This afternoon I went to a terrific lecture given by world renowned economist Jeffrey Sachs. He is currently director of the Earth Institute at Columbia and is well known for his bestselling book: The End of Poverty, which argues that extreme poverty can be eradicated by 2025.
The title of his lecture was: Negotiating the Post-Kyoto Climate Change Framework -- a very appropriate subject since this issue is so closely tied to the global economy and the future of world poverty. Sachs was a very charismatic speaker and really reinvigorated my optimism about solving the problem of global climate change.
He began by drawing analogies between climate change the political stages of another global environmental issue: depletion of stratospheric ozone by CFCs during the 70s and 80s. The evolution of this problem, and its eventual solution, occured in several stages that are similar to the current situation with climate change and provides a model to follow:
Political stages of ozone depletion:
1. Scientists discover by chance that CFCs, hailed as a safe and useful refrigerant, are destroying ozone in the atmosphere that protects us from skin cancer.
2. Some political interest in addressing this issue is achieved, but it is largely blocked by industry opposition (chiefly Dupont - largest CFC manufacturer). Vienna convention adopted with the international goal of tackling the CFC issue but the agreement lacks real teeth -- i. e. no binding requirements.
3. NASA releases picture of earth with ozone hole over Antarctica -- this pivotal image alone led to public understanding the magnitude and urgency of the problem. Meanwhile Dupont invents an alternative to CFCs and gives the nod to politicians that industries can cope with this issue. Montreal protocol is enacted and begins a concrete timetable for phasing out CFCs, though still has a small impact
4. London ammendments build upon the Montreal Protocol and lead to consequential reduction in CFC concentrations. For the first time, the world succeeds in coming to a global solution to a challenging environmental issue.
I was happy to hear Sachs this analogy since it is one I have often referred to myself in describing the political challenges of confronting climate change. He acknowledged however that the climate issue is vastly more complicated and is on a much larger scale than ozone.
How does this model play out for climate?
1. First scientest discover in the 70s and 80s that greenhouse gases are
2. Political is garnered and in 1992, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) was adopted, which was ratified by the US, legally obligating them to tackle the climate issue. Still, the UNFCCC had no real binding restrictions and thus has no real power in mitigating climate change. Much opposition and skepticism remains.
3. Science is validated and methodically communicated through the IPCC. Like the NASA image, the event that has really solidified public support for the climate issue (regardless of actual attribution) was Hurricane Katrina. Like the Montreal Protocol, the Kyoto Protocol was an important step in galvanizing efforts to address the climate issue, but really bears no weight in creating a quantitative reduction of carbon emissions. Indeed it was merely intended as a stepping stone for more effective protocols down the road. In 2012, Kyoto expires and (hopefully) a new, up-to-date Protocol will be enacted. Given the time needed for countries to agree upon and ratify such a treaty, the negotiations really need to start ASAP and will commence this winter. Realistically though the U.S. has its hands tied for moving on this issue until 2009 -- the end of the current administration which will keep our country from ratifying any climate treaty (as they have done with Kyoto).
One key point Sachs emphasized and that is worth repeating is that lots of businesses are rallying for the U.S. to instate a tangible climate policy. This is not a sudden moral epiphany they have come to, but rather, they are beginning to realize that it is an issue they can deal with. Much like Dupont realized after developing the CFC alternative, energy companies are beginning R&D of technologies that make carbon reduction possible. Furthermore, for many large companies already see this as a fixed cost since carbon restrictions and trading schemes are already in place in European markets. Thus a uniform policy would be better for them to have a common standard to work with. Additionally, since regulation in the U.S. seems certain at some point down the road (especially on the heels of the recent supreme court decision), business are pushing for it to happen quickly so they can gain some business certainty about how to make future investments. As Sachs said, "the business community is way ahead of the politicians right now, and they're pulling the politicians to an agreement."
4? What is in store for the future:
Sachs predicted that upcoming climate negotiations will establish a post-Kyoto treaty with a global standard for carbon emissions that will be binding for all nations -- not the current split between the developing and industrialized world as is the case with Kyoto. Even China (soon to be the biggest CO2 contributer) has expressed interest in dealing with climate change. China and India are anxious to be on the cutting edge of new technologies, and want to work with companies like GE to develop prototypes for new carbon capture/storage or more efficient combined cycle coal plants. Sachs made it clear that without this sort of multilateral agreement (esp. with China's growth) no mitigation strategy would be feasible. To accommodate this strategy should be some kind of fund for international aid to help developing countries address this issue.
One pivotal point Sachs introduced is that economists estimate that the cost for mitigating emissions to a doubling of pre-industrial CO2 will likely cost less than 1% of world income. Though not insignificant (~$500 billion), 1% does seems like an accomplishable goal. Especially considering the fact that nobody has done a comprehensive economic study of the costs for consequences that could dislocate large populations (e.g. melting of Himalayan glaciers that feed vital rivers in India/China). Already we are seeing the effects of climate change on drought in areas like the Sahel and Darfur in Africa. Global policies are still largely made concerning the interests of the wealthy countries, but Hurricane Katrina may have served as a wake up call that the costs are real and no-one is invulverable to climate change.
Many mechanisms are available for a global accord on carbon reduction. One could envision market based strategies such as the current European permit trading scheme, or a tax credit system, or simply a set standard. Since many groups with competing interests will be vying for different strategies, the likely outcome is that we will have a mixed bag of solutions. Although ideally we would have a clear-cut, axiomatic mitigation strategy, the solution will undoubtedly be messy, and variable between regions and industries. Maintaining equity on a broad spectrum with so many players involved will be a challenging goal but should not keep us from coming to quick resolution.
Although maybe appearing uneconomic on the surface, Sachs was very keen on promoting a system of standards, with clear global targets for specific industries (e.g. power generation - especially coal, transport fleets, steel & cement, deforestation). While many have been optimistic about strategies like renewable energy being solely able to replace fossil fuel dependence, this prospect seems "almost unimaginable" at this point and our strategy should undoubtedly promote new fossil fuel technologies like carbon capture and storage.
Lastly, Sachs acknowledged that we are committed to a certain amount of climate change from emissions already released, . Given this, a part of the international agreement should also entail some strategies for adaptation to the inevitable changes that are coming -- particularly for the poor who will be most affected by it.
My friend Owen reported on this lecture in the Daily Princetonian:
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/04/13/news/18077.shtml
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment