Executive Director's Column

CLIMATE WATCH

INTERNATIONAL ACTIVITY STEPS UP

B) John Shlcu's

.ii In It\ Iollou Int" up
on last \t'aI's larth \Iininiit Is pit 
Ing up ?to most It?( i-nt i-saniplt-
. is last month's moi-ting the 
t'(l \ations \i-uotiat-
Ingt ith 5. lltt' both
responsible ltif llt('( li
signed at ls?io
\\l1ll(' no major tlt?t mom 
new Initiator-s were
annount ed. an eslensist- and Ide-
ranging Institutional strut line to admin
Istt-I ("mention is lt'.lfl\
beginning to take shape

lhi- panic Ipants at the mom a Itlt't'l-
ing, with Increased IiI\ol\enIent and
stihstaIItIse support from a newlx aui:
merited treaty Set retarIaI stattu,
spent mo weeks covering a broad
agenda Iset- sideliari. These efforts are
to la\ the groundwork for the MN meet-
ing of the Conference of the

?Ir L'niteil \tatvs sup
ports joint stir-ssini:
that ll should lie \oluntars 
iaii-tulh and 
.I "rangi- Ill pr- )ij ts" ting green
house gas 
fol negotiators joint Inipli-mi-nta
tion should also pim Iili- ".iililitionalih 
as in him rului
trons "almve a \Hhitn 

Other countries held a range of
\Iexss anaila and lapan
generalls supported llIt?l lhi-
Ff tor ounting" emissions
redui tions from ["th ts on|\
alter the unit 2001} \\Ill1 the eption
of those Ithin regional groups mhit II
would Int Iude the it I. The 
nations countries' and hi-
na pointed out that ha\ no com-
mitment under the ('IImate ('onvention

 

 

and I isstIi' \sIll sol.


llii-Ii- \u-ii- IatIoiIs earlier this
\t?dl lliat Ilii-t lintoli 
Ii-li'asi- .i 
\i tion l?laiI .II the moi-\a Itlt?t"
ing IIiilIi llIaI I 
\IaIi-s hail "do/I-ns ot 
In ii~ilui i- the head iit [hi-

I delegation Rati- told
the both that "some additional tinii- ?Ill
be IIt?t?tlt?tl to finish the and tor
i .It It Is no?
that a pat lsagi? iil iiplions
designed to help the I States
is-cltii t? gust-s lest-ls
li\ the war It?) will be released by thi-
\\liItr- Housi- late September or earls
tolx-r new draft ot II S. NAP,
ac ording to administration sourt vs, is
not espec ted for another I8 months

Ihe( onyention doesn't at tu-
alls all for from the Annex I
ountries Ia list OI developed countries
appended to the Climate Conventioni
until six months after the consention

goes into force. The current estimati- 

that NAl?s will be due in the

 

Parties the signatory
nations that Will govern the
treaty sshich Is s( heduled
for Berlin In March (it I993
Important debate
entered on joint implemen-
tation, a largely undefined
(on( ept that would "c redit?
one party for reducing
gas emissions .
via actions taken in another
country a U.S. utility
"reduces" Its emissions by
supporting reforestation in a
deselopmg nation). low

The primary agenda items at the recent INC meeting in Geneva:
0 Malndologm that willbe 
gasesctweredby (ht-treaty.

- Permanent Wiarybodies'oneon 
Subsidiary Body on Scientific and Technolqn?al Advice}, and one to
help manage the treaty tthe Subsidiary Bodyon Irriplementation);

- Methods and evaluation Cm Ior national reports;

ot?truty (antes,

such as the Global Envrrorirrient Facility, ad

povision, a new ?narration! arm that could

allow countries to mod: jointly to eff'iciemly reduce minutes?



third quarter of I994. The
United States was the first
industrialized nation to put
forward a comprehensive
draft plan, which was preL
sented to the INC in Decem-
ber 1992. Preliminary draft
NAPs were submitted at last
month's meeting by Ger?
many, Japan, Norway and
Ireland. The European Com-
munity (EC) promised a draft
before the end of the year.
To assist in the permanent
administration of the Climate

 

 

 

implementation, whit is
supported by (KC under particular
conditions, could be a tremendous ben-
efit to the United States and other devel-
oped countries and to the developing
world. It establishes a way to develop

ost-etfec tiye mutual programs that
exchange know-how, as well as clean-
er. more efficient systems and technolo-
gies. This is especially important in
light of UN predictions that the growing
economies of developing countries will
quickly become the major source of
man-made greenhouse gases.

to achieve any speci?c level of emis-
sions reductions. They sidestepped the
issue by calling for joint implementa-
tion only between OECD (industrial-
ized) countries and 'Countries with
Economies in Transition" (Eastern
Europe and the former Soviet Union).
The Secretariat staff was instructed to
prepare discussion papers on joint
implementation for the next INC meet-
ing (February I994 in Geneva). with
each country invited to submit corn-
ments. It?s clear that this relatively new

Convention, two I'subsidiary
bodies? were established: the Subsidiary
Body on Scientific and Technological
Advice (SBSTA), and the Subsidiary
Body on lmplernentation (SBI). The
US. view is that the SBSTA will provide
'an arena in which to review, from a
technical perspective, countries'

reports, including methodologies used.

