US Climate Action Network HOTLINE vol. 1 No. 3, Oct/Nov 1994 Table of Contents: .1 CCAP: A Status Report .2 Editorial: "New Aim" for Berlin Climate Summit? .3 Will Acid Rain Cool the Greenhouse? .4 Berlin Build-up or Geneva Cool Down? .5 Newsflash: Protocol Tabled .6 Newsbriefs The US Climate Action Network is the focal point for national and international global warming information and advocacy by environmental organizations. The Network is a clearinghouse for environmental activists on climate change issues, and helps coordinate national advocacy efforts. The US Network is part of the international Climate Action Network of over 100 Non-Governmental Organizations around the world. Please contact us in Washington DC for more information. HOTLINE is published by the US Climate Action Network, a project of the Tides Foundation. Articles may be reproduced, provided that Hotline is cited as the source. EDITOR: Jennifer Morgan For more information contact: US Climate Action Network, 1350 New York Ave, NW Suite 300, Washington, D.C. 20005, fax +1 202 783 5917 email- uscan@igc.org ************************************************************* CLIMATE CHANGE ACTION PLAN A Status Report Howard Geller American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy In April, 1993, President Clinton committed the United States "to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases to their 1990 levels by the year 2000" and he instructed his Administration to produce a cost-effective plan that can "continue the trend of reduced emissions." In October, 1993, the Administration's Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) was issued. The CCAP con-tains 44 initiatives designed to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and to increase carbon sinks. In general, these initiatives are modest proposals promoting voluntary actions on the part of businesses, industries, and households. The CCAP also establishes three working groups to develop further actions as well as monitoring, evaluation, and adjustment procedures. One year after its issuance, the CCAP is in serious jeopardy. The US. Congress is failing to provide full funding for the CCAP initiatives, the initiatives themselves are getting off to a slow start, and the follow-up working groups have barely begun their work. Meanwhile, US carbon emissions rose 28 million metric tons (2.1%) in 1993, and emissions in the first quarter of 1994 were up over 4% compared to the same period last year. The United States is not on track for returning greenhouse gas emis-sions to 1990 levels by 2000, let alone making the large absolute emissions reductions necessary over the long run. According to the CCAP, fully implementing the CCAP initiatives would cost the government about $300 million per year (excluding the initiatives that are expected to generate substantial new revenues for the Federal government). This is relatively little money, considering the annual budget of DOE and EPA combined is $26 billion. But even this modest amount is not being provided by the Congress, in large part because key funding committees are dominated by members close to the coal and oil industries. Energy efficiency programs based at DOE are being hit particularly hard. DOE requested $119 million for CCAP energy efficiency programs in 1995. It is likely that the Congress will approve only around $40 million of this amount. In addition, funding for all DOE energy efficiency programs in 1995 is likely to be about $180 million less than requested by the Clinton Administration. This is after Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary stated that if DOE energy efficiency programs are cut by more than $150 million, "the program is crippled and emissions would rise dramatically." The CCAP virtually ignores the transportation sector, which is responsible for one-third of US carbon dioxide emissions. In particular, there is a gaping hole in the plan concerning car and light truck fuel economy. Acknowledging this, the CCAP established a working group within the Administration "to develop measures to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions from personal motor vehicles," with recommendations due by October, 1994. However, this federal advisory committee to this working group was just formed to assist the Administration regarding what to do about emissions from the transportation sector. (See "Car Talks," p.3.) What should be done about this? First, the Clinton Administration should conduct and release an analysis of the gap between expected and desired greenhouse gas emissions in 2000 and beyond, taking into account the problems in implementing the CCAP as well as external events during the past year. Second, new initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a cost-effective manner should be proposed and acted on, along the lines of the initiatives put forward by the U.S. Climate Action Network (see Hotline Special Report, April 1994). These actions include: * tougher fuel economy standards and financial incentives to increase the efficiency of new cars and light trucks; * adoption of pay-at-the-pump auto insurance to reduce vehicle driving and improve insurance collection; * stronger building code requirements and equipment efficiency standards; * requirements that all states adopt Integrated Resource Planning and regulatory reforms that make utility energy efficiency investments at least as profitable as energy supply investments. Also, the EPA should consider adopting CO2 emissions standards on power plants, using authority under Clean Air Act. Environmental groups and sustainable energy advocates are fighting for the maximum amount of funding for the CCAP and are helping the Clinton Administration with design of various CCAP initiatives. We want the US action plan to succeed. But when he announced the CCAP, President Clinton said: "This plan isn't designed for an archive, it's designed for action. For rapid implementation, constant monitoring, and adjustments as necessary to meet our goals." Given the realities outlined here, some major adjustments should be made before it is too late to achieve the goals. For more information, contact Howard Geller at ACEEE, (202)429-8873. ************************************************************* EDITORIAL: "New