GlobalWarming.org

EU Will Fall Short of Kyoto Target

A new study released by Ecofys and the Fraunhofer Institute says that the European Union will not meet its greenhouse reduction target under the Kyoto protocol that requires an 8 percent reduction below 1990 levels by 2010. Indeed, the EUs emission levels will likely be in the range of 7 to 8 percent above 1990 levels at the target date.

An analysis of the greenhouse gas reduction plans of six EU countries found that only one, Britain, would likely reach its target. “Germany might also achieve its target, but France, Spain, Sweden and the Netherlands have no chance of getting their CO2 emissions down to the required levels unless they adopt new policies in the near future,” reported Reuters (October 18, 2000).

Seven major international corporations have joined with Environmental Defense to create the Partnership for Climate Action. The companies, Royal Dutch/Shell, BP, DuPont, Suncor Energy, Ontario Power Generation, and aluminum makers Alcan and Pechiney, have set a target for greenhouse gas reductions that would reduce emissions by 90 million metric tons of carbon equivalent per year.

“The goal,” according to Environmental Defense executive director Fred Krupp, “is to share learning and highlight the value of solid, market-oriented rules, which will encourage even more companies to step forward and reduce pollution” (Reuters, October 18, 2000).

(The Hague, Netherlands) November 21, 2000 – In the midst of international negotiations on how to significantly reduce emissions from energy use, “dissident” scientists are vocally objecting to the underlying premise that individual and industrial human activities influence Nature’s dynamic processes, and the absence of a critical debate. This Sixth Conference of the Parties to the United Nations’ treaty on the theory of “global warming,” called the “Kyoto Protocol” after the city where the broad parameters were established in 1997, are now well along in their second and final week. Debate, however, has been exclusively focused on how to implement mandated emission reductions. Whether there is a scientific basis upon which to mandate such reductions is deemed unworthy of discussion. The reports constituting the official science, that is purportedly “settled,” is called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, which is actually a series of reports on several related subjects.

Many prominent scientists attending this conference are rejecting that science is not a topic in discussions of what certainly appears to be an inherently scientific subject. That approach came under siege during two briefings here by researchers from the United States and several European countries, three of them “expert peer reviewers” of the IPCC product. They criticized not the science purportedly supporting the summaries of IPCC documents, in particular the Summary for Policymakers, but the differences between the underlying science and the summary of that science.

Led by Dr. Fred Singer, of the University of Virginia and the Science and Environment Policy Project, these scientists came from France, Germany, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom to air their grievances. They addressed the measured temperatures, and the flaws in temperature projections that are based on computer climate models. The focus of their indignation, however, was the content of the recently leaked and anonymously authored summaries for the latest round of IPCC studies. These researchers drew attention to the fact that the science has specific, identified authors and peer reviewers. The summaries are anonymously authored, and were not subjected to any critique prior.

Dr. Richard Courtney, also an IPCC “expert reviewer” who is with the European Science and Environment Forum (UK), passionately argued a lack of measured “global” warming. He demonstrated that nearly all measured increases in temperatures have occurred in regions, for example Siberia, where data are sparse and not continuous, and are therefore doubtful. Dr. Singer speculated that the urban heat island effect (large cities holding on to heat) is likely responsible for the differential in the less rural measurements.

Singer admitted this was speculation, as a “best effort” to reconcile the difference between surface measurements, showing regional warming, and satellite and weather balloon measurements, which affirm each other and do not show any warming. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences affirmed the satellite and balloon tools just this year. All participants agreed upon the impact of the effect of developed areas holding radiated heat, and speculated that the remote stations may merely be less well-maintained than the regularly checked stations in the U.S. and Western Europe.

Also, those IPCC summaries all operate on what Dr. Courtney calls an at-best strange presumption, that being that there is a difference between “climate variability” and “climate change.” Variability, according to the summaries, is natural, while “change” is man-made. These summaries consider all fluctuations occurring before the industrial revolution to be variability; all that occurring after is “climate change.” “Whatever that is, it is not science,” said Dr. Courtney.

Courtney, an avowed socialist, stressed that the scientists were of varied political philosophies and thus were not joined or motivated by politics. Indeed, he asserted the opposite, saying “chickens do come home to roost; given time, these scientific flaws will come out but, it seems, that only after an agreement which harms the poor is underway.” He stated that, at that time, “[journalists] won’t blame the politicians who rammed this through, but the scientists. And that’s me. And I object.”

Earlier, other IPCC reviewers briefed interested parties earlier in the process, also expressing concern over the inconsistencies between the underlying work and the summary proclamations. While being careful to avoid citing any specific document not available to participating parties for such purposes, they cited how the Summary for Policymakers provides headline conclusions with underlying paragraphs that support the headlines. Some underlying statements, they explained, do include judgments of uncertainty or likelihood, which helps convey the confidence that should be assigned to the conclusions.

However, they continued, there are many instances where facts and analyses that do not support the conclusions are not mentioned. Because of this, these reviewing scientists claim, the conclusions appear more conservative than they are. They offered specific, detailed comments providing suggestions, that they had already submitted to the U.S. negotiators, whereby “balance could be added by including both statements that do and do not support the overall conclusions.”

Participating scientists in today’s briefing, sponsored by the “Cooler Heads Coalition” of public policy organizations focused on fostering debate over the science and economics surrounding Kyoto, also included a geophysicist and an expert on severe weather events. They addressed a packed room liberally peppered with well-pierced youths who initially expressed displeasure with this dissenting opinion. The audience, however, generally settled down and in fact stayed in large numbers for extended sidebar discussions with the scientists, afterward in the hallways.

