The World?s Leading Automakers? Chairman F. SCHWAB Porsche 13: Vice Chairman D. MAZZA Hyundai 2nd Vice Chairman D. SMITH Toyota Secretary D. ELFMAN BMW Treasurer .1. AM ESTOY Mazda BMW Daawoo Flat Honda Hyundai Isuzu Kla Land Rover Mazda Mercedes-Benz Mitsubishi Nissan Peugeot Porsche Renault Rolls?Royce Saab Subaru Suzuki Toyota Volkswagen Volvo President P. HUTCHINSON TECH-96-791 10/18/96 TO: AIAM Technical Committee FROM: Gregory J. Dana Vice President and Technical Director RE: GLOBAL WARMING - GCC - Minutes of September 19, 1996 STAC Meeting - Report on September 24-25, 1996 IPCC Workshop Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the September 19, 1996 meeting of the Science and Technology Assessment Committee of the GCC. Also included is a report on the September 24-25, 1996 International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Workshop held in London. GJD:lfz ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURERS, INC. 1001 19TH ST. NORTH I SUITE 1200 I ARLINGTON, VA 22209 I TELEPHONE 703.525.7788 I FAX 703.525.8817 AIAM-051494 AIAM-051495 Minutes of GCC Science and Technology Assessment Committee September 19, 1996 Call to Order: Co-Chair Lenny Bernstein called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Global Climate Coalition, Science and Technology Assessment Committee to order at 11:00 am. An agenda was mailed to all STAC members and is attached. The Chemical Manufacturers Association, 1300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington VA hosted the meeting. Approval of Minutes: The minutes of the August 1, 1996 STAC meeting were approved without discussion. Exxon Assessment Presentation: Dennis Devlin and Barry Friedlander of the Exxon Biomedical Sciences Inc. were present to discuss their summary of published literature on human health impacts of global climate change. Dennis Devlin made the presentation. A copy of his visuals are attached. The Exxon report that formed the basis of Dennis Devlin?s presentation has been previously distributed to STAC. A key point of the Exxon presentation and report is that most researchers publishing in the area of climate change health impacts are proponents of the view that climate change could cause serious health impacts. For example, few dissenting views were expressed at the NAS sponsored conference on this topic in 9/95, and calls for a more balanced discussion of this issue made at that meeting by Dr. Grubler were not re?ected in the meeting proceedings. Dr. Grubler is Director, Division of Vector Borne Disease at the Center for Disease Control. Dennis distributed two additional documents. The ?rst, a summary of the Presidential Decision Directive on Emerging Infectious Disease, identi?es climate change as one of the factors contributing to the threat of emerging diseases. The second, an editorial from the July 27, 1996 issue of the British Medical Journal, showed that this prominent medical journal viewed climate change impacts on health as a major concern. Dennis also circulated a book title of Climate Change and Human Health by A. J. McMichael, et. a1. published by the World Health Organization, 1996. This text is written by many of the same people who wrote the IPCC SAR chapter summarizing the ?state of the knowledge? of climate change health concerns, so views expressed are essentially identical. It includes, by in large, only perspectives of scientists with the View that climate change presents a serious health risk. The attending Exxon scientists advocated critical evaluation of models and ongoing studies to put climate change health hazards in perspective. They promoted encouragement of scienti?c work in this area by scientists that would present a more balanced view. During and following the presentation, STAC members discussed ways of encouraging a more AIAM-051496 balanced scienti?c evaluation of this concern. STAC members expressed their positive impression of the quality of the literature review and assessment made by Exxon on this issue. They offered suggestions on improvement and further use of the presentation. Discussion of Health Impact Issue: STAC next discussed how GCC could increase involvement in this issue. Lenny Bernstein discussed two groups that perhaps could help GCC, the Institute for Evaluating Health Risks based in Washington, DC. and the American Council on Science and Health (ACSH) based in New York City. Lenny distributed information provided by John Moore of IEHR. Lenny reported that Dr. Elizabeth Whelan of ACSH is considering doing an independent assessment on the climate change and health issue. Lenny noted that many GCC member companies support ACSH and urged those that did to ask their companies to write to Ms. Whelan asking for such an assessment. Barry Friedlander of Exxon noted, that due to the distribution of ACSH reports, an ACSH assessment would reach a non-science audience. Thus, he suggested GCC might want to encourage participation of good science research institutes such as the Tropical Medicine Department at Tulane or LSU. Lenny asked STAC members to keep him informed of their effects to involve medical staff in their companies in this issue. GCC Report: No GCC Report was presented. IPCC Plenary: Bronson Gardner reported that had released guidelines for national communication. The guidelines would allow better comparisons between countries and a better understanding of a countries progress in achieving its goals over time. These COP- 2 guidelines closely followed GCC and US. recommendations for developed countries but not for developing countries. Bronson reported that at the IPCC plenary at Mexico City, Bob Watson was elected as new chairman. Watson is currently chair of IPCC WGII and an employee of the World Bank. He will replace Burt Bolin at the next IPCC plenary in September 1997 (approximately). Bob Watson will be resigning his chairmanship of WGII. Concern was expressed that Watson would likely not be as impartial as Bolin. Bronson said a draft report on what had transpired at the 1995 Madrid and Rome meetings of the IPCC WGI and IPCC plenary was presented for plenary approval at Mexico City. GCC strongly objected. It was not approved at the plenary, and consequently it was released as ?views of the chair.? IPCC Technical Reports: AIAM-051497 Three draft technical reports were reviewed by IPCC in Mexico. Attendees viewed report 1 on Policies and Measures as consistent with the rules of procedure. It was sent on to the IPCC Bureau with few comments. Reports 2 and 3 provoked strong arguments because they were not based on the Science Assessment Report. The meaning of the rules requiring technical reports to be based on the SAR were discussed, and GCC was 100% successful in obtaining a revised more restrictive revision of the rule for technical reports. The rule emphasizes that technical reports must be based on the SAR and or models used to develop the SAR. IPCC Modeling Workshop: Bronson will be unable to attend the IPCC Model Workshop next week in London. At the August STAC meeting, Chuck Hakkarinen told STAC that he was planning to attend. Future Meeting Schedule: The next STAC meeting was scheduled as a conference call at 2 PM. EDT on October 17, 1996. It should last approximately 1 hour. Lenny will contact STAC members concerning this call. The main agenda item will be a follow-up to the Exxon health affects report. Lenny will also discuss any further contact with IEI-IR ACSH. The November meeting is yet to be scheduled. The December meeting will likely be skipped and the January meeting is likely to be moved to early January. Other Business: STAC members discussed climate change science issues of greatest priority to industry. Jerrel Smith noted that Bronson Gardner considered ?base line shifts,? or the difference between the extent of changes that would occur with and without climate changes, a major concern needing further evaluation. Lenny thought that looking at all climate change base line shifts was too broad of an issue. He suggested concentrating on a narrower subset or issues, such as regional climate change or public health. At a meeting of industry people he recently attended, Jerrel said no one thought 80;, the current focus of ACACIA, was a signi?cant issue. Eric Kuhn mentioned that a recent informal meeting of utility industry people had focused on the regional impact issue. The discussion did not reach a conclusion prioritizing these issues. Before adj ourning, STAC agreed to the following statement: is concerned with the lack of balance in the peer reviewed literature on the health effects of climate change. STAC believes a strong need exists to encourage balanced quality studies in this area.? Submitted by: Eric Reiner 3M representing CMA Phone 612/778-5079 AIAM-051498 Fax 612/778-6176 Attachments: 1) GCC Science Technology Assessment Committee Agenda 2) List of attendees 3) D. J. Devlin overhead presentation 4) Summary of Emerging Infectious Disease Presidential Decision Directive report 5) British Medical Journal editorial on climate change 6) Letter from John A. Moore - Institute for Evaluating Health Risks 7) IPCC Activities for 1996-1997 8) Side by Side comparison of comments submitted by the GCC and the US. government on National Communications and the documents produced at COP-2. 9) Revised Discussion Paper on Technology Assessment by Bob Watson 10) Letter from the US. House of Representatives Committee on Science 11) Paper on Uncertainties in Climate Modeling: Solar Variability and Other Factors 12) Statement Regarding 1995 WGI meeting in Madrid. 13) Bronson Gardner?s summary of 1996 Mexico City IPCC meetings Note: sent only attachments 1,2, 12, and 13 to those who attended. AIAM-051499 Attachment 1 GCC SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE September 3, 1996 Members of GCC-STAC Agenda and Papers for September 19 Meeting The next GCC-STAC meeting will be held at 11:00 am. on Thursday, September 19, at the Chemical Manufacturers Association, 1300 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA. The two main topics of discussion at the meeting will be: 1) 2) a report by Exxon on their assessment of the public health implications of projected climate change (a copy of this report is attached), and a report by Bronson Gardner on the IPCC Plenary meeting held in Mexico City, Sept. 11 13. Approval of the Minutes Exxon Assessment of Public Heath Implications of Climate Change Devlin/Friedlander GCC Report Shlaes/Holdsworth IPCC Technical Papers - GCC Response Bemstein/Gardner Results of IPCC Plenary Gardner IPCC Modeling Workshop - London Gardner Future Meeting Schedule Bernstein Any Other Business Adjourn [2x104 L. S. Bernstein AIAM-OSISOO AIAM-051501 Attachment 2 97/6 GM 1 LIL cm E?ea'?w? sL 21M.) 5?54- 4839 Tim Raamu355 v1 Mammy? Mskm? 202 4m} 37% {333:- ?is 35? 671-?- 3137/?. c" 7.5 f?iw Mmauz @ng gen 3/0 - 57ov??5?fg Em: 3M pumme -- (,ng Osman Madum? CMH 203/ 38/211? Flar?ownm/Se. EBSZ D'Qr'm- rs Exxtm 8:0 g6? ?37-3 A (P. l. MOMEMHT mm. (M M. Ma Adrch Egan-422.4 CHUCK SHARP 14041440 1536 8220? A Em?kp Ec?mm?rpg Mom 70 3 "846.? 3930 2.9-7 1 wwmcag away moi/9,0017 XIAM-051502 AIAM-051503 PURPORTED IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON HUMAN HEALTH 0 IUBIHUOBIIV September 19, 1996 D. J. Devlin - Exxon Biomedical Sciences, Inc. .. PRESENTATION OUTLINE Summarize Key Literature Re Purported Effects of Climate Change on Human Health Review/Assess ?Advocates? Hypothesis?: ?Greenhouse Gases? Lead to Health Impacts Balanced Scientific Position Not Evident Describe Key Knowledge Gaps Offer Conclusionisecommendations for Follow-up INTRODUCTION International Attention Focused on Relationships Among Greenhouse Gases, Climate Change, Ecological Stress and Human Health National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Sponsored Conference on Potential Impacts of Global Climate Change on Health (9195) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report Reviews "State of Knowledge" . . . Raises Significant Health Concern I Medical Journals Relate Climate Change to Incidence of Disease Popular Press Raising Issue of ?Megastorms? ?Global Fever? ?Emerging Infectious Disease? NAS CONFERENCE Conference Requested by VP Gore, to: Encourage Experts to Address Potential Effects of Climate Change on Disease, Heat Stress, Foolelater Supplies, Air Pollution Develop Response Strategies Organizers Assumed a Priori: Global Climate Change is Occurring Will Impact Health Only Degree ls Unknown Many Disciplines lnvOlved. . . Few "Experts" . Many,' "Advocates" With a Consistent Message THE HYPOTHESIS 1) Greenhouse Gases Increase Due Primarily to Fossil Fuel Use 2) Accumulation Leads to Increase in the Average Global Temperature . . . 1 - in the Next 100 Years 3) Global Warming Will Affect Ocean/Air Currents and Humidity, Lead to Climatic and Geographic Changes vv Wintertime Precipitation Increase More Severe Weather Events . . . Increased Rainfall Drought Increase in Number and Severity Northern Snow CoVer and Alpine Glaciers Decline Sea Level Rise (0.3 - 0.5 by 2100) El Ni?o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) Increase Frequency aoslso-wwv THE HYPOTHESIS (cont'd) 4) Changes will Strain Major Ecosystems Decrease in Diversity of Species Increase in Number/Range of ?Opportunistic? Species Relocation, Possible Reduction, of Agricultural Sites 5) Human Health will be Qir_egt_ly Impacted by Climatic Changes - Suffering and Death Due to Thermal Extremes Injury, Death Due to Weather-Related Disasters THE HYPOTHESIS (cont'd) 6) Human Health will be Indirectly Impacted by Physical and Ecological Changes Range/Activity of Disease Vectors and lnfective Agents Will Increase . . . Alter Range, Intensity and Seas?onality of Vector- Borne Diseases Increase in Water-Borne Diseases Through Disturbances in Fresh Water Ecosystems Population Displacement Due to Rising Sea Level, Regional Declines in Food Production, Weather Disasters . . . Lead to Increase in Malnutrition, Injuries, Infections, Civil Strife THE HYPOTHESIS (cont'd) Increase in Pollen and Spores . . . Lead to Increases in Asthma, Allergies and Other Respiratory Diseases Increase in Particulates and Ozone Increased Hospitalizations And-Deaths From Cardio-Pulmonary Diseases. 7) Combination of Infections, Malnutrition, and Social Stress, Especially in Displaced Groups, May Amplify Health Impacts I BASIS OF DIRECT EFFECTS 0 Sudden Extreme Increases' In Ambient Temps Result' In ?Excess" Deaths Elderly, Sick, Very Young Have Limited Physiological Capacity to Adapt Urban Poor Lack Escape from Exposure ?Urban Heat Island Effect? ?J-Shaped? Relationship Between Daily Death Rates and Outdoor Temp. 0 ?Threshold Temperature? Proposed: Statistically Derived Temp. Beyond Which Mortality Rises Significantly Varies Regionally: 86? F, Deaths in NYC No Effect in Jacksonville, FL 0 Other Factors Exacerbate Effect of Heat: High Humidity, Low Wind, Solar Radiation" .?Oppressive Umbrella of Air? 0 Wintertime Deaths from Influenza and Hypothermia Predicted to Decrease BASIS OF INDIRECT VECTOR-BORNE EFFECTS 0 Evidence Indicates Vector Organisms and lnfective Agents Sensitive to Climatic Natural Regulatory Forces Temperature: - Increase Accelerates Metabolic Rate Increased Biting Rate For Blood-Feeders, Increased Egg Production Longevity Of Female Mosquito Decreases Above 77? - Arthropods Have Optimal Range. . . Changes in Minimum Temp. Could Be Important BASIS OF INDIRECT VECTOR-BORNE EFFECTS (cont?d) Precipitation: Water Critical for Some Breeding Sites: Mosquitoes and Blackflies Have Aquatic Larvae/Pupae Stages Humidity: High Relative Humidity Favors Most Metabolic Processes of Vector Organisms, but infections of Vectors by Fungi Increase Wind: Contributes to Passive Dispersal of Flying Insects 0 Examples Cited Include: . Epidemics of Malaria Following Atypically Hot/Rainy Periods Emergence of Rodent-Borne Hantavirus in U.S. (1993) Occurrence of Dengue Fever Doubles with 3 - Rise Fig. 4.3. Variations in November temperature and annual talciparurn malaria rate In north-east Pakistan between 1981 and 1991 Mean November temperature 19" Annual falciparum rate r6 18.17.16.1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 Year Source: Bouma. Sondorp van der Kaay. 1994a. Climate System. temperature precipitation Malaria System Mosquito System mosquito . Human System longevity climate change frequency of . . malaria transmission tential biting of humans p0 . . infection immunes Infected susceptibles loss of immunity mosquito density development of immunity - morbidity deaths diseased parasne - . development mortality Systems diagram of a model designed (adapted from Mar-tense! 01., 1994). BASIS OF INDIRECT WATER-BORNE EFFECTS 0 Cholera a Major Concern Affected by Precipitation Extremes 0 Marine Plankton as ReservOir for V. cholerae Usually in Dormant State . Higher Sea Temperature Increased Plankton Population and- Reemergence of V. cholerae - Association Between El Ni?o and Cholera Outbreaks Actively Studied . 0 Diarrheal Diseases Peak During Hot/Wet Seasons KEY KNOWLEDGE GAPS General 0 Predictive Models Largely Unvalidated Direct Effects 6 Significance of ?Mortality Displacement? During Excessive Heat 0 Moderating Effect of Acclimation, Infra-Structural Changes Indirect Effects 0 Better Understanding of Complex Relationship Among Vector, Parasite, Human, and Climate Changes 0 Extent to Which Human Intervention Can Mitigate Potential Impacts of Climate Change on Health 619 CONCLUSIONS Balanced View Not Evident in Peer-Reviewed Journals, Public Media - General Consensus That Climate-Induced Changes in Public Health Extremely Difficult to Quantify Multiple Factors Lead to Wide "Natural" Fluctuations Predictive Computer Models Dif?cult to Validate, Do Not Reflect Adaptive Response ?Hypothesis? Advocates State Risks are High . . . "Precautionary Principle" Dictates that Lack of Scientific Certainty Can?t Justify Postponing Preventive Action - - CONCLUSIONS (cont?d) Minority View: Evidence Must be Weighed . .. . Plausible Mechanisms Defined . . .Relative Significance Assessed Climate Change is Likely a Marginal Factor. . . More Critical Issues Exist: Malnutrition, Personal Hygiene, Drug Use, Food Prep, Urbanization, Population Growth, Trade and Travel, Evolution of Microbes, Inadequate Public Health 0 Impact of Climate Change on Human Health will Remain Speculative . . . Provides a Potentially Emotional Issue POTENTIAL NEXT STEPS Monitor and CritiqueOngoing Developments Identify and Critique Relevant Predictive Models Identify Scientific Leaders with Diverse Views . . . Encourage Active Participation in Debate - Promote Concept of Relative Risk . . . Significance of Climate Impacts Vs. Other Disease Factors Attachment 4 Summary of Emerging Infectious Disease Presidential Decision Directive On Wednesday, June 12, the President established a national policy to address the threat of emerging infectious diseases. His new policy seeks to combat emerging diseases such as Ebola, drug-resistant tuberculosis, and through improved domestic and international surveillance systems, prevention,-and response measures. The President's action acknowledges that this growing health challenge requires a global strategy as most cities in the United States are within a 36 hour commercial ?ight of any area of the world?-less time than the incubation period of many infectious diseases. Furthermore, the President is seeking to protect the United States from the release of biological agents by rogue nations or terrorists, which could result in the spread of infectious diseases. ,His action is in response to a growing health and national security threat--deaths from infectious disease have risen sharply over the past decade in the United States and globally. In the United States alone, the death rate from infectious diseases, excluding rose by 22 percent between 1980 and 1992. Unfortunately, the factors contributing to the cw change, ecosystem disturbance, increased movement?of people and goods, and the deterioration of public ealth infrastructures-mshow no sign of abatement. I - Given the seriousness of this public health threat, the President directed the National Science and Technology Council (N STC) to conduct a government?wide review of our ability to protect our families from emerging infectious diseases. The NSTC ?ndings and reCommendations?pdblished in a report, "Infectious Disease?A Global Health Threat," are the basis of the President's action. The President's policy is based on four fundamental pillars. First, We will strengthen the global surveillance and response the horizon" radar which allows us to see the threats coming; A Second, we will strengthen research and training emerging infectious disease--the key to prevention and management of disease outbreaks. - The third pillar of the'President?s policy is to create partnerships with the private sector to promote I the development of new drugs and vaccines and ensure sufficient supplies in emergency situations. Finally, the President will make the issues of emerging infectious diseases a priority with-our international partners. - a . The President's-policy calls for speci?c action ?om 7di?'erent Federal agencies and has-wide ., suppOrt from others concerned with protecting the health and well-being of American families. AIAM-051522 AIAM-051523 Attachment 5 Secretary of State for Health. The health ofdu W. .4 irraqu health in England. London: HMSO. 1992. Dahlgren G. Strategies for health ?nancmg Kenya?the di?iwlt birth of: new policy. Scand 3 Birley MH. The health Impact autumn? projects. Inndon: HMSO. 1995- 4 Commission of the European Communities. Report from the cummu?ml to the council. the Earth perm parliament and eranomu: and social on (he prom:an in community policies Brussels: CEC. l995. (COM (95) [96 ?nal of 29 May 1995.) Rayner M. European Union policy and health. 