[discuss-dan] [Fwd: The Hague - US Wins, Earth Loses +...

["getmelissa@uswest.net" <getmelissa@uswest.net>]

$EA$ON$ GREETING$,
melissa

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: The Hague - US Wins, Earth Loses
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 12:21:19 -0000
From: "Michael Meuser" <meuser@mapcruzin.com>

  U.S. Wins and the Earth Loses - Let the Warming Continue!

The "Negotations" at The Hague are over.  This is no surprise.  
U.S. Polluters with the support of their cronies (U.S Government, 
Environmental Resources Trust, National Audubon Society, 
Environmental Defense, National Fish & Wildlife Foundation and 
the German Marshall Fund, among many others) have steadfastly 
clung to their carbon sink and emissions trading schemes so that 
they can continue to pollute at the world's expense.

I'm collecting some "wind up" articles at:

http://www.mapcruzin.com/climate_change_2000/index.html

Mike

*******************************************************************
Sat, 25 Nov 2000 06:34:11 -0800
    From: "Brian Hill" <bhill@igc.org>
     
Sometimes a picture does say a thousand words.
 
Brian

Reuters Photo
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/p/nm/20001122/wl/imdf49507.html 

********************************************************************

11/24/2000   
   
   By C. GERALD FRASER
  © Earth Times News Service 
   
   THE HAGUE--The U.S. wins. Japan wins. The climate loses.
   Biodiversity loses. That's the verdict of international
nongovernmental
   organizations following hours spent examining proposals submitted to
   the Sixth Conference on the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
   by its president, Jan Pronk.
   
   Pronk hoped to propel governments to a Saturday afternoon
negotiations
   conclusion.
   
   If the 150 nations assembled in The Hague accept Pronks proposals,
   NGOs foresee a raft of negative developments. Jennifer Morgan, of
   World Wildlife Fund, said winners got, unfettered emissions trading,
   seller liability; lots of hot air, lots of sinks in developed
   countries, lots of sinks in developing countries, and absolutely no
   ecological criteria for sinks anywhere.
   
   Calling the negotiations sour, Sam Ferrer, speaking for the Climate
   Action Networks Southeast Asia contingent, said he saw no commitment
   in the proposals for specific new and additional funds for technology
   transfer, capacity building, and adaptation.
   
   There is tremendous unclarity, she said, in what the clean
development
   mechanism will look like. Could be a big black box for large projects
   for hydro and coal, Morgan said.. We also think this is a disaster
for
   forests. Theres nothing here to prevent clearance of native land, in
   developed and developing countries for large scale industrial
   plantations.
   
   Seller liability for the trading system refers to a countrys ability
   to sell up to 30 percent pf their assigned amount of emissions. Hot
   air refers to virtual, or paper emissions trading. Sinks are forests
   capable of withdrawing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.
   
   Greenpeaces Bill Hare was convinced, he said, that the Pronk plan
   would result in an increase of greenhouse gas emissions into the
   atmosphere by five to eight percent. In contrast, the Kyoto Protocol
   called for emissions reduction of five percent.
   
   The European Union also lost, said Roda Verheyen, of Friends of the
   Earth. A highly pro environmental European population will not
support
   the EU leaving The Hague with a bad deal or no deal The bottom line,
   she said is that governments do not have to take action at home to
   reduce emissions from fossil fuels -the only way to tackle climate
   change.
   
   What the EU wanted, Verheyen said, was a positive list on the CDM
   [clean development mechanism]. Thats gone. It was no
   frequent-co-activities. Theyre in. It was no sinks in the CDM. Theyre
   in. It was a different liability scheme than was proposed now. They
   wanted a compliance fund in the compliance system. Thats out. And
they
   wanted supplementarity.
   
   The EU wanted to make sure that countries have to reduce emissions at
   home. Thats gone, there is no binding language in any of this.
   
   Friends of the Earth distributed flyers saying the plan contained no
   limits, or caps, on the use of flexible mechanisms or sinks to meet
   Kyoto targets.
   
   The earliest public reaction to Pronks plan by a U.S. NGO came from
   the Environment Defense which called the plan a forests destruction
   plan. The major beneficiaries of the proposed text are large-scale
   forestry and pulp and paper companies. ED said Brazil, with a dynamic
   pulp and paper industry, and significant advantage in plantation
   forestry, was the principal proponent of the language.
   
           Copyright © 2000 The Earth Times All rights reserved.

References

   1. mailto:comments11-25THEENVIRONMENT@earthtimes.org
   2. http://www.earthtimes.org/lowgraphics.htm

********************************************************************

-------------------------- eGroups Sponsor -------------------------~-~>
eGroups eLerts
It's Easy. It's Fun. Best of All, it's Free!
http://click.egroups.com/1/9698/4/_/_/_/975190743/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
discuss-dan-unsubscribe@egroups.com