a reduction in GHG
emissions by __% of 1990 levels by 2005 and a further reduction
by __ % of 1990 levels by 2010. There are indications that the
members of the group wish to see actual numbers in the proposal.
Whatever these may be, they have to be significant. And we have
seen a good number of members encouraging the Group to move in
this direction. In particular, there have been efforts to
consolidate four QELROS proposals from within the Group. This has
clearly sent positive signals to those wishing to see advances in
the coming week's negotiations.

We cannot overemphasize the critical role of developing countries
in moving the AGBM-7 process forward. At the end of this week,
Annex I parties must return to their capitals with a strong
statement from developing countries pushing for a successful
outcome from COP3.

Some members of the group may be considering waiting until AGBM-8
for this developing country movement to come together. That would
be too late. Annex I parties will have their own numbers and
targets by then and G77 would have lost a major opportunity to
influence this process. It must be borne in mind that the greater
part of the enormous social, economic and ecological costs of any
inaction will fall on the poor and poorer countries.

Developing countries are well aware of the unprincipled efforts
from certain quarters to derail the Kyoto process. Last week, we
heard numbers and formulae that only seek to avoid significant
reduction targets. The challenge for G77 and China is therefore
to become positive elements to this debate.

This is probably the last chance for the Group to influence the
outcome of the Kyoto negotiations. We hope that the discomfort
felt within it will lead to a unified action.

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

MDBs' Hot Lending Policy?

by Petr Hlobil, CEE Bankwatch Network

As delegates continue to deliberate how best to respond on
climate change, MDBs are actually adding coal to the fire.
Changing the Earth's Climate for Business, a recent report by a
group of experts lead by the Institute for Policy Studies,
examines fossil fuel projects financed by the World Bank since
signature of the FCCC in 1992. The report's findings clearly show
that the World Bank Group has not heeded the warnings of Rio:
Instead it has financed fossil fuel projects around the world
whose cumulative emissions contribute at least 36 billion tons of
carbon dioxide into the Earth's atmosphere; current annual
emissions of carbon dioxide for the planet are now about 28
billion tons.

The European Investment Bank's track record is similarly poor.
For example, out of 1,333 million USD lent to the energy sector
in Eastern Europe since 1990, 1,178 million USD were spent on
fossil fuel-based projects. The European Bank for Reconstruction
and Development, on the other hand, has recently taken more
positive action. Following the establishment of a dedicated
energy efficiency unit, the EBRD finally struck gold in 1996,
with 7 energy efficiency loans, totalling 278 million USD, while
2 "traditional" energy projects totalled 152 million USD.

How can delegates ensure that MDBs no longer spend their
taxpayer's money on climate warming? The Canadians' proposal on
P&Ms tabled at AGBM 6 was a step in the right direction. It
called upon parties to urge MDB lending to economies in
transition (EITs) for a range of measures promoting energy
efficiency and GHG abatement technologies. This proposal
reappears in a non-paper circulated by the EU delegation earlier
this week. A US proposal on the same subject, for strengthening
article 4.1. commitments, is much less concrete on the other
hand, and would not be effective in placing meaningful
obligations on MDBs.

East European governments, in particular, should use this
opportunity to support the Canadian and EU initiatives, to ensure
that MDBs in their countries will begin harnessing the large
energy efficiency and GHG reduction potentials available.

In last week's SBSTA and SBI discussions, several developing
country delegates expressed concern over the lack of progress in
the area of technology transfer. In some countries, the private
sector is beginning to overtake MDBs in energy and industry
investments. The challenge therefore is to maintain consistency
in public sector financing and create an enabling environment for
the private sector to engage in climate-friendly activities.

It is clear that a major reorientation of the World Bank and
others' lending practices is required. In their continuing quest
for a strong Kyoto protocol, delegates must ensure that MDB
actions are consistent with the spirit of the convention, and
that the Bank's finally learn to say no to fossil fuel projects.
Just say NO!

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

Japan: Truth or Dare?

Over the weekend rumours continued following the report in the
Yomiuri Shinbun newspaper on August 1 that Japan has proposed a
target to the USA. Subsequent press reports from Japan have added
further information to that reported in the Yomiuri story (see
Eco of 2 August). Japanese officials at the AGBM have declined to
comment on the reports and some US officials have denied that
there was any approach on this subject.

Eco has further pieced together the elements of this "proposal".

Based on Japanese media reports the best guess that can now be
made is that it would require Parties whose emissions are above a
per capita limit of 3.0 tonnes of carbon per capita to reduce
their emissions to a level at or below 1990 levels in absolute
terms by around 2010. Parties whose emissions are below this per
capita limit would have to stabilize at their 1990 per capita
emissions by around 2010. For these Parties their absolute
emissions could grow in proportion to their population growth
over this period. For Japan this would amount to around a 3%
increase (based on 1994 UN Population Div. estimates). (An
alternative formulation would allow Parties who are below the per
capita limit to increase to this limit by 2010, as outlined in
Eco of 2 August; however officials insist that this is not what
the proposal that has not been made means).

