October 2000

(The Hague, Netherlands–November 15) – Before several thousand delegates and other participants in the Netherlands Congress Center, IPCC Chairman Robert Watson sternly concluded that recent severe weather events are in some way attributable to Man’s activities, and more is to come. With no questions from delegates permitted, Dr. Robert Watson departed this forum, held in cavernous “Plenary 1”, billed in various quarters as a “hearing” on the relevant science. Thus ended the “science” portion of this 12-day COP-6, which is being billed as either the “final step” in, or the “last chance” for completing the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated in December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan.

Some participants questioned this omission of any debate or even multi-faceted presentation on science, given recent developments. Not the least of these was the shift in approach by NASA’s Dr. James Hansen regarding carbon dioxide, heretofore regarded as the culprit causing global warming. Dr. Hansen is considered the father of the theory of man-made global warming due to his alarming testimony in 1988 before a United States Senate committee. Demonstrating a willingness to follow the evidence irrespective of where it may lead, he recently downplayed the conventional wisdom, which he helped spawn, that anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions were the predominant cause of global warming.

Most proposals to address climate change revolve around limiting man-made CO2 emissions. Additionally, astrophysicists recently offered further proof that activity of the sun, including solar winds and flares, correlate with changes in the Earth’s climate, leading some other scientists to caution against blaming Man for the planet’s weather before more is known. Yet just like industry was for several years fairly characterized as refusing to acknowledge even the slightest hint of climate change, global warming advocates’ mantra has been for some time that “the science is settled…let’s move on.”

Adherents of the theory, be they those who matured with “global cooling” of the 1970s or relative newcomers to the debate, consider doubt as apostasy. This includes calls for further study, and application of the “precautionary principle” – prove, e.g., a new drug or chemical is risk free before it can be sanctioned — to the Kyoto Protocol itself. To combat those counter-efforts and in preparation for this critical gathering, both the United Nations and United States in the past month had relevant subsidiary panels release material claiming scientific near-certainty and catastrophic impacts as likely in the absence of dramatic action to curb emissions from individual and industrial activity.

No scientific question made its way into this forum, however, at least formally. Treaty opponents say this speaks volumes about motive. “The refusal to engage the scientific debate with ‘non-believers’ just shows certain parties are more interested in regulating activities which they do not like – energy use, population growth – rather than addressing a known threat,” said Craig Rucker, Executive Director of Citizens for a Constructive Tomorrow.

Dr. Watson stated that while “scientific uncertainties exist,” the scientific focus should be not on whether Man influences climate, but how much, how fast, and where. The questions confronting the working groups here also assume scientific certainty on the “whether” question, and surround the “hows” and “wherefores” of limiting the emissions of those 38 industrialized nations that have agreed to greenhouse gas caps. Awaiting resolution are how to incentivize parties to reduce emissions, for example through trading “credits” without permitting widespread business as usual, and how to penalize errant countries. Encouraging the delegates are entities such as environmentalists, and industry groups that have factored possible climate change policies into their business plans.

A cadre of skeptics and parties concerned for reasons ranging from sovereignty to the treaty’s impact on the poor also arrived to press their case in the face of claims that “the science is settled.” These include industry groups such as the Global Climate Coalition, and market oriented advocacy groups like the Competitive Enterprise Institute. None of this jousting, of course, tackles that which could reasonably be considered a condition precedent: scientific proof. Environmentalist advocates brook no debate about scientific resolution, which is certainly one way of avoiding specific disagreements. Yet even one of the more ardent and prominent corporate proponents of the treaty, CEO of BP Sir John Browne, can only muster a claim of “provisional” for the science.

Regarding Dr. Watson’s remarks, one participant expressed concern to him in a sidebar outside the auditorium, about the appearance that the presentation appeared to impart conclusions of a UN report that still faces several substantive, if bureaucratic, reviews for accuracy. The head of the UN’s panel replied that, while his remarks may appear to represent those of that group, they really do not, and that the report’s findings could change during the review process. Skeptics attending this “final” conference argue that the scientific uncertainties are significant enough to warrant waiting a little longer for answers before plunging ahead with the major tax or regulatory schemes that a Kyoto energy-suppression regime will require.

