FOREST DEFINITION CAN MEAN RICH COUNTRIES GET OUT OF JAIL FREE

19 November 2000

The Hague, Netherlands: Bureaucrats at the United Nations climate conference are arguing over the smallest changes in definitions that to any normal person would seem petty at least and silly at most, but small words can make all the difference. For example, the difference between two current definitions of what is a forest can mean a difference of 660 millions of tonnes of climate destroying carbon dioxide.

This could mean that industrialised countries have to do nothing at all to reduce greenhouse gas emissions after agreeing in Kyoto three years ago to balance the developing nations need for energy with the industrialised countries' responsibility to ensure that the climate is protected from further dangerous climate change.

"Listening to the parties argue about the definition of a forest, is a bit like the tobacco industry arguing about inhalation," said Bill Hare, Greenpeace climate policy director. "While people still think that they gave their governments the mandate to actually reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, their representatives at this meeting are cheating not only the climate but also their people."

"By the end of this week this crucial decision has to be one that people outside this elite hothouse will not only accept but will also understand," said Hare. "If the loopholes aren't closed by the end of this week the final agreement won't be worth the carbon in the paper it's written on."

Rumours of deals being struck behind closed doors, papers being swapped under tables, late night closed meetings, impenetrable text, sleepy delegates confused even about issues they once thought they were experts on, all adds up to a volatile mix of policy palaver.

It's a difficult time mid-way through two weeks of talking that will determine the future of the climate. After a week of the backroom bureaucrats arguing over technicalities, today the ministers go into action to work out which loophole they will trade for what.

"Most of the loopholes have a common thread right now, and that is the USA - they are 'below ground detritis' which is also one of the more bizarre phrases that has made it way into these negotiations," said Hare.

But there is one encouraging sign; this week saw movement on excluding nuclear power from the Clean Development Mechanism. Key pro-nuclear countries such as the US have signalled a willingness to reconsider their position, leaving Japan and Canada as the only industrialised countries still pushing nuclear power. "Nuclear power is not a solution to climate change. Parties must agree now to excluding it from the Protocol, and get back to the real business of saving the climate" said Hare.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION PLEASE CONTACT:

Contact Susan Cavanagh on +31 6 21296910 or Jon Walter +31 6 53504731