Press releases-GREENPEACE CALLS FOR END TO OIL EXPLORATION IN ALASKA AS FIRST STEP TOWARD PROTECTING THE EARTH FROM CLIMATE CHANGE

GREENPEACE CALLS FOR END TO OIL EXPLORATION IN ALASKA AS FIRST STEP TOWARD PROTECTING THE EARTH FROM CLIMATE CHANGE WASHINGTON, 14 May 1997 In a letter to the White House, Greenpeace today called on President Bill Clinton to stop all new oil exploration in Alaska and to push for a legally binding treaty to drastically reduce the global warming greenhouse gases caused by the burning of oil, coal and gas. [1] Using the science of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Greenpeace has calculated a global "carbon budget formula," [2] that demonstrates the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) greenhouse gas that can be emitted to remain within safe limits for human health and the environment. These limits have been identified by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) as: A maximum rate of global temperature rise of 0.1 degrees C per decade; n a maximum rate of average sea-level rise of 20 mm per decade; n a maximum long term increase of global average temperature of 1 degree C above pre-industrial levels; n a maximum sea-level rise of 20 cm above 1990 levels. Noting that fossil fuels - oil, coal and gas - comprise the greatest source of CO2 emissions, Greenpeace wrote in their letter that "the inescapable conclusion is that only a fraction of the currently known reserves of oil, gas and coal can ever be burned if we are to protect the climate, in other words there needs to be a global phase out of fossil fuels. And this must begin now with a halt to the search for further oil, gas and coal reserves." At current rates of fossil fuel energy use the carbon budget to stay within safe limits will be exceeded in 40 years. However, if we continue to increase our use of energy at the current rates (about 2 per cent annually), the budget will be exceeded in 30 years. Despite a clear imperative for the phase out of fossil fuels, the Department of the Interior in the last year has opened up five new oil lease sales in Alaska, repealed the ban on the export of Alaskan oil and encouraged the opening of the Alaskan National Petroleum Reserve to oil companies. "The fact that human induced climate change is happening has now been established. To simply ignore the obvious and encourage the oil companies to search for more oil commits us all to a suicide pact," said Kalee Kreider, Greenpeace Climate Campaigner. Alaska is not only an area where oil companies are aggressively pursuing new oil reserves, but scientific models also predict the region will suffer some of the worst effects of global climate change. According to these models, by the middle of the next century, the Arctic will heat up between 4 degrees C (in summer) and 13 degrees C (in winter). Such a temperature change could lead to a collapse of the entire Arctic ecosystem. Notes to Editors: 1. The Third Conference of Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate Change meets in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997. Greenpeace is calling for all industrialized countries to commit to a legally binding CO2 emission reduction target of 20 percent below 1990 levels by 2005. 2. Using the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Greenpeace has calculated a global carbon budget to demonstrate how much carbon dioxide can be emitted and to stay within safe limits for human health and the environment. Reserves of oil, gas and coal and unconventional sources such as oil shales are 1,053 billion metric tons of carbon, or GtC. Reserves are rapidly expanding due to oil, coal and gas exploration so that the resource base could grow to 4,000 GtC. At current rates of fossil fuel energy use, 6 GtC are emitted into the atmosphere each year. In order to meet the UN Environment Programme safe limits, if no action were taken to stop the current trends of deforestation (as forests store CO2 and release it when they are destroyed) the budget would be only 145 GtC. If action were taken to halt deforestation and stabilize forests, the budget would be 225 GtC. At current rates of fossil fuel energy use, the 225 GtC budget will be exceeded in 40 years globally. If we continue to increase our use of energy at the current rate (2 per cent annually) then the budget will be exceeded in 30 years. President William Jefferson Clinton The White House Washington DC May 13 1997 Dear President Clinton: I am writing to you to in relation to the US position in the international climate negotiations and to demand urgent action to stop the practices, encouraged by your Administration, which cause global warming and climate change. As you stated, "We must stand together against the threat of global warming. A greenhouse may be a good place to raise plants; it is no place to nurture our children." (22 November 1996, Australia). Greenpeace agrees. Last July, at the Second Conference of the Parties to the Climate Convention, Greenpeace praised your Administration for proposing the negotiation of legally binding obligations to limit emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases, caused primarily by the use of fossil fuels - oil, coal and gas. Greenpeace had hoped that this signaled a major shift in policy direction by the administration. Since then, however, we have been disappointed. US greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise and the US has not put forward concrete proposals for emission reductions to the international Climate Convention negotiations now underway and due to conclude at Kyoto in December of this year. Furthermore, by encouraging increased oil developments in Alaska, your Administration is working directly against the aims of the Climate Convention. The United States has a special responsibility to act on climate change - it is responsible for about one quarter of global emissions from fossil fuels, it is the world's largest economy, it fosters much of the science that has identified this problem and, further, has the technological and economic expertise to deliver the solutions. Mr. President, in this letter I want to outline our case for specific action from you domestically and internationally to protect the climate. Firstly we call on you to take political action beginning with the forthcoming meeting of the UN General Assembly Session; secondly we call on you to take action to halt further exploration and development of fossil fuel resources. 