(The Hague, Netherlands–November 17) – Just one month after the European Parliament effectively condemned the United States Senate for not doing something it in fact lacks the legal authority to do, European Union negotiators at COP-6 very publicly slammed a door in the face of US officials. This fifth day of negotiating sessions, aimed at tying up the Kyoto Protocol’s numerous loose ends, has been rocked by the previous evening’s forceful and open display of EU negotiators rejecting US-proposed concessions. During this critical session, in which countries seek to develop acceptable terms for meeting their requirements to reduce emissions from energy consumption, the Americans proposed a scaled-back version of their position on what are known as “sinks.” Sinks are projects absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2), the dominant gas thought by many scientists to lead to an increase in the planet’s temperature, and therefore potential disruption of the climate. Projects can include planting trees or other land use decisions leading to increased carbon intake or storage. A pending, contentious issue is how much of a country’s targeted emission reductions can be obtained through sinks. The US has committed to reduce 600 million metric tons of CO2 annually.

The US had offered to discount their sink credit by 80%, thus accepting credit for only 20% of the estimated 288 million tons of carbon US forests and other efforts would absorb annually. Despite the dramatic nature of the offer on a matter considered a major obstacle to any progress being made here, and rumors of such movement leading the parties toward agreement, a document circulating late Thursday strongly dismissed the US proposal.

While the authors of the document remained in question due to language that was eerily similar to that circulating earlier in an nvironmentalist group publication, European officials subsequently made public statements affirming their rejection. For example, in an interview with the Earth Times, a publication serving as a sort of in-house organ for the proceedings, the president of the climate section of the European Commission, Jos Delbke, decried a lack of specifics in the US proposal and stated, “[I]t is minimal compared to what we thought it would be.”

These events come on the heels of the October resolution by the European Parliament calling on the US Congress “to drop their resistance to the principles agreed in Kyoto and to do justice to their responsibility to combat the green house effect.” This strong language passed despite the fact that President Clinton has yet to submit the treaty to the Senate, and therefore the Senate cannot legally either ratify or refuse to ratify it. The Senate to date has clearly not spoken favorably of the treaty, but it cannot fairly be blamed for inaction. Further, the fact that no EU countries to date have ratified the agreement struck some Americans as adding an element of hypocrisy to the resolution.

Final working group agreements faced a deadline of midnight, Friday, so as to have materials ready to present to high level diplomats who begin arriving Sunday for the more formal second week of the session. That deadline has slipped twenty fours hours, due to the acrimony. This negotiating development has also fanned the flames of rumors that President Clinton will appear in The Hague on his way back to Washington from Vietnam, in an effort to break the stalemate and add a successful negotiation to his stable of “legacy” items. Vice President Gore made such a “surprise” appearance at the December 1997 Kyoto negotiating session that bore the treaty language, and thus the name “Kyoto Protocol.”

Though how unplanned Vice President Gore’s visit really was has been hotly debated since, his trip to Kyoto to insist that US negotiators show “increased flexibility” led to a precedent, significant lessening of US demands and ultimate agreement on a framework. Observers presume Mr. Clinton would have similar goals in mind should he visit. Such a move, however, would likely doom the treaty in the Senate where just the broad principles of the Kyoto accord have faced strong criticism for what Senators see as a disproportionate burden borne by the U.S.

The sixth Conference of the Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change got off to a shaky start this week. This is supposed to be the concluding conference to finalize the Kyoto Protocol, but there appears to be little movement on the major issues that have plagued the negotiations from the beginning.

According to a Reuters story (November 14, 2000), the disagreement between the European Union and the United States over the use of emissions trading is as sharp as ever. “So far, I haven’t seen anyone move their position by one centimeter,” said Raul Estrada, Argentina’s special representative for the environment. The EU believes that the developed countries should reduce emissions through “tough domestic policies.”

Indeed, the EU probably won’t budge from its negotiating stance. Its 15 nations agreed to form a “united front in demanding tough rules for compliance,” that would “ensure countries made most of their emissions cuts through domestic action rather than through emissions credits or other ‘flexible mechanisms,'” according to a November 8 Reuters story. The EU also agreed to demand firm sanctions against countries which miss their targets and strict limits on the use of so-called ‘carbon sinks’ – uses of forests, which absorb carbon to account for some of a country’s target.

The U.S. and its allies, Canada, Japan, Australia, and New Zealand, want full emissions trading that would allow them to purchase credits from developing countries and Russia as part of their compliance strategy. Adding to the standoff is a deal struck between the U.S. and fourteen Latin American countries “to push for full-scale trading in greenhouse gas emissions as a solution to global warming.” The emission credits would be created through U.S. funding of rainforest preservation in Latin America (Financial Times, November 6, 2000).

The “G-77 plus China” Group are also trying to present a united front in the negotiations. But their coalition is fracturing due to several disagreements. In general, the group wants the industrialized nations to commit to tough emissions reduction targets. But small island states worried about rising sea levels, for instance, have little in common with oil producing countries in the Middle East.

Saudi Arabia claims that it would lose $25 billion per year as a result of Kyoto and wants to be compensated. “There will be no outcome if our concerns are not adequately addressed,” warned Mohammed al-Sabban, head of the Saudi delegation.

(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.