1995911111804. 6 Kansek R. Theorell T. Healthy wmlz. New York: Basic Books. [990. 7 Hillman M. Social goals {or transport policy. In: Beame A. Got-r M. lone: L. Sidell M. eds. Hull}! and wdlbemg: a reader. Macmillan, [993:237-47. 3 Watt GCM. Health implications ofpumng value added tax on fuel. 9 DCPINIMM or Hul?h- Wit? 11nd habit. London: Department of Health. 1995. 10 Vanday F, Bmmteln DA. eds. Emn'muntalmul ma! impart aims-rm. Chichester: Wiley. 1995. Ewan C. Young A. Bryant E. Calvert D. Nam ?ammk for mental and health impact usunmmr. National Health and Mutual Raeurch Council. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service. 1994. Milio N. Humming health through public policy. Philadelphia: FA Dam, 1981, Robson B. Bradford M. Deas l. Hall E. Harrison E. Parkinson M. .11. diluting the impact of urban Mic-y. London: HMSO. 1994. Boothroyd P. Policy assessment. In: Vanclay F. Bronstem DA. eds. and soon! tmpat?l instrument. Chichester: Wiley. 199183-126. Costongs C. Springer: I. A conceptual evaluation framework for r'waldi- dated paliciu the urban Liverpool: Institute for Health. Liverpool John Moores University, 1995. 16 Ham C, Hunter Robinson R. Evidence band policy making. l995:310:7l-2. at J- .- ?Jl Climate change: not a threat but a promise Doing nothing is no longer an option Global warming can no longer be dismissed as a catastrophe theory dreamt up by scaremongers. In the past few months two reports from internationally renowned organisations have offered grave warnings of the threat that climate change poses, within current lifetimes, to humans and ecosystems? 2; and last week, in the face of frantic lobbying from the fossil fuel industry, 134 nations, including the United States, agreed to work towards ?quanti?ed legally binding? cuts in emissions of the main green- house gas, carbon dioxide. What is surprising is how little these concerns have impinged on the media and on our daily lives. Earlier this month, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) con?rmed previous reports that human activity has had a ?discernible in?uence? on the earth?s climate, and painted a picture of the future if nothing was done.1 At cur- rent rates of increase in the burning of fossil fuels, it will take only another 50-60 years for the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmos- pherc to reach double the levels present at the start of the indus- trial revolution. By 2100, the global average surface temperature is predicted to rise by about and sea level by about 50 cm. While British newspapers envisioned champagne and sunshine on the British Riviera, a joint report from the World Health Organisation, the World Meteorological Organisation, and the United Nations Environment Programme portrayed more ghasdy reality.2 Health and life will be endangered by heat waves, storms, ?oods, droughts, worsening air pollution, and shifts in vector borne diseases, causing for example 50-80 million additional cases of malaria each year. The rise in sea level and reduced agricultural production will cause major social upheaval, especially in small island states and low lying areas, and famine, especially in lower income countries. National responses to such gloomy predictions have varied, but for once Britain is taking a lead. It is one of the few indus- trialised countries to be meeting commitments made at the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, to cut carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. In a rousing speech at the United Nations climate change convention in Geneva last week, Britain?s environment secretary, John Gummer, called for other countries to honour this agreement and to commit to further cuts??of 5-10% by 2010. ?The alarm bells ought to be ringing in every capital throughout the world," he said. His seven point plan for action included removing subsidies on the use of fossil fuels, introducing competition into energy markets, increasing duty on road fuel, and taxing aviation fuel. There are other signs of a vital shift in the British government?s commitment to environmental reform. The environment is now a priority area for the government?s strategy document, Health of the Nation, and the Department of Transport recently released its National Cycling Strategy, which aims to quadruple the number of trips made by bicycle by 2012.? Several factors have helped to cut Britain?s emissions: the shift from oil to gas and nuclear power; campaigns to encour- age energy ef?ciency in homes and businesses; and an annual 'Brd 0706-4 Vt? 331:; move increase in taxation on petrol and diesel of 5% on top o?n?a- tion. Such initiatives contrast starkly with America?s recent decision to lift all taxes on petrol, and the refusal by Australia, New Zealand, and the petrol exporting countries to commit to legally binding reductions. But while the British government?s change in attitude is encouraging, environmentalists doubt the extent of its commitment. Despite the cycling report, there is no sign of an integrated transport policy, nor of a commitment to invest in alternative energy technology. On the contrary, the Depart- ment of Trade and Industry recently announced proposals to speed up oil exploration off the British coast. Greenpeace supports the call from the Alliance of Small Island States for much more radical change. Stabilising emis- sions is not the same as stabilising concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These will continue to rise, though at a slower rate, even if emissions are stabilised at 10% below 1990 levels. To avoid the disaster predicted by the intergovernmental panel, actual concentrations of carbon dioxide will need to be stabilised at levels less than double those present at the beginning of the indusrrial revolution. This will require cuts of at least 20% by 2005. The intergovernmental panel says that such cuts are feasible. Up to 30% of energy could be saved within the next two to three decades at little or no cost, and savings of 50-60% could be achieved by implementing existing technologies. The vulnerable small island states have other less obvious allies. The insurance industry has lobbied for acrion, spurred on by predictions that two major climate disasters, such as a hurricane in New York City, would wipe out the whole industry. Conspicuous by its absence has been any sense of urgency in the British media. As the Observer newspaper pointed out? the daily newspapers have been surprisingly muted in their coverage. ?Those papers which greeted the conference by accepting its central thesis assumed they had done enough. Papers which cannot stomach the scienti?c evidence for global warming ignored it.? Whatever the explanation, the public has been left uninformed about a serious issue. In the run up to the last general election, public concern about the environment took third place to concern about taxation and the health serv- ice. Climate change will a?'ect us all and must now be a major priority in politics, the media, and medicine. FIONA GODLEE Assistant editor London WCll-l 91R 2 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Climate Change 1995. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1996. 2 McMicl-mel AI, Haines A. Sloo?' R. Kowu S. Climate Chang! and Human Health. Geneva: World Health Organisation, 1996. 3 Department ofTr-ansport. National Cycling Strategy. London: Department of Health. I996. 4 Greensladc R. \X'bv glnhal warming isn't hat the ore? ?lm-tn" AIAM-051525 Attachment 6 Institute for Evaluating Health Risks John A Moore,;r? sident Suite 402 1629 Street, NW Washington. DC 20006 202-289-8721 ~r ??rst Fax 202-289-8530 3f? 1 a \996 September 18, 1996 necew ED Mr. Leonard Bernstein Mobil Corporation Fax 703-846-2972 Dear Mr. Bernstein: In response to your request, during our phone conversation with Bob Drew yesterday, let me brie?y provide you with a description The Institute is a non-pro?t 501(c)3 entity incorporated in the State ofCalifomia. Our broad goal is to improve the processes used to assess the health risk of agents (usually chemicals). We receive funding from government organizations and the private sector. Private sector funding is in the form of Unrestricted grants, in support of speci?c projects, and for consulting. Government ?mds are always project speci?c. We do not serve as expert witnesses on legal matters. The Institute typically conducts its general projects through the creation ofExpert Committees. Two of our projects may be of relevance to your interests as they demonstrate processes used to perform tasks: I. The Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity Project (DART) developed an Evaluative Process which proceeds, in an iterative fashion, through several steps in determining the effects of agents on human health. The use of the process was demonstrated by evaluating several chemicals. The Evaluative Process and an evaluation of lithium were published (1995) in the scienti?c literature. Another evaluation, boric acid and horror, has been accepted for publication (Jan 1997). The development of the Evaluative Process was done using a committee of scientists from the government, academia and the private sector. The evaluations of speci?c chemicals were performed by an expert committee, again drawn from the private, government and academic sectors. The process has received positive reviews. For example, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, NIH, has announced its intent to ?md a reproductive and developmental toxicity center and cites the IEHR publications as processes it expects to be employed by the Center. This project received equal ?mdillg from governmental and private sources. [lb 1 AIAM-051526 IEHR letter to L. Bernstein 2 2. IEHR performed a review of the US EPA draft reassessment of the health risks of dioxin and related chemicals. This was accomplished through the use of an expert committee drawn from academia and state health agencies. The formal peer review of the EPA document by its Science Advisory Board, performed after the IEHR effort, are similar as to the nature and content of comments. I have been told by members of the EPA Board that this was not a total coincidence in that they read the document and found it persuasive as to quality of the committee, issues needing to be addressed, and the clear, unbiased style of writing. Funding for this project was through a grant from the CMA and modest funds from the Illinois Department of Health. This project was performed in 1995. JEHR, by design, has a small permanent sta??. In addition to myself, a key person on a project that focused on the e??ects of global warming and infectious disease would be my colleague, Dr. Renate Kimbrough. Renate is a physician, well versed in risk assessment, who was areseareher for many years at CDC. Her work at CDC involved chemical and infectious agents. I hope you ?nd this brief precis on IEHR enlightening. Copies of the material referenced in this letter could be made available to you, should you desire. Other, somewhat dated material, is enclosed. Looking forward to talking to you in the near future- Sincerely, ohn A. Moore AIAM-051527 c; Poucmmo PROFILES . INSTITUTE FOR EVAL L54 mo HEALTH Rum This is the sixth in series of articles in which Risk Policy Report will o?hr detailedprojiles ofrhr'nk tanks. research groups. educational organizations. and other institutions muon in helping to shape the understanding ofrislc assess- moms and risk management issues. 1 IEHR PLAYS CRITICAL ROLE IN GLOBAL RISK ISSUES Originally conceived as a. scienti?c entity to help inform California's Proposition 65 low, the Washington, D.C.- based Institute for Evaluating Health Risks has evolved into an organization that is at the cutting edge of national and international risk issues. When formed in California in 1989 by a group of prestigious Califomia academicians, was conceived ofas providing an expert, unbiased source of scienti?c information on chemical risks, which its founders believed had become of paramount importance with the recent passage of the state?s landmark Proposition 65 toxics law. But when it became clear for a variety of reasons that the need for such an entity had not materialized, the Irvine, Calif.-based IEHR relocated to Washington, 13.0., in May 1991, shilling its focus beyond the Golden State to national and international issues. Today including?tc development of awidelyhafled evaluo?veprocess industrial chemicals, risk-ranking efforts at the Department of Booty, and Economic CW Development (OECD). John Moore, president or" the nonpro?t 'was recruited as ?rst staff executive and full-time employee when it got underway in Irvine in 1989, and continues to serve in that capacity today. Moore discussed lEH-lR?s development and some of its key projects in .1 June 4 interview with Rick Policy Report. IEHR maintains between a. six and eight-person sta?' in its Washington, DC. headquarters. with Moore and Renate Kimbrough as its two principals. During the 19805, Moom served as Assistant Adminiso-ator ofEPA's Of?ce of Pesticides dc Toxic Schmuces and as EPA's Acting Deputy Administrator, and has held senior positions within the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences. Prior to joining IEHR. Kimbrough held positlom both within EPA and the Cutters for Disease Control. IEHR gets its funding from both private sector and government sources. core of private sources has given us unrestricted grants on an mnual basis,? Moore says; explaining that while this has not amounted to a huge sum, ?it allows usthe Wm pursuepmjectsastheymayarise. One of major contributions and earliest projects was the development ofa now widely-hailed process for assessing the potential reproductive and developmental risks from chemiwl exposures. Moore says convened government-academic and private sector scientists from around the country for an exploratory meeting in December of 1989, ~which resulted in the consensus that more was a need for action in the area of reproductive and developmental toxicity and risk assess- ment. IEHR succeeded in obtaining a 50-50 mix of ?mding ?'om gOVemment and private sources to develop a docu- ment labeled ?An Evaluative Process for Assessing Human Reproductive and Toxicity of Agents," RISK POLICY REPORT . June 14, 1996 which it in turn followed up with a look at some pilot chemicals to assess the real-world unpact of such a process. Moore attributes the success of the document to the fact that it results in ?a very transparent promos? if it is followed properly and the fact that it was crafted through a collegial process drawing on a broad spoon-mu of experts, including international scientists. ?If you look at this paradigm, its utility to endpoints beyond reproductive and developmental toxicity is just as plain as the nose on the end of your face the intellectual processes involved in when you collect cudpohlt cm wants to chase,? Moore says of the applicability of A recent major project far how its involvement with a Democrat of Emmi-Ended consor- timn, the Consorthm far Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), whose goal is ?to provide an unbiased source ofsdend?c eaqoertisc" dealing with the legacy ofnuclear productions: DOE sitcssuch as Savammh Rive-rand Rocky Flats. major problem DOE has is not being viewed as audible public,? Moore says, cxplahtinglhatthe CRESP process servesas an independent source of Imowledge and judgmectonlssues ofgzcatpub?c utterest. Mooreadds thathc triatouseamma?veriskapproach ??oscomrankand prioritich shauld be done at various sites across the comb-y.? He notes thatthe consortium has endorsed the concepmal aspects oftryingto usctisk"to in?uencedle is also updating a large General Electric Co. cohort 0n biphenyls (PC83) and capacitor workers that should be completed by the end of this year, Moore says. He expects the ?ndings could be pardculm'ly interesting since there are ?a fair number of females in that cohort? unusual for this sort of occupational uposmc cohort raising the possibility that the female portion could be ?teased out? and offer important new information. Moore hates that PCB: have been implicated in ?endocrine disruption," a phenomenon that occurs when hormonal. 25 AIAM-051528 Policymaklng Profiles systems are affected by exposure to certain chemicals and one that is receiving increasing attention for potential effects on reproducn've, developmental and imrmme mu health. Moore says has been involved peripherally in the debate over endocrine ?We?ve known endoorine modulation can impact the results of our two-year Studio," Moore com? ments, adding, ?It?s been 20 years now since FDA identi?ed the norm ratmamrnary more would be heavily discomted if they could associate them with a pmlaetin-type worse.? Moore describes IEHR as having a ?secondary policy role," explaining that, while the organization does not offer up policy papers. IEHR has been active in Calitbmials comparative risk process and in 1305?s risk ranking efforts. A major focus for IEHR has been on internatioml harmonization developments. Moore has been heavily involved with existing chemicals initiative, chairing since 1989 every OECD [Screening Information Data Set] meeting, evaluating where the data gaps are or what the data are. Ht: describes this as an effert to leverage money from a variety of countries to share the Commentary basic information needed to make a ?first-cut decision" on whether a chemical should be ?set aside" and removed from further consideration. withom the fear that it might ?come back to bite you-? There are new data on the table for many chemicals, Moore notes, and he emphasizes that the OECD while not the traditional son of mechanism associated with risk assessment has ?the unique oppornunty" to make progress on risk?related issues. One of the most pressing issues facing the ?eld of risk assessment is the need to ?get the politics out ofit.? Moore believes. He calls last year?s fot?ied congressional offers-to pass risk/regulatory reform legislation ?3 sad commentary.? While Moore believes legislation is warranted, he says the proposals to emerge lastyearwete so?ovt:rtenching" astocxt'rnguish any chance ferrefonn, as acountry are all the worse forit." In closing. Moore emphasizes that there is a need forsomesort risk assement. ?Risk messment is a tool that Should cumin-?y bechangingtosomedegreebasedon newsdenn?cinforma- tion,? he comments. ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL: SOME IMPLICATIONS OF THE REPORT OF THE NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RISK CHARACTERIZATION DV James D. Wilson Note: These remarks are the views of the author and not necessarily those ofstourcesfor the Future. Conventional wisdom holds that all risk assessments should follow a set pattern: a hazard identi?cation is followed by a dose-response assessment, which is then combined with an exposure assessment to yield a risk charac- terization, usually an estimate of how likely it is that some hypothetical representative individual from some chosen population will die. This ?ction was once useful, serving to introduce a measure of analytical discipline into a young Environmental Protection Agency?s decisions. The: the pattern does not come close to representing reality for all risk decisions has been apparent to many since its promulgation a dozen years ago in the National Research Council?s ??ed hock," Risk Assessment in the Federal Gavemment: Managing the Procm. For example: Analyses to support safety decisions in agencies Such as the National Highway Traf?c Safety Administration don?t track this pattern. Nor do analyses conducted by the Agriculture Department?s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service which regulates import of living plants and animals. Moreover, the ?red book? paradigm is built upon the implicit that "exposure" to hazards will almost certainly occur, and exposures can have negligible but neither asarmption holds when risks ?'cm improbable events are to be managed, as NHTSA and APHIS do. Now, the may?released report of the National Research hirestmpaddlehtdte makes it clear that the ?red boolc? paradigm has limited utility for much of human health risk assessment, as well. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisiom' in a Democratic Society, as this report is titled. emphasizes two observations that many of us in mqprof?ession believe must be integrated into oin' thinking if the profession is to thrive. First: risk assessments need to be structured by the decisions that ultimately will be made and that the assesnnenn. are intended to inform. Second: these decisions are not all alike. Net surprisingly, these two observations cam-y signi?cant implications fer how the risk analysis process is organized and carried out in EPA and other regulatory agencies. Jane: D. Wilson is Senior ellw at the Washington D. C. -ba.red Center for Risk Management, Rescurees for the Future. 26 RISK POLICY REPORT June 14, 1996 AIAM-051529 IEHR BULLETIN The Institute for Evaluating Health Risks Vol. 1, No. 2, October 1991 IEHR Performs Lead Stud for Pub IC Health IEHR received a grant from, the Department of Public Health of the State of Illinois to study blood lead levels in children. _The project began in late August- and will continue tlirought1992. Dr. Renate Kimhrough serves as the Principal Investigator (of the study with the help of (Io-Investigator, Dr. Maurice Le Vois. 7 The study measui'es and .hloodilfutlsle?vcls?ond ?other biochemical in livingjn Grnnite Approztithhtely' people, children pager years of fate; 'will'be presmed?to have exposed to. ?ght? enviromnental ld population. High blood load levels in humans can-occurjiil my; routesol? such interioi: paint, 'andj the obit-*6: ?hnmedi?t'e 'thyimmnenu [An attainm- will-he madtto' million MW one?? contained in nod 'hl?otl lead levels; the of laid soil overall lead exposure The variables affecting . lead uptake from-lad in soil are oonmnh??on of the lead in soil, particle 'size, form of presence of other . u-?aoe elements. For plants; ooil pH isialso iinportant. Other factors to consider barriers at mote Elimisihought to: 59 the . .- . which?llild?n?m?wff??m. of soil from the? omsidt,? lint, and -- soot; hair, paint twang; and other,? from the house. In many reports of .ptjeviom studiesijthe relationship between levels titled in ?dust and lead in soil was not clearly de?ned. This study will . attempt. adot'ess the implications relationship. - nit-gram is of angel-"study ?at two hdditionol sites- -in' and Kansas, coordinated by the Agency for. Toxic and Disease Regan (ATSDR). It is hOped? that the reams of this" three-site Stuttly?ill provide a better_ wield-standing of the various pathway; through which children are exposed to'len'd. - - Ultimately, the results of these and otherv'studies will make (it 'possibl'e to reduce the .moutain?es of 'thej of lead ?exposm .of' hunamllirin'g-in 'or. adjacent to oontaminatecl arms such asfs'u'p?u?fund sitts't ?conventiot'l'ls pmulgited continunnce of theoe"polibies._ Copies of this report are available upon negates-t. . Institute Internship Program leted ancer Rea ment On July I IEHR annOunced the reSults of its project that reassessed the-pathological diagnoses of five key PCB chronic studies in rats. These studies were selected because they had either been utilized or disclosed in previous EPA risk assessments and they represent the best studies for evaluating- the mncer potential of than mixtures of chemicals. I the diagnoses? of over lesions htilin'ttg cun'cht- by; the Nada-unarm Program ?nd "by'th'e ?Environmeh'thl Agency. The pathologisis'ieached a 9 for each animal ?wilh liver tumors, pemiitting confidence that differences in tumor incidence and type in . - each study ore due'to dillme in the test substance. - The mailJr The that ?studies with 60% in the The-incidence 6fftmiim's' was'modu'ately decreased. 7'2) PCB formulations with 54% chlol'ination did net yield at statistically Signi?caht increase in either or malignant honors. In addition; the reassessment clari?ed. the Significance ol? a tent: in the original study, 3) "PCB'formulatiOnS- with 42% chlorination did not ?eld it stgtittically significant increase in either benign or malignant honors. . The resuls of the ?mment were toiboth and mile-,immim. my 'm-Wir?k?b?im particularly all . . and, that? all *?PCBUl?omtulatiom' have Quantitative potency to cause. cam; Analysis'ol' the [reassessnent results provides no scienti?c support for Elisabeth Reese, a graduate student in the University of Michigan's School or Public Health, spent the satanic-as IEHR's_'fii'st_ intern. Reeso, under the direction of Renate Kimbmugh, ['85th existing literature and preme 2 draft document on the ?ute toxicity of constituents of gasoline. The document will" be .pattof-a. . presentation given by Renate Kimbrouxh' at' I International H'e?alth Etfects of Gaoolim [continued art-page 2] AIAM-051530 LEHR Bulletin Pagel. lmLegnship PW plants to offer similaf internship: in future years, and is also considering the establishment of I postdoctoral position for an individual interested in risk Went or risk policy issues. Inquiries regarding Opponunitiw for sabbatical positions or assigmnents' will also be mutilated, lEHR?i?lvewesr. Initiative: I: . I . of Ehemichs . The Institute is pm?eeding {with?th? itilamiin'g. (if-.8 Conference that will and hdpefully'temlve many issues associated with the bioaculmulation of persistent lipophilic'thatlicals 'in? aquatic biota; goal-Em improve the, med. all}; estimating tgiqitant bioagttmIillitioii._ . Dizma'ior- harem-?n EMit-W??hefhiwdmf w'aste site- 'twatuatio?? .iftir. .tnvironmmtal risks, I A plannin'gfm?e?mi'gfm'?e has inflate. will." establish ftlie Working Coniference?s. fauna]. Vanda-pothntiatl target _.tlat'e? ?rst gunner; 1992. . - interm- participating - number have also hidith pitms ?ll: summit.? These organi'm?ons' 1- atti- .- x: .?liistitutg, American histitute, Tlt??sear'ch Institute, Axel-icy..- .jimtl .. Drug 'ot?I Miran: - mm; for, Air. Institute 4? contact fo'r?tli? i - - I Theto'rtnation role detail in mi gamma, Employment of Suite? ift?wl?wtihi?u?ibumem. Managerian publish?d - 4m Smog, dewwt- 'The ?whiti?fvchi?e?i W. . --asj one .jjof itmOvatiOns. tl'fat .blidge toti?icts Wh?ii' yinyblied. i'ecogn'izze. the 'ina'bllit?ybfany 'qne to, solve mis?t" and fundamental health ind environmental The 1 Carnegie We!? bridge lintsjunagigig 'scienti?c Naval; gala ?risk' (management decisions. However, ability ?df ooh?ceptto serve in this [role was became its execution had close by gov?tjimmt'and shalt-ply u-iticized. by dives-Se private IEHR?yvas" dmlop'ed 115' ,anf ..I. gov?.an mittion which' is.th the risk pm to - - ,_Le 2' ii: leward more scienti?c comment and public con?dence. Copies of the report can be obtained by writing Jessa Ausubel', Director'of Studies, at the Carnegie Commission, 10 Waverly Place, New York, NY, 10003, International Meeting Hazardous Em. . Jack Moore recently s'er'ved as Chairman of inter. national scietiti?u: group that methods for developing'apmaches to the management of hazardous A vast; A primary emphasis was to identify .appto?qhet and methods that would utility to and public health officialsin devdopinchounuim. The of the activity will lie hublished in bobk' [qt-tn within eighteenniogthb; . . Th6.- . canvwed- with.? the taxis-of Ihe' -. Spiw??t; ionf Meghoqdl,pgles' Tarot,? Satay . I receives iihihm?tei?and' rim ethe- Int?matitittal. ign ?Chemical assuring; W305..-uae ?Na?tml' 7 Itktit'ute ll? 53mg.- fi-omL Egypt; - France; - Mexico'. ?tltp' Kingdom, :and -. sd?n?ii?? during. ?$55313: wit-"fa biastatisdcihn_zehiddhiblosisn serves as mg miqu Ludwig; pr, . epidemiology bio'statistirs. will be a..to.;the Le Vols "has fiswkeasf tam. calm?- arid the -- mammotm of th?Ctil?lgg? Mm, (Milieu 991mm) sheji?q lathe rpolicy'yeletn?nt?nf- mm. Her pjrqiects' manila: the Biomumulatititi ?Conl?erence, suppoft fut-5M" Illinois 7 Late! Study, ai?td produgtion? of the-ERR - . The .Amet'iCan conference of- "and -- awaraed Dr, Rmtejt?mbmigh th: Herbert E."Stocltinger AWard recogii'ition. for outstanding contributions to industrial-and ehvii?omnental toxicology.__ I 'At Ithe_ cercmony, Kimbmught?j?g've'. -a presmtatiqn entitled "Uncmninties of Risk?wll?nt", which will be panama in the. at; vi ntalH lam?Ht .. [continued on page 4} AIAM-051531 1311?. Bulletin Page 3 Wm vervi continues to rnake progress with its project to develop. an Evaluative Pincus for Developmental and Reproductive Toxicants.- Known by the acronym DART, this study-has feur critical objectives: ~deveiop 'an evaluative process incorporating robust use of sdentit?ic to determine which chemicals potentially timten- to?cause reproductive or developmental toxicity; antenna of that clearly conveys'the basis for the'scientific judgement that a chemicalntag'posesuch a'threat; . a 'v'achieve the ?previouslobjectiv?axthrougha process from academia, 10m, f't'fecmnmend? best; my to "achieve broad a I. (if 'iapproache?s, including is'suesfsuoh as consiStencv. and meditations for propel-I. ?reviai'on to re?th evolving 'ocie'iititie A ?Mtge, leer; ?f'vhieh are developed or I Smog. Comm - - - . . potential dist of. Members; William Fmiand,-EPA, [Chair] Peter Galbraith-Cannedch Dept of Hit}: . . v- Exxon Bittmedloal Science; 4 PhilWatanabe,DawChentical Monsanto has. foinf'niajor functions: 1) ?pmvi?e?manage?el aid policy perspective ,on the tint! host a meetin?that will - gt? dismionaandz-oontmentjon 3). jin-?ih?e- organization or; we pilot-L meal evdw?on?'phm and; 4) develop renounieriilatiOns on how to broad 'and?d?fective of the evaluative. prooegt The Management Committee met inAugust to review the progress of project and planning for a that will permit "dismnsion-ol? the draft evaluative process and potential mechanisms for'achieving broad hnpletnentation. The meeting is dentatively Scheduled for MarehMpril 1992.? Reaffirming itashtong eupport for achieving international representation and participation in the review of the draft evaluative process 'and in the pilot chanicnl ievaluation phase, the committee is actively soliciting participation of scientists experienced in the needs of the public and environmental health community. a. The conunlttee voted to broaden its membership with Dr; Peter Galbraith, of the Connecticut Depamnent of Public Health, and Dr. Robert Scam from Exxon Biomedical Sciences agreeing to join the Committee. The next meeting is scheduled for October. tin ommit I'Memhers: Elaine Faustman, Univ. of Washingtan i Bill Hart, Eastman Kodak Claude Hughes, Duke Univemitv Cat-bl Kilomel, EPA - . Jim Lamb..Jellinelr SchwartzConnolly. end-Mshmanl .t Jack Moore, remnant-r}. - TonerScinlli, Geaigerqim University; - -. - .. . The DART steering?oommittee is 'respomible t?or?the technical and scienti?c, aspects of?.the project. The principal task oontinues to be development- of the" draft - evaluative process, ?biota will be. forcomment in - January, 1992.. I, (at; "the pilot . ?uu?w'vhaseofthepi?ojee?j Dr.?Marli?sn Campbell joined I to work on the scientific anti issue; associated - - with the DART Project." A?s ?loselylwith jthe' her at. the University of Washington and has 'ivith. Min, and? the EPA Where the" . reproductive and developmental;- toxicologishr She :mt recently held a position anal toxicologistladvisor National I Farmers. Union, - London; England; 7hr. Campbell .will continue to live in England, an arrangement made possible .by' electronic information" transi?et?technology. Blaine A unique aspect of the DART. project, which commenced in the'fail of 1990, was?a ,comitment by IEHR to achieve equal funding from the Federal Government and the [nitrate sectar. Federal Funding 'w'as receivedfl'rom the Environmental Hoteo'tion Agency and: the U3. Department of Agriculture. The initial sow-ea of private funds was a grant the Atnerimn industrial Health I Council. Speci?c funds for this project have also been received or pledged from Coca. Cola, Dow, _Eastxritin Kodak, Exx0n, FOrd Motor Colanese, Merck Co, OxyChem, Rhone-Poulenc, Rohmand?Haas. . - . - . AIAM-051532 varying: Bulletin Page 4 i A key element in the deveIOpment of the evaluative process is to tat it?s effectiveness by evaluating a set of chemimls. One can b_est l?arii how mile the process is by assessing a range of chemical types that have varying windmills of toxicity data. .It will also pennit the project to denome 'hov'v evaluative judg'anents'should be effectively and objectiver c'omrnunicat?d. Tli? Mamigemcnt and Steering Committee recommend that the pilot. least-long drug, One pg?cide,? armetal, and a Several dozen wm_considei*ed. in a; . "candidate" ?stat eleven I Fife ox:le chemi?als . pilot evaliiatioiz\bd?cagisi: I J7 i - i?d?-gs. 7' .l on; .ol' - chajq'i?his'uuj 'thm? may- 'uwdg'ht's' As ah"immi??xicity?atnnumimgaw'Wd Exposm? data differences are also a mgjor "selection criteria; it is belioved that Selecting. from a rung. of materials (drugs, pesticides, metals, and to some dean; a chemical class) will provide the desired range of data. It is anticipated that?the pilot chat-mail evaluatioiu will lie pufonned in mid to late SummEr of 1992. Ingtitul Potpginrri (Continued) Jud: Moore ?polie'?tthe Summer .Toxic?lozr Fm?: Aspen; Colo. Addressing international activiti with chemicals and thoiril'safety'f.? He "In hupedinientto progress was-the paralysis thatrto' occur due to the number of to be He opined that ail OECD'inj?a??i'? 1? ?di'ie to_._three key' factors. First agre?mem on . volcano; . Swadd,-- ?74m lief de'vds'rfxsed Mummyfartiql?_ lilo . A - Sgit? 1.101; nae, 29005;.11' if :1 w. 7 gnaw "a . inf. maturatiwmqur . A Mxmm?w?i-Uwg?b -. mongrel; ?get IEHR David Retard, Build Radian-18.1. ashram-0635mm . AIAM-051533 'inl?orindtibn "M?'if?r ?lihitidl; ?7 . in this. aim-i Third; ii bolt itching select. those. 'caI?-ithat; Based "f1 .?tciat- . 9856? with" ??th Mme: harm . (nu. - i I I Ill-?I ,l I: - I also praise: mi?- . look." tit pmon Hm m- QM I 43PM 1996 1' rl VSSIso-wvgg -. Film RisiksHEALTH RISKS - 7 7 .. 2 I 61? qh?mi?all?s'??i?tizuJogging?; Sig @1596 3? qlxupli'tal'iirci' Chiquita: Rik-sis[9945,195'Yamdvnasxons. - . . . 3311'. . i. . . . ?aawnamg;= marrow-snags is. ?nms?higmi?u?i?ize? {1mg FGRITY . leadi?ship Eff-?unifommy (6.1191311ny 3i113 P. 7638462972 IEHR FROM 8-1996 2: 42PM 1 H?aith?RiSks is the natioili?sf In chemicals. ch'cnvironmenlnl- issu?s? facing sogje?y . an: as Compelling or as . .com?lex as lhbse w?i?h ati?n'd? 7 heidth risksa?rising from ,exposur?tb ch?m?ipal substances. The issue-results a simple. fact of?modclm ejx?osur'c' can shine 1' instances; generaltjsomc. dcgr_ec or health risk. The system .of cva?luatilighemm risks. .assc'cialtcd- with chemical: 7. growih?gmtio?ai 'awa'r??sg of the. problem and": f; demands resugcd? in a'bpdy of p?blic: '5 5 p'pfi'cyand dft?e?; 7' i . While all nnlicv ?d?ii???ii??tiWLS. @?ysa?prira'sgign as am! ,di?rebt??s'bygi ?rs: non~prcmagep?y I -- dedicated:Emlbgiirf?lyfazthe? I I I stienzificcv'alua?on 0f hganh _risks associated With 'eXposnr??: . The Institute for .6f33JC-Pb?s?ir?f?5" -, . chghiig?? . i T5: . - 7?t??t?fainf?fg?i?zatibii wm?iagyemp; and 2 - "evaluaims?a . . . '?tie?ti?q: =5?hi??w .??v?mat?ah?al?! and appl'ic'si - life: Virtu?allii?cvcr)? 1 ., - af?imily; c' . . eating apple'o: dyinl?ngfd I, . glass?df-Wat?r?result?ginI'irmblic' :P??igif - . 3 .- - . ii-?gaiti 7' whichgqahmx?snhi?m? "dis-?mmgpa?wmbrIEHK-?ig?si?ia?blic wrest? imiwimi?in-?Ihci . n- Sit-5:; 'is?of?diwmhiduse righteth . .5 I 1 Egg-Z: all'sg??mem? bf "s'qbictx ?9n??m8d -. - .?d?h??'ii?du'stri?Jinq?UirJaA -49 5- memb??bbjec?v; ra'sni'ph; ?ih?gwma?c? {Ff .- 5 Cbn?ibule .who;r= i 557:1 -. 71J-m, . h-71'. 3 5 i?sk L?Qs'ses?mcn'ts .1 whitth are g?nerallv inlinmpTEu'nd bmhmihm?a P. 18 Attachment 7 Announced IPCC Activities 1996- 1997 Meetings 1. IPCC Workshop on regional climate change projections Sept 24-26. London for impact assessments 2. Working Group II and Main Plenary 3. Bureau 4. Bureau Special Reports 1. Global Atmospheric Effects of Aviation 2. Emissions Scenarios 3. Regional'lmpacts of Climate Change 4. Technology Transfer Technical Papers I. Policies and Measures 2. Modeling of stabilization scenarios 3. Environmental implications of emission limitations 4. Simple climate models 5. Regional impacts of climate change 6. Methodological and technological aspects of technology transfer Workshops 1. Regional Climate Change Projections for impact assessment 2. Adaptation 3. Economic Impacts of Annex I Actions on developing Countries 4. Integrated Assessment Modeling 5. Integrated Assessment Capacity Building . 6. Mitigation and Adaptation cost assessment guidelines. A 7. Integrated Assessment Modeling (workshOp II) 8. Workshop on Rapid non-linear change 9. Role of oceans and coral reefs in the carbon cycle Scoping Papers 1. Technology Assessment (expert group meeting) 2. Scienti?c information relevant to the interpretation of dangerous levels of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere on the climate system 3. Risk management techniques for decision-making under uncertainty. 4. IAEA full fuel-cycle emissions CALEN97DOC 09/17/96 Sept 1997 Nov 7-8, 1996 Jan 30-31, 1997 Completion Date Sept 1993 Sept 1998 Sept 1998 Feb 1997 Nov 1996 Nov 1996 1997 Nov 1996 Feb 1997 Feb 1997 3rd Q. 1997 1997 Late 2Q. 1997 March 1997 1997-2000 April 1997 1998 Mar?Apr 1998 9 Sept 1997 Sept 1997 1997 late 1997 Pug)_ose lCAO/Montreal Protocol TAR SBSTA SBSTA SB STA SBSTA SBSTA SBSTA SBSTA SBSTA TAR SB STA SBSTA SBSTA START TAR AR AR TAR TAR TAR TAR other AIAM-051536 AIAM-051537 I 7 {?71 Attachment 8 FAX MEMO To: Lenny S. Bernstein Pages Sent: 7 From Bronson Gardner Phone I Fax Number 216-475-9674 Subject Side by Side Comparison Internet Address: gardnerb?ix.netoom.oom Attached is a detailed "side by side" comparison of the comments submitted by the GCC and the US. government on National Communications and the documents produced at COPZ. The short story is that the Annex 1 document appears to res pond well to most the comments. but the Annex II comment does not respond well to most of the comments. Bronson I 7 RECEWED Bronson Gardner 13965 Milo Road Gar?eld Heights. Ohio 44125 AIAM-051538 To: Connie Holmes. Hit-h McFadden. John Fs'hlaes From: Bronson Gardner Re: review Decisions on Nationai Communication Guidelines I have compared the decisions made at COP-2 regarding Nathan-til Communication Guidelines with statements made by both the and the US. Attached is comparison of" requests made by the L7 S. and the (ECG (in hold) Willi the actual iunguage of the guidelines (non-bold). Proposals for Annex I Parties 0 "increasing transparency, comparability, and consistency through more speci?c reporting gidde?ncs". (U. S. and GCC) "The transparency ol? national communications is Fundamental to the success of the process For communication and ci?insideration ot' (page 3. Annex I). "Where methodological or data gaps exist, information should he presented in a transparent manner." (page Annex I). "In the interest ot'transparency, Parties should include baseline projections, indicating, using Table 1. which measures are inciuded and which measures are additional to these baseline projections". (page 8. Annex 1). "Parties are encouraged to use the IPCC Technical Guidelines for Assessing Climate Change Impacts and Adaptations". (page 9, Annex I). 0 Greater Speci?city on Individual Measures Overall (GCC) "The national communications should describe all f'a Party's policies and measures implemented or committed that the Party believes contribute significantly to its ett'orts to reduce emissions and enhance sinks of greenhouse gases." (page 5. Annex I). "The overall policy context for the policies and measures adopted should be presented. These could include relerence to other relevant policies as well as elaboration ot?national greenhouse gas targets. (page 5, Annex I). "Parties should: provide enough information to allow a third party to obtain a qualitative understanding of the mode-1(3) and/or approaches used and their relationship to each other; (page 9, Annex I). "To ensure transparency, national communications should include enough iiztonnation to protide a third party with a quantitative understanding ol'the key assumptions used to develop projections(s) of greenhouse gas emissions and removals and estimates(s) oi" the total eti?cts ot? policies and measures on emissions and removals." (page 9. Annex I). ilii' 77:96 AIAM-051539 - "Each National Communication should include a statement ot'speeil?ic assumptions made in preparing the plan." (GCCI) "To ensure transparency. enough information should be provided to allow the reconstruction of the inventory from national activity data. emission factors and other assumptions. and to assess the results." (page 4. Mules I). "To facilitate transparency. enough detail should be provided about each individual policy and measure described in the text of the nation communication to allow a third party to understand the action's objective and degree of implementation. as well as how the greenhouse gas effects of the action will be monitored over time." (page 7. Annex 1). "Parties should indicate in what way activities by the private sector help meet the commitments of Parties under Article 4.3. 