Newsgroup sci.environment 112732

Directory

In article <32AF04A6.54CA@to.foil.spammers>, Eric Anderson
 wrote:
> Ian Staples wrote:
> > 
> > ladasky@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Ladasky) writes:
> > 
> > >Eric Anderson   wrote:
> > >
> > >>The morbid side of me would love to see the ensuing melee among all you
> > >>greens when it turns out the [best] way to "save the Earth" is to launch
> > >>several nuclear missiles into space.....I
> > >>suspect Greenpeace would prefer the asteroid strike.
> > 
> > >       Absurd.  I can't think of any better way to dispose of nuclear
> > >weapons.  Please check your Luddite stereotypes of the Greens at the door.
> > 
> > Of course, we true greens wouldn't worry about it at all.  Who could
> > pass up the opportunity for disturbance of this magnitude which would
> > ensure another major species radiation on the planet?
> > ;-)
> 
> No can do, John.  The stereotype is alive and kicking.  Thanks, Ian!
> (I suspect you're not serious but I appreciate the sentiment.)
> 
> The melee begins...
> 
> BTW, I can't think of a better way of disposing of those pesky nukes
> either. 
Given the present launcher success rate of around 5-10% I can think of few
worse ways of disposing of such weapons!
Phil.

Jim  wrote:
[edited]
>If you dislike or disbelieve Erlich, there are plenty of other
>scientists to attempt to discredit. I believe about 1500 of them put 
>their name to a document in 92' that basically paraphrased what Erlich
>has been saying. It was called the "World Scientist's Warning to
>Humanity."
I am uncertain what you mean here.  Are you making fun of these poor
people for their mental lapse?
Possibly you think that 1500 is a large number of scientists?  If so,
I must inform you that there are 519,000 "natural scientists" in the
US alone, and that's just chemists, geologists, biologists, and
medical scientists, not counting engineers, academics, social
scientists, mathematicians, physicals or scientists working in any
other nation (see US Statistical Abstracts 1996, DOC Table 637).  In
that context, maybe the 0.3% who were willing to sign the document
appears to be an impressive percentage of the total, but I cannot
concur.
I think you could get 0.3% of scientists to sign a document stating
that evolution is a hoax.  As a matter of fact, I think I read
somewhere exactly that.  I am not impressed with that either.
Regards, Harold
----
"But I am deeply convinced that any permanent, regular, administrative 
system whose aim will be to provide for the needs of the poor will breed 
more miseries than it can cure, will deprave the population that it wants
to help and comfort, will in time reduce the rich to being no more than 
the tenant-farmers of the poor, will dry up the source of savings, will 
stop the accumulation of capital, will retard the development of trade, 
will benumb human industry and activity"
          --Alexis de Tocqueville, Memoir on Pauperism , 1835

(Sent to both e-mail and news groups.)
Dave Newton wrote:
> 
> Dan Evens wrote:
> > If you really want to know what is to be done with nuclear waste,
> > I can give you the details.  They are really rather boring and
> > mundane, and not a whole lot of excitement.
> 
>    Wouldn't mind, e-mail would probably be better to avoid massive flamage.
> I haven't kept up with the nuclear debate (I suppose I'm tending towards
> anti-nuke) and would be curious to hear what the current state-of-the-art
> is. Thanks.
The number one item on the list of requirements for disposal of nuclear
waste (in the Canadian program, which is the only one I can speak to)
is that it must not provide a burden to future generations.  For
example, one of the specifications is that the disposal vault not
be cracked open if glaciation should return to the area.
For starters, there is some information here.
http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/
A book on the whole nuclear issue is _The Anti Nuclear Game_ by
Gordon Sims, University of Ottawa Press, 1990.  This discusses
the waste disposal issue as well as several other issues.
Still want more? Rattle my cage again.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens

Kevin Jones wrote:
> 
> Dan Evens wrote:
> >
> > Kjones@interlynx.net wrote:
> > >   That's what this discussion is about.  All forms of generation we use now
> > > have had decades or centuries of research and experimentation to bring
> > > them to the level of technology they are at today.  Wind, solar, wave, etc
> > > are in their infancy in comparison.
> >
> > Ahem.  Wind in its infancy?  DOH!  Ever heard of a sailboat?  A
> > windmill?
> > Wind as an energy source is millenia old.
> 
> As far a generating MW of power, and connecting it to some sort of a
> power grid, etc....yes, infancy.
As far as generating MW of power ALL forms of energy are in their
infancy then.
As far as feeding power into a grid, ALL forms of energy are in their
infancy.
The "poor little wind industry" notion is a total bogus strawman.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens

In article <58qs1t$8mu@dfw-ixnews7.ix.netcom.com>,
	jwas@ix.netcom.com(jw) writes:
> [snipped]
>Consider pharmaceutics. It is not just FDA approval 
>time (which has been shortened, after much
>desperate struggle.) According to Henry Miller, of 
>Stanford University, a former FDA
>staffer, "the real problem lies in FDA regulations that lengthen 
>the process of drug development, now estimated to take an average 
>of 10 years and cost $500 million per drug." (_Science_, 12-10-96).
>All this with no guarantee even of being approved 
>- or of being the first and making money. 
>And besides the half billion bucks and the ten years,
>one also needs the bureaucratic know-how,
>the intimate knowledge of the process.
>
>Who can afford all that, except the largest
>corporations?   But having that protection, they,
>too, have little incentive to innovate:
>repackaging old drugs works just fine for *them*.
>So people keep suffering and dying unnecessarily.
>Progress is stifled while  bureaucratic interests are 
>protected, and so are oligopolistic interests.
Also.. think about the technological progress being stifled here.. even for the
large corporations.
Consider, for a minute, if computer microprocessors were subjected to the same
level of artificial control.  I bet I'd still be keying in machine code on an
Altair waiting for that new "8-bit" standard to be approved by twenty
beurocracies.
(BTW, I deleted a few irrelevant newsgroups from the header)

In article <19961212152909153715@yellow-dou-52.wanadoo.fr>,
	Neil Cordwell  wrote:
>Dan Evens  wrote:
>> 
>> There would be snow-drifts of dead
>> birds under the blades.
>This sounds a bit of an exageration. To put it into prespective, could
>you please tell us how many birds were killed during Chenobyl and Three
>Mile Island?
On and on about 10 years in the past.  The nuclear power industry
will probably STILL be hearing about Three Mile Island 100 years from now.
>How much land is required for a 1200MW nuclear site (please include
>waste processing, mining of uranium or plutonium, storing of waste
>products, etc.)
>
>It might be interesting to think what will happen when the present day
>nuclear power stations need decommisioning. What are we going to do with
>all the nice hot waste?
What do present-day coal plants do will all the kilotons upon kilotons
of nice, poisonous cadmium, mercury, uranium, lead, SO2, CO2, etc, etc,
etc?
Double standards abound, it seems, in evaluation of nuclear power.
	-Mike Pelletier.

David Lloyd-Jones  wrote in article 
>  

> Actually the last tomatoes I grew, I grew on the porch on the south
> side of my apartment block in Tokyo.  I mixed them with the lettuce
> from a farm which I cycled to at dawn every morning.  I paid something
> like $15 to have two square meters for the season, and got tomatoes,
> cucumbers, spring onions, a couple of lettuces, and a few other nice
> surprises out of it.
>  
But a few vegetables do not a diet make.  To support your claim (if indeed
you are really claiming) that a large city can supply its own food, you'll
have to show that cities with population densities of 30-50 people per acre
(NYC--the whole thing, is 41/acre) can feed that many.  That might be
difficult.  First of all you won't be able to get an acre of growing
land/acre of city (even using balcony plots), and even then you better look
at yields per acre.  Just citing one--U.S. grain production, at 3200 lbs
per acre only supplies .2 lbs per day per person.  You can do better with
potatoes, but I don't think those grow well in window boxes.  Getting the
necessary proteins, any significant amount of fruit, and certainly any kind
of variety is really not possible for these population densities using so
little land.  You still need food grown outside the city to support the
city.
> It was all run by the guy who owned the land, a millionaire developer
> who did all this stuff because he liked fresh vegetables too.
>  
> All the stuff I tell you about how much you can grow in the city is
> actual true stuff that I have seen and done.  Unlike you, kid, I don't
> make this stuff up.
> 
> >Oh yeah, I forgot to add. Final output will be measured on final quality
> >as well as quantity. See if you crappy produce could compete with his!
>  
> Toby, you ignorant little squirt, I've done it.  You haven't.
>  
>     
Why do you find it necessary to belittle and demean almost everyone who
doesn't agree 100% with you--and probably most who do?  Do you really think
this behavior strengthens your arguments (as opposed to reflecting back on
yourself)?  I personally don't care what you say about me or others, but I
would like to use these newsgroups as information resources for my classes
and would like students to be able to concentrate on the content instead of
the vitriolic nature of the participants.  Oh well, maybe they need to
learn what kind of folk are really out there with whom they will have to
deal.
>  
>                                                        -dlj.
>  
RWT

Phil Felton includes re rocket launches:
     Given the present launcher success rate of around 5-10% I
     can think of few worse ways of disposing of such weapons!
Add Felton to your list of those who invent statistics.
-- 
John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/progress/
During the last years of the Second Millenium, the Earthmen complained
a lot.

The most current source for the Pollution Equipment and
Pollution Control Industry and Regulatory news anywhere. 
Visit our site at http://www.pollutiononline.com
and sign up for our newsletter in the "New Visitor Section"

In article <99-1212961830040001@ibpd-628.phys.uh.edu>,
Extremely Right  <99@spies.com> wrote:
>Reduction of CO2 and the entire sustainable development scam will initiate
>a global depression. IF it is carried out, the level of production,
>*proportional* to CO2 output, would add a deficit to our trade balance.
C'mon, Extremely, you can do better than that.
You've heard of the concept of "technology", right?  You know, this crazy
thing that supposedly advances as time goes on and makes things more efficient?
By way of example, we don't really need several hundred horsepower in a car.
A compact car only weights four times as much as a horse.  So why does it need
ninety times the power of a horse?  No one uses compacts to haul anything.
In Europe those cars would have about a third to a half that much power, and
they'd burn a proportionately less amount of fuel as well.
Or, for that matter, we don't really need to burn gasoline in there at all.
We have other ways of powering cars.  (Liquid natural gas, electricity, etc.)
The emissions from these would be a fraction of what they are now.  And cars
are far and away the greatest emitters of CO2 and, for that matter, CO.
But why don't we?  Two words.  Big.  Oil.
>A reduction in food production in N. America would create a famine because
>the US and Canada are the only two NET food exporters.
WTF does food production have to do with CO2 emissions?
 _______________________________________________________________________
|The Stilt Man                stiltman@teleport.com                     |
| --Truth fears no questions  http://www.teleport.com/~stiltman         |
|=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=|
|Solicitor advisory: Your email will be better received in a black hole.|
|_______________________________________________________________________|
X-no-archive: yes

redin@lysator.liu.se (Magnus Redin) wrote:
>
> TL ADAMS  writes:
> 
> > Why, does the truth hurt. The commercial power/weapons production
> > are so closely entwined that how can you remove your self from eco
> > nightmares like Hanford.
> 
> Its not hard when living in a country that has not built any nuclear
> weapons and has a very well run nuclear program.
> 
> Regards,
> --
> --
> Magnus Redin  Lysator Academic Computer Society  redin@lysator.liu.se
> Mail: Magnus Redin, Björnkärrsgatan 11 B 20, 584 36 LINKöPING, SWEDEN
> Phone: Sweden (0)13 260046 (answering machine)  and  (0)13 214600
Point well taken, and I will concur.
But are you also a country that has had the political will to make
the hard decisions about disposal site?  Not a rhetorical question,
I really don't know.
Me, I say put the stuff into the salt domes, alot safer than the 
crap that is leaking now.  Fifty years into the program, and
still no perm solution.  (Yes, I know that the salt dome place is
just an "demonstration" project.
And how do we know that you've not built any nukes.  Arn't
you worried about those shiftless Norgewegioan (sp?), what about
those sneaky danes.
(GRIN)

dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) writes:
> On Wed, 11 Dec 1996 15:06:24 GMT, wf3h@enter.net (bob puharic) wrote:
> 
> >dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote:
> >>The fact is the Roman Catholic view of family life, including sex,
> >>leaves plenty of room for birth control.
> >
> >"every action which, whether in anticipation of the conjugal act, or
> >in its accomplishment....proposes, whether as an end or as a means to
> >render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil" "the Catechism of
> >the Catholic church", paragraph 2370. doesnt sound like plenty of room
> >for birth control to me.
> 
> If I was interested in paragraph 2370 of "the Catechism of the
> Catholic church", I would ask -- as no doubt would many Catholics.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church happens to be a place where the
official teaching of the RC Church is recorded.  If you make a claim
about Catholic doctrine (which is what you are clearly doing in your
original post) then it ought to agree with the CCC.  Paragraph 2370 is
explaining the criteria by which RC Church defines which forms of
birth control are unacceptable.  It was a pleasant change to see
someone using a correct reference to establish what the RC Church
teaches.  Bob is to be commended. 
These criteria still allow for all methods of birth control relying on
periodic abstinence.  Trussel, et al in "A Guide to Interpreting
Contraceptive Efficacy Studies" in Ob&Gyn; vol 76, no 3, lists four of
these methods.  He calculates their method failure rates (i.e.
accidental pregnancy rate among those who abstain when the method
predicts possible fertility) are:
Calendar (this is the old rhythm method)   9%
Ovulation                                  3%
Sympto-thermal                             2%
Post-ovulation                             1%
> Meanwhile I stand by the accuracy of what I said above about the Roman
> Catholic view of family life, including sex.
You seriously damage your credibility when you do not appear to
understand the significance of the Catechism for your argument.  If
you wish to claim that RC practice does not match the Church's
official teaching that would be a perfectly valid point.  If you make
claims, however, about RC doctrine, as you did, then you need to
understand what that doctrine says and where it is recorded.
Jayne

Here is the latest story from the European Nuclear Society's NUCNET
( http://www.aey.ch/nucnet/ ).
The World's Nuclear News Agency 
Operated by the European Nuclear Society  12-Dec-1996 
Romanian N-Plant Now Big Oil-Saver & Winter Warmer 
RENEL, Romania's national electric utility, says that - with immediate
effect - the country's first nuclear power unit will mean a saving in oil
imports worth US$ 150 million a year. 
Unit 1 of the Cernavoda nuclear power station, east of the capital, Bucharest,
went into commercial operation on December 2nd. The Canadian-designed
CANDU-type reactor is now meeting about 10% of Romania's electricity
demand, generating about 4.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity per year.
This will mean an annual saving of 1.4 million tonnes of imported oil. 
Cernavoda-1 is the first Western-designed power reactor block in Eastern
Europe. The 700-megawatt pressurised heavy water reactor unit was built by
a consortium of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), Ansaldo of
Italy, and RENEL. 
Work on the station first began 15 years ago, but was affected by a series of
delays, mostly financial in origin. The unit was officially opened in April,
and connection to the national grid was achieved on July 11th. The training
of Romanian operators is continuing, in preparation for a hand-over by the
Canadian-Italian management at the end of next June. AECL has said it is
willing to continue to provide technical support after that point, if
required. 
Unit 1 is currently operating at full power, helping to cover base-load winter
demand - the power required round-the-clock, day-by-day. 
Next year Romania will start repaying loans for Cernavoda-1 of about US$
400 million to the Export Development Corporation of Canada and the
Medio Credito Centrale of Italy. 
RENEL is now trying hard to arrange the financing for completion of the
second unit at the site. Three other blocks at the station are also yet to be
fully completed. The utility is aiming to complete unit 2 in 2001,
requiring an
estimated capital cost of US$ 750 million. Completion is scheduled for a
maximum 56 months after the financing is in place.
Source: Romanian Nuclear Energy Association (AREN)
Editor / contact: Jack Ashton
copy; 1996 NucNet, nucnet@atagbe.ch
This material may be freely reproduced but NucNet must be quoted as the
source. NucNet Central Office, P.O. Box 5032, CH-3001 Berne, Switzerland.
Fax +41-31-382-4466, phone+41-31-320-6111
--
Jeremy Whitlock
cz725@freenet.carleton.ca
Visit "The Canadian Nuclear FAQ" at http://www.ncf.carleton.ca/~cz725/

Neil Cordwell wrote:
> How much land is required for a 1200MW nuclear site (please include
> waste processing, mining of uranium or plutonium, storing of waste
> products, etc.)
A large uranium mine is going to have a surface installation that
covers a sq km or two.  The processing plant will be of similar
size.
Nobody mines plutonium as it is not found in significant
quantities in nature.
Keep in mind the relatively small amounts of uranium required
for running a nuclear plant.  The fuel truck shows up at
Darlington station (which has four reactors in the 1000MWe
range) about once a month.
The exclusion zone around the Bruce site, both A and B (which
has 8 reactors each about 1000MWe, plus the Ontario Hydro heavy
water plant) is a few sq km, probably less than 10. This area
also includes the switching yards plus all the support buildings,
the employee parking lot, etc. The site has a lot of trees,
although they are mostly planted beside access roads as
wind breaks, as opposed to being wild trees.
Waste is currently stored on site at nuclear power stations, and
will be stored there for at least another 20 years.
The Chalk River Nuclear Laboratories (which do research for
commercial power plus produce a significant fraction of the medical
isotopes of the world, plus do research that is not directly connected
to nuclear power)  have a site that is a few sq km plus an exclusion
zone of about 10 km in radius. This zone is a protection for both the
public and the site, as there are many proprietary things going
on at the labs.  This area is also used for various experiments,
including the disposal of the reactor vessel of a decommissioned
nuclear station which is currently being monitored.  The exclusion
zone is basically wilderness with one access road down the middle.
> It might be interesting to think what will happen when the present day
> nuclear power stations need decommisioning. What are we going to do with
> all the nice hot waste?
Disposal of high level waste is a tractacable engineering problem.
Basically you identify the correct kind of rock, you drill a hole
about 1km deep using special drilling methods that don't crack
the rocks, you put the waste in special cannisters at the bottom
of this hole, you fill the hole with clay that water moves through
only very slowly. This is massive over-kill for the problem, but
the first requirement of waste disposal is that it not provide
a burden for future generations.  The 1km depth is partly due
to how deep it needs to be not to be disturbed by glaciation if
a new ice age were to occur.
The disposal site will have a surface requirement of one or
two sq km, just enough to give access to various vehicles,
put a support building or two, maybe a caretaker's building,
and a parking lot.
So, the entire nuclear industry in Ontario uses in the range
of 100 to 200 sq km, and a significant portion of that is in a
reserve of nearly pristine woodland.
-- 
Standard disclaimers apply.
I don't buy from people who advertise by e-mail.
I don't buy from their ISPs.
Dan Evens

David Lloyd-Jones (dlj@inforamp.net) wrote:
: But you didn't quote WHO or CDC.
I should warn other here not to debate dlj on the basis of popular sources.
Andrew Taylor has already repeated provided references to classic textbooks
of malariology that refute all of dlj's uninformed and propangadistic claims.
By permitting dlj to shift the discussion from malariology texts to popular
sources you are doing him a favor.  This thread is cross-posted to 
sci.environment and if dlj wants to play here he should learn how to
support his statements with references to the scientific literature.

