FOLLOWING marathon negotiations that several times came close to breaking down, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change approved its final report last week in Sundsvall, Sweden. The report is the last major input from scientists before negotiations aimed at a world climate convention start later this month. The role of scientists in future negotiations is unclear.
The IPCC is now in a position to present its findings to a special debate of the UN General Assembly in November when the UN will decide how to proceed with negotiations for a climate convention. If the IPCC had failed to agree in Sweden, the General Assembly threatened to take responsibility for managing further negotiations on a climate treaty away from the parent agencies of the IPCC 鈥� the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Programme. If the General Assembly conducts the treaty negotiations itself, delegates in Sundsvall said there would be little chance of signing a treaty soon.
Until 4am on the last night of negotiations, however, it appeared that the IPCC would be unable to agree on a report. The panel was divided into three working groups: on the scientific evidence for climate change; its likely impacts; and possible responses strategies. A summary of their reports, written by Bert Bolin, the Swedish scientist who chairs the IPCC, was abandoned last week as national representatives wrote hundreds of contradictory amendments into the draft.
Advertisement
In the end, the final document was put together from earlier reports by the three working groups. Its recommendations for dealing with climate change are 鈥榚ven more wishy-washy鈥� than the earlier reports, said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned 女生小视频s in the US. He said that the content of the report might be less important than the fact that it was agreed at all.
Stewart Boyle, of Britain鈥檚 Association for Energy Conservation, says that assessing how emissions of greenhouse gases relate to energy use and economic growth is not a matter of objective science. Bolin himself said: 鈥業t might have been over-ambitious for the IPCC to hope that the response strategies recommendations would be able to avoid the politics . . . and stick to the science.鈥�
鈥楾he important thing was that the science, in the end, was unchallenged,鈥� said Meyer. Fred Bernthal, head of the US delegation, tried in Sundsvall to amend the scientific report to stress its uncertainty. He was opposed successfully by John Houghton, the head of Britain鈥檚 Meteorological Office and the chairman of the scientific working group.
Much debate concerned targets for reductions of specific greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide. The European Community is finalising details of its own targets, despite remaining disagreements involving Britain and the southern countries.
Southern countries are likely to be given less stringent targets when the Community鈥檚 energy and environment ministers meet next month. Delegates announced in Sundsvall that New Zealand would cut emissions of greenhouse gases by 20 per cent by 2005, and Canada plans to announce targets soon. The US and Saudi Arabia opposed setting targets for reducing greenhouse gases.
The Japanese told delegates in Sundsvall that they will announce plans next month to stabilise emissions of greenhouse gases at around 10 per cent more than current levels by 2000. Japan circulated an action plan at the meeting, stating that it 鈥榳ill not be complacent with the achievement it has already made鈥�, in becoming 鈥榯he world鈥檚 most energy efficient economy鈥�. Scott Hajost, of the Environmental Defense Fund, a US pressure group, said that the Japanese saw concern about greenhouses gases as a chance to make money on environmental technology.
The IPCC did not have time in Sweden to discuss its own future. The working groups on the science and the impacts of climate change will probably continue to update their assessments, said delegates. It is not clear who will supply negotiators of the climate convention with objective assessments of the costs and benefits of different courses of action. Few delegates, especially from the Third World, were happy with the IPCC report on costs and benefits. Brazil, for example, objected to what it said was unfair emphasis on deforestation compared with emissions from fossil fuels.
