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