In October 1990, while the US prepared for an oil war in the Persian Gulf, world environmental ministers met in Geneva for the Second World Climate Conference, sponsored by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The major concern - how to lower CO2 emissions worldwide to avert a fast rate of global warming.
Most nations are taking IPCC's prestigious 300-page Report, released this summer[Scientists Warn of Dangers in a Warming Earth, NY Times, May 26,1990,p.6], very seriously. The report estimated that with a 'business as usual' approach to greenhouse gas emissions, global temperatures would rise approximately 0.3 deg. C per decade, and seas would rise 2.4 inches each decade.
Prior to meeting, many industrial nations had already committed themselves to freezing or reducing CO2 emissions in the next 10 to 15 years. During the meeting, Europe's Energy and Environment Ministers hammered out a joint EEC goal to stabilize CO2 emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000. (Some of the 12 members of the European community will pursue more aggressive CO2 controls.)
When the dust settled in Geneva, an impressive list of nations had committed themselves to either stabilizing or reducing CO2 emissions:
NATIONS COMMITTED TO CO2 REDUCTIONS
Australia - 20% reduction by 2005.
Denmark - 20% reduction by 2000.
Germany - 25% reduction of 1987 levels by 2005.
Italy - 20% reduction by 2005.
Netherlands - Stabilize by 1995, 3 to 5% reduction by 2000.
New Zealand - 20% reduction by 2000.
NATIONS COMMITTED TO CO2 STABILIZATION
Belgium - Stabilize at 1988 levels by 2000.
Britain - Stabilize at 1990 levels by 2005.
Canada - Stabilize at 1990 levels by 2000, as first step.
Finland - Stabilize at 1990 levels by 2000, at least.
France - Stabilize at 1990 levels by 2005, 20% cut by 2025.
Ireland - Stabilize at 1990 levels by 2000.
Japan - Stabilize at 1990 levels by 2000.
Norway - Stabilize at 1990 levels by 2000.
Sweden - Stabilize at 1988 levels by 2000.
Switzerland - Stabilize at 1990 levels by 2000.
---
What is the US position on CO2 controls and emission targets? The Bush administration continues to claim that global warming is not a real concern, that more studies are needed. The Sununu- managed White House refused to let EPA Secretary Reilly attend the Geneva talks, sending NOAA head John Knauss instead.
Just before the Second World Climate Conf, Dr. Daniel Lashof, senior scientist for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), released this statement:
"The Bush Administration has run out of excuses for not acting against global warming. The stonewall policy was propped up by three buttresses--all of which have now collapsed. The US has opposed setting a CO2 target for 3 reasons.
1. 'We should wait for the report of the UN sponsored IPCC.' This report was released in August. It concludes that within 60 years business as usual emissions most likely would lead to average global temperatures higher than they have been for at least 150,000 years.
2. 'Unilateral action would be ineffective.' But, virtually every member of the OECD now is prepared to adopt a target of at least stabilizing CO2 at the 2nd World Climate Conference.
3. 'We have not conducted sufficient studies of the costs of reducing emissions.' The Administration is ignoring four studies, sponsored by both the EPA and DOE, which show that measures to stabilize US CO2 emissions would produce a $40 billion savings." ***
