logo
LES MEMBRES
greenpeace
wwf
lpo
oxfam} alofa tulavu
4d
gret
helio
hespul
cler
amis de la terre
agir pour l'environnement
fnaut
fub
solar generation
reseau sortir du nucleaire
cniid
wecf
associations locales

MAILING LISTE

La liste climat du RAC-F vous permet de recevoir et d’envoyer des informations sur les changements climatiques.
S'abonner Se désabonner
attention ça chauffe
can
illustration
Accueil > Réseau Action Climat > Nos activités > Who are we ? > Some of our translated documents or importants articles
Some of our translated documents or importants articles
date 16 septembre 2002
texte+ texte- google twitter facebook

Below are our translated documents, or some important messages

- "Climate change, energy and sustainable development : How to
tame King Coal ?" (PDF file)

January, 2006 - French ministry of environment and sustainable development

- RAC-F ’s position on linkages between domestic and international permits (PDF file)
September the 19th, 2001 - P. Quirion, president of RAC-F

- Open letter to the President and Prime Minister
June the 14th, 2001 - RAC-F

- Press release : climate 0, Bercy 1 (Word)
June the 14th, 2001 - RAC-F

- Summary of the NGOs evaluation of the French National Program against climate change (Word)
June, 2001 - RAC-F

- Bush refuses to ratify Kyoto Protocol (Word)
March the 13th, 2001


- RAC-F ’s position on linkages between domestic and international permits
by Philippe Quirion, RAC-F’s president"
Presentation at an International energy agency workshop, september 2001

Let me present briefly the Climate Action Network. CAN is a global network of almost 300 NGOs who are working to promote government and individual action against climate change. We work to achieve this goal during the international negotiation and at the regional and national levels as well. CAN has seven regional coordinating offices, and a number of national ones, including France. Our members range from large international groups such as WWF, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, to small local groups in developed and developing countries. On the main issues at stake, we have managed to define a common position thus far.
I’ll first present our position on the linkages between domestic and international permits and then some elements on how to link several domestic permits systems.

- 1.Our position on the linkages between domestic and international permits stems directly from our analysis of the Kyoto process. Although we welcomed the Bonn political agreement, it is far away from what we wanted. Admittedly, the targets and timetable of Kyoto have been officially kept, but most of the loopholes we have been fighting against for years, have been included.
Now, our key political demand is for the states to ratify the Protocol, and to implement policies and measures to comply with it without using the Bonn agreement’s loopholes. The Norwegian government has already stated that it won’t rely on sinks and similar pronouncements are being sought in other countries.
Most European countries, either inside and outside the EU, have criticised these loopholes for years. We will know soon if these governments have been honest or not during the post-Kyoto negotiation. Will they exploit, or allow their domestic entities to exploit, the provisions they have been fighting against for years ? If yes, it will prove that these governments’ statements on environmental integrity have not been much more than a smokescreen.
Let me remind why we have been pushing for the exclusion of these loopholes and why we want governments from Annex I countries not to use them now.

- 2. Hot air. According to BaU projections, without US ratification, the rest of OECD countries may be able to comply with the KP only by buying Russian and Ukrainian hot air. This would be totally unacceptable, since it would reduce the KP to a financial transfer mechanism, without any benefit to climate. Furthermore, we have some doubts, to say the least, on the usefulness of such a lump-sum transfer to the current Russian government, given its records on human rights.

- 3. Sinks. The Bonn political agreement has implicitly recognised that a precise accounting of carbon sequestration due to human activity is up to now impossible. This is the rationale for the 85% discount rate on forest management activities. Furthermore, the issue of permanence has not been dealt with properly, although its importance has been recognised in the text of the Bonn agreement. For these reasons, credits from sink activities should not be fungible into an EU or a national system.

- 4. Plantation and other potentially environmentally damaging CDM activities. The Kyoto Protocol is only a tiny step in the struggle against global warming - it’s even tinier since the Bonn agreement. Hence we should at least ensure that its implementation will not have any adverse environmental and social impact and will not raise local opposition. Industrial plantations will raise such opposition - they actually do it already. On this point, I would like to stress that among CAN, NGOs that are the most critical against the Bonn agreement are southern ones, especially because of the sinks in the CDM provision. The indigenous people coalition has also heavily criticised the agreement, precisely because of this point. Note that it is not only sequestration projects that can have such adverse impacts, but also plantation projects aimed at providing biomass energy, and large dams. Hence we call future Parties to the Protocol to set up their own certification process if they want to allow their entities to use CERs, on top of the one of the Protocol. This process must include, above all, strong public participation criteria and reference to the UN Conventions on biodiversity.
For the issue being debated here, it means that if a country or the EU sets a domestic TP scheme, it must not include an automatic recognition of international credits (CERs, ERUs and PAAs). A confusion is often made (sometimes on purpose) between international tradable permits created by the Kyoto Protocol and domestic permits. The use of the same word (tradable permit) is damaging since we are not talking of the same instrument at all. The KP’s compliance and monitoring systems are far from what is required for a properly working domestic TP system. In addition, it allows the trading of emissions units of dubious value.
It does not mean that no international credits should be recognised. Some credits from JI and CDM may be fungible, but only after a domestic certification process.

- 5.Turning to the second issue, the linkage between domestic systems, we must, once again, not be abused by words. One ton of physical CO2 may be identical wherever it is emitted, but two permits representing the same amount of CO2 in two domestic TP schemes may be very different from one another.
As a consequence, we consider that any linkage between two systems must be avoided except if they are harmonised upwards as regards monitoring and compliance. In particular, a minimum compliance penalty must be set, as well as provisions to ensure that the penalty is really applied.
Without such a harmonisation, linkage, in particular under a regime of pure seller liability, is not acceptable.