If the Japanese proposal would require Parties above the
3.0tC/cap limit only to reduce to 1990 levels in the year 2010
then overall Annex I emissions would be allowed to rise by around
1% over this period, and the EU's emissions by around 2%. If the
proposal requires a 5% reduction by Parties above the limit then
overall Annex I emissions could increase by 2.6% and the EU would
just have to stabilize. With a 15% reduction by Parties above the
limit then overall Annex I emissions could increase by 9% and the
EU would just have to reduce by 2%. In each case Japan's
emissions would be allowed to increase by 3%.

Whichever way one calculates this "proposal", if true, the
outcome is patently unacceptable to the majority of Parties in
the AGBM, as it would allow Japan to increase whilst requiring
reductions of other Parties and overlooks the need for a
significant reduction target for the year 2005.

The persistence of this story, the fact that Japan's officials
have been instructed not to comment, its ongoing elaboration in
the Japanese press along with the not altogether convincing
denials from the USA are doing great damage to Japan's already
weak standing. Japan should take advantage of the presence of its
Minister for Environment at the AGBM to clear the air on this
matter. It should clearly state that the Yomiuri Shinbun story is
not the Japanese position and that Japan is committed to
achieving significant emission reductions relative to 1990 levels
in the year 2005 for all industrialised countries, including
itself, in Kyoto.

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

Economic Flood Damage

Record-breaking floods in the United States, Canada, and eastern
and central Europe this spring and summer forced the evacuation
of more than 50,000 people and will cost billions ofcialization incentives, and consumer education to move
innovative appliances, lights, and other energy-consuming devices
from research laboratories into mass production;

These policies would produce more value and less pollution from
each ton of coal, barrel of oil, or cubic foot of natural gas
burned. They would lead to an orderly shift away from fossil
fuels and toward safe and secure renewable energy resources. They
would also produce substantial environmental and economic
benefits. Energy Innovations shows how the U.S. can reduce its
carbon dioxide emissions 10 percent below 1990 levels by 2010,
while its GDP climbs over 50 percent during this 20-year period.
Carbon emissions would fall 46 percent by 2030. By contrast,
under the Present Path, carbon emissions would be 21 percent
above 1990 levels in 2010, and 41 percent above 1990 levels by
2030.

The Innovation Path would save consumers $530 per household per
year and would create nearly 800,000 more jobs by 2010, compared
to the Present Path, since energy efficiency improvements in
particular are cost-effective and shift expenditures from energy
into sectors that generate more jobs per dollar spent. It would
also reduce U.S. dependence on imported oil, cutting $21 billion
from the nation's oil import bill in 2010 alone.

Canada is on a similar emissions growth path to the United
States. By 2010, the Canadian government expects its overall
greenhouse gas emissions to increase 20 per cent from 1990
levels; this would increase to 36 per cent above 1990 levels by
2020. As in the United States, energy departments and much of
industry argue that nothing can be done about this scenario
without severely damaging the economy.

The Rational Energy Program, a package of initiatives designed to
improve energy efficiency in the transportation, building and
industrial sectors and increase the use of renewable energy in
the electricity sector demonstrates that this is not the case.
Under the Rational Energy Program, Canada would stabilize its
greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 and
would achieve reductions of at least 7% by 2010.

The macroeconomic analysis of the Rational Energy Program,
conducted by Informetrica Limited, concluded that the program
would create up to 1.5 million person years of work by 2010.
Informetrica also concluded that: "Over the course of the 15
years, the Rational Energy Program by itself cannot change the
size of the Canadian economy or employment, or that of any
province by as much as one-year's growth. Since the economy in
2010 can be expected to be 35 to 45% larger than in 1994,
variations from the Base Case of these magnitudes are close to
minute (less than one-third of a year's growth at most) in a
15-year period."

In addition to assuming increased efficiency standards in
buildings, transportation and equipment and that 25% of
electricity load growth comes from renewable energy, the Rational
Energy Program assumes a carbon charge of $20/ton is applied in
the year 2000, increasing to $25 in 2005. Combined with a small
gasoline tax, this generates cumulated revenue of $77 billion by
2010. The analysis assumes that the revenue is used to finance
implementation of the Program and to reduce the Goods and
Services Tax (consumption tax) to 5.5% from 7%.