                 The De Lang Woodland Conference
           Sustainable Development: Managing the Transition
                            March 3-5, 1997
                    Rice University, Houston, Texas
World population is expected to double in the next 50 years, creating
new demand for food, shelter and energy. Meanwhile, natural resources
are being depleted at an alarming rate, and pollution continues to
threaten the health and welfare of the world's population as more
nations become industrialized. To ensure the needs of future
generations, solutions must be developed and implemented immediately
to manage the transition to sustainable development. Meeting these
important economic, ecological and social challenges of the 21st
Century will be the theme of the 1997 De Long Woodlands Conference on
"Sustainable Development: Managing the Transition, March 3-5 at Rice
University in Houston, Texas. Internationally renown leaders from
business, science, technology, academia, government and social science
will address a broad range of issues related to the concept of
sustainable development during the three day conference. Audience
members will be encouraged to participate in the question and answer
sessions, as well as the panel discussion on the afternoon of the
third day.
The conference is organized by the Energy and Environmental Systems
Institute (EESI) of Rice University and the Center for Global Commons
at Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) in the Woodlands, in
partnership with the National Academy of Sciences and the James A
Baker III Institute of Public Policy at Rice University.
For more information, please contact Judy Howell at EESI - (713)
373-5674 or e-mail  jmhowell@rice.edu. The Institute's web page address is
http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~eesi