ECO Newsletter

by William Yeatman on October 12, 2000

The Hague


1.      CAN – Voices from the Regions

2.      COP6 – Pronk’s Masterpiece?

3.      4.6 Million Voices, and Counting…

4.      Compliance for Non-Techies

5.      The Nature of Sinks

6.      Targets with Holes?

7.      Nuclear – the End is Nigh!

8.      Ignore Florida!

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 The Hague, The Netherlands, November 2000.

CAN – Voices from the Regions

South-East Asia

We are deeply concerned about the state of the Kyoto Protocol negotiations and our ability as environmental NGOs to ensure a positive outcome. There are so many fundamental elements which are presently lacking from negotiating texts, it’s difficult to imagine that we will be able to make our influence felt. We are most worried about the prominent inclusion of nuclear and sinks as an option to mitigation of climate change. These are not the answers! The impacts are upon us, and it’s not clear we will have a way out if there is not a commitment on the part of the Parties to recognize the urgent threat climate change poses, and the need to respond with real domestic GHG reductions. We have so much left to accomplish in so little time; can we even make a dent?

North America

Three years ago countries around the world agreed to a small first step to reduce the threat of global warming, the Kyoto Protocol. The heart and soul of that Protocol were the targets for industrialized countries. That heart and soul is now very much at risk. Due to the positions of the US, Japan, Canada and Australia, the Protocol may not even result in the reduction it set out to do in Kyoto. This would place the world’s people and creatures under severe threat — a train wreck for the planet. The loopholes of the Kyoto Protocol could be the noose around nature’s neck. Countries must stop this madness, finalize what they agreed to in Kyoto — a strong downward trend in industrialized country emissions — and move forward. The planet cannot wait.

Central and Eastern Europe

Most Central and Eastern European countries have began JI projects and are also looking forward to making profits from emissions trading.

No countries in the region have a national legal framework on climate change. They are also far from ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, which makes the use of these two mechanisms possible.

If pressed hard, Government officials in the CEE admit that they are dragging their feet because they would like the “big guys” at The Hague to lead the way.

This is what makes COP6 so important for this region, which has an amazing potential for GHG emissions reduction, but is in the throes of economic and political transition.


The severity and frequency of the impacts of climate change on the livelihoods and economies of southern countries are manifesting themselves through several thousands of lives lost in floods, drought-occasioned famines and destroyed properties, damaged infrastructure, closure of industries and loss of employment due to electricity shortages, loss of profits, etc.

This calls for priority in dealing with adaptation issues at COP6, as the very survival of many developing countries is threatened. How costly adaptation is can be illustrated by the example of a certain EU country lying below sea level, which recently increased adaptation spending by US$ 1 Bn. This attests the sheer impossibility of developing countries ever adapting to climate change without financial and technological assistance form the North.

Therefore CNA insists that all three mechanisms be taxed equally for purposes of equity. Additionally, other methods of funding the costs of adaptation need to be discussed and agreed upon urgently at COP6.

Western Europe

In addition to the serious threats to environmental integrity addressed by my colleagues, we need to build a strong alliance of progressive forces to combat climate change. We need a common voice, a louder voice, to help save the most fragile ecosystems in the world such as corals, mangroves and the forests already threatened by climate change. We need an ever more angry voice to fight together with the most vulnerable communities such as low lying island states and drought-stricken regions in the developing world.

Climate Action Network, the most authoritative body on global warming in civil society, has an opportunity, but more than an opportunity, a unique responsibility, to develop more and better links with those forces that support, produce and implement renewable energies, and the various technologies that foster energy efficiency.

There is no point in defending or arguing for dodgy sinks or any flexibility mechanisms as long as developed nations refuse to take the first basic steps to comply with the Kyoto Protocol: cut fossil fuel emissions at home, and do it now!

