Buenos Aires Statement

A CALL TO THE NATIONS GATHERED AT THE BUENOS AIRES CLIMATE CONFERENCE, FROM THE GREEN PARTIES OF THE WORLD

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The most authoritative assessment to date concludes that a worldwide carbon dioxide emissions reduction of 50-70 percent is necessary to contain climate change. The Kyoto climate treaty falls far short, calling for only a five percent reduction. Nonetheless the agreement is an important first step that all parties should ratify as soon as possible. 

The world is already warming discernibly, and also witnessing widespread climatic disruption and long-term ecosystem changes. A bold and visionary course will be required if the world is not to plunge into climatic catastrophe in coming decades. The Green Parties of the world call on the nations gathered at Buenos Aires to commence a response sufficient to the challenge: 

*We must drastically reduce, then eliminate, the use of fossil fuels. 

*We must use energy more efficiently, and from clean, renewable sources. 

*We must preserve the many valuable natural services including climatic stability provided by intact ecosystems. 

If we fail to summon the political will now to make these investments, the costs of climatic disruption will almost certainly force us to make them later at a greater expense. Through two financing sources, investments can quickly commence: 

First, redirect fossil and nuclear energy subsidies running some tens of billions of U.S. dollars-equivalent annually. 

Second, enact a tax on carbon-emitting energy consumption, to favor employment by lowering income taxes, and to fund transformation of energy and preservation of natural services. 

Some say that eliminating fossil and nuclear subsidies, enacting a serious carbon tax and rapidly phasing out fossil fuels are not politically realistic. But only a few years ago, it was regarded as unrealistic to envision a world not teetering on the brink of nuclear destruction. Facing that potential calamity, the nations of the world stepped back from the edge. Now, confronting the subtler but no less serious threat of massive climatic disruption, we can take the first steps to avert another looming catastrophe. 

If we factor in the full costs of fossil energy, a rapid shift to clean sources is obviously the least-cost solution. Concerted public investment can produce technological breakthroughs that will make swift transition feasible. Solar photovoltaic panels and wind turbines are already the fastest growing power sources. Biomass is an increasingly important energy source. Great potential exists in hydrogen. Transformed energy systems would yield other benefits such as reduced air pollution. 

As a primary step toward both climatic stability and global equity, the world should set the goal of providing clean electricity to the two billion people in developing lands who now have no electrical service. This effort would boost the clean energy industry globally, reducing costs through economies of scale. 

A danger exists that as the Buenos Aires conference refines the Kyoto agreement, it could eliminate the legal necessity for energy policy changes in rich nations by opening loopholes through emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism. Each nation should be required to meet at least 75 percent of its greenhouse targets within its own boundaries. An adequate compliance and dispute resolution system should be put in place. 

Beyond Buenos Aires the task is to enlarge public understanding, both of the climatic threat and the tremendous opportunities offered by energy transformation and natural services preservation. Delegates should vigorously carry these realities into the political dialogue of their own nations. A 21st century not roiled by climatic cataclysm demands nothing less. 

FULL STATEMENT 

In the most authoritative scientific assessment of global warming to date, the United Nations Integovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1995 stated that a worldwide reduction of 50-70 percent in carbon dioxide emissions is necessary to contain climate change to a temperature rise of0.1 deg. C per decade. Adding to the 0.3-0..6 deg. C increase that the IPCC says has already taken place over the past century, this moderated warming would still represent a huge alteration of climate. 

Yet the Kyoto climate treaty concluded in 1997 calls for only a five percent reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, and then not until 2010. It is clear that this agreement falls desperately short of even the minimum necessity. Nonetheless the treaty is an important first step that all the parties, especially the developed countries, should sign and ratify as soon as possible. In particular, the U.S. Congress must move beyond the shortsighted opposition within its ranks that blocks ratification and as a body take up a leadership role. The United States has much to gain economically and politically from such a role, and much to lose if it appears to be fighting a rearguard action against serious response to global warming. 