Aim" for Berlin Climate Summit? As the Parties to the Climate Convention move toward next March's Climate Summit in Berlin, they seem to have lost the sense of urgency that is needed to create a success at the first Conference of the Parties. While many governments admit that current commitments are inadequate, most of them could only make rather noncommittal statements at August's INC session in Geneva on how to move forward. The U.S., for example, stated merely that "a new aim" was necessary and then provided no specifics of what that aim should be. Some Parties appear to have recognized the seriousness of the global climate situation, however. On September 28th the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) submitted a protocol proposal and Germany tabled a significant position paper (See "News Flash," p. 4). The AOSIS protocol provides a con-crete vehicle which should be used by Parties in the debate on next steps under the Convention. Along with this political wake-up call, is the scientific reality check provided by the IPCC Special Report, which clarifies the need for global emission reductions to meet the Convention's objective (See "IPCC," p.4). The U.S. is nervous about the implications for domestic policy. This is understandable given that the Administration has not demonstrated a willingness to push the politically more difficult measures needed to achieve the current commitment to return emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. While the U.S. has all but acknowledged that the current measures will not be sufficient, the Administration has yet to propose the additional policies needed to close the gap (See "Climate Change Action Plan," pg.1). Looking beyond the year 2000, the Administration has set up a working group to look at options to cut emissions, but it has not reached closure on an overall post-2000 strategy. Thus, while the U.S. does not wish to be seen as blocking progress, neither is it able to provide real leadership (See "Post-2000," p.4). To get itself and the international process back on track, the Administration needs to follow through on the following: * Strengthen its domestic efforts: The Administration must come up with, by the next round of negotiations in February, the additional measures needed to meet its year- 2000 commitment. At the same time, it is essential to fully implement the measures already in the plan, such as parking cash-out and appliance efficiency standards, and the Administration's commitment must be reflected in its 1996 budget for climate programs at the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency. * Establish a clear new aim: There is now a protocol on the table to work from. The U.S. should endorse the 20% emission cut in the AOSIS protocol, and should use both it and the German paper in future discussions regarding next steps under the Convention. * Promote green technology transfer: The U.S. should advocate a fundamental shift in international energy financing. As a starting point, multi-lateral development banks should allocate at least 25% of their energy funding to renewables and energy efficiency projects while U.S. institutions such as USAID, DOE and the Export-Import Bank should ensure that a majority of their energy funding is allocated to such projects. The U.S. should also promote an international market-pull initative whereby it, and other OECD countries, would pledge to dramatically increase purchases for certain technologies such as photovoltaics, which have tremendous potential for reduced costs through increased sales. * Provide broader leadership: The U.S. should clarify its position vis-a-vis developing countries by acknowledging that industrialized countries must take the lead by agreeing to significantly reduce their greenhouse gas emissions before developing countries are asked to agree to specific additional commitments. This would open the way for a more productive round of negotiations at INC 11. The key Parties have agreed that the current Convention commitments are not adequate. Berlin provides a unique opportunity for the U.S. and others to actually move forward. The U.S. must do more than keep its head down. Real leadership begins by following through domestically while pushing to strengthen joint resolve on the international front. ************************************************************* WILL ACID RAIN COOL THE GREENHOUSE? Dr. Daniel A. Lashof Natural Resources Defense Council Tiny particles suspended in the atmosphere may be counteracting part of the greenhouse effect from excess carbon dioxide and other gases. These particles, called aerosols, tend to cool the earth by reflecting incoming solar energy back into space (the direct effect). They also provide surfaces on which droplets can form, possibly increasing the reflectivity of clouds by increasing the number of reflective droplets for a given amount of cloud water (the indirect effect). Atmospheric aerosols come from three main sources: volcanoes, biomass burning, and fossil fuel combustion. It has long been recognized that volcanoes can have a significant short-term impact on climate by injecting large quantities of sulfur into the stratosphere. This sulfur is converted into sulphate aerosols, which cause a direct cooling for several years. Most recently, the Mt. Pinatubo eruption in June 1991 emitted enough sulfur to cool the earth by about one-half degree Celsius, according to climate models. Such a cooling was in fact observed. As expected, this cooling effect now appears to be wearing off, and global temperatures can be expected to soon return to the record levels of the late '80s and early '90s. Both satellite and surface air measurements in fact show that global temperatures have returned the two-tenths of a degree back to the temperature level before the eruption. Because volcanoes are essentially random and their effects are short- lived, volcanic aerosols are not expected to significantly influence long-term changes in climate. The effects of biomass burning and fossil fuel combustion are more complicated. Forest fires and savannah burning produce both absorptive and reflective particles due to incomplete combustion. Meanwhile, coal and oil contain significant quantities of sulfur. Unless this sulfur is removed from the