And here, NGOs should co-operate with the many upcoming green industries: “It’s your chance, wake up and fight with us”. The oily forces of darkness may take a lead in the early rounds, but in the long run we will prevail — we have to!


COP6 — Pronk’s Masterpiece?

Introducing the master of ceremonies: Jan Pronk, the Dutch Environmental Minister, chair of COP6. It is a very important moment in the negotiations and it is a critical moment in the political career of the chairman.

It’s not an easy job to orchestrate a result that preserves the integrity of the Kyoto Protocol while keeping ‘the climate family’ together. Everyone knows, that there are enormous gaps between the positions of Parties. But there is another, maybe even more important gap between the pace of the negotiations and the growing awareness of the public that climate change is probably already taking place.

With floods, storms and mudslides killing people in countries like Italy, Britain and Switzerland (let alone all those tens of thousands in the South…) more and more citizens are calling for real action against climate change. Already, 58% of UK citizens believe that the current floods have something to do with climate change. The insurance companies also lead us to believe that we are in real trouble. The message is clear: only rules that lead to real reduction in greenhouse gas emissions in industrialized countries are acceptable to the atmosphere. Rules that also address the need of those who will suffer most: vulnerable developing countries.

A good master of ceremonies requires tact, feeling for a steady rhythm, and strength to keep instruments in line. Therefore, the chairman has to show wisdom in bridging gaps, but cannot give in to pressures that would undermine the credibility of the Kyoto Protocol. Any compromise on the environmental integrity of the Protocol will mean a compromise of the integrity of the chairman. COP6 could be his masterpiece, or a disastrous disharmony his long political career.


4.6 Million Voices, and Counting…

As the days count down to November’s crucial climate summit in The Hague, a coalition of Climate Action Network members [leading environmental organizations] launched the first international web- based initiative to give citizens around the world a voice in demanding a halt to global warming. Less than two months old, the web site has already generated more than 4.6 million messages to world leaders.

On August 22nd, “www.climatevoice.org” was launched and is currently supported by more than twenty environmental organizations, including World Wildlife Fund, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and NRDC. Other constituencies are also coming onboard such as the Dutch Red Cross and Oxfam. Hosted by WWF, the site is a group project and aims to send ten million messages from the public to heads of state demanding they use COP6 [the November summit] to reduce their country’s global warming pollution, and to agree to a fair and effective Kyoto global warming treaty to reduce the pollution that causes global warming.

The ten million messages represent a million calls for action for every year of inaction. It has been ten years since the international scientific community issued its first warning about the threats the world faces from climate change. In 1990, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its first scientific report on rising levels of global warming gases and their implications for the future. Though the impacts characteristic of global warming have since become increasingly evident on every continent and in most nations, governments have failed to act to turn down the heat. On the contrary, many of the leading polluters have allowed their emissions to increase while pressing for effective international measures to be watered down.

At www.climatevoice.org visitors can e-mail world leaders to express their concern about global warming. Visitors can also download a petition that can be signed and sent off-line. They can then send a cyber postcard to friends encouraging them to join the campaign. The site can currently be viewed in English, French, and German, and a Spanish version is expected soon.

Now as we gather for COP6 in The Hague, governments must meet their deadline for finalizing rules for operating the Kyoto climate treaty – the only international agreement for reducing emissions of global warming gases from the industrialized world. Countries will then be set to implement measures to reduce the pollution that causes global warming and bring the Protocol into force by 2002 at the Rio+10 meeting.


Compliance for Non-Techies

Compliance is NOT a technical issue…

… but one of the most crucial issues about which agreement needs to be reached over the next two weeks: Without a sound compliance regime, we will rely entirely on countries’ political will, good faith, and trust to ensure they keep their commitment to reduce GHG emissions. However, if the pitiful number of effective national plans proposed to date is any measure of political will to reduce domestic emissions, this is no safeguard at all.

