10:39 AM Jul 18, 1996

US U-TURN ON CLIMATE CHANGE

Geneva 17 July (Chakravarthi Raghavan) -- The United States signalled a U-turn of sorts at the Conference of Parties (COP2) on Climate Change here, in favour of "realistic, verifiable and binding medium-term emission target", and with maximum national flexibility on measures to achieve them, including joint implementation and trading mechanisms.

But the reversal came with an indirect repudiation of the earlier non-binding commitment of industrial nations to return by 2000 to the 1990 levels of CO2 emissions, about new and additional (aid) funding and technology transfers to developing countries in return for which the latter too would participate in a long-term process of reducing emissions.

The US statement, by Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, Timothy Wirth, came on the first day of the two-day high-level Ministerial segment of the COP2 of the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and was further elaborated at a subsequent press briefing by Wirth and the Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, Eileen Claussen.

But the Wirth and Claussen statements and clarifications, made clear that the US views 'joint implementation', not in terms of the provisions in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC) of joint implementation among Annex I Parties (the developed countries), but involving the developed and developing.

And developing countries would need to look for private capital flows, and technology from private parties like the energy companies, to improve their energy efficiency and reduced emission processes.

The US statement endorsed the main findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its Second Assessment Report, about the human induced adverse changes to global climate which, if left unabated, would cause profound adverse consequences in the future.

He dismissed the views of a minority of scientists who insist that there is no proof or evidence of human-induced adverse climate change, by pointing that while the IPCC views was that of a peer-reviewed scientific group and with thousands of scientists from around the world and including every major climate scientist, the most recent attack on the IPCC came from individuals who were not participants in the IPCC process, had not asked the IPCC scientists involved as to what they thought (about the criticism).

The US statement was widely interpreted by the environment NGOs and others as a U-Turn on previous US stands -- no scientific proof of man-made adverse climate change, and against legally binding commitments -and signalling a willingness to join in negotiations for a protocol, in December (after the US elections) time for the COP3 in Japan in December 1997.

However, the US position, and the responses at the press briefing confirmed it, suggest that developing countries will be asked to join and sign on to the binding targets -- but with no new or additional resources through aid, but reliance on FDIs and technology transfers through commercial arrangements.

While thus putting the Clinton Administration behind the wide consensus of peer-reviewed scientific opinion of climate scientists from around the world, Wirth and Claussen in effect gave the go-by to the earlier non-binding previous target agreed upon by all industrialised countries, namely, returning their GHG, and particularly the Carbon dioxide emissions to their 1990 levels by year 2000.

Claussen confirmed that the US would not be meeting this target, and at most two developed countries would (because of their exceptional circumstances and not because of climate programs).

The international policy process of the FCCC and the structure of the Convention had not been successful in achieving the aims, and the negotiations must aim at achievable goals and enable "all nations" to reduce emissions in an economically sensible manner in the years ahead.

Wirth and Claussen also emphasized market-based solutions, and tradeable permits as an instrument.

However, critics suggest that the overall combination of the US version of 'joint implementation', market-based solutions, and the practical effect of the US Congress reducing aid and technology monopoly in the hands of the Northern TNCs, through the WTO and its TRIPs accord, would effectively shift the burden of adjustment to the developing world.

For, despite assertions of those who have mooted the tradable permits for emissions idea, including some pioneering work done in the UN Conference on Trade and Development, several of the NGOs as well as many key developing countries, say without an agreement on an equitable basis for distribution of the permits or an agreed target and international regulations for emissions based on enough space for the developing world to increase energy consumption, the market-based instruments would merely make the rich richer and more comfortable, and the poor poorer and worse off.

Wirth was asked at his press conference to comment on the impression among developing countries and NGOs that the US was shifting one more burden of adjustment to the South Countries. For, while the US endorsed the concept of joint but differentiated responsibilities, with the US Congress cutting aid funds (instead of new and additional resources), and technology transfer (due to the WTO's TRIPs agreement) being merely commercial transfers, the liability for the climate problem was being shifted to the poorer countries including the island countries who would be submerged under the sea.

Wirth said that he could not accept the assumptions about governments providing the funds. Private sector flows now were more than twice public sector funding. The transfer of technology and "joint activities" between developing and developed countries was "going to be increasingly with the private sector, with enlightened energy companies from the developed world working with countries in the developing world". While governments could help with policy guidance, implementation would be increasingly by the private sector.

Several developing country officials, who did not want to be identified, later pointed out that while moving towards binding commitments on targets, the US has moved very much backwards on other fronts. International treaties are between countries and governments, and the developing world governments can't be asked to take commitments, whether now or after 2000, but told to look to private sources for additional funding and technology.

However 'enlightened' energy companies of the North might be, they are acting to increase and maximise their profits, and expect returns of the order of 25-30 percent.

And while the developing countries within the framework of the FCCC, have opened up a 'window' on joint implementation, and allowed on a voluntary basis those in the developing world to undertake projects with developed countries (mainly in enhancing sinks like forests etc), "the Joint Implementation" envisaged by the FCCC does not come into operation until atleast 2000, and only after the ICs have done their reduction measures. The current voluntary joint projects could not be used to claim credits for emissions either.

But many developing countries, and others including many NGOs, agreed that given the US election syndrome, it would not be possible to undertake any serious negotiations until December, and only then could the US position be fleshed out.

In other developments at the Ministerial session, Australia and Japan, have been fighting efforts to set binding targets, insisting that the individual national characteristics and profiles must be taken into account in setting emission reduction targets.

As a result of the continued operation of the consensus rule for decision-making (in the absence of an agreement on the rules of procedure, including for decision-making), a minority including key OPEC members, have blocked full endorsement by COP2 of the IPCC's Second Assessment Report.

Wirth himself at his press conference suggested that the US would favour a majority decision-making process, such as a three-fourth majority for substantive decisions. However Wirth wanted to ensure that consensus requirement prevailed for financing (thus enabling the US to veto decisions) !

IPS adds from San Francisco:

The U.S. announcement that it wants to achieve a binding agreement to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases reverses five years of stalling by Washington, say environmental activists.

Tim Wirth, Under-Secretary of State for Global Affairs, who announced the new U.S. position Wednesday in Geneva, later told reporters by telephone: "This is a big deal... Saying that we want to have a target that is binding is a clear indication that the United States is very serious about taking steps and leading the rest of the world. We will be getting more and more specific as the next year and a half rolls through."

The United States wants governments to be allowed to choose how to meet the goals in a binding treaty. For its part, Washington wants to apply market-based solutions such as pollution trading permits and energy efficiency measures.

"It is the target that should be binding, not the individual measures, thus allowing maximum flexibility in implementation," he said.

The New York-based Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) welcomed the news.

"It shows that they have accepted the judgment of the scientific community that climate change is happening and that something has to be done about it," says Michael Oppenheimer, an atmospheric physicist at the EDF.

But Kelly Sims, a spokeswoman from the Washington-based Ozone Action, warns that the US government's market-based approach may not produce results.

"We have already seen that non-binding, voluntary commitments don't work," she said. "Now, the Clinton Administration should not commit to a legal agreement to reduce greenhouse gas emissions on the one hand and negotiate loopholes and unenforceable provisions on the other."

Governments attending the 1992 Earth Summit in Brazil signed the climate change convention, an agreement to voluntarily reduce the burning of fossil fuels, which produce such greenhouse gases as carbon dioxide. The aim was to bring national emission levels down to 1990 levels.

The agreement was originally supposed to be binding on all signatory countries, but it was changed to a voluntary accord after then President George Bush refused to sign.

Environmentalists also pointed out at the time that the convention fell far short of the 60% cut in global warming emissions that scientists from around the world have warned is the minimum necessary to stabilise global climate.

The trade group that opposes quick action to head off global warming warned Wednesday that the kind of policy announced by Wirth would eliminate millions of jobs and lead to second-class lifestyles.

"The U.S. economy could lose millions of jobs," said John Schlaes, executive director of the Global Climate Coalition (GCC), which comprises oil, coal, electric, and other energy companies. "In addition, it means higher costs to Americans for everyday necessities."

But according to Alden Meyer, chair of the US Climate Action Network, the GCC's position is "beyond the pale" and it is hurting their credibility.

The GCC's "economic analysis is as bad as their science credibility," Meyer told reporters. "If they continue to use these kinds of scare tactics, they're going to be increasingly irrelevant to the discussion."

Wirth has spoken out in recent months against scientists in the United States who describe global warming as a myth. He has pointed to conclusions made last year by the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity was affecting global climate.

The United States is the largest contributor to global warming, with emissions of 1.409 million metric tons of carbon in 1995, a 4.8 percent increase over 1990 levels.

Not that energy efficiency alone is sufficient to check carbon emissions. History has shown that fuel efficiency for US cars rose from 5.7 kms to the litre to 8.9 kms to the litre between 1969 and 1990 but did not result in a decrease in carbon emissions.

Partly because of the associated savings in cost, the US public drove 2.4 trillion kms, 50% more than the 1.6.trillion kms of 1969, pushing fuel consumption up from 242 billion litres of fuel to 273 billion litres.

Citing data from 2,000 weather monitoring stations around the world, scientists from the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA) say greenhouse gas emissions were the reason that 1995 was the hottest year of the 130 years for which information is available.