At last, no linkage should be made between systems with relative targets. Some countries are designing permit systems with "unit" or "relative" targets (CO2 per tonne of product, for instance). But the Protocol calls for absolute reductions in emissions. Converting unit target into absolute tonnes is complicated and, if done wrong, can lead to higher emissions. Furthermore, theses targets have flexibility "built in" so they have less need of trading as an option for adjusting for unexpected growth. We believe that confidence in a trading system will only be there if it is simple and transparent, so that everyone has confidence in its results. Trading "unit" targets undermines this simplicity and transparency, and so must be rejected.

As a conclusion, it might be useful to remind that the aim of the Climate Convention and any related legal instruments that the Conference of the Parties may adopt (thus including the Kyoto Protocol) is not to trade carbon, but to achieve stabilization of GHG concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.


- THE BET Press Release
EU Commissioner Margot Wallström : ’This is a bet that I like to lose ?
EUROPEAN YOUTH WIN THEIR CLIMATE BET AGAINST THE EU

Remerschen, Luxemburg, September 7th - Today the European Environment Agency (EEA) announced that European youth have won their climate bet against EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallström. Within eight months, young people from 16 European countries managed to reduce their CO2 emissions by 8% in their schools and at home. About 52.000 so-called ?Betties ? participated in this climate campaign. EU Commissioner Wallström : ?I am impressed about the work of the Betties. I love to lose this bet ?

The European Betties have been working hard on reducing their CO2 emissions since the climate summit in The Hague in November last year. In The Hague, they bet they would beat the EU target of reducing its emissions by 8% in eight years - the Betties said they would do it in 8 months. EU Commissioner Wallström took up the bet, and said the Betties wouldn ?t make it. In case the Betties would lose, they would have to bike Mrs. Wallström in a rickshaw for a week to all her meetings in Brussels. Now that the Betties won, Mrs. Wallström will ride her bike for a month, from her home in Brussels to work.
In total 88 schools from all over Europe managed to reduce their emissions by 8%. ?We really feel like winners with 300 participating schools saving over 4.000.000 kg of CO2. That is a great amount all together.? claims Henrike Wegener, 20 years old, working as a volunteer for The BET, ?We showed that everybody can do something to stop climate change. We proved that CO2 emission reducing can be done easily, fast and cheap. All it takes is your own will and creativity.?

According to Jeroen Kuiper, the European coordinator of the ?BET ? campaign, through this campaign thousands of young Europeans became interested in climate politics, an otherwise rather dull theme for people aged from 16 to 25. The Betties reduced their emissions with simple measures : turning down the heating, installing energy-saving light bulbs, insulating rooms, repairing leaking water taps, setting up recycling systems for paper. Kuiper : ?Often very easy means can lead to a great saving. There is still a lot of educational work to do.?.

The Betties celebrated their winning of the campaign with a so-called climate week in Remerschen, Luxemburg. After the announcement of the winner, Margot Wallström had an informal meeting with the about 50 present Betties. Luxemburg ?s Environment Minister attended the press conference as well, proud of the work that Luxemburgish students did.

For further information : Jeroen Kuiper (European coordinator) 0049 160 7 50 90 80 or 0049 30 7970 6610 (from Monday on) Email : jeroen.in.bet@gmx.net
- Gary Diderich (Luxemburg organisation) 00352 21 722 757 Email : diderich@pt.lu


- Letter from the President G W Bush to Senators Hagel, Helms, Craig, and Roberts

Text of March 13, 2001

Thank you for your letter of March 6, 2001, asking for the Administration’s views on global climate change, in particular the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act. My Administration takes the issue of global climate change very seriously.
As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts 80 percent of the world, including major population centers such as China and India, From compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy. The Senate ?s vote, 95-0, shows that there is a clear consensus that the Kyoto Protocol is an unfair and ineffective means of addressing global climate change concerns.
As you also know, I support a comprehensive and balanced national energy policy that takes into account the importance of improving air quality. Consistent with this balanced approach, I intend to work with the Congress on a multipollutant strategy to require power plants to reduce emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and mercury. Any such strategy would include phasing in reductions over a reasonable period of time, providing regulatory certainty, and offering market-based incentives to help industry meet the targets. I do not believe, however, that the government should impose on power plants mandatory emissions reductions for carbon dioxide, which is not a ?pollutant ? under the Clean Air Act.

A recently released Department of Energy Report, ?Analysis of Strategies for Reducing Multiple Emissions from Power Plants, ? concluded that including caps on carbon dioxide emissions as part of a multiple emissions strategy would lead to an even more dramatic shift from coal to natural gas for electric power generation and significantly higher electricity prices compared to scenarios in which only sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides were reduced.

This is important new information that warrants a reevaluation, especially at a time of rising energy prices and a serious energy shortage. Coal generates more than half of America ?s electricity supply. At a time when California has already experienced energy shortages, and other Western states are worried about price and availability of energy this summer, we must be very careful not to take actions that could harm consumers. This is especially true given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change and the lack of commercially available technologies for removing and storing carbon dioxide.

Consistent with these concerns, we will continue to fully examine global climate change issues - including the science, technologies, market-based systems, and innovative options for addressing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. I am very optimistic that, with the proper focus and working with our friends and allies, we will be able to develop technologies, market incentives, and other creative ways to address global climate change.

I look forward to working with you and others to address global climate change issues in the context of a national energy policy that protects our environment, consumers, and economy.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH
last update : June the 26