fuel before it is burned or "scrubbed" from smoke stacks, sulfur dioxide will be released to the atmosphere along with carbon dioxide whenever these fuels are burned. This sulfur is the main cause of acid rain, but before being deposited much of the sulfur dioxide is converted to reflective sulphate particles. Although still highly uncertain, recent estimates suggest that the cooling effect from particles produced by biomass burning and sulfur emissions could be offsetting about half of the warming effect from carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This may sound like good news, but unlike greenhouse gases, sulphate particles are not evenly distributed around the globe. Thus significant climate change could occur even if on average aerosols reflected as much energy as greenhouse gases trapped. Furthermore, sulphate particles are washed out of the troposphere (lower atmosphere) in only a few weeks, while greenhouse gases remain for decades to centuries. This means that as soon as we reduce sulfur emissions to control acid rain, or curtail fossil fuel combustion to halt global warming, more of the greenhouse effect will begin to be unmasked. As a result, reducing emissions could even temporarily lead to more rapid climate change. But consider the alternative: ever-increasing carbon dioxide concentrations precariously balanced against ever-increasing acid-rain-producing sulfur emissions. Eventually something has to give, and when it does the results could be catastrophic--massive greenhouse warming that would last for generations. It seems unlikely that any government would seriously consider a conscious policy of cooling the greenhouse effect with acid rain. Of greater concern is that aerosols will continue to mask the true dimensions of the greenhouse problem for many years, making it more difficult to overcome resistance to reducing emissions. For more information, contact Daniel Lashof at NRDC, (202)783-7800. ************************************************************* BERLIN BUILD-UP OR GENEVA COOL DOWN? Liz Barratt-Brown, Natural Resources Defense Council Alden Meyer, Union of Concerned Scientists In August delegations met in Geneva for the tenth session of negotiations of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee. The original agenda for these weeks was ambitious, with goals set for movement towards consensus on a number of issues. Two working groups meet during the negotiations--working group I to discuss adequacy of commitments, joint implementation, review of communications and subsidiary bodies, and working group II to discuss the financial mechanism of the convention. Both groups, while engaging in great amounts of discussion, moved exceedingly slowly as reported below. Working Group I Little progress was made in Geneva during the discussion of the two high profile issues before this working group--the adequacy of commitments under the climate treaty, and the rules and criteria for "joint implementation" of existing commitments. On the issue of adequacy, Germany went the furthest of any industrialized country, tabling a detailed outline for a possible follow-on protocol to the climate treaty. But even Germany's proposal failed to specify the magnitude and timing of post-2000 emissions reductions to be required of industrialized countries. The U.S. statement acknowledged the need for a "post-2000 aim" for the climate treaty--but gave no specifics on what that aim should be. The U.S. also called for "broaden[ing] the opportunities to contribute to the effort to combat climate change" through the unspecified actions of at least a subset of the developing countries. But developing country delegates, by and large, rejected this effort to shift the focus away from industrialized country commitments, and the debate was highly polarized. Nevertheless, most industrialized countries seemed to support the notion of a political declaration at next spring's Berlin Climate Summit that would launch a formal negotiating process on additional commitments under the treaty. On the highly charged issue of joint implementation, the working group couldn't even agree on a report summarizing the various positions taken by countries during the debate. The most contentious issue was whether joint implementation projects would be allowed between industrialized and developing countries (the position taken by most industrialized countries), or only among industrialized countries themselves (the position of most developing countries). The best the delegates could come up with was that "discussions were indicative of an emerging need for a consensus on the criteria to be defined in developing the concept of joint implementation." That's UN-speak for "we couldn't even agree on the shape of the table." More progress was made on one of the other items on working group I's agenda, the "first review of information communicated" by industrialized country parties under the treaty. The approved outline for this review is quite thorough, and should result in a useful analysis of the policies and measures being used by industrialized countries to limit their greeenhouse gas emissions. Much work remains to be done, both before and at INC 11 in New York next February, if the Berlin Conference of the Parties is to be able to make clear decisions on implementing and strengthening the climate treaty. In particular, the United States needs to be much more specific in its proposals for the Convention's "post-2000 aim." Working Group II The highlight of the negotiations on financing issues was an agreement reached on adaptation, that is assisting countries in their attempts to adapt to the effects of global climate change. The agreement recognizes the obligation of the parties to finance adaptation but leaves open the question of whether the financial mechanism under the treaty will finance potentially costly adaptation measures. Little progress was made in setting program priorities for the treaty's "financial mechanism" (which for now is the Global Environment Facility (GEF)). While developing countries are interested in receiving funds, they have become increasingly leery of funding conditions, such as those requiring funding to be linked to a national plan for mitigating climate change. No doubt, the slow progress in