Revue de presse SB16 : Liste des articles

 LE MONDE | 06.06.02 L’entrée en vigueur du protocole de Kyoto dépend désormais de l’attitude de la Russie
 Governments mark time on global climate Environment Daily 1237, 17/06/02

Liste des magazines ECO publiés durant SB16 :
 ECO n°1, langue : anglais RTF ou PDF
 ECO n°2, langue : anglais RTF ou PDF
 ECO SPECIAL EDITION on the CDM Executive Board, langue : anglais, RTF ou PDF
 ECO SPECIAL EDITION on the Third Assessment Report (TAR), langue : anglais, RTF ou PDF
 ECO n°3, langue : anglais, RTF ou PDF. Liste des compte-rendus de négociations, Earth Negociation Bulletin (ENB, Bulletin des Négociations de la Planète)
 ENB n°1, langue : anglais, PDF
 ENB n°2, langue : anglais, PDF
 ENB n°3, langue : anglais, PDF
 ENB n°4, langue : anglais, PDF
 ENB n°5, langue : anglais, PDF
 ENB n°6, langue : anglais, PDF
 ENB n°7, langue : anglais, PDF
 ENB n°8, langue : anglais, PDF
 ENB n°9, langue : anglais, PDF
 ENB final, n°10, lanhue : anglais, PDF

 LE MONDE | 06.06.02 L’entrée en vigueur du protocole de Kyoto dépend désormais de l’attitude de la Russie

La russie est devenue l’acteur central du protocole de Kyoto : de son engagement dépendra que ce traité signé en décembre 1997 et destiné à ralentir le changement climatique entre en vigueur ou non. Ce faisant, la Russie devra manifester, sur un dossier qui oppose nettement l’Europe et le Japon aux Etats-Unis de M. Bush, quel allié elle entend privilégier. Cette position centrale sur l’échiquier climatique découle des positions de l’Union européenne et du Japon qui, coup sur coup, les 31 mai et 4 juin, ont solennellement ratifié le protocole de Kyoto. Les 30 et 31 mai, la Norvège et la Slovaquie avaient, eux aussi, ratifié le texte. En revanche, le premier ministre australien, John Howard, a déclaré le 5 juin que son pays continuait à s’opposer au protocole.

Celui-ci engage les pays industrialisés à réduire en moyenne de 5 % leurs émissions de gaz carbonique en 2010 par rapport à 1990. Ces trente pays sont listés dans "l’annexe I" de la Convention sur le changement climatique, signée par plus de cent pays en 1992, et dont le protocole de Kyoto est un texte d’application contraignant. Pour entrer en vigueur, il doit avoir été ratifié par plus de 55 des Etats qui l’ont signé, représentant plus de 55 % des émissions de gaz carbonique des pays de l’annexe I. La ratification par le Japon et l’Union européenne permet de dépasser largement le nombre de pays ratificateurs : on en est maintenant à 72. Et parmi ces Etats, les vingt qui appartiennent à l’annexe I représentent 36 % des émissions. Pour que le protocole entre en vigueur, il ne manque donc plus que la ratification par la Russie (17,4 %) et par le Canada (3,3 %) ou par la Pologne (3 %).

La Pologne, futur membre de l’Union européenne, ratifiera probablement le texte ; l’application de celui-ci dépend donc maintenant de la Russie. Le 10 avril, le premier ministre russe, Mikhaïl Kassianov, a indiqué que son gouvernement lançait le processus de ratification. "Nous devons comprendre comment régler cette question de façon pragmatique et étudier la façon d’attirer des investissements, qui doivent résoudre les questions écologiques et faire baisser la consommation d’énergie", a-t-il dit au conseil des ministres, selon l’agence Tass.

M. BUSH ISOLÉ

La déclaration finale de la rencontre russo-européenne, entre MM. Poutine, Prodi et Aznar, le 29 mai, confirme que les partenaires "feront l’effort d’assurer que le protocole de Kyoto devienne un outil réel", annonçant par ailleurs la tenue d’une "conférence mondiale sur le changement climatique"en Russie en 2003. La Russie a par ailleurs tout à gagner du marché des droits d’émission prévu par le protocole : elle dispose, en effet, de "crédits de gaz carbonique" importants, ses émissions ayant diminué depuis 1990 du fait de la crise économique qu’elle a traversée.