961213
GARDEN STATE ENVIRONEWS
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
                           TABLE OF CONTENTS
                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
            * SAVE TORNE MOUNTAIN
            * ATLANTIC CITY BOARDWALK PROTEST
            * STARTING UP: HANDBOOK FOR NEW ORGANIZATIONS
            * AMERICANS FOR OUR HERITAGE & RECREATION
            * EPA 800 # FOR COMMENTS ON HEALTH STANDARDS
            * NEW CORPORATE WATCHDOG WEB SITE!
            * ENVIRO-NEWSBRIEF 961212
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
SAVE TORNE MOUNTAIN
 The Ramapo Torne is a prominent feature of the Ramapo Pass, the
"gateway" to New York, highly visible from both the New York State
Thruway and Route 17. The Torne is a favorite of local hikers,
offering impressive views to the south and west. It is believed to
have been used as a strategic lookout point for Washington's Troops
stationed below at Camp Ramapough. The lower levels of the Torne
include several Native American rock shelters. The Torne and the
Valley to the south of it are important wildlife habitat, rich in
herptofauna and bird life, including threatened species. The Torne
Brook is over a branch of the Ramapo Aquifer, which provides water for
Rockland County, New York and communities in Bergen County, New
Jersey, and is the only known Brook Trout spawning stream in Rockland
County.
 Much of the Torne and part of the Torne Valley lie within Harriman
State Park, but private and local government holdings jut deeply into
the Park, surrounded on three sides by park land. This greatly
magnifies the impact of any development there on existing park lands.
While the rocky summit of the Torne lies within the park, the terraces
descending towards the Ramapo River, an important element of the
scenic vista from the major highways, are not protected. These private
lands also isolate the Torne from the most attractive and direct
hiking approaches from the southwest. Part of the Valley is owned by
local governments and utilities; the balance of the land (Torne and
Valley) has long been held by the Ramapo Land Company, which is now
interested in selling off its holdings. Projects which have been
considered for the Torne and Valley include quarrying and asphalt
recycling. In addition, the Valley's relatively isolated location in
an increasingly built up area has made it attractive to local
authorities as a site for various utility and waste processing
projects.
 For many reasons - environmental, recreational, historical, aesthetic
- this land should be protected from development and incorporated into
Harriman State Park. If we do not act now, the opportunity to do so
will be lost.
Contacts:   Geoff Welch, PO Box 1217, Hillburn, NY 10931
            (914) 753-5634
            Jill Hamell, 166 Speer Ave., Apt. 3, Clifton, Nj 07013
            (201) 614-l 888
 The following groups are supporting this initiative: New York - New
Jersey Trail Conference ** Highlands Coalition ** Appalachian Mountain
Club, New York- North Jersey Chapter ** Ramapo Mountain Indian Tribal
Council ** Rockland County Conservation Association ** Trout
Unlimited, Ray Bergman Chapter ** Sierra Club, Rockland Committee **
Citizens' Environmental Coalition of New York State ** Ramapo River
Committee ** Rockland County Environmental Management Council **
Orange Environment ** Metropolitan Canoe & Kayak Club
 "Torne" appears to be a highly local word, possibly of Dutch origin,
for a rocky, craggy hill or mountain top.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ATLANTIC CITY BOARDWALK PROTEST
Date: 11 Dec 1996
From: Rainforest Relief 
S T O P   A T L A N T I C    C I T Y ' S      
R A I N F O R E S T    W O O D    B O A R D W A L K
PROTEST ON THE ATLANTIC CITY BOARDWALK 
in front of Convention Hall
SAT., DECEMBER 14th   1:00 PM -- 3:00 PM
Atlantic City
+       THE WOOD USED BY ATLANTIC CITY FOR THE BOARDWALK
        WAS LOGGED FROM THE AMAZON RAINFORESTS OF 
        BRAZIL AND GUYANA!
+       AT LEAST EIGHT INDIGENOUS AMAZON TRIBES
        HAVE HAD MEMBERS KILLED BY LOGGERS!
+       LOGGERS IN BRAZIL INVADE INDIGENOUS
        LANDS AND PARKS & PRESERVES TO CUT
        WOOD, PUNCHING ROADS INTO PRISTINE RAINFORESTS AND
        KILLING INDIANS ALONG THE WAY!
+       RECYCLED PLASTIC LUMBER HAS BEEN USED SUCCESSFULLY
        FOR BOARDWALKS ELSEWHERE. ATLANTIC CITY
        REFUSES TO USE IT FOR ITS BOARDWALK, EVEN
        THOUGH IT LASTS LONGER, WON'T SPLINTER OR ROT AND IS 
        GUARANTEED FOR 50 YEARS!
+       LOGGING IN RAINFORESTS TYPICALLY DESTROYS 13 TREES FOR 
        EVERY ONE CUT - UP TO HALF AN ACRE CAN BE DAMAGED 
        FOR ONE TREE!
+       LESS THAN ONE PERCENT OF LOGGING IN THE TROPICS IS
        SUSTAINABLE, ACCORDING TO A STUDY BY THE INTERNATIONAL
        TROPICAL TIMBER ORGANIZATION!
WE'VE STOPPED OCEAN CITY, NJ FROM USING RAINFOREST WOOD --
LET'S SHOW ATLANTIC CITY THAT REPAIRING THE
BOARDWALK DOESN'T INCLUDE DESTROYING THE AMAZON!
FOR MORE INFORMATION OR TO HELP WITH THE DEMONSTRATION
CALL:
RAINFOREST RELIEF AT 718/832-6775  OR  908/842-6030
OR  STOCKTON SAVE AT 609/652-4278 
TAKE ANY BUS TO ATLANTIC CITY AND GET REIMBURSED INSIDE THE CASINO 
Please Copy, Circulate and Post this notice as much as possible.
Thanks!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
STARTING UP: HANDBOOK FOR NEW ORGANIZATIONS
Date: 12 Dec 1996
From: River Network 
~~~~ NEW FROM RIVER NETWORK ~~~~~
"Starting Up: A Handbook for New River and Watershed Organizations"
Whether you are thinking seriously about starting a new organization
to conserve your local river or you are already involved in a river or
watershed organization, Starting Up provides a treasure of information
about how to run a successful organization. Based on the invaluable
experience of dozens of leaders in the river and watershed
conservation movement, this handbook lays out the critical moves every
newly forming organization needs to make to thrive and grow. Over 350
pages of valuable information, including: choosing a name, developing
your mission statement, recruiting your board of directors,
fundraising, creating a budget, working with the media, producing a
newsletter, and much more!!! Additionally, it provides you with
specific concepts and tools for building a strong and healthy river
organization with a specific focus on the watershed approach to river
conservation.
WHAT RIVER ACTIVISTS ARE SAYING
"I just wanted to let you and River Network know that I am impressed
with your recent publication, "Starting Up: A Handbook for New River
and Watershed Organizations." It is packed full of valuable
information! I hope the network of river supporters out there realizes
what a gold mine they have available to them in this publication!"
-Global Rivers Environmental Education Network
" 'Starting Up' looks like one of the most useful documents of its
kind ever produced! Congratulations on your impressive achievment"
-Richard Beamish, author of "Getting the Word Out in the Fight to Save
the Earth"
"During the almost two years that we at Ontario Streams have been
members of River Network, I have been very impressed with the range,
depth and excellence of your various publications. However, the latest
publication, 'Getting Started' sets a new standard! Loud huzzahs to
all who worked to put this wonderful tool together!" -Ontario Streams
COST
$10 for River Network Partners (includes shipping)
$25 for all others (includes shipping)
HOW TO ORDER
River Network is not set up for credit cards. 
 To order, please send your check to:
River Network
Publications
PO Box 8787
Portland, OR 97207
QUESTIONS about RIVER NETWORK and our PARTNERSHIP?
Email us at: rivernet@igc.org
phone us at: 503-241-3506
Check out our web site at: http://www.rivernetwork.org/~rivernet
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
AMERICANS FOR OUR HERITAGE & RECREATION
Dear Conservation and Recreation Leader:
 Over the past six months, an unprecedented coalition representing a
wide range of interests including recreationists, conservationists,
advocates for the cities and for the wilderness, the outdoor industry,
grassroots activists, state agencies, and national organizations, have
come together under the banner of Americans for our Heritage and
Recreation (AHR). We are seeking to restore and expand the commitment
of the federal government, in partnership with state and local
governments and private organizations, to fund conservation of our
natural and cultural heritage and to provide recreational
opportunities for all Americans. To launch this effort, we are
inviting you to participate in a national strategy summit of leaders
in conservation and recreation, January 5-1, 1997, at Asilomar
Conference Grounds in Monterey, California.
 We are facing a serious problem: Our nation's commitment to funding
for conservation and recreation has fallen sharply. In each of the
past two years, only about 15% of the $900 million authorized annually
for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) has been spent. The
LWCF State Assistance Program, which provides matching grants to state
and local parks for conservation and recreation, has not been funded
at all for the past two years. The LWCF was created with a promise: To
take income from the use of a natural resource (off-shore oil and gas
leases) and use it to support the conservation of parks, forests,
clean water, and open spaces, and to guarantee outdoor recreation
opportunities for all Americans. Our nation has reneged on that
promise. To restore the promise, we need your help.
 Americans for our Heritage and Recreation has been founded with three
goals:
1) To build a broad-based, enduring, and effective constituency of
Americans who care about outdoor recreation and conservation of our
natural and cultural resources;
2) To provide funding from the LWCF and other sources to meet the need
for conservation and recreation at the local, state, regional, and
national levels; and
3) To create new programs, policies, and partnerships among federal,
state and local governments, and private organizations, to meet the
conservation and recreation needs of the 21st century.
 In the few short months since our initial organizing meeting, we have
found widespread grassroots enthusiasm around the country for a
revitalized effort to restore federal funding for land and water
conservation, and deep concern and even anger that the dedicated
funding promised by the enactment of LWCF has been lost. Americans for
our Heritage and Recreation is dedicated to working with people across
the country to build a powerful and effective force for restoring
funding for conservation and recreation.
 We are writing because we need your input and participation to shape
our campaign and to ensure that the interests of people throughout the
United States are included. Please return the enclosed form (directly
to Asilomar) to register for the summit. At the same time, return the
self-addressed postcard to Ted Hilliard in Sacramento. Ted is the AHR
conference coordinator and can be reached with conference questions at
916-653-4585.
 A generous grant from REI is helping to keep conference costs to a
minimum, and limited scholarship assistance is available. Whether or
not your schedule allows you to attend, please let us know how you
would like to be involved in the ongoing effort. For more information
on the AHR campaign, please call one of us. We hope to see you at the
summit, and look forward to working with you to restore the promise of
the Land and Water Conservation Fund!
Sincerely,
Donald W. Murphy, Director
California Department of Parks and Recreation
Co-Chair 916-653-1570
Lis Boussard
The Wilderness Society
Co-Chair 202-429-2676
Stephen Blackmer
Appalachian Mountain Club
Co-Chair 603-783-3348
Americans for our Heritage & Recreation
1416 9th St., Room 1405
Sacremento CA 95814
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
EPA 800 # FOR COMMENTS ON HEALTH STANDARDS
Date: Dec 11, 1996
From: ElaineE684@aol.com
Folks,
Got the info below today in e-mail.
                -Elaine
                                 -=*=-
    The EPA has set up an 800 number to take comments from the public
on the proposed updates to the Clean Air Act health standards for
ozone and particulate matter.
            The number is 1-888-TellEPA (1-888-835-5372).
Please spread the word to various environmental email networks!
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
NEW CORPORATE WATCHDOG WEB SITE!
Date: Dec 12, 1996
From: EcoNet Environmental Justice Desk 
12/10/96
CORPORATE WATCH WEB SITE ONLINE
http://www.corpwatch.org
A new watchdog website dedicated to monitoring the activities of
transnational corporations went online today.
Corporate Watch is designed to provide journalists, activists and
policy makers around the world with up to date information and
analysis on social, ecological and economic impacts of
transnational corporations.
"We intend to be an online clearinghouse for information on these
companies," explained Corporate Watch editorial board member
Antonio Diaz.
The site will also serve as a mini-online magazine that runs
features on related issues.
"One of the reasons we've created Corporate Watch is to keep an eye
on all those Fortune 500 companies that are jumping on the World
