Kyoto Negotiations

Satellite Temperature Data: How Accurate?

by William Yeatman on October 19, 1997

in Kyoto Negotiations, Science, Small business

In a letter to Nature (March 13, 1997) James W. Hurrell and Kevin E. Trenberth questioned the reliability of the satellite temperature data which show a slight cooling trend over the last 20 years. They argue that the data contain significant discontinuities due to various factors, the most important being the replacement of worn out satellites. The main contention in the Hurrell/Trenberth paper is that there are two “spurious” downward jumps in the satellite record due to changes in satellites and that the real temperature trend is slightly positive.

There are some serious errors with the method used by Hurrell and Trenberth, however. Drs. John R. Christy, Roy W. Spencer, and William D. Braswell, who track and publish the satellite temperature data, point out those errors in correspondence to Nature (September 25, 1997).

There are two methods to directly measure the temperature of the lower troposphere (surface to 7 km). One is balloon-borne instruments known as radiosondes which rise through the atmosphere. The other are microwave sounding units (MSUs) mounted on satellites which measure the intensities of microwave emissions from atmospheric oxygen which are proportional to temperature.

There is strong agreement between the two records even over the periods where Hurrell and Trenberth claim that the spurious jumps take place. Another data set is also available from the NOAA-06 and NOAA-07 satellites which were measuring temperatures at the time of the breaks that Hurrell and Trenberth claim to have discovered. These also agree with the MSU data.

Hurrell and Trenberth ignore the balloon data and estimate atmospheric temperatures using sea-surface temperatures (SSTs). There are a couple of problems with this method, however. First, the regions where Hurrell and Trenberth find the greatest disagreement is in the Pacific and Indian Oceans where ship data are scattered. Buoy data have also been available since the early-1980s. But, as Christy points out in correspondence with The Cooler Heads Newsletter, “the SST dataset is not homogeneous for these critical regions. Ships and buoys do not measure the water temperature to the agreement necessary for the types of variations we look at for climate change over a decade or so.”

Second, Hurrell and Trenberth derive atmospheric temperatures from the SSTs using general circulation models (GCMs). Christy argues that “There is considerable evidence that SSTs and the atmospheric temperature do not behave in the rigid fashion believed by Hurrell and Trenberth and represented by their simple [linear] regression model. Several studies show that for long periods of (months to years) there are differences between SSTs and air temperatures due to the natural variability of the vertical structure of the atmosphere.”

Once again advocates of the global warming hypothesis use imperfect models to attack actual observed data, standing the scientific method on its head. In the past, when data contradicted the models, the models were rejected. With highly politicized global warming science, however, empirical evidence that contradicts the politically predetermined outcome is either ignored or explained away as anomalous.

What Do Scientists Say?

A survey of state climatologists by Citizens for a Sound Economy found that there is little support for the global warming hypothesis. When asked if they agreed with the statement by President Clinton, “The overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory but now a fact, that global warming is for real. There is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate.” 36 percent agreed, while 58 percent disagreed.

Asked whether “recent global warming is largely a natural phenomenon,” 44 percent said yes while 17 percent said no. Nine out of ten surveyed agreed that “scientific evidence indicates variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally-occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time.” Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists agreed that “current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors,” and 61 percent said that the historical data do not indicate “that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels.”

Sixty percent of the respondents said that reducing man-made CO2 emissions by 15 percent below 1990 levels would not prevent global temperatures from rising, and 86 percent said that reducing emissions to 1990 levels would not prevent rising temperatures. Finally, by a 39 to 33 percent margin, more climatologists say that, “evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period.” The survey can be found at www.cse.org/cse/ and www.globalwarming.org.

What Does the Science Say?

Dr. S. Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project has just released a overview of the current state of climate change science and asks whether drastic reductions in greenhouse gases are justified.

The objective of a global climate treaty would be to prevent “dangerous interference with the climate system.” But, according to Singer, there is no scientific evidence that would suggest what level of interference would be dangerous. An article appearing in Science argued that 350-400 ppm is a dangerous level of CO2. However, they base this on an arbitrary “dangerous” temperature increase of 2 degrees C.