So, as global governance does not seem to be mature enough yet to proceed on trust, the question becomes: will the international community be mature enough to impose upon itself rules of control and — shall we mention the taboo word — penalties for cases of misbehaviour?

For CAN, one thing is clear: A Kyoto Protocol with The Hague Rules will be not much more than peeling wallpaper if there are no binding consequences which will ensure that the climate is made whole and targets are met.

PS: to all the states bent on trading (either to earn money, or to escape more stringent action at home): remember, a market only functions on the basis of legal securities — if you want to trade, you need penalties (whether you know it yet or not).


The Nature of Sinks

Anyone who has followed the scientific discussions in relation to the behaviour of the carbon cycle in response to global warning, and is also concerned about the future of the Amazon forests, would have found last Thursday’s issue of Nature more than a little disturbing.

Whilst it is well known that forests are also likely to be subject to climate impacts themselves, the recent climate modelling study reported in Nature projects a dramatic collapse of the Amazonian rainforest as consequence of climate change. This would be begin within a few decades, if fossil fuel emissions increase as per business as usual, due to a combination of reduced precipitation and to increased respiration as a consequence of warming.

The study by Cox and others from the Hadley Centre couples a carbon cycle model with a climate model. It finds that there are potentially huge positive feedbacks from warming. In response to projected warming, the biosphere releases huge amounts of carbon to the atmosphere, significantly accelerating climate change over the next 100 years. Driven by business as usual emissions, the biosphere acts as a net sink until around 2050, whereafter it turns into an overall source. As a result, the business-as-usual concentration increase, without considering the terrestrial biosphere feedbacks, is magnified dramatically by 250 ppmv by the year 2100. The global temperature increase for business-as-usual emissions by 2100 is increased from 5.5C to about 8C as a consequence of this feedback.

As Parties meet in The Hague to adopt crucial decisions in relation to the inclusion of sinks activities under Article 3.4 or under the CDM, the above results, however provisional, should give serious pause for thought. The scientific evidence for a serious risk of a large potential positive feedback from the terrestrial biosphere in response to global warming is growing. It is unsafe to assume that we can rely on a growing sink capacity in the future to help stabilize atmospheric CO2 or to assume that extra carbon stored in the biosphere over coming decades will be permanently kept out of the atmosphere.

* “Acceleration of global warming due to carbon-cycle feedbacks in a coupled climate model” by Peter M. Cox, Richard A. Betts, Chris D. Jones, Steven A. Spall & Ian J. Totterdell, Nature , Vol. 408 (9 November 2000) pp 184-187.


Targets with Holes?

Over the next fourteen days here in The Hague, the Kyoto Protocol is in danger of being sunk by attempts from several industrialised countries to back out of their responsibility to make real cuts in emissions.

Several “loopholes” risk being left open at COP6. The adoption of just one of these loopholes could seriously undermine the emission reduction targets of industrialised nations (OECD countries have agreed to reduce their emissions by 6.9% in 2010 in comparison to 1990). Combined, these loopholes would mean that no action at all would be needed.

For example, unlimited trading of so-called “Hot Air” could allow OECD countries to emit 5% more than without such trading. Furthermore, the credits that could accrue from coal, gas, oil, nuclear (!) and large hydro energy projects under the Clean Development Mechanism are estimated to more than outweigh the targets that OECD countries agreed to in Kyoto to reduce their emissions below 1990 levels.

However, by far the biggest threat to the environmental integrity of the Kyoto Protocol are the so-called “sinks”, the attempt made by some countries to claim emission credits for carbon that is being stored in forests and soils.

During the long vacation since Lyon, we have studied the data that countries have provided on sinks. (A fully revised loophole analysis from Greenpeace, with country specific data, will be available soon). Our initial fears were not exaggerated. We doubt that negotiators are fully aware of the magnitudes of the loopholes they are potentially about to agree upon.