Wide Web bandwagon," remarked the site's editorial coordinator,
Joshua Karliner.  "That's why our first Feature focuses on the
corporatization of the Internet itself."
Entitled "The Battle for the Future of the Internet," the Feature
includes commentary from Hot Wired executive producer Gary Wolf,
media and technology critic Jerry Mander, NetAction director Audrie
Krause, and Brazilian Internet activist Carlos Afonso.
The Corporate Watch site also includes:
     *An eight part nuts and bolts manual on how to research
transnational corporations.
     *Monthly "greenwash" awards given out by Corporate Watch and
the environmental group Greenpeace to the most outrageous corporate
"environmental" advertisements.
     *An Image Gallery, with a permanent environmental art
collection and rotating monthly exhibits.  This month's exhibit
features images from Bhopal, India, commemorating the 12th
Anniversary of the Union Carbide Gas Disaster.
     *In-depth analysis on corporate globalization, including
reports from the Institute for Policy Studies in Washington DC and
the New Delhi, India-based Public Interest Research Group.
     *News from various sources, including Multinational Monitor,
the Malaysia-based Third World Network, Ecuador-based Oil Watch.
     *Direct Links to the Corporate Watch Affiliate Group--a
collection of organizations which provide in depth research
services.
     *Links to hundreds of other websites with analysis of or
information produced by transnational corporations.
Corporate Watch is a joint project of TRAC--the Transnational
Resource and Action Center and IGC--the Institute for global
communications.
contact: Joshua Karliner
tel: 415-561-6567
fax: 415-561-6493
email: trac@igc.org
web:   http://www.corpwatch.org
** Please cross-post and redistribute **
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
         George Gundrey     ggundrey@igc.apc.org    415-285-4604
    Internet Publishing * Networking * Training * Project Management
   - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
ENVIRO-NEWSBRIEF 961212
     The following is a daily update summarizing news of interest
to EPA staff. It includes information from current news sources:
newspapers, newsletters, and other publications. For more
information, contact the EPA Headquarters Library at (202) 260-
5921, or e-mail LIBRARY-HQ.
**Viewpoints expressed in the following summaries do not
necessarily reflect EPA policy**
** AIR POLLUTION **
OTAG Seeks Assurance That EPA Proposal Will Reflect Group's Ozone
Transport Work. Daily Environment Report, December 12, 1996,
ppAA-1-2.
     The Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG) wants the EPA to
base the upcoming proposal establishing emission reduction levels
for combating ozone transport in the Northeast on their findings.
     Mary Gade, OTAG Chair, wrote Mary Nichols, EPA's Assistant
Administrator, stating that the group's members "are very
concerned that any action on the part of the EPA without adequate
consideration and analyses of the technical work being conducted
in OTAG could undermine the whole OTAG effort."
     The issue began after a November 8 letter from Nichols to
Gade announced EPA's intent to begin issuing calls for state
implementation plans that will set the emissions reduction needed
to deal with the transport of ozone from the Midwest and other
areas to the Northeast.
     Nichols says the EPA plans to publish an advance notice of
proposed rule-making in December that will "describe the
schedule, intent, and rationale for the SIP call, but will not go
into detail about the specific content."
     The letter worried industry groups and OTAG members that EPA
was going ahead with its proposal without taking OTAG's findings
into consideration.
     The OTAG panel contains representatives from 37 Midwest and
Eastern states. They are expected to develop modeling data for
EPA that covers the Eastern half of the US. The group is also
expected to propose an emissions trading system for Nox.
     "As you know, the states and other stakeholders have worked
very hard to complete all of the technical analyses necessary to
determine the impacts of ozone transport as well as possible
solutions for mitigation," said Gade in her letter to Nichols.
     She added that the group was "committed" to completing the
remaining technical analyses by February. "It is my understanding
that the EPA will base its decisions on the modeling and
technical analyses performed in OTAG and that no final
determinations will be made until after OTAG has had an
opportunity to fully complete its deliberations," wrote Gade.
** INNOVATIVE TECHNOLOGY **
Compendium of Cleanup Projects Seeks to Facilitate Selection for
Site Managers. Daily Environment Report, December 12, 1996, ppA-
3-4.
     A report entitled _Completed North American Innovative
Remediation Technology Demonstration Projects_ contains
information on government sponsored innovative cleanup projects.
The report, released December 4 by the EPA, is designed to help
site managers identify new technologies that might fit their
needs.
     Categorized in the report are 426 full scale demonstration
projects. They are arranged by media treated and by technology
type. Of the projects included in the report, 259 are completed
demonstrations that were performed, co-sponsored or funded
through programs developed by EPA, the Departments of Energy and
Defense, California and Canada. The remaining 167 are
demonstrations being conducted by the Technology Transfer
Division of the US Air Force Center for the Environmental
Excellence. About two-thirds of the air-force demonstrations are
ongoing.
     Walter Kovalick, Director of EPA's Technology Innovation
Office, said that because a full scale demonstration "is often a
major milestone on the path to commercialization, the
availability of results from almost 300 projects is a significant
accomplishment for both developers and sponsors of demonstration
programs."
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
  *                THE GARDEN STATE ENVIRONET                 *
  *    Tel 201-586-4128  GSENET@NAC.NET  Fax 201-627-8616     *
  *  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  -  *
  *            BBS: 201-627-9213, 8N1, ANSI, 14400            *
  *              EcoNet Conference: (g)o env.nj               *
  *      Listserver: majordomo@igc.org subscribe gsenet-L     *
  *         WWW Site: http://www.nac.net/~users/gsenet        *
  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *
=END=

phil. Felton wrote:
> 
> In article <32AF60A5.2C57@dynamotive.com>, billmcc
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Does anyone know of any jurisdication which has in place regulations
> > regarding the emission of N20 from coal fired boilers? Barring that does
> > anyone know anyone that would know?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Bill McEachern
> 
> I don't believe there are any, it would be rather pointless since most of the
> sources of N2O are from soil, oceans, estuaries etc.
> 
> Phil.
I don't believe there are any either. Some years ago there was some stack sampling from 
coal-fired power plants that turned up relatively high concentrations of N2O in the 
fluegas. As it turns out, there was a problem in the sampling where the N in the NOx 
converted to N2O. Upon a reinvestigation it was found that the sampling methodology was 
flawed and there was no appreciable N2O in the flue gas. 
You might try the Electric Power Research Institute (www.epri.com) home page and you 
might be able to make an inquiry there. I believe Peter Mueller of EPRI was the project 
manager for the N2O study.
Dennis

We refer to it (gas) as LIQUID GOLD.
Want a better running car? More Power?  Less Maintenance?
No more worries about passing EMISSIONS ! EVER 
Then buy the KYNETIK POWER PACK !
No more need for Super Unleaded. (raises octane without use of lead)
The amazing device that does all of these things.
Over Twenty five thousand sold to date.
Patented in four different countries.
Over six years on the market.
Fits all four -six- and eight cylinder engines.
Also Motorcycles, lawn mowers (riding) and stationary engines.
http://www.mkt-place.com/market/enviromag/broc1.html 
Visit us NOW!!!!

Katherine A Vancil wrote:
> 
> I think that people should stop thinking so much about the economic
> aspects of wind power and start thinking more about the environment.  The
> costs for both will remain high, but in the long run the degredation done
> to the environment will cost us more and future generations more. Wind,
> solar, fossil, nuclear...whatever the source, do it!  Quit contemplating,
> using present examples as a source.
Well, golly.  It's awfully nice to have such unbridled support for
alternative energy, and wind power in particular.  The problem, as I'm
sure many will point out, is that while we'd all love to live in a world
where problems like pollution and environmental impact are solved
without worrying about money, the fact is that in a capitalist economy,
large companies with the technology to solve or to at least alleviate
the symptoms of such problems almost never do so out of the goodness of
their collective hearts.  It costs big money for large-scale power
plants, regardless of the fuel source.
Your enthusiasm, while encouraging, should perhaps be directed at those
who guide energy policy in this country.  Your representatives in
Congress, as well as locally, can amplify your concerns and make for
real change in the power utility bureaucracy as it stands.
-- 
=+=++=+=+=N+I=R+V=A+N=A+n=e+t=+=R+a=w+D=a+t=a+F=o+r=R+a=w+N=e+r=v+e=s+=+=+=+=+
 Joe Griego                       |   "We're so pretty, oh so pretty,
 Zond Corporation                 |    We're vaaa-cant!"
 Anemometry Dept.                 |
 13000 Jameson Road               |    - The Sex Pistols, 1976
 Tehachapi, CA  93561             |
 (805) 822-6835, ext. 6674        |   
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=

This may be of interest to students and faculty doing design work.
You can get more details at,
http://www.engineer.gvsu.edu
------------------------------SNIP----------------------------------
THE FOURTH ANNUAL PADNOS DESIGN
                        COMPETITION 
       COMPETITION INFORMATION AND GUIDELINES 
The Padnos Competition is an annual competition which recognizes innovative senior design
projects in engineering which are environmentally responsible. This competition is sponsored by
the Louis and Helen Padnos Foundation and by Grand Valley State University, in cooperation
with the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. The intent of the competition is to be
compatible with the typical senior engineering design experience which is included in every
ABET accredited engineering program. To be considered, a project must have a major focus
on an innovative engineering approach to solving a problem in an environmentally
responsible manner. The particular environmental problem for the project must be addressed
in the report. 
AWARD STRUCTURE 
A video presentation of the three winning entries is distributed to the participating institutions
during the academic year following the competition. This video also recognizes all of the
participating institutions. 
Grand Prize (1) 
The cash award associated with the grand prize consists of a $6,000 grant in the name of the
project faculty supervisor. The funds are to be distributed as follows: Student Team - $2,000;
Institution - $4,000 (use of the institution award is to include sending the winning team to the
award presentation as necessary). In addition, the judging by the Padnos Competition judges
constitutes the peer review for 
The Technology Journal of the Franklin Institute. Grand Prize entries are invited to
submit a paper to this journal based on the project. 
Honorable Mentions (2) 
The cash award associated with each honorable mention consists of a $2,000 grant in the name
of the project faculty supervisor. The use of this award is to include sending at lease one
member of the winning team to the award presentation as necessary. 
POTENTIAL PROJECT TOPICS FOR SUBMISSION INCLUDE (but are
not limited to) 
Product or Process Design for Recycling Design for Disassembly 
Design for Source Reduction and Waste Minimization Life Cycle Assessment Based Design 
Design for Energy and/or Resources Conservation 
JUDGING CRITERIA 
The contest entries shall be judged based upon: 
Scope of Potential Environmental Impact Originality of Design 
(broadly and specifically) Potential for Implementation 
Engineering Analysis Quality of Submission 
Economic Feasibility 
COMPETITION ENTRY REQUIREMENTS 
1. Individuals or teams may enter. At least one team member must be enrolled in a senior
engineering design experience. Interdisciplinary teams are welcome. 
2. To be considered, the project being submitted must have been completed in the academic
year immediately preceding the entry submission deadline. 
3. Project submissions must be prepared in English and include: 
A completed Entry Cover Sheet 
A completed Address Information Form 
A written Project Report 
An Executive Summary of the project (approximately 1000 words) 
Either 
A video presentation (approximately 10 minutes and not more than 15 minutes) 