Singer also challenges the claim in the 1996 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it is now possible to discern the human influence among the noise on climate change. First, the “natural” variations are derived from computer models rather than actual observations. Second, the computer models exclude the cooling effects of mineral dust and of smoke and soot from burning biomass and the cloud production effects of sulfate aerosols.

Singer also contends that warmer weather would be beneficial to mankind. Warmer global temperatures, the models predict, would reduce the temperature gap between the northern and southern hemispheres reducing storm intensity at the mid-latitudes. Northern hurricanes, for example, have fallen in both frequency and intensity over the last 50 years. Rainfall has fallen worldwide for the last 40 years. As for rising sea levels Singer argues that they are correlated with falling temperatures.

Singer concludes there is little evidence to justify drastic reductions of greenhouse gases. The best way to avoid the adverse effects of climate change is to adapt. He notes that societies that are economically advanced are the least affected by changes in climate and more readily adapt to changes. Economic development (which will require greater emissions) then is necessary if we are to avoid adverse effects which may arise from climate change. The report is available by contacting SEPP at (703) 352-7535 or by e-mail at singer@sepp.org.

Survey of State Climate Experts Casts Doubt on Link Between Human Activity and Global Warming

by William Yeatman on October 6, 1997

in Kyoto Negotiations, Science

(Washington, DC) — A majority of state climatologists say reducing man-made carbon dioxide emissions to1990 levels or lower would not prevent warmer temperatures on earth, according to a new survey commissioned by Citizens for a Sound Economy (CSE) Foundation. That’s because, according to those surveyed, most climatologists believe global warming “is a largely natural phenomenon.”

“In the debate over global warming, we’ve recently heard from a lot of so-called experts that global warming is for real and that we humans are to blame,” says Paul Beckner, president of CSE Foundation. “While President Clinton and others might think so, those who deal with climate issues day in and day out disagree, and we think it’s important that the American people know that there are in fact climate experts in this country who do disagree with the conventional wisdom on global warming.”

Fifty-eight percent of the state climatologists surveyed said they disagreed with President Clinton’s claim that “the overwhelming balance of evidence and scientific opinion is that it is no longer a theory, but now fact, that global warming is for real” and with the statement that “there is ample evidence that human activities are already disrupting the global climate*” Only 36 percent of the climatologists agreed with Clinton’s assertion.

By a 44 to 17 percent margin, climatologists say that “recent global warming is a largely natural phenomenon,” while nine out of 10 of the climatologists surveyed agreed that “scientific evidence indicates variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally-occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time.”

Six out of 10 of the climatologists disagreed that actions by developed nations to reduce man-made carbon dioxide emissions by 15 percent below 1990 levels will prevent global temperatures from rising. An even higher number, 86 percent, disagreed that reducing emissions to 1990 levels will prevent rising temperatures. Interestingly, by a 39 to 33 percent margin, more state climatologists say that “evidence exists to suggest that the earth is headed for another glacial period.”

Eighty-nine percent of the climatologists said that “current science is unable to isolate and measure variations in global temperatures caused only by man-made factors.” Sixty-one percent of the state climate experts said historical data does not indicate “that fluctuations in global temperatures are attributable to human influences such as burning fossil fuels,” and nearly all said the earth “experienced large global temperature fluctuations with both warming and cooling periods prior to the beginning of the industrial age” and the advent of burning fossil fuels.

Countering claims by theorists that weather patterns have been changing due to global warming, 72 percent of state climatologists say weather events in their states in the past 25 years have not been more severe or frequent. Among the19 percent who said they were, less than a third attributed the changed weather patterns to global warming.

Among other findings in the survey, 72 percent say carbon dioxide emissions will continue to rise, despite efforts to curb man-made sources. Eighty-six percent of the climatologists said that variations in solar output are a likely cause of long-term temperature fluctuations on earth, and an even higher 91percent said variations in the earth’s orbit are a likely cause of temperature fluctuations. The climatologists were unanimous in agreeing that “even if there were no human beings, the earth’s climate would constantly be changing.”

The survey was conducted by American Viewpoint of Alexandria, Virginia from September 23 to October 3, 1997. The results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4.7 percent. Forty-eight states have official climatologists. Of the 48, American Viewpoints was able to contact and survey 36 of them. Ninety-two percent of the climatologists said they did not receive direct funding from state or federal environmental protection agencies, and 86 percent said they did not receive direct funding from business or industry.