Tout semble donc aller dans le sens de la ratification, alors même que la Russie entretient une coopération énergétique de plus en plus étroite avec l’Europe (Le Monde du 26 février) et avec le Japon. Cependant, Moscou discute aussi d’énergie avec les Etats-Unis, qui s’opposent nettement au protocole, et elle peut chercher à obtenir de nouveaux avantages de la part des Européens en échange de sa ratification. Si celle-ci devait intervenir, elle serait donc le fruit d’une décision politique majeure de M. Poutine.

Les gestes du Japon et de l’Union européenne affaiblissent quoi qu’il en soit la position de M. Bush. Et d’autant plus que sa propre administration a explicitement reconnu que le changement climatique résultait de l’action humaine, tout en décrivant les effets néfastes qu’il aurait sur les Etats-Unis eux-mêmes : aggravation des vagues de chaleur, perturbation des ressources en eau, disparition des zones humides dans les Rocheuses, etc. Cette analyse émane de l’Agence de protection de l’environnement (EPA) qui l’a publiée fin mai dans le Plan d’action sur le climat pour 2002 qu’elle a remis récemment au secrétariat de la Convention (voir www.epa.gov/globalwarming/publicati...).

Le président Bush a dû réagir : "J’ai lu ce rapport de notre bureaucratie et je reste opposé au traité de Kyoto", a-t-il déclaré le 4 juin. Il n’en reste pas moins qu’il semble de plus en plus isolé dans le débat climatique sur la scène internationale comme sur le terrain domestique, où les démocrates critiquent sa position. Par une étrange évolution des choses, il dépend maintenant sur ce dossier de son "ami" Vladimir Poutine.

Hervé Kempf • ARTICLE PARU DANS L’EDITION DU 07.06.02

AFP, 10 juin : 67% des Canadiens pour la ratification du protocole de Kyoto

TORONTO, 10 juin (AFP) - Soixante-sept pour cent des Canadiens soutiennent la ratification du protocole de Kyoto sur le réchauffement climatique, contre 19% qui s’y opposent, selon un sondage Ekos publié lundi.

Ottawa s’est engagé à ratifier l’accord mais, pour des raisons de politique intérieure, espère auparavant obtenir le soutien de toutes les provinces, même si légalement celui-ci n’est pas indispensable.

L’une d’elles, la riche Alberta, est résolument hostile à Kyoto, arguant que son industrie pétrolière serait pénalisée par l’imposition de mesures pour réduire la pollution par rapport à ses concurrentes américaines, du fait de l’abandon du protocole par Washington.

Or, même en Alberta, 54% de la population est favorable à la ratification du protocole, selon ce sondage réalisé pour la chaîne publique CBC et des quotidiens, dont le Toronto Star.

De plus, 61% des Canadiens estiment que la ratification par Ottawa n’aurait qu’un "impact modeste" sur l’économie du pays, contre 21% qui croient que celui-ci serait au contraire désastreux, comme le soutient le gouvernement de l’Alberta.

56% conviennent qu’il est temps que le Canada cesse de débattre des conséquences économiques d’une éventuelle ratification, contre 19% qui ne sont pas d’accord.

De plus, 46% des Canadiens soutiendraient la ratification même si celle-ci impliquait l’imposition d’une taxe sur les émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Dans un tel cas, l’opposition à la ratification monterait à 40%, selon ce sondage réalisé auprès de 1.217 personnes entre le 27 et le 29 mai.

En vertu du protocole, le Canada devrait réduire de 6% ses rejets de six gaz à effet de serre entre 2008 et 2012 par rapport à leur niveau de 1990.

Le chemin s’annonce long pour le Canada, puisque les émissions canadiennes ont officiellement augmenté de 19,6% en 2000 par rapport à 1990.

---

 Governments mark time on global climate Environment Daily 1237, 17/06/02

---

Two weeks of low-key international discussions on climate change ended in Bonn, Germany, on Friday, marking the last formal preparations for the next conference of parties to the UN climate change convention, to be held in New Delhi in October.

The political highlight of an otherwise humdrum session came in discussions on the intergovernmental panel on climate change’s third assessment report

Several parties, including the EU, Switzerland, Slovenia and Norway, said the report justified further actions against climate change, including launching talks on stronger emission reductions to be taken by more countries after 2012. Opponents such as Saudi Arabia blocked the move. The protocol itself does not require negotiations on a second "commitment period" to begin until 2005.

Canada formally called for discussions on its proposal to modify last November’s Marrakech accord on the Kyoto protocol to give extra credits for "clean energy" exports. Most other countries hotly oppose the idea, arguing that it would reopen deals closed in Marrakech with damaging political consequences.