or 
A demonstration poster and script (poster size when displayed not exceed 36"x48") 
COMPETITION TIME-TABLE 
As this competition is designed to accommodate the various academic calendars and senior
project approaches, the intent to participate form deadline is flexible. Submission of these forms
is used to constitute the judging panel each year. The recommended schedule for submissions
is: 
October 1, 1996 (flexible) - Submission of Intent to Participate Forms (Fall Term Projects)
February 1, 1997 (flexible) - Submission of Intent to Participate Forms (Winter Term Projects) 
May 15, 1997 - Submission of Entries (extensions possible by special request) 
September, 1997 - Presentation of Awards at the ASME Technical Design Conference 
RECOMMENDED REPORT FORMAT 
* Clear statement of the problem being addressed 
* Concise summary and conclusions (approximately 10 pages) 
* Statement of how the Padnos Competition criteria are addressed 
* Appendices presenting supporting material 
RECENT WINNING ENTRIES 
Dairy Waste Management Treatment System Univ. of Tenn., Knoxville 1996 Grand Prize
Winner 
Construction Materials from Pulp-mill Solid Residuals Seattle University 1996 Grand Prize
Winner 
Supermilage Drivetrain Optimization Cedarville College 1996 Honorable Mention 
Collapsible Truck Wind Deflector Cedarville College 1995 Grand Prize Winner 
Pre-heating Water with Refrigerator Waste Heat Michigan State Univ. 1995 Honorable Mention 
Sidewall Removal Mechanism for Recycling of Tires Univ. of Victoria 1995 Honorable Mention 
Today's Newspaper - Tomorrow's Construction Material Montana State Univ. 1994 Grand Prize
Winner 
Steel Removal from Radial Tires: Rubber Recycling North Dakota State Univ. 1994 Honorable
Mention 
Optimization of the Beverage Vending Machine Michigan State Univ. 1994 Honorable Mention 
OTHER RECENT ENTRY TOPICS 
Conversion of waste materials to new products 
Manufacturing process re-design to avoid use of environmentally unacceptable materials 
Generation of energy from renewable resources 
New techniques for clean-up of hazardous material spills 
Innovative control techniques for energy conservation in heating & cooling systems 
Waste prevention or minimization through innovative scheduling methods 
Innovative techniques for soil remediation 
Innovative methods for waste treatment 
FOR MORE INFORMATION 
Entry forms and additional information are available via the internet or by request. The internet
address for the Padnos Competition Home page is:
http://engineer.gvsu.edu/pse-info/97-info.htm 
Information is also available from: 
Paul D. Plotkowski, Ph.D. 
Padnos Competition Coordinator 
301 W. Fulton 
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
Padnos School of Engineering Telephone (616) 771-6750 
Grand Valley State University FAX (616) 771-6642 
E-Mail Internet: plotkowp@gvsu.edu 
------------------------------SNIP----------------------------------

Reply-To: Moderator of conference "mlist.ecix1" 
From: Lelani Arris 
Subject: ECO GENEVA (AGBM5) #3 Dec 13 96(38K)
                          ECO NEWSLETTER
                          AGBM5 - GENEVA
                          NGO NEWSLETTER
                               AGBM5
                        December 13, 1996
                             ISSUE #3
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
.1            Canada Misses Cuts
.2            Looking for a Safe Landing?
.3            Who Said Africa Was Voiceless?
.4            Australia: the Truth Laid BARE
.5            NGO Update
.6            The Rise of Per Capita Emissions
.7            The Tasks Ahead
.8            US Public Backs Agreement
.9            Wednesday Morning
.10           EU Protocol Presentation
.11           Thursday Morning
.12           Japan: How to Make Friends
.13           Leman
.14           Contacts
.15           Credits
Eco has been published by Non-Governmental Environmental Groups
at major international conferences since the Stockholm
Environment Conference in 1972. This issue is produced
co-operatively by CAN groups attending the climate negotiations
in Geneva, December 1996.
******************************************************************
Canada Misses Cuts
Provincial and federal energy and environment ministers met in
Toronto December 12 to assess progress on meeting Canada's
international climate change commitments. The result: few new
measures to reduce Canada's skyrocketing greenhouse gas emissions.
Canada's 1995 greenhouse gas emissions are 9.5% above 1990
levels. Per capita emissions of greenhouse gases have risen from
20 tonnes per capita in 1990 to 21 tonnes per capita in 1995.
Greenhouse gas emissions per dollar of Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) have increased from 809 kilograms per thousand dollars in
1994 to 816 kg/$1,000 in 1995.
Assessing progress on Canada's climate program was the only
agenda item December 12. A consortium of consultants was hired to
prepare an evaluation of Canada's progress. The consultants
attribute emissions growth between 1990 and 1995 to the oil and
gas industry. Between 1990 and 1995, production increased by 35%,
while exports of natural gas to the United States doubled.
Canada's National Action Program on Climate Change (NAPCC) is
primarily a voluntary program. The Voluntary Challenge and
Registry is so poorly structured that the consultants told
governments that current reporting requirements of governments
and industry made it almost impossible to assess progress.
According to the consultants, "the difficulty in reviewing the
program is compounded by the fact that the jurisdictional reports
of actions are both inconsistent and incomplete. There is no
standardized format, few quantified measures, little budgetary
information, and a uniform propensity to report activity rather
than intended results."
Despite the inadequacy of the Voluntary Challenge and Registry,
federal energy forecasters are crediting voluntary action with
reducing Canada's projected gap in 2000. According to current
projections, Canada's greenhouse gas emissions are now expected
to be 8% above 1990 levels by the year 2000, rather than 13% as
previously expected.
Whether 8% or 13%, a gap is a gap. The consultants conclude that
"barring a major economic downturn, a sudden large rise in fuel
prices, or immediate and aggressive action by senior levels of
government, Canada will not achieve its short-term stabilization
commitment."
In addition, forecasts project greenhouse gas emissions will be
34% higher than 1990 in 2020.
The dismal assessment required a strong response from ministers.
Instead, Canadians were offered a modest federal commitment to
purchase Green Power ($600,000 of federal money to buy
electricity from renewables), some modest support for public
education, and a program by fossil fuel companies to invest in
methane capture landfill offsets.
While the programs are headed in the right direction, they will
not reduce emissions significantly in the short term and will not
offset government cutbacks to energy efficiency programs.
According to the consultants' report, the federal government
contributed over 80% of the over $64 million all Canadian
governments spent on efficiency and alternative energy in 1996-97
(down from $80 million the year before). As a result of
already-announced budget cuts, the federal contribution is to
decline from $62.9 million in 1995-96 to $48.8 million in 1997-98
(Natural Resources Canada 1995). Provincial governments also have
cut their efficiency programs, with Alberta and Newfoundland
completely eliminating their efficiency departments.
******************************************************************
Looking for a Safe Landing
by Dan Lashof, NRDC
The global climate/energy system is in increasing danger of a
crash landing with each year that industrialized countries delay
taking action to curb greenhouse gas emissions according to a new
analysis presented to climate negotiators Wednesday. Rob Swart
and Eric Kreileman of the Dutch Environmental Research Institute
(RIVM) demonstrated a new tool that lets policymakers find "safe
landing corridors" between environmental and economic risks based
on a range of choices regarding maximum rates and levels of
climate change on the one hand and maximum feasible rates of
emission reductions on the other. For mid-case assumptions there
would be no safe landing corridor by 2010 if emissions continue
along a business-as-usual (IPCC IS92a) path.
To stay near the middle of a safe emissions corridor, global
greenhouse gas emissions in 2010 need to be limited to
approximately 1990 levels, implying a substantial reduction in
emissions from industrialized countries (designated in Annex I of
the climate convention). The dangers of straying close to the
upper limit of the safe emissions corridor were graphically
illustrated by considering the options available depending on the
level of emissions within the corridor in 2010 (see figure). If
emissions are near the top of the corridor in 2010 the possible
paths to a safe landing will be extremely limited and perhaps
nonexistent if it is determined at that time that lower
thresholds are required to prevent dangerous climate change.
The conclusions from this analysis differ sharply from the
results of a widely cited model run by US researcher Jae Edmonds
and colleagues, which suggested that the economically optimal
climate strategy was to delay significant emission reductions for
several decades before making rapid emission reductions during
the middle of the next century. Discussion of these conflicting
results revealed several key differences: first, the "acceptable"
level of global warming is substantially higher in the Edmonds
analysis; second, the Edmonds result depends on an assumption
that technology for reducing greenhouse gas emissions will become
cheaper as a function of time, rather than as a function of
market experience; finally, while the RIVM analysis assumes that
emissions can't be reduced by more than 2% per year without
imposing excessive economic risks, the Edmonds model does not
constrain the feasible rate of emission reductions, and heavily
discounts any costs incurred by future generations in determining
the cheapest course for the present.
******************************************************************
Who said Africa was Voiceless ?
by Peter Otinda and Djimingue Nanasta, Climate Network Africa
Four days after the start of AGBM5, the presence of African
delegates was hardly felt, despite an estimated 30 African
countries in attendance and the twist the negotiations have taken
- not even one-third of the countries have made interventions.
Then, in an 11th hour rush, they all want to speak. They even now
have a chair for their group. Great, better late than never!
African delegates have realised at long last that they have come
to Geneva to give momentum to the convention process and help
come out with a protocol. A continued silence from Africa would
have given the impression of a group banking (!) on others to
negotiate for them.
Remember that every second you spend in Geneva takes you closer
to the end of the current sessions of the subsidiary bodies and
closer to Kyoto. How happy would Africa be to take nothing home!
******************************************************************
Australia: the Truth Laid BARE
by Kirsty Hamilton, Greenpeace Int. and Louise Coumeau, Sierra
Club Canada
Australia's paper-thin attempts to justify the ongoing survival
of its coal industry are becoming increasingly transparent.
Perhaps Brain Fisher did not realise when he presented the
MEGABARE model on Wednesday that back home, less than a week
before, his Minister was having increasing difficulty in the
Senate justifying the validity of the model.
Australian Hansard on December 5th reveals:
"Senator KERNOT [to the Federal Minister of Resources]...
Minister, yesterday you said that the Megabare model had been
refereed domestically by the Centre for Policy Studies at Monash
University. Minister, what do you say then to comments by the
centre's professor, Peter Dixon, that he wishes ABARE would stop
quoting him as a referee for this interpretation because he is
not, that the government's interpretation of the data is 'crazy'
and that the misuse of the model is 'extraordinary'?
"Minister you also told the Senate that the model was
internationally accepted. Is it not a fact that the model never
participated in any rigorous international study before your
government based its policy on it and that it still has not
undergone such study and has never been published in a refereed
journal?"
It is hoped that Canada, which rumour has it is thinking of
entering into some trading with Australia to purchase the model,
will not put its Minister of Natural Resources into such a deeply
embarrassing position.
Monash University, Melbourne and Mr Wigle were the only peer
reviewers that Minister Parer was able to name.
Greenpeace's independent peer review of Megabare early this year
by Dr Geoff Bertram, a Senior Lecturer in Economics at Victoria
University, New Zealand, described the model as displaying
"extreme technological pessimism": with serious flaws in
assumptions about technological change and in the welfare impacts
on developing countries from action by Annex I parties.