4.4 and 4.5 of the Convention." (page 11. Annex 1). "Although not explicitly required by the Convention, 3. Party may wish to provide other information relevant to its greenhouse gas emission?removal pro?le. This would permit readers to put the information on its implementation of the Convention in context, could help to explain certain trends and would provide data valuable in the analysis and aggregation of the submissions." (page 12, Annex I). "Initiating a process to resolve areas ol?ineonsistency in reporting, such as temperature adjustments, bunker fuels. electricity imports, and global warming potentials". (U.S.) "Reporting of emissions on a consistent basis" (GCC) "To facilitate the process ofconsidering the national communications. including the preparation ot?useful technical analysis and documentation, by encouraging the presentation of information in ways that are consistent, transparent and comparable." (page 1. Annex I) "If Parties carry out any adjustments to inventory data. for example for climate variations or trade patients in electricity, these adjustments should be reported in a transparent manner. with clear indications of the methods followed" (page 2, Annex I). level of uncertainty associated with these data and underlying assumptions should be discussed qualitatively and. where possible, quantitatively". (page 3, Annex I). "Annex I Parties should follow the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories with respect to the presentation ot?methodologies. activity data. emission factors and other assumptions." (page 4. Annex 1). "Parties are encouraged to include separately projections of emissions from international bunker fuels and/or provide information which will facilitate intemalional projections of bunker fuel emissions". Being able to analyze the global implications of national plans requires that national communications include comparable estimates of emissions and their reductions (GCC). GUIDELNEDUC 09," 1 7/96 AIAM-051540 .. -- . nv' Ion-uW4-I r-v-W VI I "Countries that already have an established and comparable methodology could continue to use that methodology, provided that they provide suf?cient documentation to back up the data tables and formats recommended in the IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories should be used tor presentation oidata." (Annex I. page 4). Greater Speci?city on Individual Measures Through what mechanisms the action is expected to affect emissions (CHIC) how the measure is expected to function or is functioning" (page 7, Annex I). 0 Greater Speci?city on Individual Measures :How much each action is expected to affect emissions and how those effects are expected to change or phase-in over time g) A quantitative estimate of the mitigation impact of the policy or measure or, if unavailable. a ranking of individual policies and measures according to their relative importance in mitigation (page 7. Annex I). 0 Greater Speci?city on Individual Measures :?What side effects on the national economy or society the action is expected to have. (GCC) Information (including details of the calculation methodologies) relating to the cost of the policy or measure, to the extent possible". (page 7, Annex 1). Greater Speci?city on Individual Measures :W'hat related actions the action is dependent upon, and how the action interacts with other national actions (GCC) "The overall policy context for policies and measures adopted should be presented. This could include relerence to other relevant policies as well as elaboration ot?national greenhouse gas targets". (page 5, Annex 1). Monitoring through intermediate indicators of progress for policies and measures. These may be related to legislative processes, emissions-related activities or the broader objectives of policies and measures." (page 7, Annex I) how the policy or measure interacts with. other policies and measures described;" (page 7, Annex 1). 0 Importance. of National Circumstances (GCC) Status of implementation of, andror commitment to, the policy or measure. (This should, where appropriate, make reference to a section of the national communication related to national circumstances that describes the policy-making process in the country or organizat1on).? (page 7, Annex - "Reducing the compilation and burden on the Secretariat by reporting data in electronic form and increasing the use of ta bles." (US) GUIDELNZDOC 09.17196 AIAM-051541 "ll' possible. data should also be provided in an electronic version which is compatible Willi the requirements of the secretariat.? (page 4. Annex I). "Parties should use table 1 in Appendix and to summarize the provided on policies and measures, with all ?elds of the table completed. to the extent possible." (page 7, Annex 1). ?Parties should summarize the projections data in accordance with the categorization in the summary tables or" the IPCC Guidelines on National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, using table 2 to 7 in appendix {Page 3, Annex I). "Parties should, to the extent possible, summarize key 1variables and assumptions by completing table 8 in Appendix (page 9, Annex I). GU IDOC 0951 7/96 AIAM-051542 Proposals for Annex [1 Parties Non-Annex parties should develop comprehensive National Communications. 0 The communications should address all greenhouse gases, and not focus mainly on carbon dioxide (CICC) communication should include: A national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all greenhouse gases not controlled by the Montreal. Protocol. to the extent its capacities permit, using comparable methodologies to be promoted and ag eed upon by the Conference of the Parties" (page 4. Annex II). The communication should be subject to individual country reviews by the secretariat, and not merely a review of overall aggregate effect. The review should include a technical review of the communication, including the estimates in the emissions inventory, the transparency of the communication?s conclusions. the consistency of the data, and the adherence to the reporting guidelines. (GCC) no statements which clearly support these positions. Instead, the emphasis seems to be on aggregate studies: "Any other infonnation that the Party considers relevant to the achievement of the objective of the Convention and suitable for inclusion in its communication, including, if feasible. material relevant for calculations of global emission trends." 0 The communications should speci?cally address actions taken and further opportunities for the JI process. The document is not speci?c. It seems to encourage national communications to contain "shepping lists" which maybe used in a ll project. "Parties may also present information on their speci?c needs and concerns arising from the adverse effects of climate change and/or the impact of the implementation of response measures? (page 5. Annex "'lhere is a clear need for adequate and additional ?nancial resources. technical support and technology transfer to supplement the efforts toward capacity building for preparation of the national inventories" (page 6, Armex II). "Developing country Parties may, in accordance with Article 12.4, on a voluntary basis, propose projects for ?nancing, including speci?c technologies. materials, equipment. techniques or practices that would be needed to implement such projects. along with, if possible, an estimate of the incremental costs. of the reductions of emissions and increments of removals of greenhouse gases. as well as an estimate ofthe consequent bene?ts." (page 8. Annex H), "Information on national technological needs related to measures to facilitate adequate adaptation to climate change may be included in the conununication". (page 8 . Annex II). - GUIDELNZDOC 09:17:96 AIAM-051543 (?ommunications should describe other actions that are being taken. in addition to Jl. that would reduce greenhouse gas emissions. (GCC) "In accordance with Article 12. 1. each Party not included in Annex! should communicate a general description of steps taken or envisaged by the Party to implement the Convention. Taking into account the chapeau ot'mticle 4.1. the initial communication should seek to include. as appropriate: Programmes containing measures the Party believes contribute to addressing ciimate change and its adverse impacts. including the abatement of increase in greenhouse gas emissions and enhancement of removals by sinks". (page 7. Annex 11). The communication should make the best estimates it can of the future changes in greenhouse gas emissions expected to occur due to economic development or increased economic activity generally. It should estimate the reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that could occur due to joint implementation actions and other actions taken or planned to curb emissions. (GCC) There are no statements which support these positions. References: Annex 1 Decisions to Promote the Effective implementation of the Convention. Communications by Parties. Communications from Annex 1 Parties: Guidelines. Schedule and Process for Consideration. Document 17 July 1996. Annex Il- Communications from Parties not included in Annex 1: guidelines. facilitation and process for consideration. Document 17 July 1996. 09517196 AIAM-051544 AIAM-051545 Attachment 9 5 1996 with: x. DATE: September 3, 1996 TO: GCC Post Berlin Working Group Members FROM: John Shla I SUBJECT: Revised Dis ssion Paper on Technology Assessment by Bob Watson A3 requested at the last me: Ling of the Post Berlin Working Group, we contacted Bob Watson regarding whether or not a revised draft had been prepared of the IPCC Discussion Paper on Technology Assessment" Please ?nd attached the revised version for you: review. This paper will be discussed at the IPCC meetings in Mexico City next week. 1331 Avenue, NW - Suite 1500 - North Tower - DC 20004-1703 Telephone: (202) 637-3162 - Fax: (202) 638-1043 - Fax: (202) 6:38-10:32 AIAM-051546 t. a! DISCUSSION PAPER TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT R.T. Watson. M.C. Zittyoweta and. 8.11. Moss This paper outlines the possible scope and approach that could he used by the to assess the technical and marine: potential of current anti emerging (innovative) technologies to mitigate (decrease sources or enhance sinks) greenhouse gas emissions from all key sectors. The proposed scope of the assessment does not include the important issue of adaptation technologies. which should he considered as the topic of a swarm assessment. In addition. this dewment does not discuss whether new set of intervention emission scenarios? needs to be generated ns a. workshop has already been scheduled to discuss this itsue (tendon, September lit-26, 1996). This scoping paper has been written by the oo?oluirs anti technical support unit of Working Group II with input from a wide range of Stakeholders. We solicited input from a number experts from governments. mouse-y. universities, and environmental. organizations ?at: both developed and developing countries. An informal workshop was held during COP-2 to revisit: the ?rst draft of this paper. Objectives ot the Assessment This assessment is intended to provide a credible. transparent and. objeotive assessment of the technical and market petunia! ot? meteor and emerging technologies to autism-.- greenhouae gas emissions in all regions of the world. Cosrs and time-frame for market [sensation of competing technologies will be assessed. Audienceth Wainformn?onmll hedesignetito assisr governm, industry endedterprivote sector entities in detemioing what is the appropriate use of technologies and policies considering their particular and geographic circumstances and. in the ease of governments. their commoners under d2 Framework Convemiott on. Climate Change: Convemtott Bodies: what Opportunities exist to encourage Damon actions through coordinating. consultative. or mechanisms: and who: range of reouetiorts by seem: are technically fusible. at whetcost. and in what tints frame. for the application of mot and emerging technologies. - Grover-meats: what technologies are currently available and likely to be available in the our (next 10 yam) and looser-mot (greater than 10 years) that would be appropriate for countries. recognizing individual and region! circumsmees; amt what are the opportunities and ?barriers (hreludittg -35- AIAM-051547 I public acceptability, sectoral and macro-economic policies) to the diffusion of emeritus emerging teehnologier into the market place. and what approaches can be used to overcome these barriers; 1 Resource Manners and Decision-makers: which projects. facilities or technologies offer investment oppot'mnities. and the potential for cont-emotive emissions reductions. Wm?ou While the preparatim and review of the technology chapters of the SAR involved developed. developing. and transitional economy country experts from universities and. guvzl'nmeml there was inadequate involvement from experts from the private sector {?nance and industry) and from development agencies. The months involvement of these Stakeholders to technology assessments is critical to the reliability and acceptability of the assessments. Involvement of these stakeholders will and signi?cantly it: the are: of practical experience. with respect to implementation of existing momentarily sound monologue that are nationalised. the development of new technologies. and the process of technological diffusion into the market place. how technologies evolve from the design phase (laborame dernonstretinn) into violate cornmeka activities. From the very start of the ECG process. it was recognized that the strength am: credibility of the IPCC rests on inclusive representation of experts from developed and developini estuaries anti from countries with economies in transition. Even though the ?rst . two comprehensive IPCC assessments involved signi?cant representation from developing countries. a more concealer: e?ort mutt he made in the next assessment to amuse greater and more appropriate representation of experts who understand the particular ?nancial and chermsrances. and the challenges and oppornrnities. in developing countries and countries with economies in transition. Therefore. experts and stakeholder groups (universities; gave-romeo: Executions; intergovernmental Organizations; industry associations. and other ?nancial histitutions; envenomentel organizations and bilateral and multilateral deveiomnent agencies) tram all regions of the world who have. experience in the development and application of current and merging appropriate technologies in developed and developing countries and countries with economies in minimums: be substantively involved. The expert teams should have open-ended. not balanced representation. Ifthe teams become too large. an acceptable. wensparent. method of selecting membership will have to be developed. Each secnonofmereporr will haverwo contreningleatl authors, onefrnmanmmexl 6011-21111 (devalnped or with an economy in transition) and am from a non-Annexl country (developing ocean-y). These convening lead author: will be responsible. in conjumnm with the Bureau of the Working Group?). With preparing the initial draft of the Stunner}! for Policymakers- . .21. AIAM-051548 I. Principles ?15".th The procedures will govern the preparatinn and review of the proposed assessment of the technical and marine: potential of current and emerging W165i! to mitigate greenhouse gas missions. In W: ot.? the scape and the timetable fur the assessment will be approved by the prior consultations with all key stakeholders to em: and equity will he held: experts will be drawn from the full range of geographical cit-emanates. devaloped and developing countries. and countries with in transition: apart: will represent the full range of stakeholders. including university. govermnent. environmental. industry. and financial teeters: participmenetexperu will be based on acmal technical expertise. with ministry environ-nch NGO experts being identi?ed from within their Stakeholder grwpe. ensuring balanced represenmian of different competing interests; representation of technical and market experts; experts are independent and do not represent their organizations: full disclosure of potential con?icts of interests by all experts; cross-rector neme in the expert. groups to ensure that cross'?sectoral issues will he covered. thus avoiding inconsistencies among elements of the assesstnent: lb: 15mm: will evaluate the technical and. market (including an assessment; of costs} potential of all competing technologies. identifying opportunit'm and. barriers in the widespread adoption of current and emerging technologies by geographic region. but will not pick winners and insert: recognize expert limiiniimis for new or emerging technologies compared to edging technologies. in particular recognize that the performance of emerging technologies can be hard to evaluate and are sometimes only as geod 35 "best allocation?; maraimies and differences of opinion that will remain through the process of preparing and revisiting this assessment Will he clearly articulated; the IPCC peer-review process. which involves expert and government review. will be complemented by an editorial board of expert: to ensure tint review man are appropriately considered by the lead indicts. Sectoral Coverage The assessment needs to be comprehensive covering sources and sinks of all key amnhouse gases in all sectors. just an in the BAR, except those cavered by the Montreal which are assessed separately. Therefore. the sectors and submitters in he covered will include. but not be limited to: Energy Supply and Transmission - fossil fuel: (mat. on and gas: including potential for increased power generation ef?ciency and WWI-thian renewable energies (modern biomass. rediheunal. hydronawer. selar met-trial. solar-elective. tidal. and wind) - nuclear (?ssion and fusion) - when scqwesm?an and remission ef?ciency -23- Wuv?i? UUO AIAM-051549 Energy Demand - transportation - residential and commercial building: - industry {all small-. and large-scale industries including pan-elem. channels. metals. amomotive. etc.) - utilities - Land Managommt agriculture - forestry . rmgelonda Scott: of Assam threatens-actor The assessmentw?l cvzluato tueuchninl momma-mint of cotton: (including notational technologies in Meloping commas) Ind ?moraine 36mm?. by examining technologies. processes, practice: and policies on 1 global. and to the degree possible, regional basis: 0 description of the State of technology: current (including traditional technologies in developing countries), with wide applicatium current (promising) but act widely applied; and (O) calm: - em to which promising or emerging technologies have similar or characteristics to turret: technologies with wide application promo: qualiw. public acceptability. and why); I ?ttde (including regulations and incentive smattch and technical barriers (including skill requirement fl): lamination. operation and melanoma of new technologies. and whether existing Wow: would be suitable ?or emerging technologies) to effective use of promising and emerging technologies; - input of public and private scalar RED on technology pipeline: - approaches for tut-kn: penetration. including the impact of policies on the not of Woo. of techmlozles into the marketplace lotto as made: pull and demonstration programs, economic incentives during market build-up, performance-hosed standards and regulations. and other incentives such a: accelerated depreciation). and the impact of indigenous knowledge and national and regional information centres; - obstacles to the acquisition of new teehmlogiea by developing countries and commie: with economies in transition. and approaches to overcome them (including lochnoloy transfer}; curt-etc and projected capital. operating and maintenance costs of cement and cum-gins technologies. and availability of ?nancins; macro-economic implications of changes in technologies. itmludlng e?eem on existing sectors and businesses. trade. and employment. the important: of avoiding the premeutre tumour of atrial stock wherever possible: 0 interactions between different sectors and nth-sectors: I utility ofettisting andplanneo technology data-bases: environmental implications ofcurrent and merging mutate: at the local:- urban air pollution). rest-anal. (9.3.. acid deposition) and global~scale (climate gases): the-kc}; lssuels?: degree to which be mixed. Structure of the Report The report would consist of a scn?cs of nub-sector reports. which Would. then be into sector reports. each with an executive summary- There Would then be a section. with its own move may, the sector reports; assessing ?ll AIAM-OSISSO usrua so d- 11 H3. BERNSTEIN @006,--008 technical 3nd mum: potential to attain airmen: uran and timetable! for groom: gas emissions. That: would then. be a Summary for savoring all aspects of the ?manor. Scum: at Information . - Previous IPCC assesan have been primarily based on information in tho peer-reviewed lireramro. The major challmge for the not: IPCC neurology amount will he to inoorpomo mu pact-Evicwed. often that claws on pmotioal expariornoof brainless. ?nance. and mammal am. We. who carport panels wmuscexportjudgmonrro moss: peer-reviewed. open-across 13mm; publications of organizations such as mo unmo; ruchnolagy data. bases: national communications: usually infoma?on on tho appuoarion of appropriar: technologies; and rochniczl and market material provided by supplier: and mamrfacmrexs. A: rho beginning of the more should be an opal! (Public) Solicitation for non?con?dan Wu :0 ensure rim exp-211! that are unabln to participant in the of the assessmonr can have ?air infatuation calm: im? consideration. Tuning Thea-o are a number of options rim can be considored. ranging from a single -comprencnsive assessment covering all gaus and :11 mm (this approach is preform! by most indusu'y reviewers of this draft document). to I pipeline (3. mil-once) of narrower more focused W. The arms could mu. subject to approval by m: at its moo session Motion City, 11-13 Sew-moor. 1996}, in an of rhis year. A oomyrehensive 333mm: would rm: about two and an: half years and could be completed in early to @4999: - t0 pmicipam. rolch experts from all roam of rho world and all relevgmr smoldor groups, and age: on procedures for using non-powva - twelve moons no prepare the sub-aoowr and room: ammo-nu: - perspoodvoofme pomn?dofmmandmging mums by ngionand wimrima'. and IPCC procedures. If a portfolio approach in profound. thou a commive mum-year workman would have to be dmloped that would We rim all sectors and gm would be aroused in amerhodiallm. This woulan gravid: amigo:anan would. be necessary. .30- AIAM-051551 Did an Ell-le WI ?new Gnu-1m blur-slum- Attacnment 10 us. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE SUITE 232:: MYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING WASHINGTON. Dc ants-cam Ml 235-6311 1w Huntsman Separmber 3, 1996 The Hononbie Warren M. Chrisropher Seer 0.5. Department of Store 2201 Street. NW Washington, DC 20520 The Hoocrablejohn H. Gibbons Assistant to the President Em- Sdence and Technology and Director Of?ce of Science and Technology Policy Executive Of?ce of the President mm Of?ce Building Washingwn, DC 20500 Dear Secretary and Dr. Gibbons: At its Eleventh Session in Rome in December, 1995, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) decided to expand its portfolio of ?products? beyond its full assessment reports (such as the 1995 Second Assessment Report) and its "special reports" (such as the 1994 report or. "Radiative Forcing and An Evaluation of the IPCC 1392 Emission Scenarios?j. The IPCC agreed on the need for a third kind of IPCC report referred to as ?Technical Papers" and established procedutes for their preparation. I am writing both of you to she?: my concems that the drafts of the ?rst three Technical Papers that here recemiy come to my amnion do not appear to cooform to the new procedure speci?tu adopted by the IPCC in Rome - referenced as ?Addendum 2 to the IPCC Procedures: IPCC Procedures for the Prep-milieu of Techniul Papers" (hammer referred to as Addendum 2 Procedures). It is my understanding that the impetus for the Technical Papers ms a recognition that the established IPCC procedures for drafting, review, and acceptance of full assessments and special reports was time-consuming and th?' the IPCC was unable to respond in a timely manner to shatt- term requests for scienti?c. technical and Other information and advice. Reportedly, the IPCC felt that there was a need to erase: infer-martian from the assessment and special reports on particular issues for the Parties to the UN. Framework Convention on Climate Change. According; the IPCC adopted by consensus in Rome Addendum 2 Procedures far Technical Papers that differ markedly From the established procedures for the preparation and the acceptance or approval of IPCC assessment and special reports. AIAM-051552 Secretary Christopher and Dr. Gibbons September 3, 1996 Page NO Under the Addendum 2 Procedures, the process and allowed time for review of Technical Papers by experts and governments 15 more hunted, and. most importantly, the content or text of Technical Papers is "?nalized by the lead anthers. consultation with the IPCC Bureau which Emotions in the role of an. editorial board, based on the [review] comments received." This change itself is a signi?cant departure from the established IPCC process, which has always reposed with the parddpadng governments the ?nal authority over the content and text of IPCC assessment and special reports. It is govemmenos under the normal procedures for assessment and special reports . no! load authors or the IPCC Bureau. which possess die right to "accept" or "approve" the assessment and special reports. The Committee?s understanding, which is based in part on the participation of our staff at the IPCC session in Rome. is ?at the primary, if not the sole, justi?cation for deviating from the normal procedures in the case of Technical Papers is that such papers on [Emphasis supplied.) Indeed. this quote is the ?ts: of eight requirements in the Addendum 2 Procedures. As you know from prior compondmce. the Committee is greatly concerned about the strict adherence to it: agreed procedures. Such adherence is necessary in Order to assure the integrity of the IPCC process and its resulting reports, which are intended to be relied upon by policymakers and the public. The drafts of three proposed Technical Papers are currently under review by governments and others. and it is my understanding that comments are due on Labor Day for two papers and on September 3 for the third. The three draft Technical Papers in question are clearly intended nor only to inform, but also to in?uence and perhaps even to persuade, the international policymakers who participate in the currmt negotiations under the UN. Fran-network Convention on Climate Change. A preliminary review by Committee staff indicates that these draft Technical Papers set forth projecdom, analysis, and commentary that often appear to go well beyond those which were presented in previous assessment or special reports. They, therefore, appear not to conform to the ?rst of eight Addendum 2 Procedures? requirements. As such. it would appear that such papers should be subject to the established procedures for assessment and special reports, and not the more limiting Addendum 2 Procedures Several enunples of this departure from the ?rst Addendum 2 Procedures' requirement are set Forth in the Attachment. And I believe that. based on these For examples, there are at least serious questions that need to be addressed as to whether signi?mnt material Fairly can be said to be ?based on the material already in IPCC assessment reports and special reports." I would also expats: that a more detailed renew would reveal additional prole of this nature. Addendum 2 Procedures require "simultaneous" review of the drafts by experts and governments. and that the drafts be ?revised by the lad authors based upon commons" received from experts and gavemments. However, the Addendum 2 Procedures do not Explain who decides whether the AIAM-051553 Secretary Christopher and Dr- Gibbons September 3. 1996 Page three drafts conform fully to the ?rst, and most important, the Addendum 2 Procedures? reqmrement that the dn?s ?are based on the material already in the IPCC assessment reports and special reports.? Given the unpottance of adhering to the IPCC Procedures to the condoned integrity of the IPCC, I assume you would agree that a Technical Paper that contains material not ?based on the material already in IPCC assessment reports and special reports" cannot be published by the IPCC- Indeed, given these concerns, it may be appropriate for the to reconsider and withdraw the Addendum 2 Procedures, and require that the preparation of Technical Papers Follow the same procedures 3 those required for assessment and special reparts. In any use, issues of conformity, such as those raised in the Attachment. concerning. for example, ?extended and idealized protocols" that are analyzed in one of the Technical Papers and criteria For evaluation of olich and measures that are developed by the authors of another Technical Paper - none 0 which previomly have been ?accepted? or "approved" under the normal IPCC procedures -- should be resolved by the participating governments, not lead authors. If you disagree with my understanding of the Addendum 2 Procedures or with my contention that the drafts do nor conform with those Procedures, 1 request your explanation of that disagreement. If. however, you in essence share my concerns about these three draft Technical Papers, I request that you make your views known to the IPCC, including, but not limited to, making them a part of the 11.5. written cements to the Lead Authors and raising them to the IPCC at its Twelfth Session in Mexico City on September 11-13, 1996. It may be the only Forum at which the U.S. delegation could take effective ste to assure that not only current drafts of the Technical Papers, but those to be developed in the re, conform to the Addendum 2 Procedures. I more that the Annotated Provisional Agenda for the Mexico City IPCC meeting includes an item (4.2) regarding ?[mJinor editorial amendments to the Principles Governing IPCC Work and the l'l?CC Procedures to bring the language in Line with UN practice." Aldtough the subject of the Addendum 2 Procedures is not speci?cally incorporated in the Annotated Provisional Agenda I note that the Agenda states that it ?may be amended at any time during the session" (1.3). There is no reason why the item (4.2) cartooning attends-amt: to the IPCC PtoCedures cauld nor accommodate appropriate discussion and my neCessaty anion to 355m: that Technical Papers zonally conform re the Addoidum 2 Procedures. or to abandon the concept of technical papers if such conformity cannot be assured . I stress that these three draft Technical Papers are the ?rst to Follow the new Addendum 2 Ptoudutes. And they will set important precedents that are likely to have signi?cant consequences for governments and. in the one of the U.S.. our economic, industrial competitiveness and job utter-eats. Thus, satisfactory resolution of the confermity issue should be a US- priority. AIAM-051554 Secretary Chn'stopbcr and Dr. Gibbons September 3, 1996 four I rcquest your weapons: to these concems prior the Mexico City mun? of the IPCC. And. ?nally, Ialso requegt thatyou forward tn the Committee copies ofall Faded agency comment: on these three Technical Papa's, as well as a copy of the af?dal Us. submission of commute on these as 2 Tel: caqu toth IPCC. Ra?m?Walht an Emmy afEnny O'Icuy Sweaty of Comment Kanmr EPA Btavmu Dz. But Bella Sirjohn Houghwn Dr. L. Gyian Main Filho Dr. Rabat T. Dr. MC. Ziuyowm MILJP. Bruce Dr. Homuug Lee ATTACHMENT (Page 1 of 4) Example! of Apparent Departures from Addendum 2 Procedures for IPCC Draft Technical Papers Saw Our staff review notes that the daft Technical Papers make many sutemems or conclusions that are presumably intended to be based on the 1995 Second Assessment Report or earlier reports. However. they often fail to give any citations or cross references to the portion portions of the assessment or special reports relied upon by the lead authors. The problem is compourided what, as frequently is the case, the refermce cited to mpport a stement in the Technical Paper is non -1PCC literamrc. That is not help?il to the re?ewm and, mosr it gives rise to questions about the origin of such Statements and conclusions. sugars that the Technical Papers may ineornorou new material ther was never considered by expats and in Home or earlier under the established IPCC procedures. (1) enrure, and Sea Level Consequences of Stabilissz of CO, Concentrations.? On page: 13 (lines 19 and 39) and 14 (line: 1-6) of Subsection 5.1, 'Expuimenml Design for Temperature and Sea. Level Analyses," it is stated: Section 5 concerns ?Equivalent TemP . . We have developed an experimental design . - . We employ, as our primary climate model, that of Wigley and Roper (1992), as updated in Kattenhetg a: a1 (1996) and in Roper a: :1 (1996) (to include differmdal lend/ocean sensitivity and variable upwelling rate), and ?Jl'l'her updated for the current exercise (details given in TP [Technical Paper] 1). For global-mean temperamre calculations, we also use models of similar suucmte ?'om Harvey, Jain and Jos and the 2D model of de Wold: (Hervey, 1988;]ain at at, 1994. 1995; Siegenrhaler and }oos, 1992; do Wolde et 31., 1995) (results from models other than ngey/Raper are incomplete at this Stage, butwil] be included in the ?nal Note that Technical Paper I has not yet hem distributed and. in fan: Is not yet scheduled Fer completion until February 1997, ascending to the transmittal letter accompanying the Technical Papers under current review. It is dif?cult to understand how an analysis resulting from "an experimenml desi employin a ??irther updated? climate model (the of which are nor disclosed), and reacting results an other models that ?are incomplete 21' this stage" can fairly be said to be "based on the outer-la] already in the IPCC assesth report: and special reports," as required by the Addendum 2 Procedures. (2) On page 15, lines 22-25, it is sorted: ?Nate that the results re?ect a choice of Cline-ire sensitivity and were computed using simple climate models. As discusried in TP [Technical Paper] 1, these models are designed to reproduce with reasonable ?delity the globally-averaged. behavior of complex models, and have also been compared to historical and/or present day observations." AIAM-051556 (Page 2 of 4) As noted in above, Technical Paper I has not yet been distributed and, Fact is not yet scheduled for completion until February 1997, awarding to the transmittal letter accompanying the Technical Papers under current resins. Once again, it is dif?cult to understand how these results an Fairly be said to be ?based on the material already in the IPCC assessment reports and special reports,? as required by the Addendum 2 Procedures. (3) _According to the text on page 39 (lines 9-11), Figure 23 "shows the commons: on Anne: 1 if non-Anne: 1 emissions continue to grow as projected in IPCC Such a scenario would cornice rapid reductions in emissions in industrialised countries." To our knowledge, this analysis has not appeared in any prior IPCC rEpOrt. Figure 23 untold appear to presuppose that if the hiremational community did agree to stabilize Carbon dioxide concentrations at 450 or 550 ppmv, the agreement would continue to exempt non- Annex 1 countries From emission lindtation requirement: (that would force their emissions below those projected in the 18923 scenan'o) for as many as 54 yea: from now. It is our understanding that the 1892 scenarios do not assume that the Annex I countries will be willmg to undertake emissions limicnion or reduction commits-tents while continuing to let non?Annex 1 counties ?off the hook" for such a long time. Therefore, as nearly as we can deurmine from ?material already in the IPCC assessment report: and special reports," there is nothing it them On which to ?base? this portrayal of an emissions path for Annex I countries. Working Group ITechnicsl Paper 3: ?Ternpecamre and Sea Love] Implications of Em signs Lm ?ns" (1) Technical Paper 3 seeks to evaluate various proposals far protocols to the UN. Framework Convention on Clot-me Change that hm little resemblance to the protocols that have been discussed in the international negotiations under the Indeed, the Technical Paper describes the subjects of its analysis as ?extended and idealized protocols" (page 3, line 10) which, as far as we can tell, were never analyzed in the 1995 or prior IPCC reports. 0 None of the protocol proposals that actually have been made in the int-emotional negooim'ons de?ne or address the namte or extent of concerning emissions limitations beyond 2010. Nevertheless, the ?set of four attended and idealized protocols" assume what the Annex I countries? emissiOns will be throogh the entire study period. ending in 2100 (page 3, lines 15-21). There is no material in any IPCC report of which we are cm to support the reasonableness of an assumption that. after returning their emissions to 1990 levels in 2000, the Annex I countris thereafter would reduce them dormg the 215': century at annual compound mes of 0.5% or 1.0% per year, or that, after reducing their emissions 20% below 1990 levels during the pcood 2000-2005, they would reduce emissions fin-thet- during the pcnod ending 2100 at an annual compoond rate of Yes the Technical Paper appears to make that assumption. AIAM-051557 ATTACHMENT (Page 3 of 4) - All ol? the protocol propOsals that actually have been made in the international negotiations refer to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases, and none would con?ne carnationan to carbon dioxide Emissions. Yet, the Technical Paper?s analysis seeks to determine the global- mean temperature and sea level consequences of limitations any on fossil- Fuel carbon dioxide emissions. We note that such an approach, rather than being ?based on" reports, is inconsistent with some of the more important information in the Second Assessment Report. As stated at page 40 in the ?Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change" (1995), "the other greenhouse gases contribute signi?cantly (about 30%) to the projected global warming.? The temperature and sea level projections set forth in the Working Group I Summary for Policymakers and in the Report take into acco'ptft: all greenhouse gases, not merely carbon dioxide emissions From foss' els. 0 The analysm of the ?set of four extra-tried and idealized protocols? appear to have assumed that global emissions remained constant at their 1990 level through 2100 (page 4, line 22), even through fossil. fuel emissiOns from non-Annex I countrim are expected to rise markedly during that period under all of the emission scenarios (Table 1, page 13}. The Second Assessment Report (including the Working Group I Summary for Policymakers and the Report) prented projections of temperamre increase and sea level rise on the basis of the 1592 enussions scenarios fer aerosol precursors (including 30, emissions). We understand that the only use of projections that assumed constant 1990 mission of aerosols - which were not included in tithe: the Report or the Summary for Policymakers was ?No allow closer comparison with the proieetioos presented in [the 1990 and 1992 IPCC reports] and to ?lusu'att the sensitivity of ?sture global temperature to changes in aerosol concentration. . . ("Contribution of Working Group I to the Second Assessment Repoct of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change? (1995), page 40). It is dif?cult to undersmd how projections in the draft Technical Paper, which fail to reflect moi-easing global emissions, can be thought to be ?based on the material already in the ECC assessment ropom . and special reports.? References are made to Technical Paper 1 (page 8, line 7; page 9, line 31), and indeed, it appears that analyses of various emission scenarios relies on calculations using the same models as employed in Working Groiip 1, Technical Paper 2 (page 8, lines 5-13). Therefore, the comments noted on page 1 above apply - namely: (1) that Technical Paper I has not yet been distributed and, in fact is not yet scheduled for completion unt? February 1997; and (2) that is AIAM-051558 uuAts?dLDl.? ATTACI-NENT (Page 4 of 4) dif?cult to understand how an analysis resoldng from ?an experimental design." employing a ??n-diet updated" climate model (the details of which are not disclosed). and rel-letting rsults from other models that ?are incomplete at this stage" can Fairly be said to be ?based on the material dread; in the IPCC assessment reports and special reports.? as required by the Addendum 2 Prone urea. Foe this Technical Paper, "the authors developed a set: of ctiteria for analyzing policies and measures" (page 9. lines 4-9-50 And preparing this analysis, the authors draw on matedals used to prepare the Strand Assessment Report and previous IPCC assessments and reports; they also draw on their own expert iudgment to amplify and explain mformaoion from these sources" (page 9,1incs It is our understanding that the IPCC has never developed such criteria in its prior reports- to draw on underlying entertain that were used to prepare prior IPCC reports is not the Same thingas basing a Technical Paper ?on material already in the IPCC assessment report: and special reports." And to amplify the underlying somee timeth with infoma?on not in prior IPCC reports, based on the judgment of the authors of the Technical Paper, would seem to go well beyond what is permitted under the agreed procedures fer preparation of Technical Papers. on: As a. ?nal note. we presume that there would be no obiection for the to conduct analyses of the issues that are the subject or? these three Technical Papers. provided these analyses are subjected to the normal IPCC preparation, review, and approval or acceptance procedures. The information that could result from such analyses would likely be infonna?ve, assoming that the assumptions and methodologies used in the analyses are sound. However, the potential For disagreements about such matters, coupled with the potential importance of the outcome of the analyses For the purpose of ongoing international negotiations, pusuades us that Such analyses should he presented in ?Special Reports" that have been subjected to the normal, more dgomus IPCC established procedures- mums/011 AIAM-051559 Post-it'Fax Note 7671 Date SCPE In, [3339 \3 - Attachment 11 Viwu? Moth w-?S mm September 17, 1996 - Committee on Energy and Natural Resources: United States Senate UNCERTAJNTIES 1N CLIMATE MODELING: SOLAR VARIABILITY AND OTHER FACTORS Sallie Baliunas, Senior Scientist, George C. Marshall Institute The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific truth. Prof. Richard Feynman, 1963, The Feynman Lectures on Physics The possible outcomes resulting from the predicted rapid and dramatic rise in global temperature deserve serious thought. What are the scienti?c facts in support of the claim that human-made global warming will be signi?cant (Le, larger than the natural ?uctuations of climate) and even possibly catastrophic? How is it known that computer simulations of the climate, forecast 100 years into the future, are accurate? One starts by testing the computer simulations against the record of temperature change of the last 100 years. In the last 100 years, the global average surface temperature of the earth has risen about 0.5 C. Also during that interval the concentration of anthropogenic greenhouse gases has increased in the atmosphere. The increase in concentration is roughly equivalent to a 50% buildup in carbon dioxide alone. That substantial buildup gives a way to test the computer simulations of climate change due to greenhouse gases from human actions. That is, by studying the temperature response to the. 50% increase over the last 100 years the computer simulations can be tested against the actual response of the climate. The computer simulations say that the global temperature should have risen in the last 100 years by roughly 0.5 - 1.5 (aerosols, whose theoretical effect is included in that range, will be discussed below).While the magnitude of the rise, as post-predicted by the computer simulations, seems to agree with the observed temperature rise of 0.5 C, it is inconsistent with the timing of the warming. The record of global temperature (Chart 1) shows that most of the warming of the last 100 years occurred before 1940. But most of the anthropo- genic greenhouse gases entered the atmosphere after 1940. Human?made greenhouse gases cannot cause a warming that took place before they existed the atmosphere. Therefore, most of the 0.5 rise must be natural Only a small part of the 0.5 rise no more than a few tenths degree could have been caused by human-made greenhouse gases. In other words, the 0.5 - 1.5 warming predicted by the computer simulations is exaggerates the greenhouse effect produced by the equivalent 50% buildup of carbon dioxide. AIAM-051560 The solar in?uence If the anthropogenic greenhouse gases did not cause most of the warming early in the century, then what did? One possibility is that the total energy out- put of the sun changes, thereby causing some warming and cooling. The evi- dence for this is in two parts: ?rst, the sun has been observed by NASA satellites to vary in total energy output in step with the 11?year sun5pot cycle of magnetic changes in the sun. Although the satellite records only began in the late 19705, which is too short a time to obtain information on century-long climate varia- tions, the association of brightness changes with surface magnetic changes allows us to obtain information on the sun's brightness changes going back several centuries, because records of the sun?s magnetism are available over that long period. The length of the sun5pot cycle is a particularly interesting proxy for changes in the sun's brightness. Chart 2 compares the sunspot cycle length with surface temperatures going back to 17501. The correlation is nearly perfect. The second of the evidence for a solar in?uence on the climate is as follows. The sun?s magnetic record can be converted to estimated brightness changes, using data from the sun and other sunlilce stars, and input to a climate simulation The results for the sun's changes are shown in Chart 3 for the years 1880-19932. If the sun has changed brightness in the way the magnetic records have indicated, then changes in sun explain more than half of the variance of the temperature record from 1880-1993. The results for the sun suggest that its brightness changes have had a signi?cant impact on climate change. A brighter sun may be the explanation for a substantial part of, and possibly most of, the 0.5 global warming observed in the last 100 years. Aerosols Pollutants such as sulfur dioxide complicate predictions of global climate change. Aerosols form a haze that absorbs or reflects sunlight causing a cooling that offsets some of the predicted greenhouse warming. Aerosols may also alter cloud properties. Studies3 '4 of the response of climate change to aerosols are based on computer simulations. The theoretical effect of aerosols has been to cool the climate forecasts (Chart 4)3, both for the present and the future, and bring the S. Baliunas and W. Soon, 1995, Astrophysical L, 450, 896. 2 W. Soon, E. Posmentier and 5. Baliunas, 1996, Astrophysical L, in press, December 1. 3 B. Mitchell et al. 1995, Nature, 376, 50. 4 ED. Santer et al. 1995, Climate Dyn, 12, 79. 1996, Namrc, 382, 39. AIAM-051561 computer forecasts more in line with the recent global temperatures. (However, allowing for the theoretical cooling effect of aerosols cannot explain the observed warming prior to 1940.) The modeled effect of aerosols does not change the conclusion that the computer simulations of climate are greatly exaggerating the size of the greenhouse warming. Regional results and the ?fingerprint? studies ?Pattern? studies3-4 of anthropogenic greenhouse gases with the added effect of aerosols are considered in ensemble, region by region, and with height. They form the basis for the claim that the anthropogenic effect on climate has been detected5 . But checking the forecasts in speci?c regions shows instead that the simulations fail to agree with observations. For example, two regions where the aerosol effect should be veri?ed are heavily-indusn'ialized Europe and North America (Chart 4) 3. There the aerosol effect worsens agreement of the computer simulations with the temperature observations. Moreover, the combined greenhouse plus aerosol model can be tested with data from the region where the computer simulations predict the most warming, namely the troposphere over the southern oceans?. That test (Chart 5) shows no net rise in temperature from 1958 to the present. Satellite temperature measurements . 0AA satellites have been measuring the temperature at a height of a few kilometers in the atmosphere essentially over the entire earth since 1979. 7 These records have smaller systematic errors than the surface records, which, unlike the satellite records, come from a variety of instruments, techniques and measurement histories, and whose coverage is sparse over large areas like the southern ocean. The very precise satellite record shows no net warming over the last 17 years - contrary to the forecasts calculating the effect of the recent rapid increase in human?made greenhouse gases. Temperature in the Arctic Most computer simulations also post-predict a major, rapid warming in the Arc?c, especially in the winter. The temperature record in the Arctic is thus a very sensitive test of the computer simulations. But over the last 50 years no net warming of the surface has been observed. The simulations also post-predict that 5 "Increasing confidence in the identification of a human-induced effect on climate comes primarily from such pattemnbased work.? (IPCC, 1996, p. 37, Sec. E4). 5 PJ. Michaels, RC. Knappenberger, RE. Davis and D. "1996, submitted to AGU Fall 1996 meeting. The most rapid warming is predicted for Bil?60? latitude, at a pressure height of 850-300 mb. 7 LR. Christy, 1992, Global Climate Change: Implications, Challenges and Mitigation Measures, ed. S.K. Majumdar et al. Acad. Sci), p. 165; IR. Christ? 1995, Gimatic Orange, 31. 455. AIAM-051562 the Arctic should have warmed by a degree or so in the last 17 years, the period during which satellites have made precise readings of the Arctic. Over the periods under study, the average temperature of the Arctic has not warmed. In the test of the Arctic records the computer forecasts exaggerate, by a very large amount, the warming that should have occurred. Error budget and uncertainties in the computer simulations Apart from the possible uncertainty of a signi?cant solar variability effect in global climate change, there are other major uncertainties in the computer simulations. These uncertainties are demonstrated by the fact that simulations of the present-day climate differ from one another by 5 in the tropics (and nearly 20 in the?polar regions).is Water vapor feedback The computer simulations rely on water vapor, responsible for most of the natural greenhouse effect, to amplify the small warming directly resulting from the increase in carbon dioxide and other minor greenhouse gases 9 However, this assumption has been challenged.?0 After considering the water vapor feedback, Lindzen gives a preliminary estimate of 0.3 for the global temperature response of an effective doubling of carbon dioxide (without any offsetting cooling by aerosols considered). Without a substantial, positive water vapor feedback, other feedback mechanisms are much less effective in amplifying the effect of increases in the minor greenhouse gases. Magnitude of other uncertainties Chart 6 11 shows some of the uncertainties in the climate simulations. Compared to the 4 m-2 radiative input to the atmosphere for an effective doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide, the uncertainty in the effect of humidity alone is about 20 m'z. An additional uncertainty of roughly 25 mt2 stems from calculating the heat ?ow from the equator to the polar regions12 . This gives rise, ?nally, to area-by-area ?flux adjustments? of up 100 In?2 in some areas of the coupled ocean? IPCC, 1996, Sec5-2.3.l 9 "This feedback operates in all the climate models used in global warming and other studies.? IPCC, p. 200, 4.2.1. However, note: arguments for [the feedback] to apply to water vapour in the upper naposphere are weak; observational analyses and process studis are needed to establish its existence and strength there.? 200, 4.2.1). Also: "Feedka from the redistribution of water vapour remains a substantial uncertainty in climate models." 201) 10 R. S. Lindzen, 1994, Ann. Rev. Fluid Mech, 26, 353; NAS R. Revelle Memorial Volume. 1966, in P7955- Adapted from R. Lindzen, private communication. ?2 knOWing the dynamical heat fluxes, it is Cleanuthat one cannot even calculate the mean temperahrre of the earth.? (Lindzen 1996, ref. 10) AIAM-051563 atmosphere simulations. (Additional uncertainties in cloud physics are not discussed here). Summary No evidence can be found in the observations of the global temperature for a dangerous warming derived from human actions. I The computer simulations of climate, which estimate a warming of roughly ?1 over the last 100 years, have overestimated the warming that has actually occurred by a factor of three or more. The same computer simulations projecting for the next 100 years (the time frame cited for the equivalent of a doubling of carbon dioxide) must be corrected for these overestimates of past warming. When corrected, the forecasted warming for the next 100 years is a few tenths C. That warming, spread over a century, will be negligible compared to the natural ?uctuations in climate. Furthermore, delaying the onset of drastic emission reductions by as much as 25 years results in a penalty of only 0.2 in added temperature by 210013 according to the current computer forecasts which are known be exaggerating the warming. Investing in and waiting for better climate science would be appropriate, considering that the IPCC-forecasmd warming has dropped by nearly a factor of two just in the last six years. ?3 T.M.L. Wigley et aL 1996. Nature, 379, 240. AIAM-051564 wuvu Figure Captions Figure 1 Comparison of the annual (light line) and smoothed (heavy line) global average surface temperature anomaly ((3158 record), satellite record (medium- weight line, NCAA) and changes in temperature computed from a climate model (dotted line, Ref. 3) for greenhouse gases plus aerosols. Figure 2 Yearly mean terrestrial Northern Hemisphere temperature anomaly (dotted line; smoothed with an 11-year moving average ?lter to emphasize long-term variations), compared with the length of the sun?s magnetic polarity cycle (from Ref. 1). Figure 3 -- Changes in global average temperature computed from a climate model for estimates of greenhouse gas forcing alone (smooth dotted line), solar forcing alone (dotted curve), and both greenhouse and solar forcing combined (dashed line) compared to the observed temperature anomaly (solid line). The amount of explained variance of the temperature record in each case is listed. (from Ref. 2). Figure 4 - Changes in the average temperature computed from a climate model assuming greenhouse gases only (dot-dashed line) and greenhouse gases plus aerosols (dashed line), compared with the observed temperatures for three records: global, North America and Europe (from Ref. 3). Figure 5 -- Changes in temperature for latitude 30 - 60? S, at a pressure height of 850-300 mb, where greenhouse plus aerosol models predict the largest warming. The warming trend (solid line) previously reported (Ref. 4, 1996) applies only to the shorter record enclosed by the ellipse; a more complete and current temperature record shows no net wanrung (from Ref. 6). Figure 6 - Several uncertainties in climate change models compared to the radiative forcing of the effective doubling of carbon dioxide (from Ref. 11). Additional ?gure not discussed in text Figure 7 Comparison of global satellite (N 0AA), and surface (GISS, UKMO) records. AIAM-051565 0002 0901 0261? OBBI 9'0- 1osoaav 20:) 9 17.0 3 fl .lf (I. 8.0_ v'w' .1, I 1 '1 A 03Aaasao 2.0 170 9'0 aanLvaadw3i1va019 32:1 AIAM-051566 ?max 0901 onn?h OSLI 001.1 0091 0961 0061 0008 Solar Magnetic Cycle Length (years'uo. I. .- .- --.. u- ?toTemperature m1 O. C) Cl) I (go) aBuoqQ [oqolg I AIAM-051568 Composite Tolal Irradiance Profile (Hoyt Schollen 1993) Leasl?Squares Fil ol the Observed and Simulaled Global Temperature Change (1885?1987(1) Best Explained Variance (GHG alone) 53 1.. (2) Besl Explained Variance (Sun alone) 78% (3) Best Explained Variance 921880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 FIGURE 3 Temperature Change Temperature Change A 0 8.) Greenhouse only Observations (D a. 3 ?5 a Q. Greenhouse +aerosol I. 1880 1900 1920 1940 1950 1980 2000 Year Greenhouse only f" 0/ u, 1 Observations f? . . Ix/ Greenhouse +eerosol -1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 Year EUROPE 2 -- ll'v Greenhouse 0:1in .1 1 Observations If" 1? Greenhouse +aerosol -1880 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 2020 FIGURE 4 AIAM-051569 Year 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 1970 1965 1960 'I?I'I?I'gvjul'11 (Do) GJmIBdsq 911118.19de 1955 AIAM-051570 AIAM-051571 Czommdyijmm _z OEZEN OI?,sz ZoUmrm oozn>mmo 1030.20 _0000m>z mcm??m 203.1..m0c41 HELEN EHVHOS AUOcmrmU Ohms 1:26.44 mecmm AIAM-051572 (3) mcm?pom >395m . AIAM-051573 a Attachment 12 PNUE INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE UNEP IPCC WORKING GROUP I 2. Rev. 1 (ll-IX-1996) SIXTH SESSION 10 Se temb 1 .1 STATEMENT REGARDING THE FIFTH SESSION OF IPCC WORKING GROUP I (MADRID, 27 - 29 NOVEMBER, 1995) BY THE C0-CHA1RMEN OF THE WORKING GROUP PRESENTED TO, BUT NOT APPROVED BY, THE WORKING GROUP. IPCC Secretariat WMO 41 Av. Giuse e-Motta, C.P. 2300, 1211 Geneva 2 IT Phone: +41 22 7308 2,151254/234 123x: +41 22 Teiex: 414199 OMM CH E-mail: AIAM-051574 j; i Mil till." The Plenary meeting was opened by the Working Group I Co?Chairman Sir John Houghton at 10.00 hours on 27 November 1995 in the Palacio de Congresos Exposiciones, Plaza de Lima. The opening session was addressed by Spanish Secretary of State for the Environment and Housing, Mrs. Christina Natbona. A list of attendees at the meeting is at Annex 1. The Agenda (Annex 2) was approved by the meeting. The Summary for Policymakers and the Technical Summary Because of shortage of time it was not possible to approve all the original material in the Summary for Policymakers. The draft Executive Summary presented to the meeting was extended and became the Sununary for Policymakers. The rest of the material in the draft Summary for Policymakers circulated to governments and organisations prior to the Session was renamed the Technical Summary. Approval of the Summary for Policymakers After extensive discussion, the Summary for Policymakers was approved unanimously by the the concurrence- of the. Lead Authors present as a correct and balanced statement of the state of the science.- - Acceptance of the Technical Summary During the meeting much of the material in the Technical Summary went through much of the procedure normally used in the approval process. However, because it was not possible to prepare and distribute to the Session a completely revised version of the Technical Summary, the. Technical Summary. .was transmitted to the IPCC 'at its Eleventh-Session. (Rome 11 15. December 1995) for acceptance. [New The IPCC, acting on behalf of Working Group I, accepted the Technical Summary as presented at the Eleventh Session subject to the authors of the Technical Summary taking into account review comments received before the end of the Eleventh Session.) Acceptance of the Background Chapters Review comments on the background chapters continued to be received after the Chapters were circulated on 9 October and during the Madrid Working Group I Session. Further. the AIAM-051575 :mH?gb?v-a Isl-4:41 t??r-I "i Madrid Session included many hours ot?discussion and debate regarding the druit Chapter on detection of climate change (chapter 8) in the contextor? the best and most scientifically accurate wording for the Summary for Policymakers. During this debate, the Chairman, of the meeting (Sir John Houghton) and the Chairman of the IPCC (Professor Bolin) stated that. in accordance with the IPCC rules of procedure which demand clarity. consistency and balance in both the Chapters and the Summary for Policymakers. it was proper and important for the present to make proposals to the Lead Authors fOr changes in the Chapters as well as proposals to the Session regarding the wording of the 8PM. The major agenda item for the Session was to discuss and to clarify the-material - in-the-draft- Chapters as well as to agree the-8PM: -- - Proposals for alterations in draft Chapter 8 were made to the meeting both by scientists and by delegates. According to the IPCC procedures, it was stated that it was the responsibility Of the Lead Authors to Consider such proposals for revision of the draft Chapters in the light of their responsibility to ensure scienti?c accuracy and consistency and to ensure as required by the procedures, that the Chapters represented a comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the science. The Working Group accepted the draft chapters subject to their revision by the Lead Authors taking into account the guidance provided at the Session, in particular the need for overall consistency. Closure of the Meeting The US delegate made the following statement and requested its inclusion in the report of the meeting: "While fully supporting the Working Group I Sunni-naryr for Policy Makers as adopted, the United States regrets that time pressures at the Madrid meeting prevented much of the material now contained in the Technical Summary from being approved for inclusion in the Summary for Policy Makers itself. The United States also regrets that the same time constraints precluded representatives from nongovernmental organisations from participating fully in the meeting." After expressing thanks to the Spanish Government, the interpreters and to all those involved in the organisation of the Session the Clo?Chairman, Sir John Houghton. closed the meeting at 12.20am on 30 November, 1995. 