in reporting [greenhouse gas) invento-
ries.? The United States made the point
that the newly created SBSTA ?would
be specifically focused on policy needs
camouedanm 1

 

.ilm Shliics
.l int/options 

\IaIi's ri'r Iltal
the NIH talu- nomination and suggest
i-(l options by the and
assist Ilii~( Ultlt?tt'flt i- ot the Parties 
"developing suggestions for or
modifying the i onu-nlion Illt't'l its iilti
olijt-t lth' II was li-ar the dis
tiissions that the Mo new entities 
ltasi- Important roli-s, although they are
not yet i lr-arly (lf?llnl?fl.

lltt'ft' was also "It" disc ussion on the
relationship between the 
tal f?anr-l on Climate hange and
the . lhe relationship takes on
Int reasing important r- as the ll?f reports
on key st it'ntitir questions, stir as how
to measure sourt es and sinks of green-
house gases. The United States made it
clear that the Il?( (., a scientific advisory
panel. does not "rec ommend options for
action; rather the reports are summaries
and assessments of the state of knowl-

ge and the implic ations of options."

summary, the Geneva meeting was
I first step in defining new, imjxmant
and complex international concepts and
institutions stemming from the Climate
Convention. These developments will
increase in importance and impact, espe
cially in areas that affect the environment,
energy, technology, regulation and
economies. .

 

 

Future

Continued Irorri page I

World Bank administration the GEF is
?an extremely cumbersome bureaucrat-
ic machinery designed for processing
large loan projects.?

Susan Levine, deputy assistant secre-
tary of international development at the
Treasury Department, agreed that the
World Bank might not be the best tool to
distribute GEF monies and urged the
subcommittee to engage the United
States in restructuring the GEF as a com-
plement to the Clinton administration?s

.Vyironmental policy. Citing several

erican firms interested in GEF pro-
jects, Levine outlined the benefits of the
GEF for US. business, including the
opening of markets for environmental
technology in developing countries. 0

 

 

THIRTYONE 
RATTFY CONVENTION

of August I, the following

countries had ratified the

II framework ()nVl?ll

tion on( lull-Ill? hange, In
the order listed below. Iitty nations
must ratify the treaty for it to enter
into tort 0

ll?; l?apua Mm
(aunt-a

I Vanuatu

nut Islam/s

.i

Jo: Mini-ma

It lapaii

/.tnil)i.r

Peru

24) Mgr-rm

l) Mauritius
2) Seychelles
1) Marshall Is.
4! US A

it liltilialmr'
(it Maldiws
7i Mortar r)
Ill anada

9i Australia
In; hina

Aima JSISI tuna
Nevis Ir r'lantl
Antigua and 'IheLisIan
Barbuda Nomi/m a
I 1? fr uador ."li Sunlisn
N) [in It)! \lomai

I 5! Mew 0 lunisia

 

 

 

 

 

Washington Post

autumn! from [Hia- I

Hansen, however, believes that
increased cloud cover results from sul-
fates emitted by the burning of fossil
fuels. In the atmosphere, sulfates act as
surfaces upon which water vapor con-
denses to form clouds. While the cool-
ing sulfates are quickly flushed away
(as acid raini. Hansen says that the car-
bon dioxide already in the atmosphere
'will stay there for decades~ and warm
the climate.

Hansen's predictions. however, are
not as dire as they once were, and he
admits that his earlier projections have
not been accurate. Not only is today?s
temperature increase only half of what
the computer models estimated, but the
rate of CO1 emissions is lower and the
poles have warmed less quickly than
the models predicted.

Rensberger?s luly 26 article, ?Satellite
vs. Surface: Two Points of View on
Global Warming," compares research
by lames Hansen and Dr. John ('hristy.

hosts. the University of Alabama
scientist working With the National
Aeronautic anrl Spat Administration
reports that satellite data show
no pattern or warming sint the study ?s
inception in I979 In tatt global toni-
posite temperatures this spring ere
below their averages

Hansen's wideh reported inrtac 
temperature data show yearly tua-
tions and a definite warming trend that
should have reac bed a record high In
the late IQBOs. Clearly, there is a dis-
crepancy between Hansen?s and
Christy's data. Said Christy. "Our data
show little or no warming - A indicating
that this problem is a lot less than hat
the [computer-generated! climate mod-
els would make you think."

The varying results led Rensberger to
conclude. "Because scientific ettorts to
monitor real-world hanges yield suc 
ambiguous results. the lamor to do
something' about global warming
remains largely an emotionalls guided
phenomenon.~ .

 

1

Fuel

 Numlmm

 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

     

Rtuzx OECD I'L'Iuhs 0N meur-

   

   

 

     

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

     

 

 

    

     

x.,,uumnm - mt'w' 
'h 


\unumd [M'mh Hum

\r 'u 
A
I
"mum"
"WmvauuvMH'\"
mum"! "mm.
M, HM u-ww'h' A um 
m, A yum 'mey: WW MN wu v_
m'gmw 'Hw . Mumm Huh