Finally, delegates might be interested to find out that the
Australian Senate, the Upper House of the Australian Parliament,
passed an urgency resolution criticising "the [Federal] Coalition
Government's failure to seriously address the threat of global
warming and its consequences."
******************************************************************
NGO Update
The following environmental NGOs present at the AGBM were not
included in our list on Wednesday
Barbara Limprecht Wuppert. Inst.
Sebastien Oberthur Ecologic
Hubert Meena CEEST
Kelly Sims Ozone Action
Sascha Muller-Kraenner DNR
Mitsutoshi Hayakawa CASA
Mie Asaoka CASA
Correction: These organisations are not
members of CAN
Tadashi Ogura Japan Tropical Forest Action Network
Tadashi Okimura GW Res. Group/PF 2001
******************************************************************
The Rise of Per Capita Emissions
by Bill Hare, Greenpeace
Originally proposed in the climate negotiations as a measure of
equity (or inequity) by the poorest nations, per capita emission
limits have been seized upon by some of the richest as a means of
minimizing their actions. Few would argue with the basic justice
of the idea that by the end of next century we should all be
allowed roughly the same level of carbon emissions per capita
(even if it is zero).
Just what sense, however, does it make now to start setting
emission reduction targets on the basis of relative per capita
emission levels? Are per capita emission targets really the magic
bullet that is going to bring a blinding flash of clarity to
these negotiations?
Whilst in the long term the world should be aiming for similar
per capita emissions for everyone, the fact is that per capita
targets for industrialized countries are generally put forward to
avoid real action to reduce emissions by those with the lowest
number.
Japan and France have proposed per capita emission limits as
devices to ensure that they do the least of any of the
industrialized countries. Japan's proposal would allow the
emissions of countries such as itself and France to increase. Is
this really "fair"?
Implied in France's proposal is more than doubling of COP2
concentrations and a temperature increase ultimately of over 3
degrees C, well above the 2 degree maximum set in the EU Council
of June 1996. If France's proposal is based on a high notion of
global equity then perhaps it should offer to open its border to
future climate refugees from the small island states and
countries in low-lying coastal areas such as Bangladesh, who will
surely, if the climate scientists are right, be in need of real
French egalite next century.
Neither country appears to be in favour of overall emission
reductions - just ask any MITI official or someone from the
French Economic Ministry and they will tell you all about the
uncertainties.
Those with the highest emissions per capita - the US, Canada, and
Australia, for example - completely eschew per capita limits,
arguing respectively for a one size fits all emission target, a
lower one than the rest, or none at all. But all oppose limits
set on a per capita basis. Ultimately, however, these countries
will have to make larger relative reductions than those whose
economies are less carbon intensive.
Absolute, flat rate emission reductions have the virtue that they
will lower per capita emissions - and by a larger absolute amount
in the US than in Japan or France. The first emission reduction
limits agreed in Kyoto will surely provide the impetus for
Parties to seriously negotiate a fair and equitable
differentiation for the second stage emission reductions. There
are just 16 negotiating days left to Kyoto. It is quite
unrealistic to expect that a per capita differentiation formula
or anything other than a flat rate target can be negotiated in
that time.
******************************************************************
The Tasks Ahead
Homework Assignments for the New Year (to be graded at AGBM 6)
Japan: You show promise, but you must work harder to complete
your protocol project. It's nice of you to offer your house for
our graduation ceremony, but we need a road map of how to get
there. Stop your family squabbling on different agency positions
- it's frightening the other children. You, of all parties, must
serve as a role model for your peers.
EU: Your framework protocol to the framework convention is still
too much of a framework. We suggest re-studying the AOSIS
protocol and adding some meat to your proposals. Your X-amples
are confusing your classmates; try to be more clear when you
speak.
United States: You showed great promise at COP2, but your
behavior in class is once again becoming a problem. You must
concentrate on your studies, particularly on ecological
indicators and the precautionary principle, and come to the next
class prepared to make a real contribution. Your efforts to
"borrow" your classmates' personal property are troubling; drop
them. Rather than worrying about others' graduation, you should
focus on your own performance; you're in serious danger of being
held back.
Australia: Stop bringing Megabear to class; he's rude and
disruptive. Try to get along better with your classmates; stop
claiming you're the one most burdened by class assignments.
Canada: You're starting to pick up bad habits from the student
who sits just South of you. Work on setting targets for yourself.
Your understanding of demography is deficient; if it doesn't
improve, you should stop raising it in class.
France: You seem to have problems getting along with the rest of
your team, and it's affecting your overall performance. Your
interest in the subject of per capita emissions is laudable; but
you have to learn how to apply it in the real world.
Norway: You have a good grasp of algebra, but you have problems
completing your papers. Without more specifics, your classmates
will have a hard time evaluating your ideas.
Saudi Arabia: Your concern about the survival of your small
island classmates is touching, but you need to show more support
for their efforts to improve their chances. Your understanding of
environmental studies is still weak; maybe you could join the
United States in a refresher course.
Brazil: You're to be congratulated for your thoughtful comments
in class. You have a good grasp of world problems, and your
willingness to collaboratively work on long-term solutions is
admirable. But don't lose sight of the task at hand: when we get
to graduation, we want to be sure we have no regrets.
AOSIS: Your ideas are very good, and your willingness to stand up
to the class bullies is admirable. Don't be discouraged that most
of your classmates can't keep up; their understanding of the
situation will hopefully improve by the next term.
******************************************************************
US Public Backs Agreement
Last month, a US public opinion poll of 1,200 registered voters
was sponsored by the Sustainable Energy Coalition. The survey
asked people's views about the seriousness of the threat of
global climate change caused by emission from fossil fuel
combustion and whether the United States should sign an
international agreement to set mandatory limits on greenhouse gas
emissions.
When asked how serious a threat they considered global climate
change, over seventy percent (71%) saw global climate change as
either a serious or somewhat serious threat. Despite an
aggressive 1996 public relations campaign by industry groups
challenging whether the combustion of fossil fuels can lead to
global climate change, public concern about the issue has not
diminished. In response to an identical question in a December
1995 survey, 71% of voters stated that they viewed climate change
to be a serious threat - a percentage virtually unchanged by
November 1996.
Concern about global climate change extends across all political
party affiliations, and of those who voted for President Clinton
last month, 80% agreed that global climate change was either
somewhat or very serious. The Administration should keep this in
mind as it assesses how aggressively it wants to address climate
change mitigation.
Furthermore, of those who voted for a Republican candidate in the
recent Congressional elections, 54% consider climate change a
threat and only 16% felt it was no threat at all. The Republican
led Congress should consider this when called upon to approve any
international treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions and
subsequent implementing legislation.
Respondents were also told that the United States is considering
signing an international agreement by the end of 1997 that would
set a legally binding deadline for reducing emissions of a
specified amount of greenhouse gases. After being presented with
some of the arguments in favor of, and opposed to, signing such
an agreement, voters were asked whether or not they favored the
United States signing such an agreement. Fifty-five percent of
those offering an opinion were in favor of signing a treaty. The
level of support for signing a climate treaty rose to 66% among
those who voted for President Clinton in the last election and of
those citing the environment as a factor influencing that vote
for the President, 71% favor signing an agreement.
******************************************************************
Wednesday Morning
The plenary session on advancing commitments under Article 4.1
allowed us, once more, to endure interventions that have become
very familiar over the past year. Chairman Estrada had hoped
delegates could tackle both 4.1 and discussion on a protocol or
another legal instrument in the morning session but long empty
talks (and an even later than usual start of the session)
frustrated achievement of this goal.
Costa Rica, on behalf of the G-77 and China, led off by
reiterating the long-held views that implementation of Article
4.1 must be considered in an integrated manner with the articles
on financial assistance and technology transfer, and that joint
implementation is not related to 4.1. Ireland, on behalf of the
EU, followed by outlining what it sees as the three main elements
of Article 4.1: taking advantage of opportuntities to develop,
transfer and promote diffusion of climate-friendly technologies;
pursuing AIJ; and seeking consistency of multilateral development
bank and private sector financing activities with the objectives
of the climate treaty.
Norway supported the G-77 position that the financial assistance
and technology transfer responsibilities of developed countries
must be adhered to if implementation of developing country
commitments under 4.1 is to be advanced. Only after these
requirements on developed countries are met can AIJ be made part
of the global regime, Norway said. Later in the morning, Nigeria
enthusiastically welcomed the Norwegian position, saying "with
more comments like Norway's, we should be able to dance the
Macarena in Kyoto!"
The Marshall Islands continued its pattern of candid statements
by noting that its uncompromising opposition to South Pacific
nuclear testing by a certain European party had resulted in delay
in that party's provision of financial assistance for a renewable
energy project. The GEF's funding is "only a drop in the ocean"
in meeting the financial needs of developing countries under the
treaty, he said.
India pointed out that the emissions inventory/national action
plan process now underway in many developing countries is already
providing impetus to a variety of activities outlined in 4.1, and
that pursuit of "no-regrets" measures is well underway. India
bemoaned the lack of action on technology transfer, and called
for early constitution of technology assessment panels.
The United States responded that governments don't take the lead
in promoting technology diffusion, the private sector does;
government interference with the market is "counterproductive and
unacceptable." The US outlined a "range of possibilities" for
advancing implementation of developing country commitments,
starting with independent reviews of national reports and
assistance in pursuing no-regrets measures. Guidelines could be
developed for revising the Convention annexes; as countries
develop, they must "graduate" to assume new responsibilities
commensurate with this development. The US noted that the treaty
calls for such a review by December, 1998. Finally, there could
be a new mandate in Kyoto to launch negotiations on binding
emissions limits on all parties; the timing and level of such
commitments could vary based on factors including the level of
development.
The Chairman felt compelled to point out that the AGBM mandate
does not include the review of the treaty annexes called for in
Article 4.2(f), and that debate on this topic would interfere
with completing that mandate on time. He stated he would not
allow further discussion of this matter in the AGBM. At the end
of the morning session, the US tried to regroup, making a wholly
unsubstantiated claim that such a review could be linked to
implementation of 4.1, and stating that a graduation mechanism
"should have a central role" in the Kyoto protocol.
Russia stated that countries with economies in transition are
"making a greater contribution than any other group of
countries," as their emissions have fallen substantially since
1990. For these countries, he said an appropriate commitment