7'23) EKIQ ?ea/6&5 Ext/w 'r?ONHewi??tZa 5??Vl c679. AIAM-051576 AIAM-051577 tails Attachment 13 To: John Shlaes From: Bronson Gardner Re: Summary of Mexico City I PCC Meetings The following summarizes the highlights ol?the meetings in Mexico City. I. Working Group I (Sept 10) The chairman of working group I, Sir John Houghton, dra?ed a report of the WGI Plenary in Madrid in which he defended the changes made to chapter 8 of the SAR. The report was released as an ?information? document, thus precluding the opportunity to discuss the paper in plenary. After strenuous objection, it was decided that Sir John?s statement should be retitled as a ?Chairman?s Statement?, with the disclaimer that the statement was presented to, but not approved by WGI. The revised IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories were accepted (and the entire IPCC Plenary),and forwarded to the Subsidiary Body for Scienti?c and Technical Advice (SBSTA). II. New IPCC Chairman Bob Watson was elected the new chairman of the IPC . Bert Bolin officially steps down after the 1997 IPCC Plenary (Sept, 1997). In the interim. Bob Watson will serve as a "chairman in training". Bert Bolin will address the IPCC at OP-3. however. As the result of his election to chairman of the IPCC. the IPCC will now need to elect a new chairman of working group II. This issue was not discussed. Rules of Procedure A proposal to make "minor editorial? Changes to the rules of procedure was not discussed. It was decided, after brief debate, that: the ?current rules are?become too complex and need to be consolidated. The IPCC Secretariat will prepare a consolidated version of the rules and distribute them for comment and review before the next IPCC plenary. IV. Technical Papers and Special Reports There was intense and debate regarding the rules of procedure regarding technical papers. The IPCC rules state that technical papers are to be "based on" the second assessment report. Several, including John Houghton. argued that all the technical papers met this criteria. After debating the issue, the GCC helped develop language which clearly interprets the meaning of the phrase "based on". Although this negotiation was dif?cult, requiring assistance from several countries, the language proposed by the GCC was accepted almost in its entirety. (see Append I). MEXICO96DOC 09/19/96 AIAM-051578 After the approval of this language. the tollouing was decided regarding the ?rst three technical papers circulated by the IPCC: "Policies and Measures". It was decidch that this paper meets the requirements for a Technical Paper. "Modelling of Stabilization Scenarios". It was decided that parts of this paper do not meet the requirements for a technical paper. Consequently. the paper will be rewritten to conform to the a . ?Environmental Implications of Emissions Limitations?. It was decided that this paper, in its current form, does not meet the requirements for a technical paper. Bert Bolin and Sir John Houghton will develop a new set of scenarios and present them to SB STA and formally ask SBSTA whether the scenarios they propose are ?appropriate?. If SBSTA formally requests the thsna new paper with this same title will be written and ?mu?circulated for review. The paper will still be put forward as a technical paper. The justi?cation given is that the revised paper will use the same model and assumptions as used in the SAR, so that the new scenarios amount to a "sensitivity study" of the model. thaw.~" It is noteworthy that the US. delegated strongly insisted that this paper could only be brought forward as a Special Report (which requires plenary approval). They voiced strong objection to presenting the material in this'paper as a Technical Paper. IPCC Work Plan The IPCC work plan for 1997.198 was debated and approved. Several important special reports, technical papers, workshops and "scoping papers" are planned. (see Appendix II). Among these work which will be conducted will be a scoping paper addressing the interpretation of "dangerous" as it is used in the, Framework Convention on Climate Change. MEXICO96DOC 09/19/96 AIAM-051579 Appendix 1 Requirement for IPCC Technical Papers Language Approved by the IPCC Plenary in Mexico City, Sept 11-13, 1996 "The following guidelines have been developed to interpret the requirement that information in Technical Papers should be 'based on the material already in the IPCC assessment reports and a} ill titanium-a. The scienti?c and technical information in the Technical Papers must be derived from: IPCC reports and relevant portions of references cited and relied upon therein; relevant models with their assumptions, and scenarios based on socio?economic assumptions, as they were used to provide information in those IPCC reports, as well as emission pro?les for sensitivity studies, if the basis for their construction and use is fully explained in the Technical paper. The Technical papers should be referenced so far as is possible to the sub-section of the relevant IPCC reports and related material. MEXICO96DOC 09/19/96 AIAM-051580 rug-vs"; Appendix II Announced Activities 1996- 1997 Meetings 1. IPCC Workshop on regional climate change. projections Sept 24?26, London for impact assessments 2. IPCC Working Group II and Main Plenary gureau i MEXICO96DOC 09/19/96 Sept 1997 - . 5810 . cen'arioisl' 7, I . I i Sep- TAR 3. Regional Impacts of Climate Change I Sept 1998 SBSTA i Feb. 1997 SBSTA Technical Papers 1. Policies and Measures Nov 1996 SB STA 2. Modeling of stabilization scenarios Nov 1996 SBSTA 3. Environmental implications of emission limitations 1997 SBSTA 4. Simple climate models Nov 1996 SBSTA 5. Regional impacts of climate change Feb 1997 SBSTA 6. Methodological and technological aspects of Feb 1997 SBSTA technology transfer Workshops 1. Regional Climate Change Projections 3rd Q. 1997 TAR for impact assessment 2. Adaptation 1997 SBSTA 3. Economic Impacts of Annex I Actions on Late 2Q. 1997 SBSTA developing Countries . a; . 4. Integrated Assessment Modeling March 1997 SBSTA 7113 .5..?Inliegrated Assessment Capacity Building 1 1997-2000 START 6. Mitigation and Adaptation cost assessment I April 1997 TAR guidelines. .. 7. Integrated Assessment Modeling (workshop [11 1998 8. Workshop on Rapid non-linear change Mar-Apr 1998 9. Role of oceans and coral reefs in the carbon cycle ?7 TAR Scoping Papers 1. Technology Assessment (expert group meeting) Sept 1997 TAR 2. Scienti?c information relevant to the interpretation Sept 1997 TAR of dangerous levels of GHG concentrations in the atmOSphere on the climate system 3. Risk management techniques for decision-making 1997 TAR under uncertainty. . 4. IAEA full fuel-cycle emissions late 1997 other AO/Mon'treal Protocol AIAM-051581 Memorandum DATE: October 16, 1996 to: CORRESPONDENTS FROM: Chuck Hakkarinen SUBJECT: London Workshop Here is the summary report on the IPCC Workshop on Regional Climate Change Projections, which I attended in London September 24-26, 1996. There were 140 registered attendees, including chair Bert Bolin and chair-elect Bob Watson, and the leaders of all three IPCC technical support units. Scientists attending the meeting came from most disciplines found in the three working groups, plus there was a good sampling of representatives from developing countries. The summary report that was available at the official close of the meeting (attached. with some annotations added during the last a?emoon reading of the report) is not complete. An ad hoc group including the TSU chairs was scheduled to meet Friday morning. September 27 to fill in the gaps, particularly the ?summary of agreed actions?. (I was not able to attend this meeting due to a prior engagement in Paris.) The revised report will be sent later to all meeting participants. it was evident in the meeting that the ?preferred path? of developing complete new emissions scenarios through an Energy Modeling Forum - 14 project, and full scale GCM runs with regional speci?city and ecological impacts studies following those, will not be completed in time for full inclusion in the IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR). While the formal schedule for such a report has not yet been adopted: indeed, will not be adopted for at least another year; the general betting was that it would be requested for full completion by the year 2000, or early 2001. The "preferred path? would like take until at least 2003, so much of the meeting was spent debating (and some planning) for various ?fast-track" approaches that could produce a report with substantive new results on an earlier schedule. This would likely require some ?provisional emissions profiles? from the IPCC participants, and less than full-scale GCM runs (possibly using downscaling approaches or simple climate models) from WGI and less than complete analyses from IPCC WGll. - Even the nomenclature and responsibilities for the Working Groups is uncertain, because Bob Watson announced on the last day of the workshop that he wants to AIAM-051582 reorganize the process during his tenure (which starts in late 1997). He stated that he will be developing a White Paper over the next six weeks containing his thoughts for reorganization, and will distribute it for comments to the Council members?and ?selected academics?. One particular comment I noted is that he wants ?greater involvement by business and industry representatives at the front end? in planning and participation in the report preparation, not just in reviewing drafts of reports near the end of the process. In coffee-time side conversations. was asked my opinion by some as to why ?industry? had not volunteered more people to participate in preparing the SAR. Such a request had been made, for example, in 1993 by the specifically to the Global Climate Coalition, requesting nominations from industry for people to serve on chapter writing teams, but had not resulted in. very many industry representative nominations to serve on chapter writing teams. Dr. Watson implied in his comments that he would like to see industry participation expanded in the preparation of the next assessment report. AIAM-051583 DRAFT 06:12pm IPCC Workshop on Regional Climate Change Proiections for Impact Assessment 24 -26September, 1996, Imperial College, London. Expanded Timetable for Day 1: 24 September 1 996 Time Presentation 9.30 - 9.50 Welcome and Introduction: Aims of workshop/stage setting for Third Assessment Report Bert Bolin and John Houghton (1) The needs of the impacts community for climate information, including output from Coupled GCMs. To be covered by the following 3 presentations: 9.50 - 10.05 0 Interfacing Ecological Impact Assessments of Global Change with climate information from Observations and Simulations Wolfgang Cramer 1005 1020 - Needs for Climate Information Steve Hostetier and Pat Bartlein 1020 - 1035 - Needs in Assessing Impacts and Evaluating Adaptations in Agriculture and Food Security Martin Pan'y 10.35 - 10.50 0 Presentation 3 (Hydrology/water resources) Nigel Amell 10.50 - 11.10 Questions on all Section (1) presentations 11.10 - 11.40 11.40 - 12.00 (2) Technical Data Transfer and Capacity Building Issues in Developing Countries Murari La! 12.00 - 12.10 Questions (3) What the climate modelling and observed climate communities can provide to the impacts community, including post-processing. To be covered by the following 3 presentations. 12.10 - 12.30 The generation of impacts-relevant statistics from coupled climate models. Ulrich Cubasch 12.30 -12.50 - Transforming the results of climate models to the scales of impacts. Linda Mearns 12.50 - 13.10 Establishing observed baseline climatologies and datasets: issues and problems. Phil Jones 13.10 - 13.30 Questions AIAM-051584 DRAFT 9 September, 1996 06:12 pm 13.30 - 15.00 LUNCH 15.00 - 15.20 (4) What Climate Modellers need in terms of Emission Scenarios. John Mitchell 15.20 - 15.30 QUestions 15.30 - 15.50 (5) New Reference Scenarios Neboq?sa Nakioenovic 15.50 - 16.00 Questions 16.00 - 16.30 16.30 - 16.50 (6) Emission Scenarios for the Third IPCC Assessment Joseph Alcamo 16.50 - 17.00 Questions 17.00 18.30 Agreement in plenary on workshop programme/organisation followed by initial break-out group discussions if time permits. 18.30 - 1930 Reception AIAM-051585 DRAFT September 26, 1996, 12:ional Climate an f9; Impact Assessment 24 - 26 September 1996, Imperial College, London Liam-mien Following introductions by Sir John Houghton, (Io-chairman of IPCC Working Group I and Prof Bert Bolin, IPCC Chairman, outlining the aims and objectives for the workshop. a notice of presentations were made giving overviews of the maiin subject areas to be discussed. A timetable of the presentations is at Annex A and abstracts of the presentations at Annex B. A list of participants to the workshop is at Annex C. The meeting then formed three breakout'groups to cover the following areas, with all of the grouos being additionally tasked with giving particular considetadon to the needs of developing A) Impact Assessment - what climate and. emission scenario data are required? 13) Climate information including coupled GCM :3an what can be provided? What are the needs of the climate modelling community for emission scenarios? 22,; C) Emission scenarios - what data can be provided? 3? Sections 2 to 5 sununanse? brie?y the issues discussed and the conclusions reached. 28 In reaching those conclusions the workshop was continuously aware of the critical factor ofthe 29 timing of the IPCC ThirdAssessment Report (TAR) and of other activities in the work 30 program-he. in particular the Special Report being produced on revised emission scenarios. As 31 this Special Report is likely to take 2 - 2 1/2 years in preparation the scenarios produced will 32 become available to the modelling and impacts communities in late 1998 - mid 195-9. 33 Recognising that it would take at least one further year before the major caupled 34 ocean/atmosphere GCM centre: would be able to utilise these scenarios and make the results 35 available the workshop concluded that this would not be possible in time for these results to be 36 used in the TAR the latter is to be completed by the end of 2000, because of the aegthy 37 drafting and review processes involved. However, it may be possible for simple climate models 38 to be run on the necessary time scale and for the new emission scenarios to be used directly by 33 the irnpaCts communityclimate erni s'l scenario re '1 42 - ii The general conclusions of the impacts group were that: 45 the impacts community should play a more ?pro-active" role in de?ning goals. inputs. 46 procedures and outputs of Working Group II. instead of a. "re-active" role in simply 47 providing sets of impacts to pure-de?ned climate change scenarios. This would enable a 48 better balance hetwoen the climate modelling and impacts communities in developing a more 43 integrated. consistent assessment for the TAR. 5 51 the driving quesrion is not solely What are the impact: afclirnaze changes? but includes 52 What are the rates and magnitude: of climate changes to which the impale: sectors are 53 ms! sensitive? 54 1 as 52 requirements for furore assessments it is importanr to assess a number of factors: g-Sk all? We? than. nor anemia a each) 2 AIAM-051586 NN Sam. mumwum Low What is av ilablc w. 'cation of are Datasets Curr-en: DRAFT September 26, 1996. 12:04 pm 'Tkeu. an. die diet-ab 'mni wlu?daw Mu?ee?lm In no Ikan coed-rim: mun-4? and. Climate Change Experiments: 0 State of the art: Historically forced mum-century ensembles of climate change experiments (with audio: without sulphates) 0 High resolution (1"106) time-slice experiments. 0 Various Regional Climate Model experiments 0 These experiments are forced using 1592 or similar emissions scenarios Results/Data available now to the impacts community: 0 The full range of climate variables required by the impacts community are available from the results climate change experimenm at the model's spatial resolution. 0 Global coverage 0 Mold?century daily and time series. momly means and annual means. 0 High quality observed mean climatologics and Reanalysis data sets are available to accompany the GCM datasets. Mechanisms for the Dissemination of Data: 0 Most modelling centres undertake consultation exercises with the impacts community a Each modelling centre has its own approach - thesevar-y from anonymous to organised interface servicing case-by-case requesrs 0 Provision of enn-y-level scenarios: eg. Green et al. SCENGEN a Asses. an: Mos: impacts Studies to date have used mean values for a small gage/of climare variables. The majority of smdies have been sensin'vity based or use climate change scenarios derived from equilibrium climate change experiments and are, therefore. not time- dependent. The few cyimg e/dke? published studies in impacm research are using mulli-decadal time- series and daily) or use impacts model linked to GCM climate change expel-irate AIAM-051587 MN ?ou?wowa?a?zm??s ?3 ?-hJ-h mmwummwmuw Future: A goal for impact: asses DRAI-T September 26. 1996. 12.04 pm sments is the use of consistent climate change datasets over Space!ch and for these to related to the full range of uncertainty about future climate change. To achieve this: (fatally-Mquina +0 0 There is a need to adopt a. clear strategy for the correct dissemination of climate change scenarios Le. backed up by relevant scienti?c and technical advice. There is a need for a consistent set of entry-level climate change scenarios 0 Expert contacts to modellingldara centre: 0 There is a need for information regarding the pctfuml?ce of GCMs at a regional level a Intact-nonr of applicable climate change experiments datasets One such solution may he the adaption of a "two-tier? mechanism for the provision of climate change datasets. Such a mechanism is ?exible to meet the dynamic nature of climate change experiments and the requirements of the impacts community. :Iwo?Tig Approggh 3 0 Construct at set of entry-level climate change scenarios (for example changes based around the SCENGEN Framework) to meet the requirements of a large preportion of the impacts community 0 Provide easy-access to more detailed state-of-the-art results from GCMIRCM climate change experiments (cg. daily transient data) for those in the impacts community who require them higher-level scenarios). 0 Allow access to observational datasets 0 Backup the pro?sian of these results (both entry-level and higher-level) with a support service which can provide: scienti?c and techinical advice on the characterisdcs of these datasets: establish a network ofusers so thatdynamic cross-fertillisation ofideas can be uansfen'ed; and provide information on the construction methods that can be employed for the "downscaling" of these damsets (Review of such science could farm. a new chapter in theTAR). What 0 ns 2! 9 Climate modeling groups have produced a range of scenarios (using different forcings. with and without different levels of aerosol loading, which climates. It was suggested that impacts modelers sho 'de amnge of potential future work with these results. - The most advance coupled GCMs are exuemnly expensive in computer time and will mainly be employed Over the out few years to improve the scienti?c undersranding of climate change, to test the paramenizations. the effect of higher retsolution and to narrow uncertainties in climate projections. The workshop emphasised the importance of these developments. AIAM-051588 NH o?I m?nu?woomummom?zommqmunmuw Is.) 4 l? mu) DRAFT September 26. 