Bad definitions for Afforestation, Reforestation and Deforestation under Article 3.3 (e.g. the FAO Activity based definitions) could allow OECD countries to increase emissions as much as unlimited “Hot Air” trading (5%). If they were to receive credit for all the reported Article 3.4 sinks, they would be able to increase their emissions by a further 10% on 1990 levels.

Most outrageous is the fact that the USA could meet a staggering 63% of its emission reduction requirements (below business as usual levels) if accounting of these Art. 3.4 sinks were permitted. Note, these estimates are based on the governments’ own figures, and many countries have not reported at all. Independent studies have estimated them to be much higher. Given this, even a narrow definition of Art. 3.4 activities could invalidate the already small incentives that the Kyoto Protocol could have to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. In addition to this, and according to estimates by the IPCC Special Report on Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF), the potentials for sinks under the CDM are at least as big as the ones from Art. 3.3 and 3.4.

It remains to be seen whether these loopholes will be left open — to do so would be to allow parties to avoid real emission cuts — or whether the negotiations in The Hague prove successful in closing them. Each has the potential to seriously undermine the ultimate objective of the Kyoto Protocol: preventing serious climate change.


Nuclear — the End is Nigh!

This was the year that the nuclear industry cemented its place as the Millenium Dome of energy technologies. Turkey abandoned long- held plans to develop nuclear power and is now pushing wind. Taiwan cancelled construction of its fourth reactor. And for the first time since the 1950s there is no reactor under construction or planned in North America or Western Europe. Turkey’s Prime Minister, in making the announcement to kill off the nuclear program before it killed off Turkey’s economy, posed the simple question: “Why would Turkey build nuclear when everyone else is turning away from it?”.

The US, which is the main promoter of nuclear power in the CDM, should ask themselves a similar question — why are they promoting nuclear power when they have not ordered a new nuclear reactor since 1978, suffered the second worst nuclear accident after Chernobyl, and spent billions unsuccessfully trying to solve the problem of radioactive waste? As China said to Westinghouse when Westinghouse was trying to sell them a new reactor model: “if it’s so good, why aren’t you building it yourselves?”.

The answer of course goes to the heart of the push to include nuclear power in the CDM — orders are scarce and the industry is flailing around for help. At September’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) general conference, some of the few developing countries still considering nuclear power spelled out the link very clearly. India, Pakistan, China and Vietnam presented papers which warned that if they do not receive CDM credits for nukes, new construction will either be reduced or cease altogether. Just in case anyone still didn’t get it, the IAEA underlined the point with the extraordinary admission that “nuclear would not be used by most developing countries in the absence of the CDM mechanism”.

But the IAEA presentations pose another, more disturbing question about having nuclear power in the CDM. The industrialised countries which are pushing hardest for nuclear power to be in the CDM — the US, Japan and Canada — refuse to export reactors to India and Pakistan. The UK and France have also declared them off- limits. The reason is that neither India nor Pakistan has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), refuse to open their nuclear facilities to full-scope anti-proliferation safeguards inspections, and are actively developing nuclear weapons. It’s a particularly touchy issue for the US and Canada, as they provided nuclear technology to India in the 1960s and 70s which India used as the basis for their bomb program, despite promising they wouldn’t.

So why, here in The Hague, are these same industrialised countries now pushing so hard to turn the CDM into a subsidy for the India and Pakistan nuclear programs? Are the US, Japan and Canada really proposing to provide political and financial support through the Kyoto Protocol to two nuclear industries against which they are currently imposing sanctions? Not only is this an embarrassingly inconsistent policy, but one which threatens to undermine global efforts to promote non-proliferation.

To mark the opening of COP6, anti-nuclear groups are organising a march today against nuclear power in the CDM, from Malieveld to the Conference Centre starting at 13:00 today.


Ignore Florida!

And the winner is… well we do not know that yet, but we do know that uncertainty about the outcome of the US presidential election should not change Parties’ goals or stances at COP6. The Kyoto Protocol was negotiated on the watch of the Clinton/Gore Administration. The Clinton Administration is in the White House until January 20th and has the mandate to finalize the deal. They should therefore be treated as every other delegation and not be singled out for any “special status” (except, of course, that they are trying to water down the Protocol more than any other country.)