Delegates discussed the role of carbon sinks and tried, but failed, to agree a definition of forests. They also debated linkages between the Kyoto protocol’s controls on the CFC substitute chemicals HFCs, and the Montreal protocol on ozone layer protection, under which HFC usage is regularly promoted

 ECO Volume CVIII Issue 02 NGO Newsletter

SB-16, Bonn, Germany June 2002

Montreal Issue

Résumé en francais : 3 sujets principaux :
 lien existant entre les GES (Gaz a effet de serre) et les gaz detruisant la couche d’ozone (particulierement le HFC), et les efforts surhumains de l’industrie d’ exclure l’expertise du GIEC (IPCC en anglais)de ce travail (puisque ce groupe de scientifiques n’est pas majoritairement influence par ces memes industriels ! )
 les politiques et mesures, et la necessite d’obliger les Etats industrialises a faire une evaluation desdites politiques et de rendre des comptes au niveau international (via un rapport appele "progres demontrables")
 la position du premier ministres australien qui clairement (enfin !) refuse toute ratification du Protocole.

Table of Contents

---

1. Hell For the Climate and Headed For Catastrophe : Both Spell HFCs 2. Time to demonstrate progress 3. Will the real Australian position on Kyoto please stand up ! 4. Ludwig 5. Thanks

— - 1. Hell For the Climate and Headed For Catastrophe : Both Spell HFCs

A sense of history never hurts. In 1975 the Chair of the Board of Du Pont was quoted in the trade magazine Chemical Weekly saying that the ozone depletion theory is „a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense.‰

In 1987 Du Pont testified before the US Congress that "we believe there is no immediate crisis.... At the moment, scientific evidence does not point to the need for dramatic CFC emission reductions."

In 1988, after the signing of the Montreal Protocol, Du Pont Chair Richard E. Heckert repeated the same message, word for word, to U. S. Senators. At the time the world was consuming over 1 million tonnes of CFCs, and Du Pont and the United States had the lion’s share of the global market.

The strategy of the chemical industry in responding to the ozone crisis can be summarised by the four Ds : DENY that there is a problem and that you and your products have any responsibility ; DELAY effective national and international regulatory action that might negatively impact upon your bottom line ; DOMINATE the public debate, the science, the technical committees that advise governments, and most importantly, the market ; and whenever possible, DUMP your obsolete technologies in the vulnerable markets of developing countries.

The chemical industry’s response to the ozone crisis has always been guided by the goal of maintaining the global monopoly the industry has enjoyed with CFCs over nearly fifty years. This fact did not escape Dr. Mostafa Tolba, former head of UNEP, who in 1990 observed : "the chemical industry supported the Montreal Protocol in 1987 because it set up a world-wide schedule for phasing out CFCs, which (were) no longer protected by patents. This provided companies with an equal opportunity to market new, more profitable compounds."

Among those compounds were HFCs. The fact that HFCs are potent global warming gases, have toxicological impacts on the ecosystem, and may be injurious to human health should not be a major obstacle to maintaining the world’s chemical dependence. The Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy, the chemical industry’s flagship lobby group set up by Du Pont in 1980, and its European franchise, the European Partnership for Energy & The Environment, is by now well versed in the art of the 4 D Strategy. This art is presently being practised upon the Kyoto Protocol.

The chemical industry routinely downplays the rate of future HFC levels. Industry is vigorously lobbying to reduce and eliminate the input of the IPCC into the deliberations of the Parties on HFCs, so as to exert control over the technical information reaching the Parties through the fluorocarbon industry dominated Technical and Economic Assessment Panel of the Montreal Protocol (TEAP). Industry is spreading misinformation about the lack of alternative technologies to HFCs. Industry is dominating the International Standards Committees so as to ensure that some viable alternatives to HFCs , such as hydrocarbons, are restricted in their use.

And industry, with the active "partnership" of UNEP and the US EPA, is propagating the myth that the large scale production and use of HFCs poses no danger to the planet as long as "Responsible Use Principles" are followed. That the US EPA is promoting the use of HFCs is not news. But the ill- conceived participation of UNEP in this scheme is further indication of the inordinate, and counter- productive influence that the chemical industry is able to exert upon how the world is responding to the dual atmospheric crises of ozone layer depletion and global warming.

We have one atmosphere, but two Conventions to protect it, and the chemical industry is aptly playing the same game in both.