would be to ensure their emissions in 2010 don't exceed 1990
levels.
In a very thoughtful intervention, Brazil said that
implementation of 4.1 is a "comprehensive, evolutionary process"
that will "establish the necessary framework for global
involvement in the effort to achieve the ultimate objective" of
the treaty. It will be important to pursue discussions on the
future evolution of the Convention "at a later stage."
Thailand closed the discussion of 4.1 by noting that most Annex I
countries haven't fulfilled their existing commitments under the
treaty, yet they are trying to impose new requirements on
developing countries.
Commentary: The widespread suspicion that Annex I parties are
trying to renogotiate the terms of the Berlin Mandate has been
strengthened at this AGBM session, especially by the efforts of
the US to inject "graduation requirements" and follow-on
negotiations of binding developing country commitments into the
debate. While the US may see this as a clever negotiating tactic
to increase its leverage on other issues, it risks creating a
deep North-South schism that will frustrate collaborative efforts
to slow the rate of emissions growth in developing countries - a
major element of meeting the Convention's ultimate objective. If
the US continues with this reckless brinkmanship at AGBM 6, the
prospects for negotiation of a meaningful strengthening of the
climate treaty will be jeopardized.
******************************************************************
EU Protocol Presentation
On Wednesday afternoon, the EU conducted a workshop on their
proposal for a protocol. It consisted of question-and answer
session chaired by Ireland's Donal Enright, supported by Cornelia
Quennet-Thielen from Germany and Bert Metz of the Netherlands.
The main questions were as follows:
Q: On the review mechanism: why would the first review take place
"at the latest on 31.12.2002"?
A: Because if the Protocol gets adopted in December '97, it will
take at least another two years before it enters into force,
meaning that the first Conference of Parties would be in late
1999 or 2000. The IPCC third assessment report is also in 2000.
Q: What exactly is Annex X?
A: It is intended to include all Annex I countries: currently all
OECD members and economies in transition. Since the establishment
of the concept of Annex 1 in 1990 more countries have joined the
OECD; in future more will join. These new members of the
developed nations club should participate equitably in the common
but differentiated responsibilities. The EU would also invite all
non-Annex 1 countries to join the protocol on a entirely
voluntary basis.
Q: Are the two potential new OECD countries willing?
A: That's up to them, once we know what the new commitments are
going to be. EU expects them to do their bit then, and of course
would hope that as many countries as possible join the protocol.
Q: what is meant by joint/individual achievement of objectives
(Art. 2c)?
A: This would allow groupings such as the EU to carry out its
commitments jointly as a Party under the Convention. In this
context, these objectives are meant to be legally binding.
Q: How would JI be carried out?
A: Credits would only be for JI with countries who have committed
to the same QELROS as Annex X, though other non-Annex X countries
might participate, depending on the result of the AIJ pilot
phase. Furthermore, parties would have to disclose in advance any
JI (or trading) partnership, and how much reduction they would
achieve. The EU hasn't yet finished its consideration of trading .
Q: Quite a few PAMs in Annex A and B could be enacted
unilaterally. Will the EU do so?
A: In theory all commitments are achievable unilaterally, but
they're more likely to be done if a broad group does them. Many
measures profit from coordination. The EU is trying to push some
measures unilaterally, but there is much potential for reduction
that cannot be tapped this way.
Q: Is there nothing in the Protocol structure on additional
financing and technology transfer for non-Annex I countries?
A: No, but the EU is aware that this is a cooperative effort and
that the EU has a responsibility to provide additional financing
and technology transfer.
Q: Would the Rules of Procedure for the protocol be the same as
for the convention?
A: Articles 11 and 12 answer this. Briefly, if consensus is not
achievable, amendments to the protocol or its annexes, as well as
adoption of new annexes could be achieved through a three-fourths
majority vote.
The Presidency of the EU ended the session with the remark that
they hoped that their draft protocol structure would be used as
the basis for the negotiating text.
******************************************************************
Thursday Morning
Thursday's AGBM session discussed item 5 of the agenda, on
features of a protocal or another legal instrument. The majority
of countries supported a protocol rather than an amendment,
although some, such as the USA and New Zealand, did not yet have
a clear preference. Most countries accepted the need for
institutional economy, with the COP and subsidiary bodies of the
Convention also supporting the agreed legal instrument.
Australia referred yet again to the need for commitments for
Annex I countries to be realistic and achievable, and for the
legal instrument to be able to review regularly "unforeseen"
changes in country circumstances which might require changes to
the commitments. Otherwise, they claimed, certain countries could
find themselves bearing an unequal burden. Since Australia
doesn't seem very interested in bearing any kind of burden at
all, their intervention didn't seem to cut much ice with anyone
except the usual fossil fuel lobbyists.
Many developing countries expressed serious concern over the
potential threats which a new legal instrument poses to the
integrity of the Convention itself, with Senegal putting this
most succinctly by saying that many countries feared that this
protocol could become another Montreal Protocol. They also
continued to express concerns that many of the proposals
submitted by developed countries contain provisions which fall
outside the remit of the Berlin Mandate.
Ambassador Slade, speaking for AOSIS, pointed out that their
proposal's structure and language accorded with the Berlin
Mandate, and called on this AGBM to request Chairman Estrada to
prepare a framework document containing all the proposals for
circulation as soon as possible. China asked that the Chairman
identify the sources of all the proposals, and this was supported
by Saudi Arabia, Iran and Kuwait. These proposals were supported
by Honduras, Senegal, Dominica and Burkino Faso. Japan too
supported this, a welcome indication of the type of leadership
which Eco has been calling on them to demonstrate all week.
Nigeria, on behalf of the African Group, stressed the need for
the AGBM to take into account the potential adverse environmental
and economic impacts of climate change on African countries,
which include some of the least developed and most vulnerable
countries in the world.
After lunch, Chairman Estrada returned with four paragraphs of
draft conclusions, which after some debate and minor alterations
to ensure consistency with the language of the Berlin Mandate,
were adopted formally. These reiterated that the POALI should
"implement fully" the terms of the Berlin Mandate, and requested
the Chairman to prepare a framework compilation incorporating all
the proposals submitted so far. The conclusions also invited
Parties to submit further proposals, particularly containing
draft text. Those submitted by 15 January 1997 would be taken
into account in the preparation of the Chairman's compilation.
Finally, Eco would like to congratulate His Excellency Ambassador
Estrada for his excellent chairing this week. We wish him a happy
and prosperous New Year, and look forward to hearing of the
successful entry into the world of Protocol or Another Legal
Instrument (or x and y, p and q, PAMs and POALI...).
******************************************************************
Japan - How to Make Friends
Japan has proposed that a protocol or another legal instrument
should offer Annex I Parties a choice of target from the menu
below.
Option 1) Emissions Per capita.
To maintain its anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide over the
period from [2000+x] to [2000+x+[5]] at an average yearly level
not more than "p" tons of carbon per capita.
Option 2) Total Emissions.
To maintain its anthropogenic emission of carbon dioxide over the
period from [2000+x] to [2000+x+[5]] at an average yearly level
of not less than "q" % below the level of the year 1990.
Option 3)
Other suggestions for options for QELROs are welcome.
There are many problems with this approach. Firstly, and most
seriously, there is no way to be sure that "p", "q" and "x" will
be set in such a way that there will be the global reduction in
GHG emissions needed to protect the climate. The proposal should
start with the overall Annex I reduction.
Also, how will "p" and "q" be set relative to each other? This
will affect burden-sharing arrangements and is a sensitive issue
of differentiation - and hence an invitation to embroil the
negotiations in time consuming arguments. When asked if he had
any idea as to what "p", "q" or "x" should be, the Japanese
delegate gave a very simple answer - "No".
Secondly, by offering options and inviting more options, the
proposal encourages each party to define its own unilateral
commitment - essentially a voluntary approach.
The time period "x to x+5" suggests only one limitation period:
this could be 2010 to 2015 or even later. But limitations will be
needed from 2000 to 2005, 2005 to 2010 and beyond. What is more,
allowing a five year average allows some borrowing from the
future, and this gives rise to concerns that such borrowing would
be made at the expense of the environment.
The point that the Japanese government seems to be missing is
that the environmental objective - the whole purpose of the FCCC
- must come first, and not be whatever happens to result from
each party deciding its own QELRO.
If Japan really wants to show leadership, if it really wants its
ideas to be considered, it must propose formulas for QELROs to
implement a global target that will truly protect the climate.
******************************************************************
Leman
Leman was visiting the Hotel Eden last night to pick up the
latest batch of sensitive documents from the US delegation, when
"Deep Briefcase" drew his attention to the exotic nature of the
hotel's piped movies. Leman and his colleague elected to view a
sample of the goods on offer - strictly in the interests of
research, of course. Considering the unusual frankness of the
activities represented, Leman would now not be surprised by a US
proposal for an Annex XXX...
So, it's off to Bonn for the next AGBM. Leman shares delegates'
excitement. And in a tent (or "flexible meeting room", as the
Secretariat so diplomatically describes it), for which Saudi
Arabia has generously offered to provide camels! While not
wishing to look a gift camel in the mouth, so to speak, Leman is
reminded that the camel has been described as a horse designed by
a committee.
******************************************************************
FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For enquiries and response to ECO:
Eco can be contacted at:
ECO Editorial Office 
Hotel Longchamp
7 rue Butini
1201 Geneva
tel: +41 22 741 1451 (direct); +41 22 731 6750 (switchboard)
fax: +41 22 738 0007
email: asieghart@gn.apc.org
ECO is available electronically via the following routes:
  World Wide Web      http://www.igc.apc.org/climate/Eco.html
  anonymous ftp       ftp://ftp.igc.apc.org/pub/ECO
  gopher              gopher://gopher.igc.apc.org:70/11/environment/climate
  APC networks        conferences  and 
  Usenet              newsgroup sci.environment
  email               by request to larris@igc.apc.org
For information about ECO on WWW or adobe Acrobat files, contact 
Richard Elen, email: relen@igc.apc.org
For information about electronic mail, conference distribution, ftp,
and gopher availability of ECO, contact: Lelani Arris, 
email: larris@igc.apc.org.
A glossary of terms used in ECO can be obtained via anonymous ftp (see
above) or by email from larris@igc.apc.org.
******************************************************************
CREDITS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Editorial/Production: Alister Sieghart, Elderon Bartholomew
World Wide Web Edition: Richard Elen
Electronic Distribution: Lelani Arris for EcoNet
North American Distribution: Wes Dowling & EESI
Assistance from: Delia Villagrasa; Tessa Robertson; John
Lanchbery; Cliff Wood; Alden Meyer; Stephan Singer; Dan Lashof;
Kirsty Hamilton; Bill Hare; Britta Meinke; Kyoko Kawasaka; Louise
Comeau; Atiq Rahman; Peter Otinda; Djimingue Nanasta; Kelly Sims;
Farhana Yamin; Manfred Treber; Clive Bates.
Published by: The Climate Action Network.
THANKS
The Climate Action Network would like to thank the Environment
Ministries of Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands, who have
provided funds and facilities for Eco.
With resources contributed by: APC Networks, Rent-a-Mac and
EuroFax.