CSE Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non-profit, non-partisan research and education organization established in 1984. It accepts no government funding.

[For more information or a complete copy of the survey questions and results, please call Peter Cleary at (202) 942-7608.]

To receive more information on CSE or CSE Foundation, or to comment on our publications, call, write, or E-mail:

Citizens for a Sound Economy
Citizens for a Sound Economy Foundation
1250 H Street, NW, #700, Washington, D.C. 20005-3908
1-888-JOIN-CSE, (202) 783-3870, Fax (202) 783-4687

Climate Change Treaty – October, 1997

by William Yeatman on September 30, 1997

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics, Science

Introduction

The UN Conference on Climate Change in Kyoto (Japan) is only a few weeks away and, most of the countries have announced what position they intend to bring into the negotiations. Even the U.S. has finally announced its proposal on the reduction of CO2 emissions, which was revealed in a speech by President Clinton on October 22, 1997 at the National Geographic Society in Washington.

The following discussion, Part I, will outline the positions of several countries on the issue and provide an outlook on the up-coming negotiations in Kyoto, while in Part II (“Tradable Emissions Permits – the Perfect Solution?”) emissions trading systems proposals shall be reviewed.

United States

President Clinton announced in his speech on October 23, 1997, at the National Geographic Society in Washington, that the U.S. will commit itself to reducing CO2 emissions to its 1990 emissions level by the years 2008-2012 and a further reduction in the following 5 years.

The Administration, in addition plans a $5 billion package of spending on R&D and tax incentives, energy-efficiency standards, Federal government energy initiatives and later on a national and an international emissions permit trading system.

The proposal also noted that the U.S. will insist that developing countries be involved in the reduction of greenhouse gases, otherwise, the U.S. threatened it would not sign-on to a treaty. In which form and what part developing countries would have to play in reducing greenhouse gases that would satisfy the Administration was left open.

The earlier prospect of a carbon tax brought so much criticism that the government has now distanced itself from the idea of an “open” carbon tax. The Administration now supports the politically more acceptable solution -a national and an international system of tradable emission permits. The advantages for the Administration are that in a trading system the economic burden is probably smaller and also less visible than in a tax regime. It can even earn some support from well-known economists,(1)  and be portrayed as an innovative, progressive, and market-oriented approach.

The government’s planned increase in spending on R&D will be less controversial since some industries and business will profit from it, while the costs are buried in the national budget and will fall on the taxpayer. The impact of the increased spending on R&D is still disputed, since not everyone agrees with the findings and projections of the Department of Energy Study about the “Potential Impact of Energy Technologies by 2010 and Beyond,”(2) which predicts rather dramatic technological improvements, with the expenses of increased government spending in principal covered by cost savings from less energy use.

The approval of the Senate to a treaty containing legally binding emissions targets depends strongly on the participation of developing countries in the agreement. In its vote (95-0) for the resolution co-sponsored by Senators Robert Byrd (D-W.VA) and Charles Hagel (R-NE) the Senate showed its unwillingness to sign on to restrictions for U.S. industry while developing countries such as South Korea, India, China, and Mexico are not required to participate, especially because these countries, in the near future, will be the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases. The timetable of bringing developing countries into a treaty and the form of their involvement will probably be deciding factor on whether the Senate will approve the treaty.

During the latest meeting in Bonn, Germany which was intended to prepare a draft for a treaty to be signed in Kyoto, the U.S. Administration presented its proposal and tried to win support among other countries. So far, however, there seemed to be disagreement about most key points of such a potential treaty, such as which emissions target, what timetable, who would have to participate, and how countries would be allowed to achieve the emissions target.

