NGO'S CALL FOR KYOTO PROTOCOL WITH OR WITHOUT UNITED STATES, AT PRESS CONFERENCE

There was "a clear and present danger" that the United States would seek to undermine, obstruct or eventually destroy the Kyoto Protocol process, a representative of Greenpeace International warned, at a Headquarters press conference for non-governmental organizations this afternoon.

Quoting what he described as a leaked State Department memorandum from Secretary of State Colin Powell to United States missions around the world, Bill Hare, Climate Policy Director of Greenpeace International, said the document stated categorically that Washington was opposed to the Kyoto Protocol under any circumstances.  He distributed copies of the memo after the press conference.

Mr. Hare said that continuing to wait for the United States to present climate change proposals was "a loser's game".  All countries that had spoken in favour of the Protocol during the ongoing session of the Commission on Sustainable Development should move forward and not wait for constructive United States proposals.  "We don't believe that's going to happen", he added.

Jennifer Morgan, Director of the World Wildlife Fund's Climate Change Campaign, said the memorandum also rejected the Trieste General Assembly Environment Ministers' Communique.  The recent signing of the communique by Christine Todd Whitman, Administrator of Washington's Environmental Protection Agency, was, therefore, an empty decision-making process driven by political self-interest in the United States.

Ms. Morgan said that other countries had no choice but to push ahead with the Kyoto process because the world could not walk away from a problem as large as that of global climate change.  The United States was miscalculating the seriousness of the rest of the world in tackling the problem, and seemed to think that other signatories were not even close to agreement.

The State Department memo demonstrated the irresponsible and cavalier attitude of the United States to global climate change, the world's greatest environmental threat.  It repeatedly called on developing countries to take commitments, even though China had reduced its emissions more than the United States since 1992, and questioned the science of climate change.

Kate Hampton, Institute of Policy Studies, based in Washington, D.C., recalled that the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was unequivocal about human impact on the climate.  It predicted an increase of 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius in global air temperatures between now and 2100.  The Kyoto Protocol discussions must, therefore, go ahead with or without the United States.

She welcomed the paper issued by the President of the Sixth Conference of Parties (COP-6) to the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Netherlands’ Environment Minister Jan Pronk.  Although environmental non-governmental organizations concerned about climate change felt the text was incomplete and still contained significant loopholes and problems, it was a sound basis for

negotiations and could be improved.  Those groups wanted to see the Kyoto Protocol's environmental integrity maintained once final agreement was reached.

It was possible to have an effective Protocol without the United States, which could join in later, she said.  Any attempt by Washington to obstruct or destroy the process would be seen as a threat, not only to the climate negotiations, but also to multilateralism, in general.  It would set a very dangerous precedent for the future of global agreements.

Also present was Yvonne Yanez of Oilwatch, an international network with members mainly in tropical and southern countries, who noted that the forthcoming Quebec Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) was a critical moment for those countries.  United States President George W. Bush wished to incorporate an alternative to the Kyoto Protocol in any FTAA agreement.

She called for a moratorium on oil and gas exploration in order to place the consequences of climate change within the context of national and international energy policies.  Those consequences included floods, hurricanes and drought.  Responsibility for such ecological disasters, which were currently not shared equally, should fall squarely on the shoulders of those who promoted the petroleum industry, she added.

Victoria Tauli-Corpuz of Third World Network, based in Penang, Malaysia, said that while many energy-related projects were taking place in the lands of indigenous peoples, most of those peoples had no access to the energy generated.  Furthermore, drilling for oil or natural gas, uranium or coal mining and construction of huge hydroelectric dams had devastating effects on indigenous communities. 

The thrust towards liberalizing or privatizing the energy sector had further undermined rights of indigenous people over their territories and energy-related resources, she said.  In addition, energy-generation activities were taking place in the most poverty-stricken areas.  Governments should recognize the rights of indigenous peoples and adopt a risk-assessment approach to development planning, as proposed by the World Commission on Dams.

Peer de Rijk, of the World Information Service on Energy, noted that small Pacific island States, which would suffer the most from climate change, were strongly opposed to all language proposing the use of nuclear energy as a sustainable solution to address climate change.  However, it was disappointing that the European Union still supported language espousing nuclear energy.

He also expressed disappointment with the position of the United States, noting that President Bush appeared to be pushing for the use of nuclear energy.  Instead of taking a leading role in reducing emissions, the United States seemed to be looking backwards to the last century by using more coal and oil.  Eventually, the United States would be isolated on most of the issues, especially nuclear energy use.

Asked by a correspondent which developing countries had supported the use of nuclear energy, Mr. de Rijk said India had supported such language.  Pakistan had previously held a similar position, but it was not clear where it stood now.  Other developing countries that had previously supported nuclear energy had

shifted their stance.  Some of the main oil-producing companies opposed nuclear energy in the Commission process.  Positions were shifting all the time.

Another journalist asked what kind of a signal was the United States sending, by sending an ambassador to the talks instead of a minister like most other countries.

Ms. Hampton replied that, while it was unfortunate that the United States was not engaging in negotiations with the good faith and the level of authority they deserved, the discussions were expected to continue.  It was hoped that the European Union, Japan and others would reaffirm their strong commitment to ratification by 2002 and to closing remaining loopholes in the Pronk text.

Another correspondent asked whether a United States withdrawal would eventually kill the Kyoto Protocol process.

Ms. Morgan replied that the Protocol could come into force with or without the United States.  Mr. Hare added that the European Union was moving to a very firm position of being prepared to move ahead without the United States.  The Russian Federation would join in, should the Protocol come into force, because it would benefit from being in and lose from being out.  Japan had signalled its extreme disquiet and concern with the United States position.  The Japanese Diet (Parliament) had recently passed a very strong resolution calling for the United States to join in and for Japan to implement the Protocol by 2002.

He said that in recent days the Commission had heard several countries, including Washington allies like Mexico and Chile, calling for the world to go ahead without the United States, if necessary.

* *** *