Did the elections have an impact on the likelihood of US ratification? It did result in some changes in the make up of the US Senate where two Protocol foes, Senators Abraham and Ashcroft, lost their bids for reelection and two new Protocol supporters, Senators Bill Nelson and Hillary Rodham Clinton were elected. When you couple this with growing public demand for action on global warming and more businesses taking voluntary action, you have a mandate for the US delegation to ensure that negotiations in the Hague result in an environmentally sound Protocol — one that causes real emissions reductions in developed countries.

So, it is fine to keep reading about the votes, but whatever the outcome — and whenever it comes — countries need to negotiate hard with the current Administration and finalize a deal in the Hague that will ensure that developed country domestic industrial emissions take a downturn. Only an outcome with real environmental integrity will have the public support necessary to win ratification — regardless of who is President.



Eco can be contacted at the Boulevard Hotel Seinpostduin 1-2, 2586 EA Scheveningen. Tel: +31 (0)70-35 40 067, Fax: +31 (0) 70-35 52 574 E-mail: asieghart@gn.apc.org

ECO is available electronically via the following routes: World Wide Web http://www.igc.org/climate/Eco.html anonymous ftp ftp://ftp.igc.org/pub/ECO APC networks <climate.news> and <climate.forum> Usenet newsgroup sci.environment email mlist.ecix1-subscribe@igc.topica.com

For information about ECO on WWW or adobe Acrobat files, contact Richard Elen, email: relen@brideswell.com

For information about electronic mail, conference distribution, and ftp availability of ECO, contact: Lelani Arris, email: larris@mcbridebc.net

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



Editorial/Production: Alister Sieghart, Gilbert Arum, Torsten van Geest

World Wide Web Edition: Richard Elen

Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet

Assistance from: Roda Verheyen, Jennifer Morgan, Stephan Singer, Atiq Rahman, Nathalie Eddy, Grace Akumu, Bill Hare, Anja Koehne, Ben Pearson, Katherine Silverthorne, Vladimir Dvoretzky, Sam Ferrer, Ilse Chang, Christoph Bals, Manfred Treber.

Published by: The Climate Action Network.

The Climate Action Network would like to thank WWF International, Greenpeace International, the Swedish NGO Secretariat for Acid Rain, the National Environmental Trust, Environmental Defense, The Glastonbury Festival for Contemporary Performing Arts, the Centre for International Environmental Law, Climate Network Europe, and the David Suzuki Foundation.

With resources contributed by Milieudefensie and APC Networks.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) mandated in 1990 that ten percent of all cars and trucks on the road must be Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEV) by the year 2003. At the time, it claimed that the mandate could be met using electric vehicles that would cost only $1,350 more than gas-powered vehicles of similar size.

According to an article by Tom Austin, an automotive engineer and former CARB executive officer, CARBs dreams have come crashing down in the face of reality. Consultants hired by CARB have determined that electric vehicles will cost about $20,000 more than comparably-sized gas-powered vehicles. The limited driving range of electric vehicles is also a major drawback to most motorists, noted the consultants. Thus to meet the mandate, a subsidy of $30,000 per vehicle would be required.

To cover the subsidy, a surcharge of $3,000 per vehicle would be needed on the price of new gas-powered vehicles. The surcharge could be lowered to $1,250 under a recent change in the regulation, which allows the percentage of ZEVs to fall to 4 percent if makers of gas-powered automobiles significantly reduce auto emissions and provide a 150,000-mile warranty on their emission control systems. But, notes Austin, the cost of gas-powered vehicles would rise by several hundred dollars per vehicle due to the additional pollution control equipment and the longer warranty.