The Rational Energy Program analysis was coordinated by Sierra
Club of Canada, on behalf of the Climate Action Network in
Canada. The federal Natural Resources Department, which is
responsible for energy forecasts and analysis, completed the
bottom up analysis for Sierra Club. The macroeconomic analysis
was completed by Informetrica Limited, one of Canada's leading
economic analysis firms.

These studies demonstrate that through policy reforms that spur
technology innovation, the United States and Canada can prosper
economically, cut pollution and improve public health, and do
their part to stem global warming. Rather than dragging their
feet and impeding progress, President Clinton and Prime Minister
Chretien should lead the way to a strong international agreement
for cutting greenhouse gas emissions. With the Earth's climate at
stake, it could be their most important legacy to future
generations.

* Dr Stephen Bernow of the Tellus Institute will present a
briefing on the Energy Innovations Report on Tuesday at 7:15pm in
Saal Reger.

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

L'Afrique et les Changements Climatiques

Forum des climats en Afrique: la francophonie commence a
s'echauffer!

Une reunion des ONG francophones et des organisations
internationales interessees aura lieu en octobre a Dakar (date a
confirmer ) . Cet evenement est organise par ENDA-Energie
(Dakar), le Reseau-Action-Climat (Paris) et la Coalition
Quebecoise des Changements Climatiques (Montreal). Cet evenement
a le soutien du gouvernement frangais et (on l'espere) des autres
pays francophones. La participation des ONG d'Afrique de l'Ouest
et du Centre est en particulier souhaitee. Contacter Moussa M.
DIAKHITE pour vos suggestions et vos contributions materielles.

Climate Forum in Africa : Francophones are warming up to the
climate issue!

A meeting of francophone NGOs close to CAN and interested
international organizations will be held in October in Dakar (
dates to be confirmed). This event is organized by ENDA-Energie
(Dakar), Reseau-Action-Climat France (Paris) and Coalition
Quebecoise sur les changements climatiques(Montreal).This CAN-NGO
event will have support from the French government and
(hopefully) from other francophone countries. Participation of
Western and Central African NGOs is especially welcome.

Contact: RAC-F 7 Moussa DIAKHITE, impasse Charles Petit F-75011
Paris

Tel : +(33) 1 44 64 99 64 Fax : + (33) 1 44 64 72 76. Email :
racf@wanadoo.fr

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

Cities' Win-Win

On Friday, three cities presented convincing evidence that the
"Toronto" 20% CO2 reduction target is achievable. They also
reported that their policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
have produced significant multiple benefits that are helping,
rather than hurting, the local economy.

These striking results were presented by Portland, US,
Saarbrucken, Germany, and Toronto, Canada in a special event on
Friday. An interim report to the COP, Local Government
Implementation of Climate Protection, is available to delegates.

All three cities politically adopted targets and timetables for
CO2 reductions before the FCCC came into effect. Since then, they
have:

* invested $75 million in CO2 reduction measures, about $50 per
capita (excludes transit) and $18 million to make municipal
facilities more energy efficient, the latter achieving 75,000t
CO2 reduction p.a.

* spent over $1 million on public education

* implemented successful community-wide programs that stimulate
energy efficiency investments in commercial and residential
buildings

* developed over 1.5 megawatt of solar and wind energy sources

As a result of their measures, the three cities have reduced
greenhouse gas emissions up to 15% since 1995. Their local
emissions are declining more rapidly than those of their
respective country. Elected officials now have confidence in
their ability to reach their targets, providing international
targets and timetables materialize soon.

Said Margit Conrad, Deputy Mayor of Saarbrucken: "Aggressive
international targets and timetables are essential to local
authorities. Without them, we will have a difficult time
maintaining our present momentum."

Finally, the three cities reported that multiple benefits from
their CO2 reduction efforts are a boost to the local economy.
Portland, for example, has become such an attractive city that
many businesses are relocating there -- as a result the local
population is growing at twice the national average. However,
thanks to transit measures, travel demand has stabilized along
with emissions from the transportation sector (per capita).

The success of local governments in reducing their emissions and
achieving multiple benefits offers a strong reproof to the doom
and gloom economic scenarios painted by the fossil fuel industry.
Evidence is mounting from cities such as these that practical,
bottom-up measures to reduce CO2 emissions significantly benefit
-- rather than hurt -- the local economy.

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

Ludwig

Ludwig wasn't previously aware that the EU had such a capacity
for self-mocking irony, but they've really come up trumps this
time. Many will be aware that for some time they have been
attempting to do something about the huge amount of time they
spend meeting each other, the so-called "bunker" problem. Yet
they have chosen as their meeting-room an underground chamber
beneath a high-security building surrounded by razor-wire...

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

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

Assistance from: Alden Meyer; Athena Ronquillo; Bill Hare; Yuichi
Inoue; Martina Kruger; Petr Hlobil;

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.