tightening up com-mitments for developed nations has had a deleterious effect on the willingness of developing countries to submit to scrutiny under the treaty. This tension was evident in the discussion of financial activities outside the framework of the treaty. It is widely recognized that the GEF's expected $1 billion in climate financing over the next three years is massively overshadowed by financing by the World Bank, other international institutions, and the private sector. The World Bank alone will finance $20 billion over the next three years in the energy and transportation sectors with significant increases in greenhouse gases. Despite Agenda 21's call for rechannelling of funds to demand side management, energy conservation and renewables, little World Bank or other energy lending has been allocated to these areas. At the last negotiating session, progress was made in recognizing that activities undertaken outside the treaty needed to be aligned with the treaty's objective. Unfortunately, many of the developing countries--including China--that had supported text requiring that consistency be "sought and maintained" realized at this negotiating session that this might mean their large scale energy projects would be evaluated against the treaty objective. Alternatively, it could provide a new tool for ensuring that foreign investment dollars (which usually come back to the investing country) are in fact spent to build appropriate energy systems and the expertise within the country for sustaining them. Developed countries must assist developing countries to ensure they have the range of energy options they need. For too long industrialized country companies and consultants have benefited from highly centralized energy projects, making huge profits from loans at enormous environmental costs. Developing countries must also seek energy financing that protects the environment and promotes integrated resource planning, with full involvement of local communities. For more information contact USCAN. ************************************************************* NEWSFLASH: PROTOCOL TABLED The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS), a group of 36 countries which are most threatened by global climate change has submitted and circulated a draft proposal for a protocol to the Climate Convention that would require Annex I countries to cut their CO2 emissions by 20 percent below 1990 levels. It also establishes a "Coordination Mechanism" for measures that would work to advise countries in developing and coordinating policies and measures to assist Annex I Parties to implement their commitments. Germany submitted a paper to the Secretariat in which it states that it "very much welcomes that the Alliance of Small Island States has taken the initiative in proposing a draft protocol...." Germany goes on to cite the AOSIS target of 20 percent reductions by 2005 in its paper as well as calling on countries to adopt national programs on a range of measures, including fuel economy standards, energy/CO2 taxes, appliance efficiency standards, renewables and others. (Contact USCAN office for copies or more information.) ************************************************************* NEWSBRIEFS "CAR TALKS" As reported in May/June's Hotline, the Clinton Administration announced a year long policy review process informally as part of its climate plan, in order to address the transportation sector. The process was finally kicked off September 28/29 with a two-day meeting of a selected Advisory Committee which is charged to "develop recommendations on the sets of policies that would, if adopted, most cost effectively obtain a return to 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions from personal motor vehicles by the years 2005, 2015, and 2025, with no upturn thereafter." This is a year- long process which the Climate Action network will be monitoring. Public information will be available on EPA's bulletin board system (modem number 919-541-5742; telnet ttnbbs.rtpnc.epa.gov). SECOND INDEPENDENT NGO EVALUATION OF NATIONAL PLANS RELEASED IN AUGUST IN GENEVA U.S. Climate Action Network and Climate Action Network Europe released the second review of national plans during INC 10 in August. This review is comprised of critiques by NGOs of 19 national plans of OECD countries. It is an independent analysis of the policies and measures being implemented or proposed by those 19 major industrialized countries to fulfill their obligations under the climate treaty. Each of the critiques of the countries was prepared by an organization or group of organizations within each country studied. For free copies contact USCAN. IPCC SCIENCE REVIEW On September 15, the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC--an international network of leading scientists and technical experts) released its 1994 Special Report on Radiative Forcing of Climate which reviewed the key conclusions of the 1990 Climate Change: The IPCC Scientific Assessment report and affirmed the basic understanding of radiative forcing comprised in the 1990 report. The key new finding of the Report is that global CO2 emissions must be reduced to substantially below 1990 levels to stabilize the atmospheric CO2 concentrations even at levels substantially higher than today's elevated value. There was also more information on two sources of negative radiative forcing-- depletion of ozone in the stratosphere and aerosolsderived from anthropogenic emissions. This Special Report will be available in November with the second IPCC Scientific Assessment scheduled for publication in 1995. For copies of the Executive Summary of the Special Report, contact USCAN. POST-2000 TASK FORCE The Administration has created an interagency "Climate Change Post-2000 Deputies Task Force" to establish a long-term strategy and examine policies and measures that could impact greenhouse gas emission levels beyond the year 2000. There are a number of subgroups in this task force including: biomass and renewables, non-personal transportation: commercial transport, natural gas market share, ultra- efficient residential and commercial systems and global technology diffusion. The task force is charged with preparing a year-end 1994 report synthesizing available results and recommending next steps.