1. Political Action In a few short weeks you will be speaking at the UN General Assembly Session on the occasion of the five-year review of the Earth Summit of 1992. No doubt you will be reviewing the experience of the US in meeting its Rio commitments and setting out an agenda for the future. Greenpeace USA believes that a real test of our Government's commitments made at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 would be the implementation of the agreements on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The US is not in compliance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC). This treaty requires that developed country Parties adopt policies and measures that have the aim of bringing back emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The US has not adopted policies and measures domestically that would have any chance of meeting this aim. Although your Administration has not provided the United Nations with your "National Communications" by the April deadline, it is clear from the US Department of Energy that US emissions of greenhouse gases continue to grow, rather than diminish as would be required to comply with your international obligations. Scientifically it is clear that action to reduce emissions is essential if dangerous, human induced climate change is to be avoided. Already, the rate at which the world is releasing greenhouse gases (from human activities such as burning oil, coal and gas) is alarming and causing measurable impacts - sea level rise and temperature rise, among others. The stated aim of domestic and international policy must be to prevent dangerous climate change. This objective is enshrined in international law as Article 2 of the UN FCCC. Achieving this objective means setting ecological limits and then devising an emissions path that can meet these limits. In 1990 the United Nations Environment Programme Advisory Group on Greenhouse Gases (UNEP AGGG) found that to "protect both ecosystems as well as human systems" limits must be set both on the extent and rate of total amounts of global temperature and sea level rise. Greenpeace believes that these limits, beyond which the world risks "rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage", must be avoided. The limits include: - a maximum sustained rate of global temperature increase of 0.1degrees C per decade; - a maximum sustained rate of average sea-level rise of 20mm per decade; - a maximum long term increase of global average temperature of 1 degree C above pre-industrial levels; - a maximum sea-level rise of 20cm above 1990 levels. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in its First and Second Assessment reports has reinforced these findings. 2. Staying within Ecological Limits The Chairman of the IPCC, Professor Bert Bolin has made it clear to the world's governments that to avoid a doubling of CO2 concentrations would require the total CO2 emissions (including deforestation) over the next century to be less than 610-670 billion tonnes of carbon (gigatonnes of carbon - GtC). This figure represents much less than the known economically recoverable reserves of oil, coal and gas (estimated at 1,100 GtC). Further, if you take into account deforestation, the figure is hardly one third of what the world is likely to burn in the absence of action on climate change in the next century (estimated at around 1500 GtC). However, the IPCC has found that the impacts of allowing atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases to double could include significant loss of human life from the indirect and direct health effects of rapid climate change.[1] Furthermore, economic losses from climate impacts would increase as witnessed by recent extreme weather events such as floods, droughts and forest fires. As you would be aware Mr. President, the European Union has already proposed to the international community that global temperatures should not be allowed to exceed a 2 degrees C increase above pre-industrial levels.[2] This would require that only 330-410 GtC are burnt over the next century. Thus far, the US has not put forward any target or position on this issue. However, even a 2 degree C warming was identified by the UNEP Advisory Group on Greenhouse gases as "an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems, and of non-linear responses, are expected to increase rapidly".[3] Yet this figure of 330-410 GtC represents only 30-40% of known economically recoverable reserves of fossil fuels - oil, coal and gas. If we are to avoid "wide ranging and mostly adverse effect(s) on human health with a significant loss of life" then much lower levels of carbon emission are needed. 