1996. 12:04 put over next 2 years was with +193 pa equivalent C02 (with 'no' or 1592a aerosols) using exisdng models will be car-led out ?will be employed for intercompansons. intercomparisons and validation being addressed by CLIVAR (WCRP) programme.? 0 by 3 years time. new models will have been run -could input into W61 assessment but not into impacrs assessmzegt?by?ml. Aerosol forcing will remain very uncertain. Quesdon of sensitivity to aerosol could possibly be addressed (will GCM gmups run it?) but would need crude but realisnc aerosol emissron pro?les and patterns Could these be generated by this meeting? Regarding how to address climate impacts of land-use change: a) need to under-Stand di?'erenccs in outputs using relatively more simple forcing schemes, before land-use change is included: b) land use not so important for global climate. but for regional projections -- however- do not expect quick advances on this issue; to detect a model response. one needs fairly wide-spread land-use change (continental scale) :3 modelers are not sure how to represent changes in land-use in the models, even at a scale. Land-use change involves injection of sooty-aerosols 'nto the anoosphere, changes in albedo. State of science is much too early to represent the processes reliany in either global or re ?onal basis. Appropriate studies need to he carried out to advance this issue. IGA looking at this issue and should be ertcouraged. CLIVAR also interested from point of view of sensitivity studies. (N B: land-use representation also needs to be improved for carbon cycle modeling) Transient with improved 502 (now runs) Aerosol effect Important forcings occur due to sulphate aerosol, other aerosol (tag. biomass burning), and tropospheric ozone which show a lot of regional variatio-r as compared with the long lived geenhouse gases. The current and future concentrations and the regional disniburion possess a let of uncertainty as does the detail of the forcing patterns bath in magnitude and distribution (especially for insrance the indirect effect of aerosol). Improvement needs to be made in the knowledge of these trcings and their clirnate impact. Sulphate aerosol was particularly emphasised in the 1995 report but information was only available for 'no' aerosol and the 1592 scenario. For the TAR it will be important for information to be available showing the sensitivity of climate change to a wide range of aerosol amounts and disoibudon. There are already transient AOGCM available with 15922 and 1592d emissions and equilibrium runs with different regional aerosols distributions and foreings. Other GCM and equilibrium model runs will become available during the nexr 1 - 2 years and can be used for impact studies. It is important to understand the uncertainties related to total aerosol forcing (including biomass aerosols), the regional disrihntion of emissions. etc. There are aerosols in the models -- different modeling likelihood of substantial reductions in uncertainty. also uncertainties in how to represen groups handle tlus in dr??erent ways. While there is ongoing work. there is little kid will: 5 AIAM-051589 Is) assessment: 32 nastasaaeessasassaeasaase Dam September 26. 1996, 12:04pm ?adult-v3 Transient C02 mitigation - ?Stabilization scenatios? (new runs) There is demand for obtaining as much information as possible regarding the climate and impacts implications of di?'erent emissions trajectories and annospheric . Stabilization levels. In particular. what are the implications of rapid increases and dccreasos in emissions? It was suggested that such stabilization runs as a unifying device for the report. One could ninthe _450 and 650 pro?les and address what would happen in 2050. 2100. and at with respect to a variety of issues including a) climate implications of each of these; b) damages from each of these; c) technology implications - is there technology available to achieve each of these? There are some nansient AOGCM runs currently available which increment at 1% up to 2x602 and then held constant there. With these otheer runs the particular scienti?c issues to he addressed concerning the relation between GCM and energy balance model runs,(is there divergence when the rate of C02 . concencentrarion increase changes sharply?). and how these patients climate change are likely to be altered by different time-dependent pro?les. Simple models (ea. at lower resolution) could be employed to study some of these points. Careful consideration needs to be given to what coupled GCM are needed and how they can be carried out mosr ef?ciently (eg. use of time slices). A next Step is to compare the results of some of the AOGCM and simple medal runs. to see whether scaling AOGCM results with energy balance models has validity. There is also need to work out what a stabilization emissions pro?le would look like. The critical issue for deciding whether new runs are needed is whether the choice of emissions pathway has implications for the pattern of climate change? (John hell stated scienti?c issues which need to be assessed). Debate about whether we can answer these issues with the runs currently available. I 2 (kkg?C-?Am? 14-: Mr. no em r"..th wit-l. Why-t E. 3- 1" lawns suggested that an expert group might meet over a six-month period to assess ESQ 1551165. Other general points: On the interface betwen climate and impacts modeling: Need to develop two products: 1) a guide for use of scenarios and 2) a chapter in the TAR on scenario development and downscaling. The report of the meeting should include a time line. mggjongl climate through limitg gg model;I gtc. a) fag Pointg much activity by wide variety of goups. value not just in better resolution but in studying exueme events out. very much in research mode -and will continue 50 -eg very dependent on driving GCM. some coordinated intercomparison work going on in limited regions. AIAM-051590 emu DRAFT September 26., 1996,1204 pm b) Se; 9f sua= a: grad giggr'ia fg: selecting regrgn' 5; Should IPCC (this meeting?) attempt to choose limited number of regions (say for inrercomparison purposes? Firsr step should be to agree a set of criteria. for selecting regions. 2 Enmses; (1) Improve/encom-age testing of techniques available - validarionfmtercomparison, comparison of statistical downscaling and regional modelling (2) Provision of data for impacr case studies Sn er'ia 1. Process issues - regions where processes not well represented at GCM grid scaies are important topographic gradients modern-face homogeneity (coastlines. lakes, sharp eoosysrem boundaries) larg- scale dynamics is not the dominant source of precipitation (scale mismatch) importance of feedbacks 2. Impact factors tin-ears to biodiversity rapid changes in land use and/or land cover ?oodldrought prone regions vulnerable agriculnn'elfood security infrastructure is not easily adaptable heterogeneous disease receptivity severe Storms/Surges 3.. Poliu?cal factors region already Stressed by other factors sensidvityivuln_erability 4. Resource constraints Dara availability/quality Access to hardware Available ?nancing Insrimtional capability 5. Pragmatic considerations: . Areas where research hasa?udy Started (sewer, LBA, MacKenzic Basin. BALTEX, etc.) 9. Representativin 6:ch 10. Distinguish between regions when: downscaling techniques well esrablished/nor well esrablished Other iSSues Possibly my and add weight to different miner-la. AIAM-051591 one DRAFT September 26. 1995. 12:04 pm sang; Consider regions that have already been studied. how well do they ?t the criteria? Are there gaps that need to be ?lled? etail. fin 0 'me 31' as 111le arisen De?ne the type of information needed for Third Assessment Report and suggest a minimum set of criteria for downscaling Studies that would help to provide that information. Care needed. to avoid being too prescriptive. Studies should speci?y: region variables resolution (space and time (duh. shaman one series when data will become available Include an appendix which lisrs current regional modelling/downscaling activity and what is planned for next 1-2 years (7) [None useful data: re-analysis data at T106 resolution - help impacrs community evaluate impact models] TAR igges raisg in discussion: Add chapter which assess downscaling and other climate scenario generation techniques (WGI or W611 reports). WGII report - include case studies cross sector swdies) as well as sectoral breakdown 3 PM, i- *kg How *0 ?Thu-late Winemaker-Una] 3.4. onnec It with in arional 5: mm - importance of IPCC fosrerin connections betwen IPCC and international research programmes (eg WCRP, IGBP etc). do 9 4 missio seen s-wh tdat 11 Working Group 3 of IPCC was charged by the 1996 IPCC Plenary session with the preparation of a Special Report on emissions scenarios. As a part of the eta-tent workShOp. relevant experts undertook an initial consideration of how this Special Report might be developed. and how the emissions scenarios contained therein might be incorporated in the preparation of the IPCC Third Assessment Report (under the assumption that this report would likely be issued in late 2000 or sometime during the year 2001). The group also considered what infant-laden, if any, it could usefully provide as input to the development of sensitivity analyses using computationally?intensive GCMS whose inherently long solution times mean that there will lie-limited opportunity to run sensitivity cases using these models based on the new emissions scenarios thatwill be deveJOped in the Special Report. Bath of these topics are considered below. . 4.1 ?ew emissions scenarios and their role in the TAR AIAM-051592 DRAFT September 26. 1996. 12:04 pm There was a smear anion articiparing experts from both developing and developed countries should focus on the Special Report scenarios rather than an attempt to make selected ?xes to the 1992 IPCC scenarios. The development of new securities for the Special Report would proceed in an openprocess. starting with a broad review of the literature on key driving forces. Experts front developing counu'res would encouraged to play a key role in the process and on the wnung teams, as would experts from non governmental interests with relevant enpernse. including experts ?oor mdusu'y. The process is designed so that regional and national information, whetha derived modeling analyses or through othermeans, can feed into the development global scenarios. A detailed 10 outline of the proposed approach will be made available by Working Group 3 tn the near form. to Male eat-dildos.- sun-null: I . I i 12 Asl noted kc. the $5 't'or creating the new scenarios Will be open and inclusrve. 13 Key 14 lS - preparatitm of a series of backgon papers on input assumpu?ons andrelationships. such 16 as population, economic and technology. 17 18 - distribution of the background papers to interested groups. Any interested group would be 19 encouraged to submit ssions scenarios theirowu assumptions. Their scenarios,- in: 20 may cover 33?? 3?05?me re or me Peri . trainees- ll: vet. 21 - Mes-r ENlh?w-J AGWOJ lugs" h'akr "kw in??wkw cw 22 the scenarios will be discussed in a workshop. Participants will then have an opportunity to 23 revise their scenarios. 24 25 - all scenarios will be archived so that they are available to interested users. Ihe writing team 26 will assemble 3 to 5 scenarios that are representative of the range of scenarios produced. 27 28 The Special Report will cover the background papers and document the represent-arise i3 scenarios. It will be subject to peer and government review. 31 As part of the Third Assessment Report Working Group will also assess scenarios to achieve 3% sable concenua?org?o gienhouse oi. These scenarios will be not be enera r. a i an Han. an 34 Eat. at?" 5-211? 35 The Special Report is expected to be approved in 1999. Given that schedule. it will not be 36 possible to use thorn in computationally-intensive GCM runs prior to the Third Assessment 37 Report. Rather, the climate implications must be estimated using simple climate models. 3 Tl?. 011.. +54. how ecu-i win?ma?a be: ?at. 3&4 a nine?Lu 9 iveo the purpose 5 or group focused on how these new Special 40 Report (SR) scenarios will be us in the Third Assessment Report GAR). The time required 41 to complete the Special Report, taken in conjunction with the computational reguirements for 42 computationally-intensive GCMs and the anticipated timing of the TAR mean that it is unlikely 43 7 that the scenarios developed in the Special Report process could be used to drive new runs of 44 complex GCMs to be included in the TAR. However. the Special Report scenarios are 45 nonetheless anticipated to play a central role in the TAR. particularly with respect to the 46 following three main pin-poses: as input to climate modeling within working group 1, as the 47 basis for assessing mitigation cosrs and economic impacts in working group 3, and for impact 48 analysis by working group 2. 49 50 the SR scenarios will could be used to drive simple climate models (calibrated to the 51 complex of the type that were used for purposes of developing insights into global- 52 scale temperature and sea-level changes due to anthropogenic of greenhonse 53 gases and aerosols in the SAR. Runs of these simple climate models driven by SR Scenarios 54 would be used for similar purposes in the TAR. rem wan-w we, are 9 AIAM-051593 lemma.- DRAFT September 26. 1996. 12:04 pm - the SR scenarios. which will incorporate updated soda-economic data and more current ?actions of future Stacie?economic scenarios. and improved technology information, information could used as the Starting point for analyses of mitigation measures and their costs in the TAR. the SR scenarios could drive some of the impacts analyses in the TAR. This would be done by continuing the eta-rent practice in impacts assessmentof using the relationship between simple climate models and results from complex GCMs in a downscaling procedure to generate detailed scenarios for analysis that are consistent with simple climate model results based on the SR scenarios. but incorporate key insights and detail developed from runs of complex GCMs using existing scenarios. The attached ?gure, presented in the workshop plenary, summarizes the anticipated role of the SR scenarios within the TAR. 5.2 Sepsitivig using casting $ng ??61 experts suggeswd that the computational uireruents for GCMs were such that only a small number of new runs could be completed in more to contribute to the TAR. In light of this limitation, these experts suggested that an, new sensitivity analysis should complement the set of exisn'ng GCM results. which should also be used in the TAR process. Two areas identi?ed for potential new sensitivity analysis using GCMs were sulfate aerosols and Stabilization of attnos hen'c concentrations. 1- van my; hm. highlight} l-ua a) sulfate Angels au,wt.f than? aging]. "pr-taxi: q: The request for inpm from energy and scenarios experts. speci?ed to be given within the n'meframe of the workshop itself. sparked a spirited discussion among the latter group. Given the intended use of such sensitivity analysis, the group saw many advantages of suggesting a sensitivity case that could be linked to the carbon and sulfate ssions pro?les within existing scenarios. The following two ideas were brie?y - Apply the carbon/sulfur ratio from 15% to a scenario in which carbon emissions followed the path of 1892a. This sensitivity would reduce energy-related sulfur emissions in 2050 and 2100 by about 1/4 from levels incorpOrated in the 15922. scenario while maintaining a carbon/sulfur ratio within the range spanned by the 1592 scenario set. It would also gprovide some basis for regional allocation of sulfate emissions based on information in the 1.92 scenarios. - Maintain global sulftn' emissions constant at the 1990 level through 2100. This would be an arbiuaiy selection for purposes of sensitivity analysis that would give a decline of approximately 1I2 ?-om levels incorporated in the 1592a scenario for 2050 and 2100. This approach might be viewed as re?ecting some linear combination of the procedure outlined above with an alternative that uses carbon emissions and sulfate emissions. One disadvantage is that there would be no basis in the existing literature for the regional allocation of these emissions. 0 The goup also noted that it was important to consider sensitivity cases involving consideration of biomass aerosols. including their Spatial distribution and temporal trends. The group was unable to reach consensus on which approach was appropriate. There was hawever. a clear consensus that any analysis of this type. using these or other approaches. should be clearly labeled as being a sensitivity analysis rather than another scenario.) b) Atmospheric stabilization sensitivities. I There wasalso considerable interest in aunosphetic stabilization sensitivities for carbon dioxide concentrations usmg GCMS. Three interesting issues were immediately identi?ed by the group: 10 AIAM-051594 k: use WNN owmt?tg em:- tuss- mmuu bl ?aunt September 26. 1996. 12:04 pm DRAFT 0 what stabilization levels should be run? - . bed 0 what paths to stabilization should be considered? - how should emissions of different gases be linked in the Stabilization arias? Ideally, it would be appropriate to consider the full range of scenarios, both sets of stabilization pathways to each stabilization level (the latter themsel already drawn from a much larger set of emissions pathways consistent with stabilisz presented in the IPCC Second Assessment Report, and a range of alternative sulfur acres}, 01 fumes. Given the computational requirements for coinplex GCMs, it is clear the eh an approach is not practicable. In light of practicability considerations. consid consensus was achieved around the following . dioiu'de concentrations. There was 0 First, consider only two levels for cat a 'tionat450ppm. Two getteralageementtbatonelevelto t- .. . alternatives for the second level 650 and 750 yur Stabilization of Other gases is also to be considered as apart of in- a stuvities. butthe level atwhich concenuations of gases Other than carbon dioxide were to be stabilized was not discussed. There was consensus across the group that these analyses should-be clearly labeled as sensitivities and it should be exp 'tly noted in any reports that the choice of stabilization levels for sensitivity analysis did not policy ?ons as to what conccnuation levels might be consistent with the objectives of the - Second. consider two alternative emission pathways to Stabilization for the high concentration case. Consideration of alternative en?ssions pathways in at least one case is necessary to shed light on the di??erences in transient climate associated with different emissions pathways to the same stabilization level. - Third. Stabilization sensitivities should pay careful attention to linkages between sulfur and carbon emissions paths that are both tied to fossil fuel use. One a that gained broad support would be to ?x the time trend of the sulfurlcarbOn ratio at level implicit in a scenario such as 1592a . since it is likely that GCM runs that have already been completed for such a. scenario would be coan to the Stabilization GCM sensitivities. *ld' 5. Heads of wiqu Mb Greater participation of dev ping counuies in the IPCC process is necessary and can be facilitated by the follo actions: - Implement uninin?ops in developing countries, 2-3 weeks - improving the network of developing country researchers participating in the IPCC. Rely on regional networks and its regional partners, including AFN. RICH) and specialized comuniues (natural hazards reduction) to supplement author lists and organize ?nancial support early on - securing funding for developing country researcher participation in both scenario developmentand application. Possibility of scouting funding through the 63? will be increased if requeSts are relaued to coontty reporting requirements under the 0 providing free and open access to all materials in a form appropriate to the technology available in developing countries. e.g. PCs anal-6, h?uP for!? wet. .- uS?-s fudkmeo (karat-b) WP h-?u?i?rowukg Incl-14, Lit - -. 6. Summary 0: amt! actions '7 - ll AIAM-051595 buNo?I DRAFT Data transfer to the impacts community Regional modelling (choice of regions and other criteria) Emission scenarios Closer links with other research programmes DevelOping comm-is 12 September 26. 1996. 12:04pm AIAM-051596 NEW EMISSIONS SCENARIOS IN THE TAR WORKING GROUP ll WORKING GROUP I WORKING GROUP Ill .?lr?male lm acts IMPACTS MODELS n-8 ?Huh. wemu llmuOl ammo Mao?: I'lg's Em ission Scenario Em issions Provisional Mitigation Economic Impacts Prq?le.r NVEZ??mwqu