European Union

The EU is the biggest advocate for a drastic cut in greenhouse gas emissions and suggests a cut of CO2 emissions by 15% from the 1990 emissions level by 2010. The EU has criticized the U.S. proposal as insufficient and as not going far enough and has questioned the U.S. commitment to prevent global warming. The EU has a number of reasons for taking that position:

First, the political clout of the environmental movements in Europe (especially in Germany, but also in the Netherlands, Scandinavia and increasingly in France) puts European governments under pressure to call for a stringent reduction of emissions. European industry, fearing that Europe would go ahead with such a policy on its own, is concerned about its competitiveness in the global market, and therefore strongly argues for a “leveling of the playing field.” It is especially concerned about giving American and Asian competitors an additional advantage. Some in the industry are even hoping that new demand for “environmental technology” would benefit their advanced technology sector.

The EU is in a unique position because it has signed the treaty as a body (as well as the single member states), which allows it to arrange different targets for its members as long it meets the target for the EU as a whole. EU’s internal goals range from a 40% increase for Portugal to 30% cuts for Luxembourg and 25% for Germany, Austria, and Denmark. The huge reductions in some of the countries are achievable without a dramatic impact on industrial production because of the individual circumstances.

For example, the 1990 level for Germany includes the whole former East German industry, famous for its dependency on coal burning and, consequently, big CO2 emissions. The decision to close many of these unprofitable and inefficient plants makes it easier to achieve big cuts in emissions. Great Britain cut the subsidies for coal mines, which led to a switch from coal to natural gas, and less CO2 emissions. But these decisions were based on economic circumstances, not on concern for possible climate change. This could be seen when Germany’s government backed-off from a decision to cut more coal subsidies after angry mine workers “visited” the German government in Bonn.

The EU-members agreed to introduce a EU-wide carbon tax to reduce CO2 emissions, but despite this decision, the tax has never been implemented. The fear of a negative impact on the European economies loomed too large, especially if Europe would go ahead with such a policy despite the fact that others are not introducing similar measures.

The EU has always been pushing for higher standards but seems more reluctant than the U.S. to embrace market-oriented solutions. The idea of an international tradable permits system is more difficult to sell in Europe, where people are more willing to accept that their governments set standards and industry has to find a way to meet the standards. One has to keep in mind that industries are often closely consulted on the issues to find achievable goals. The cooperation and relations between companies and government are perhaps closer than in the U.S.

Some countries have reservations about emissions trading schemes, but few would go so far as the Dutch environmental minister, Magaretha de Boer: “That’s not something that belongs to our [European] culture.”(3)

Many find it easier to deal with a “simpler solution” – such as government regulations, than with setting up a world-wide trading scheme which needs more organizational preparation (and innovative thinking).The feeling in Europe is that the U.S. first has to do more to cut its emissions of greenhouse gases, since the U.S. is the biggest CO2 emitter in the world in absolute terms. The U.S. is still perceived as an economy which wastes energy in production and especially in its consumption patterns.

During the latest negotiations in Bonn, the EU-countries stuck to their proposal of a 15 percent reduction of greenhouse gases from the 1990 level by the year 2010, they also insist that industrial countries reduce their emissions immediately and under regulatory conditions.

Canada

Canada used to be one of the leading advocates for a treaty on the reduction of greenhouse gases. During the Rio summit in 1992, Canada was one of the mediators that brought the different positions together in a voluntary agreement; but now Canada’s position is not so forthright. The Canadian government is expected to propose an extension of the deadline from the year 2000 to the year 2012 to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to their 1990 levels, to the year 2012, but it will probably ask for a sharper reduction after the year 2012. The reluctance of the Canadian government to commit itself to sharp emissions reductions was heavily criticized by environmental groups as inadequate, while industries and opponents of an agreement think that drastic action could seriously damage the slowly recovering economy. The government has also not yet announced how it expects to achieve the emission targets; it is estimated that Canada’s emissions of CO2 have increased around 11 per cent between 1990 and 1996.(4)

Australia

Other countries argue that the model for differentiated targets should also apply to other countries, not just EU members. For example, Australia argues that there should be individual levels for every country considering its specific situation. The level should be determined by numbers like the projected population growth, GDP per capita, emission intensity of GDP, energy intensity of exports, etc.

Australia is resisting a big reduction in the emissions level, which would have a devastating effect on a country that is a big coal exporter and also relies on coal for domestic energy use. Australia supports the idea of a tradable permit system with some reservations, especially about the initial distribution of permits and the huge transfers of wealth.