— -

2. Time to demonstrate progress

There was a time when action against climate change meant policies and measures (PAMs for the in-crowd) - each country taking steps to make emission reductions at home. But, here at SB16 the debate on PAMs has gone deadly quiet. Are delegates (read : US, Canada and Australia) adding the final nail to the PAMs coffin ?

Article 2 of the Protocol requires countries to exchange information and share experiences on PAMs. It also encourages them to cooperate with each other in designing and implementing these PAMs. It is clear, however, that all these good intentions are meaningless without an equal focus on analysing the effectiveness of PAMs in enabling Parties to meet their Kyoto targets. After all, what’s the point of a policy if it doesn’t achieve its goals ?

Article 3.2 of the Protocol requires that "each [Annex 1] party shall, by 2005, have made demonstrable progress in achieving its commitments". Demonstrable progress is designed as an "early warning system" for those parties not acting quickly and effectively enough to meet their emissions reduction commitments. At COP7 parties agreed that they would submit a report in 2006 containing descriptions of their policies and measures and an assessment of how these would contribute to meeting their emission reduction targets. The SBI is to review countries’s progress on the basis of information from these reports.

Delegates at SB16 must decide on how the information on demonstrable progress will be "presented and evaluated". While the first item is (barely) covered in the current negotiation text, there is a notable absence of a procedure for evaluating the progress reports. Without a review of demonstrable progress, the process becomes an empty reporting gesture and will add little more than the National Communications, which will be submitted around the same time. More importantly, however, we will lose a valuable opportunity for transparency and assessing the effectiveness of countries’ efforts to implement the terms of the Protocol.

— -

3. Will the real Australian position on Kyoto please stand up !

Last week, Australian Prime Minister used World Environment Day to tell the Parliament that his Government will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. His sense of timing was only surpassed by the irony in this statement that "signing would facilitate exportation of dirty industries from Australia to developing countries", something that is not in the national interest. On World Environment Day, it was good to get clarity that having dirty, polluting industries is in the national interest. And we bet the aluminum and other heavy industries were delighted to hear themselves described as dirty !

Environment Minister David Kemp, in Bali for the Ministerial, had been busy running around telling anyone who will listen that Australia has not yet made up its mind on ratification. Reports have it that the colour rapidly drained from Kemp’s face when questioned by the press who had clearly heard about the Prime Minister’s statement before the Minister did. Kemp’s line is also familiar to those here in Bonn as it has been the line of Australian delegates in side events and in the hallways. Maybe they are hoping that if they hold out for ratification, countries will give them as sweet a deal as Canada received. Don’t be fooled folks. It is clear that the Prime Minister’s poodle relationship with GW Bush is much more important than the Kyoto Protocol...for the moment that is.

— -

4. Ludwig

Eager to spend his spare time having his ears talked off by the CDM Executive Board, Ludwig has been following the discussions on Article 6. The US delegation has been demonstrating its usual keen grasp of the situation by objecting to, er, public participation in these discussions. "Is this really the way we work ?" they pouted, as they were forced to listen to an unwanted opinion. At the Belgian co-chair’s insistence the NGO subversives were allowed to remain, but fortunately the US delegation were able to distract themselves by picking their noses and playing solitaire, thus avoiding dangerous exposure to outside ideas. No doubt this unprecedented breach of the inner sanctum of decision makers will lead to a string of interventions by environmentalists, traveling salesmen and young women in cakes. But never fear : Enron directors, authors of the US energy plan, would be allowed in too ! Assuming they are allowed out on parole.

— -

5. Thanks

Climate Action Net-work (CAN) would like to thank World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), Vertic, Friends of the Earth (FoE), Greenpeace, CAN US and CAN Europe. http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco In Bonn : lhbyron@climatenetwork.org Editing & Web : matthias@climnet.org

  ECO Volume CVIII Issue 03 NGO Newsletter

SB-16, Bonn, Germany 12 June 2002

Credibility Issue

Table of Contents

---

1. If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger, or at least discredit him 2. Clean and Affordable Energy ’ Action in Joburg Needed ! 3. World Cup as a mitigation measure 4. Thanks

— - 1. If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger, or at least discredit him

When President Bush dismissed his own "national communication" to the UNFCCC last week, he did it on the basis that he had "read" the report put out by "the bureaucracy". Well, it turns out, he didn’t in fact read it, at least according to White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. But he’s sure that even without having read it, that his climate change plan to increase emissions by 30% over 1990 levels is right, and that we shouldn’t do anything to combat climate change, just build dikes, dams and houses on stilts. This logic works well so long as you’re free to shoot any messenger who tells you that climate change is a reality, and that the rest of the world wants to do something about it.

