date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:22:27 BST
from: Susan Subak <S.Subak@uea.ac.uk>
subject: Protocol Projections
to: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk


Hi Mike,

The one-pager was sent to Bonn on Saturday, and an email 
version went out over Clim-L and to WWF's paper, also some 
media mailings.  What do you think of this letter to the New 
Scientist?  This is based on a tip from Mick about how to get Fred 
Pearce to write a story.

 










						
			August 4, 1997
Fred Pearce
New Scientist
Stamford Street
London SE1 9LS

Dear Fred Pearce,

Enclosed is a briefing sheet we recently prepared for the FCCC 
talks for the two sessions leading up to COP3 in Kyoto.  Please 
feel free to incorporate these results into a piece, or we could 
write it up as a NS article ourselves, if you suggest.  

	In isolation, these proposed cuts would not lead to a 
significant reduction in global 	warming, says Subak.  
Industrialized countries would need to sign onto more stringent 
cuts after the 2000-2020 period under negotiation, and an 
agreement would need to be made with developing countries to 
slow the growth in their emissions. These protocols are an 	
important first step, Subak said.

	While the EU protocol involves less stringent cuts of 
carbon dioxide and in a longer time frame than the AOSIS 
protocol, says Subak. It should achieve an equivalent reduction 
in temperature because the target also encompasses the other 
greenhouse gases.

	The proposed greenhouse gas emissions protocols 
are not significantly different in their implications for future 
temperature, says Subak.  Countries should support protocols 
instead on the basis of cost, burden-sharing and verification.  
		
	In the nearer term, trends related to the emission of 
sulfur from coal will have a more important impact on climate 
change than will the control of greenhouse gases, Hulme said.

	Because the atmospheric residence time of sulfur 
dioxide and other aerosols is short-lived 	compared with 
greenhouse gases, says Hulme, the relative cooling effects of 
aerosols will diminish over time, because the build-up of 
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will eventually far outweigh 
future aerosol emissions, Hulme said.

	Both of these sulfur scenarios assume a rather high 
reliance on coal in the future, says Hulme. For a given scenario 
of carbon dioxide emissions,  if a higher share of oil, gas and 
renewables were assumed instead, sulfur emissions and hence 
cooling would be lower and the projections would show a greater 
temperature increase than shown here, said Hulme.

I hope that this briefing is of interest.

		Sincerely yours,



		Susan Subak