Japan

Special focus is directed at Japan. As the host nation it is under pressure to do more than others to insure that there will be some agreement in Kyoto. The Japanese government announced its position a few weeks ago, proposing a 5 percent reduction of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide emissions below the 1990 emissions level in industrial countries on average in the years 2008-2012. The proposal also allows exemptions and different measurements including GDP, projected development of population number and emissions per capita, which could mean an actual reduction of only 2.5 percent for the US and Japan.

Japan was criticized by the EU and environmentalists for its position, but the government defends its proposal saying the EU’s goal is unrealistic and the government’s proposals would already mean Japan would need 20 new nuclear power plants added to the already existing 52, (increasingly in the news in recent month for scandals involving the non-disclosure of accidents to the public). Internally Japan is divided between the position of the powerful Ministry of Trade and Industry (MITI) which is lobbying for lower emissions cut backs, while the Environmental Agency supports higher reductions of emissions.

Japan depends heavily on oil imports, and to increase the share of other energy sources is extremely difficult, especially for nuclear power after the recent scandals involving serious accidents. And Japan has already achieved a high degree of energy efficiency; therefore, the amount of energy that could be saved through new measures is limited. Japan like most of the other industrial countries, will not be able to stabilize its emissions to its 1990 level until the year 2000; its emissions of CO2 will probably have increased by about 6 percent from the 1990 level by the year 2000.(5)

Developing Countries

Developing countries are a diverse group of countries, from countries like China and India, which might soon became the biggest CO2 emitters, to small African countries with little industrial basis. They therefore hold different opinions on the issue, but they all seem to reject the notion that developed countries dictate them to cut emissions. They rightly argue that most of the emissions in the past came from industrial countries during their industrial development, and developing countries just want to have the same right for economic development for their people. They also insist that the emissions per capita is only a fraction of the emissions by industrial countries.

On the other hand, some industrial countries, in particular the U.S., want developing countries to be included in any agreement they reach, because these countries will increase their emissions drastically in the next decades. Also, industrial countries fear that stricter environmental regulations and increasing costs at home will drive more industries to relocate production to developing countries. This is already happening, but additional costs for CO2 emissions could accelerate this process.

The developing countries strongly oppose the pressure from the industrial countries to accept any restrictions. They fear for their potential for future development, and the words “Ecological Imperialism” are often heard. To expect that countries such as China would be participating in an international permit trading system in the near future seems unrealistic. These countries might be willing to accept foreign investment for cleaner technology for their utility plants and other industry but they probably will not accept any cap on their energy use.

Participation in an international emissions trading system would pose more technical and organizational problems for developing countries than it would for developed countries, such as lack of modern communication, technology to monitor companies, the setting up of markets, and many more.

Another danger may be that if energy prices in these countries would rise, more and more people would be driven away from market products, for example, people who can no longer afford kerosene for cooking will turn to non-market sources such as collecting fire wood. This sometimes leads to even more damage to already fragile ecosystems.

In the latest negotiations the developing countries, represented by the G-77, suggested a reduction of emissions from the industrial countries to 35 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2020; in addition, the developing countries would receive financial compensation from industrial countries if exports from developing countries would be hurt by the climate change policy of the industrial world. In case the industrial countries would not meet the targets they would have to pay penalties to the less-developed countries. In contrast, the developing countries would be under no obligation to reduce their emissions.

Alliance of Small Island States

This association of smaller island states pushes for drastic reductions in CO2 emissions of 20 percent from the 1990 level by the year 2005. The governments of these islands fear that they would be particular hard hit in case global warming would occur, since their low luying countries would be especially vulnerable to possible rising sea-levels.

OPEC

The OPEC countries are not particularly keen on an agreement that would reduce the demand for their main export product -oil- if industrial countries use less oil for their production and consumption prices and thereby revenues for OPEC countries would fall. They therefore demand that in case an agreement is reached on the reduction of CO2 emissions, their countries should be financially compensated for the possible loss in revenues; otherwise they would not sign any agreement. The idea that countries like the U.S. or Western Europe would compensate countries like Saudi Arabia or Kuwait for their loss is politically unthinkable.