The same sort of (il)logic is informing the US approach to the role of the IPCC. Not content with driving Bob Watson out of the IPCC Chair, they now seem to be trying to de-link the IPCC from the UNFCCC process. Which is odd. The same country that in all multilateral negotiations dismisses the notion of targets and timetables as not being "scientifically rigorous", seems to think that the SBSTA should conduct it’s negotiations without the undue interference of the scientific community, research data, or the facts.

Back in Marrakech, the US tried to make sure that scientists weren’t involved to muddy the waters in their discussions on sinks definitions. Here, they try to make sure that the findings of the IPCC Third Assessment Report are not used to inform the future deliberations of SBSTA in any focussed way, but merely provide a backdrop. The IPCC has asked SBSTA for guidance on the direction of the Fourth Assessment Report and to give very specific input into the focus of the synthesis report, but the US seems to think that the needs of SBSTA can be better filled by reading USA Today or listening to Ari Fleischer as opposed to a body consisting of 2500 of the world’s best climate scientists. The same holds true for the discussion of HFCs, where SBSTA’s deliberations are supposed to be informed by the industry-controlled advisory panel of the Montreal Protocol, rather than a bunch of pesky scientists.

And presumably, when all is said and done, the US will dismiss the deliberations of SBSTA/SBI and all other Convention Bodies as "unscientific" at the end of the day. Go figure.

BOX : Science - free for all ! All IPCC reports are available in text and pdf at the IPCC website. Read for yourself : www.ipcc.ch

— - 2. Clean and Affordable Energy - Action in Joburg Needed !

Last week while negotiators talked away in Bonn, another group of negotiators were meeting in Bali at the 4th PrepCom for the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD). The hope in Bali was a strong action programme with targets and timetables on important issues and for a decision on finance and trade that goes beyond Doha and Monterrey. The huge worry, of course, is that the WSSD will end in failure without any targets nor timetables. If Bali is an example of the level of political commitment to alleviating poverty and protecting the environment, we are in big big trouble. Environment ministers could not come to an agreement in Bali and a text, full of those famous brackets, is making its way to Johannesburg.

But this need not be the case. A number of countries support a key issue for sustainable development - providing access to clean and affordable energy services to the poor in support of Millenium Development Goals. Also hidden in the text, among many brackets is a real target and timetable to increase the share of renewable energy worldwide. A couple of proposals exist in the text, but we urge countries to support a specific one - increasing the share of ’new’ renewables globally to 10% by 2010. Such a target would send a clear signal to the market that renewable energy is a big part of the energy future. It should also be backed up with support for the [in brackets] strong language in the text on phasing out environmentally harmful subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries ; and with the necessary finance and capacity building measures such as instructing international financial institutions to shift their energy lending to renewable energy sources and to do the same for the export credit agencies.

Renewable energy targets are not rocket science. Many countries, such as China, India, the GRULAC countries, the EU and Indonesia already have targets, and so does the US state of Texas. The WSSD target should focus on new renewables as a percentage of primary energy and should not include large hydro or waste incineration.

Wouldn’t it be great if heads of state attending the Summit could announce a path breaking initiative ? If they could bring forth a concrete action that would change peoples’ lives in a positive way ? It is time for some leadership - leadership in between now and Johannesburg and leadership in Johannesburg for clean and affordable energy services now !!

— - 3. World Cup as a mitigation measure

The graph shows UK electricity demand for last Thursday and Friday. The UK begannusing significantly less electricity just before the Argentina versus England match and demand stayed lower than usual, both throughout the game and after it. UK NGOs are already working on football as a mitigation measure and will be proposing CDM football projects to the next meeting of the Executive Board. Unfortunately, the Chair is rumoured to prefer cricket.

(Graph referred to only available in pdf version on http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco/ )

Reductions in emissions from reduced demand in electricity

CO2 = 9300 tonnes SO2 = 60.0 tonnes CH4 = 28.5 tonnes Radioactivity = 0.001 Man-Sieverts

— - 4. Thanks

The Climate Action Network would like to thank Greenpeace International, WWF International, CAN-Europe, Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB). Website : http://www.climatenetwork.org/eco/ In Bonn : lhbyron@climatenetwork.org Editing & Web : matthias@climnet.org