3. How Much Carbon? Mr. President, the fact that the main source of emissions of CO2 originate from our use of oil, coal and gas leads directly to the question of how much we can actually use and still prevent dangerous climate change. At current rates of fossil fuel energy use, each year over 6 GtC are released each year; since approximately 1860, a total of 240 GtC has been dumped into the atmosphere from our use of oil, coal and gas. In order to meet both the total and per decade limits of sea level rise and temperature rise outlined by UNEP above, using the IPCC science, Greenpeace has calculated a total carbon budget for the burning of fossil fuels over the next century. The results are alarming. If no action were taken to stop the current trends of deforestation (as forests store carbon dioxide and release CO2 when they are destroyed) the budget would be only 145 GtC. In other words we could only emit 145 GtC into the atmosphere. If action were taken to halt deforestation and stabilize forests, the budget would be 225 GtC. These carbon budgets are greatly exceeded by the carbon in known oil and gas reserves alone. The inescapable conclusion, Mr. President, is that only a small fraction of the currently known reserves of oil, gas and coal can ever be burned if we are to protect the climate. This is the carbon logic. In order to protect the climate, limiting the carbon budget to between 145 - 260 GtC translates into a global phase out of the use of fossil fuels. The phase out must begin now and the first action needed is a halt to the search for further oil, coal and gas reserves. We realise the import of the action we are demanding, but we also realise that catastrophic changes are in store for the planet and all its occupants if we fail to take this action. 4. Halt Further Exploration and Development of Oil, Coal and Gas Contrary to the need to reduce the use of fossil fuels and in addition to failing to adopt the policies and measures required under international law to limit emissions, your Administration is encouraging exploration of further fossil fuel resources, particularly oil. Just in the last year, the Department of Interior has opened up five new oil lease sales in Alaska alone; your Administration repealed the ban on the export of Alaskan oil; and, your Administration encouraged the opening of the Alaskan National Petroleum Reserve (which lies adjacent to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) to oil companies. This drive for further oil extraction will result in more, not less, carbon dioxide being dumped into the atmosphere. Further exploration and development of fossil fuels resources will only make the problem of trying to protect the climate that much more difficult to solve. Therefore, a phase out of the use of fossil fuels must begin with an immediate commitment to no further exploration and development of new fossil fuel resources by the US. This policy step is the only way to begin the process of avoiding dangerous human influence on the earth's climate, thereby satisfying the aims of the Climate Convention. The question is not if, the use of oil, coal and gas are to be phased out, but when. Immediate strong and clear leadership is expected and in fact demanded of the leader of the world's richest and most profligate economy. In light of the need to take immediate and convincing action, your Administration should immediately: 1) Stop all new oil exploration in Alaska. Alaska is not only an area where the oil companies are aggressively pursuing new oil reserves, but scientific models also predict the region will suffer some of the worst effects of global climate change. According to these models, by the middle of the next century, the Arctic will heat up between 4 degrees C (in summer) and 13 degrees C (in winter). Such a temperature change could lead to a collapse of the entire Arctic ecosystem 2) Announce at the UNGASS in June a commitment to secure at the Third Conference of the Parties of the Framework Convention on Climate Change in Kyoto in December 1997, a legally binding CO2 emission reduction target for all industrialised nations of 20% below 1990 levels by 2005. Fortunately, the news is not all dire. The solution to global climate change is well within our reach in the form of clean and renewable energy already on the market. The Clinton Administration could take concrete steps, in addition to stopping new oil exploration, to ensure our clean energy future by including a shift of corporate welfare programs from fossil fuels to research and development of renewable energy technologies such as solar. Such a regime would not only begin to address the problem of global climate change, but also reduce our dependence on foreign oil while staying within our balanced budget and growing an economy which could truly build a bridge to the twenty first century. Sincerely yours, Barbara Dudley Executive Director Greenpeace USA Footnotes: 1. Projected impacts, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, include, "wide ranging and mostly adverse effect(s) on human health with a significant loss of life." 2. The UNEP AGGG stated that above 1.0 degrees C (or a 330-370 PPM CO2 equivalent concentration) there may be "rapid, unpredictable and non-linear responses that could lead to extensive ecosystem damage." A total 2.0 degrees C increase (or 400-560 PPM) was "viewed as an upper limit beyond which the risks of grave damage to ecosystems and of non linear responses are expected to increase rapidly". 3. The global mean temperature already has risen 0.3-0.6 degrees C above pre-industrial levels and current rates of increase are at or above 0.1 degrees C per decade. Forecasted emissions are expected to cause a 0.2-0.3 degrees C temperature rise per decade in the next few decades. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also indicates that a doubling of CO2 and equivalent is expected to occur by 2050 (but may occur as early 2030). A doubling of CO2 and equivalent would result in a 3.5 degrees C temperature change far beyond what is safe for human health and the environment. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Horsman 202-319-2523, Deborah Rephan 202-319-2492, or Kalee Kreider 202-319-2523.