Outlook on the Negotiations

The success of the UN Conference on Climate Change in Kyoto will depend on the ability to find an agreement on an emission target for CO2 and for the other so-called greenhouse gases, since most of the countries now accept legally binding emissions caps.

There are still big gaps between some of the proposals especially between the EU proposal of 15% reduction by 2010 and the US proposal of reaching the 1990 level between 2008 and 2012. In the last preparation meeting in Bonn (Germany) before the conference, the delegates tried to find as much common ground as possible before going into the Kyoto conference, but it turned out that most of the difficult issues are still unresolved. The EU and the U.S. are still far apart in their positions and it is not clear if one of them will show any willingness to give on its position. The question of participation of developing countries is also still unresolved, since most of the industrial countries seem willing to exempt developing countries from the emissions reduction process -at least for a while. On the other side, the U.S. delegation wants some reassurance that developing countries will join the agreement at some point in the future. The U.S. delegation would probably like to see some sort of timetable that it could then present to the Senate, which sees the participation of developing countries as a precondition for approval of a treaty.

The developing countries do not seem willing to participate in the reduction process as long as their standards of living are much lower than in the industrial countries. Some countries which were exempt at the Rio summit, but are not developing countries, such as Argentina, seem prepared to join a treaty in some form. Less-developed countries might be persuaded to reduce future emissions if industrial countries would compensate them for the economic loss they would endure. The question is, are industrial countries prepared to commit themselves to transfer large sums of money when that aid budgets are already cut back, and if they already fear economic losses due to the reduction of their own emissions?

Developing countries might be given long time-lags before they have to join in, and perhaps the most dangerous development could be that especially smaller developing countries as well as small developed countries could be pressured into an agreement. There is the potential that the threat of trade sanctions would become a “means of persuasion” for countries to join such an agreement, perhaps supported by boycotts organized by influential environmental groups from big industrial countries. For example, Paul H. Nitze, former American chief negotiator at the Geneva arms negotiations and now a member of the Environmental Defense Fund, suggested in a recent newspaper article that in case of a tradable budget system, participating countries could be deterred from violating the agreement through inspections by an international agency (just as it is done by the International Atomic Energy Agency) and possible sanctions or embargoes could be imposed on these countries by the UN security council, such as is done under nuclear weapons treaties. This might be technically possible, but CO2 emissions are not weapons and to punish a country for producing too much CO2 (because companies want to provide products for their customers) as if it had produced atomic weapons seems unwise.

Such actions would be a threat to free trade with enormous damage to the world economy, and once started, the erosion of world trade could increase very quickly.

1. Many economists like the idea of a permits trading system because of its cost-saving advantage, especially in comparison to a command-and-control policy.

2. Department of Energy (1997), “Scenarios of U.S. Carbon Reductions -Potential Impacts of Energy Technologies by 2010,” released September 25, 1997.

3. Cited by The Economist, June 14, 1997, p. 89.

4. Scott Morrison, (1997), “Canada buckles on greenhouse targets,” in Financial Times November 5, 1997, p.4.

5. Source: International Energy Agency cited by The Economist, June 28th 1997, p. 41.

“Slouching Towards Kyoto” from Down Under; Australia Courts Japan, Attacks Germany; Scientists Feel Political Pressure

by William Yeatman on September 2, 1997

in Kyoto Negotiations, Politics

“Slouching Towards Kyoto” from Down Under

The two most influential lawmakers in Congress on climate change issues traveled half way around the world to the capital of Australia to assail the climate treaty being readied for Kyoto.

“Let me make it very clear,” stated Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE), “I believe we are headed down the wrong path in the negotiations for any global climate treaty to be signed in Kyoto, Japan, this December.” Hagel is chairman of the Foreign Relations subcommittee on International Economic Policy, which has jurisdiction over international environmental treaties that come to the chamber for ratification. “In its current form, the global climate treaty would face a resounding defeat in the United States Senate” he told his audience, a conference entitled “Countdown to Kyoto,” sponsored by the Australian APEC Study Center and the Arlington, Virginia-based Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI), ranking member of the House Commerce Committee, assured the conference that Republicans are not alone in their misgivings: “We may be slouching towards Kyoto with only the barest appreciation of what we are doing and how it will affect us.”