The only other option available to automakers, says Austin, to “further reduce the cost of complying with the ZEV mandate is for them to produce electric vehicles that are little more than glorified golf carts. The gasoline vehicle travel displaced by such vehicles would be negligible and CARBs regulation would become a laughingstock.”

Finally, Austin notes that, CARBs own analysis shows that the regulation will have almost no effect on environmental goals such as improved air quality or preventing global warming (Sacramento Bee, September 24, 2000).

Chinas Growth is Killing the Bicycle

Beijing, China, the city of bicycles, is changing. Commuters are abandoning the human-powered two-wheeler for more convenient and more comfortable transportation taxis and buses.

“I take buses and taxis,” said Zui, a Web site designer. “I dont even know how to ride a bicycle.” Most mornings Zui cannot find a seat on the packed bus but he doesnt mind. “At least the bus is air-conditioned,” he said.

The Seattle Times (October 4, 2000) explains why bicycles are on they way out. “Increasingly, young Chinese are not even bothering to learn to ride bikes, because growing wealth has unleashed a plethora of transportation choices, public and private.

“With the crumbling of the old socialist state-owned industries and their adjoining housing complexes, displaced by private companies and the wildfire growth of private apartment blocks, commuting distances have grown dramatically. In Beijing, a city of 12.6 million people, there are more than 167,000 buses, both city-owned and private mini-buses, along with 69,000 taxis.”

It sounds like Chinese citizens need a good tongue-lashing from Al Gore for making choices that contribute to global warming and urban sprawl, and which make their lives better.

Heat vs. Cold Related Mortality

More evidence has come in showing that cold weather is deadlier than hot weather. A new study in the British Medical Journal (September 16, 2000) analyzed temperature-related mortality statistics in Europe to determine the effects of changing temperatures on mortality rates.

The researchers determined the 3 degree C band of temperature in each region that they studied with the lowest mortality rate and then compared the mortality rates from this baseline band with temperatures above and below the baseline.

They found two things of significance. First, “Heat related mortality occurs at higher temperatures in hotter regions than in cold regions of Europe and does not account for significantly more deaths in hotter areas,” and that, “People in cold regions of Europe protect themselves better from cold stress at a given level of outdoor cold.” So, “Populations in Europe have adjusted successfully to mean summer temperatures ranging from 13.5 degrees C to 24.1 degrees C, and can be expected to adjust to global warming predicted for the next half century with little sustained increase in heat related mortality.”

Second, there are many more cold-related deaths than heat-related deaths in Europe. “Mean annual heat related mortalities were 304 in North Finland, 445 in Athens, and 40 in London. Cold related mortalities were 2457, 2533, and 3129 respectively.” The researchers argue that, “Our data suggest that any increases in mortality due to increased temperatures would be outweighed by much larger short term declines in cold related mortalities.”

More Evidence on Solar Influences

New research is making a strong case that solar variability is a major factor in global warming. Using satellite and other data, researchers have determined that the suns impact on global warming may be much larger than previously thought. According to the Vancouver Sun (September 25, 2000), “The new studies say that the main reason is a solar-energy surge and a particularly big increase in ultraviolet (UV) light. This has coincided with a doubling in strength of the suns magnetic field.”

Paal Brekke, the deputy project scientist for the European Space Agencys Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (Soho) satellite, said that this could change the way we approach global warming policies. “Taxing carbon-based fuels may be good for other reasons, but our evidence suggests it will not be much help in keeping the Earth cool,” he said.

The new findings were a subject of debate at a recent conference entitled, “The Solar Cycle and Terrestrial Climate,” which took place on Tenerife (Canary Islands). Mike Lockwood, of the Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, believes that the sun played a significant role in the past but that now greenhouse gases are more important. “I have doubts about how low some people want to keep the solar contribution,” he said. “Over the whole of the last century, Id say it was perhaps about 40-50 percent of the total. But the important point is that most of that was in the first 50 years. From 1970 to now the main influence has been human activity, and thats rather scary.”