The world is already warming discernibly. Nine of the hottest years in the instrumental record have occurred in the past 11. Historic records indicate 1997 was the warmest year in the past 600, 1995 the second warmest and 1990 the third. 1998 is well on the way to breaking 1997's record. 

The planet is also witnessing widespread climatic disruption. Since the Kyoto treaty was concluded, fires have ravaged drought-stricken tropical forests while floods have inundated Chinese river valleys that are home to over one-quarter billion people. Killer heat waves have rolled across many parts of the planet including Eastern Europe, the Middle East and the Southern United States. The failure of rains has led to major famines in Africa. This represents only a partial inventory of recent, weather-related disasters. 

Longer-term changes are also being observed. In peer-reviewed journals, scientists report that spring is now coming a week earlier in the northern hemisphere, arctic tree lines are moving northward, distributions of animal species are changing, drought and flooding are affecting more regions over the past 20 years, glaciers are significantly shrinking in middle and lower latitudes, the freezing level of the atmosphere has been rising five meters annually since 1970, and ice shelves on Antarctica's northern fringe are disintegrating. The paleoclimatological record now indicates that the West Antarctic ice shelf could begin an irreversible break-up with only a2deg. C global temperature increase, causing a six-meter rise in sea levels worldwide. 

The least that can be said of these weather extremes and observed ecosystem changes is thatthey are consistent with global warming scenarios. Over coming decades the world can very probably expect an intensification of these phenomena, producing grave social disruption and widespread suffering. The precautionary principle demands that the world's leaders act in a manner proportionate to the threat. A bold and visionary course will be required if the world is not to plunge into climatic catastrophe in coming decades. 

The Green Parties of the world call on the nations gathered at Buenos Aires to commence the pathway toward a response to climate change sufficient to the challenge. First, let the nations acknowledge their response so far falls far short of adequate. Then let them collectively acknowledge the steps humanity must take in coming years: 

*We must drastically reduce, and then eliminate, the use of fossil fuels in energy. 

*We must invest to make our societies use energy more efficiently, and from clean, renewablesources. 

*We must recognize and invest in preserving the many valuable natural services, including carbon absorption and climatic stability, provided by intact forests and other ecosystems. 

If we fail to summon the political will now to make these investments, the costs of climatic disruption will almost certainly force us to make them later, and at a greater expense. Through two financing sources, climate-stabilizing investments can quickly commence: 

First, fossil and nuclear energy currently receive massive subsidies, primarily in North America, Western Europe and Japan, through tax preferences and outright government expenditures. While the accounting varies, those subsidies can safely be said to run some tens of billions of U.S. dollars-equivalent annually. It is irrational in the extreme to support fossil energy, which is plunging us into a climatic nightmare, or nuclear energy, which leaves a legacy of waste for millennia and despite subsidization is already non-competitive with clean energy. These subsidies should beredirected toward transforming the energy and transportation system to a clean base. 

Second, a tax on carbon-emitting energy consumption should be introduced in all countries. A portion of the revenues of this tax should be used to lower taxes on income. This will change economic signals to favor employment of people over investment in energy-intensive machinery. At the same time, part of the revenue should be devoted to investments in energy transformation and preserving natural services. 

Some say that eliminating fossil and nuclear subsidies, enacting a serious carbon tax and rapidly phasing out fossil fuels are not politically realistic. In many countries, indeed, it would today be impossible to pass such steps through national legislatures. But only a few years ago, it was regarded as politically and strategically unrealistic to envision a world not teetering on the brink of mutual assured nuclear destruction. Facing that potential calamity, the nations of the world stepped back from the edge. Now, confronting the subtler but no less serious threat of massive climatic disruption, we can take the first steps toward averting another looming global catastrophe. 