The Canberra conference was attended by prominent Australian officials, who are watching closely both the White House negotiating stance and the Senates reaction to it. Australia, a major coal exporter, also depends on fossil fuels for 94 percent of its energy supplies. The Australian government has already expressed staunch opposition to the European Unions proposal for binding emissions targets. In his address to the conference, Deputy Prime Minister Tim Fischer stated that “we are going to need some growth in our emissions above 1990 levels.”

Greenpeace led a protest against the conference in which 20 demonstrators were arrested. The activists are hoping to salvage a treaty which, in Sen. Hagels judgment, “has the potential of bringing under direct international control virtually every aspect of a nations economy.”

Australia Courts Japan, Attacks Germany; Germany and Japan Get Together

Australias federal government has asked Japan to join them in opposing binding greenhouse gas emission limits. Australia is supporting a policy of differentiation where each country would agree to voluntary limits based on its marginal cost of abatement. Australias Primary Industries Minister, John Anderson, argues that “Our economic analysis shows that it is in both Australia and Japans interests to stand firm against global pressure and oppose binding greenhouse gas emission reduction targets in Kyoto.”

Anderson argues that Australia is well positioned to meet Japans future massive increases in energy demand: “Over the next decade, Australia should emerge as easily the biggest supplier of primary energy to Japan. . . . We must be able to convince Japan that we can, and will, remain a reliable, competitive and secure supplier” (AAP Newsfeed, August 27, 1997).

Meanwhile, Australias Foreign Minister Alexander Downer accused Germany of pushing an international campaign to isolate Australia: “Its unfair for people from Germany to ask Australia to sacrifice more jobs and more living standards than they themselves are prepared to sacrifice,” Downer said. “The European Union is asking us to make a grossly unfair contribution. . .we completely reject that.”

Downer argues that setting binding greenhouse gas limits on industrial countries will cause energy intensive industries to move to the developing world. “What people in Germany dont seem to have grasped is that if you close down energy industries in environmentally sensitive Australia they will move abroad to countries less sensitive” (Deutsche Presse-Agentur, August 29, 1997).

Germany and Japan, however, have signed an agreement on environmental cooperation. The two countries agreed to exchange personnel and information and hold seminars to discuss greenhouse gas abatement strategies, prevention of ozone destruction and conserving endangered species. They will also set up a joint committee which will meet once a year (AP Worldstream, August 26, 1997).

Scientists Feel Political Pressure

An article in the Financial Times (London, August 28, 1997) begins, “Leading scientists are expected to respond today to pressure from politicians to clarify the threat of climate change to specific parts of the world.” Roger Newsom, head of climate modelling for the World Climate Research Program (WCRP), stated, “Theres a lot of pressure,” on the scientists to “clarify and specify what action must be taken so we can . . . give better answers on mans effect on climate.”

The U.S. Senate has opposed a treaty that would cause economic harm to the U.S. especially when the scientific evidence for climate change is so sparse. Michael Grubb, a member of the IPCC, urged politicians to “grow up and understand that we are dealing with uncertainty. . . Nobody in their right mind thinks uncertainty means do nothing.”

In a statement at the end of the meeting the WCRP called for more political support to further its future work on global warming. G.O. Obasi, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said, “I believe the time has come for all nations to heed the advice of the scientific community and to allocate more resources to global monitoring, research, and the important activities being provided by the national meteorological and hydrological services. It is a small investment to make to ensure the future safety and well-being of our planet” (BNA Daily Environment Report, September 2, 1997). Is it any surprise that when politicians ask scientists what must be done about global warming, their answer is give us more money?

Senators to Track Developments in Kyoto

Senator Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has appointed twelve senators to monitor the upcoming talks in Kyoto, Japan in December. Named to the Global Climate Change Observer Group are Sens. Spence Abraham (R-Mich), Max Baucus (D-Mont), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Robert Byrd (D-WVa), John Chafee (R-RI), Larry Craig (R-Idaho), Chuck Hagel (R-NE), John Kerry (D-Mass), Carl Levin (D-Mich), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn), Frank Murkowski (R-Alaska), and Pat Roberts (R-Kan). The senators will report periodically to Sen. Lott on the negotiations (BNA Daily Environment Report, August 29, 1997).

Next Entries →