Brekke said, “The Sun may explain up to 20 percent of global warming over the last 30 years, if you look only at irradiance. But if you include other, indirect effects, including cosmic rays and their influence on cloud cover, that percentage could rise. The pattern of systematic change in the global climate over recorded history seems to follow the observed changes in cosmic ray flux. It is consistent with the explanation that a low flux corresponds to fewer clouds and a warming climate, and vice versa.”

Dr. Joanna Haigh of Imperial College, in London, added that the Soho data show that changes in UV radiation, which contributes to ozone creation (a potential greenhouse gas), are larger than once thought. “How much the ozone responds, and where it changes, is crucial,” she said. “In the upper stratosphere, about 50 km up, an increase in ozone will have a cooling effect. But about 20 km above the Earth, more ozone will act like other greenhouse gases, trapping infrared radiation and enhancing warming. I think its very unlikely anyway that the response of ozone to solar UV will be as dramatic as some reports have claimed.”

The IPCC report, according to Dr. Mike Hume, executive director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, is very guarded on the subject. “It allows both a substantial role for the Sun, and an inconsequential one,” he said. “All the evidence suggests that its greenhouse rather than solar forcing thats the problem, but the IPCC leaves the door open. It is this range of uncertainties that makes future predictions so difficult.”

Four members of the Cooler Heads Coalition, three members of Congress, and one individual filed suit in federal court on October 3 to have the National Assessment on Climate Change declared as unlawfully produced. The plaintiffs are the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Alert, 60 Plus Association, Heartland Institute, Representative Joe Knollenberg (R-Mich.), Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri), Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), and David Wojick, Ph.D., P.E.

The defendants named in the lawsuit are the chairman of the National Science and Technology Council, President Bill Clinton, and the director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Neal Lane. These two entities have ultimate control over the National Assessment Synthesis Team.

At press time, a well-placed source reported to Cooler Heads that the White House was “deeply concerned” by the lawsuit, was considering ordering that the NACC be released immediately, and had asked environmental pressure groups to protest at a press conference to be held by the plaintiffs at the House triangle on the Capitols grounds on October 5 at 1:30 p.m. Cooler Heads has not been able to confirm this report.

Several government scientists have told Cooler Heads privately over the past few months that

they were under strong pressure to toe the White Houses alarmist line on global warming in preparing the NACC.

“In President Clintons capacity as the chairman of the National Science and Technology Council, he is ultimately responsible for producing and maintaining the legal integrity of any documents or reports it releases,” commented Christopher C. Horner, the attorney for CEI who filed the complaint.

The lawsuit alleges the following violations:

  • Multiple Violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA); specifically, holding unlawfully closed meetings and conducting meetings in the absence of the required Designated Federal Officer.

  • Violations of the US Global Change Research Act (USGCRA); including a wrongful directive from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy that the Council unlawfully expand its work outside the scope of its applicable statutory authority, and delve into non-scientific, political areas.

  • Violation of Public Law 106-74. This law prohibited the expenditure of appropriated money in order to release or publish this report prior to completing the underlying science, making the Councils findings available to all parties and subjecting its work to peer review.

Despite repeated private and congressional requests to comply with these requirements, the Council has aggressively refused, due to a calculation that releasing the Assessment in October will have maximum political value.

As a remedy, the plaintiffs request that the court declare the following actions unlawful under FACA, USGCRA, and Public Law 106-74:

  • Utilizing any product of any Synthesis Team meeting attended by either FACA violation;

  • Utilizing any draft or final National Assessment until such time as these violations are remedied;

  • Dedicating further expense or effort on the basis of such Assessment until these violations are remedied;

  • Releasing any document that addresses those issues not specifically authorized by the GCRA of 1990.

Cooler Heads has reported many times on the National Assessments shortcomings during the past 16 months. More information can be found in an article by Cooler Heads editor Myron Ebell in the current issue of Intellectual Ammunition published by the Heartland Institute (www.heartland.org), and in a report by David Wojick published by the Greening Earth Society (www.greeningearthsocitey.org.)