If we factor in the full costs of continuing to rely on fossil energy, it quickly becomes obvious that a rapid shift to clean, renewable sources is the least-cost solution. Concerted public investment can produce technological breakthroughs in clean energy that will make swift transition from fossil fuels feasible. 

Solar photovoltaic panels and wind turbines are already the world's fastest growing power sources, doubling every few years. Their costs are swiftly declining. Biomass from fuel crops and organic wastes is also an increasingly economical and important energy source. Great potential exists in hydrogen, which can produce energy through combustion or fuel cells. (European and North American companies plan major production of vehicles powered by fuel cells for the next decade.) Hydrogen can be electrolyzed from water. While this requires tremendous energy, it is available from renewable sources. Many of the world's regions richest in sunlight and wind are remote from population centers with largest energy needs. Hydrogen could be the medium through which now untapped renewable energy is transmitted. 

Transforming energy and transportation systems also represents a profound opportunity to make our societies better. To cite just two of many examples: Clean energy would relieve us of air pollution and acid rain; Making sprawling urban areas more compact to reduce the need for transportation would restore lively communities. 

As a primary step toward both climatic stability and global equity, the world's nations should set the goal of providing clean energy to the two billion people in developing lands who now have no electrical service. This is vital to avoid a dependence on coal, the likely source of electrification if clean sources are not employed. This goal should be regarded as a common understanding, with implementation accomplished by many decentralized initiatives. It should be funded by the nations of the north. This effort would boost the clean energy industry globally, both in the south and north. Cost reductions would occur through economies of scale, much as has occurred with computer chips. Clean energy would more rapidly become competitive with fossil sources in both the developed and developing worlds. With electricity, villages and neighborhoods in the developing world would have the potential to rapidly gain access to the global information revolution. The burst in development that would follow is virtually unimaginable. 

The delegates gathered at Buenos Aires should make the economic and social opportunities of clean energy transition the context as they refine the Kyoto agreement. In particular, they should take these opportunities into account as they define rules for emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism. 

A danger exists that these rules could be written in such as way as to eliminate the legal necessity for changes in energy policy by the world's richest nations, which include some of the planet's primary greenhouse gas sources. Currently in Eastern Europe, many formerly state-subsidized, inefficient and polluting industries shut down in recent years. In nations such as Russia and Ukraine greenhouse gas emissions are far below 1990 levels. If the U.S. and European Union nations were allowed to meet their greenhouse gas reduction targets purely through emissions trading, they could do this buying "hot air" from these nations. 

Similar loopholes might potentially open through the Clean Development Mechanism, which aims to reduce greenhouse emissions in developing nations through investments in clean industrialization and natural services. 

Emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism can make a contribution. They prospectively allow the earliest and most economically efficient emission savings by making the people who do not reduce their emissions pay the people who do. But the IPCC conclusion regarding the urgent need for 50-70 percent reductions should set the benchmark. All nations must significantly cut their own greenhouse gas emissions, particularly rich industrial countries. Each nation should be required to meet at least 75 percent of its greenhouse targets within its own boundaries. A compliance and dispute resolution system adequate to bring about needed greenhouse emissions reductions should be put in place. 

In a broader perspective, it is in the interest of all countries that the Eastern European nations rebuild their economies in an energy-efficient manner. It is also in the interest of all nations that the developing world build clean electricity, transportation and production systems, and preserve tropical forests and other ecosystems that help regulate climate. These goals are worthy of support by developed nations, even over and above the amounts that might by indicated by various emissions trading schemes. 

Beyond the Buenos Aires conference, the task is to enlarge public understanding, both of the threat posed by climatic disruption, and of the tremendous opportunities offered by basing our economies on clean energy and preservation of natural services. The minimum that the delegates to the conference should achieve is to honestly acknowledge these realities, then to vigorously carry them back into the political dialogue of their own nations with a serious commitment to work for sufficient change. A 21st century not roiled by climatic cataclysm demands nothing less.