4. November 2009, 3 – 5pm, TU Berlin
Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford opened this year’s Climate lecture at the Technical University of Berlin with a presentation on “The Economics of Climate Change”, mainly drawing on his famous “Stern Report” from 2006.
Being a well-known economist and policy advisor, he is especially praised for his ability to bridge science and policy-making in the area of climate change. With his 2006 report he, for the first time, quantified what is at stake in the face of climate change and with that he put climate change high up on the international agenda. His main point is the adoption of a target approach, stating 2° C as the maximum global mean temperature increase and he covers the following 4 issue areas:
1. The estimation of costs of (in)action→ “the social costs of carbon”
2. Taking into consideration the effects of today’s policies on future generations → justice and fairness, ethical reasoning
3. Technological change
4. Institutional change
I have summarised a few points I feel are worth noting of this, to my mind, very interesting lecture, which ended with standing ovations for Lord Stern. The following is therefore no complete outline and single points can seem a bit unrelated.
The world faces 2 main problems today: poverty and climate change. They are unavoidably linked and therefore we can only succeed or fail on them together.
The poor countries will be hit earliest and hardest by the consequences of climate change.
The climate problem begins and ends with people: The earth cannot absorb all the emissions produced by mankind (flow-stock problem) and the consequences of the change of the climate affect peoples’ life – although to a different extent – everywhere on this planet. The effects are usually connected to water or the shortage thereof, for example in the form of droughts, floods, sea level rise etc.
Emissions are mainly caused by high economic activity and deforestation. Eight countries produce 2/3 of all global emissions! The per capita emissions of rich countries are much higher than for poor ones, but those of the developing countries have a higher growth rate. Nevertheless, the per capita emissions of the rich countries remain around three times as high in comparison to developing countries.
The inequity characterising the comparison between developing and developed countries is striking: rich countries got rich because they grew carbon-intensively, but now all countries have to cut emissions and – even worse – the poor countries are hit harder and earlier by the already occurring consequences of climate change.
If we go on with ‘business as usual’, there is a 50% chance that there will be a 5° C temperature increase by 2050, which would be a temperature change the world has not seen for 30 million years! The effects for mankind would be catastrophic.
There is a 50/50 chance of achieving the maximum 2° C temperature rise goal and this can be achieved by an 80% emissions reduction on the part of the big emitting countries. How does this number come about?
First of all, the emissions have to peak before 2020 in order to be able to bring them down sufficiently. At the moment we are close to 50 Giga (or billion) tons, we have to be below 35 Gt by 2030 and below 20 by 2050. Below 20 Gt by 2050 means 50% below 1990 levels. The G8 countries agreed on this goal on their meeting in Heiligendamm in 2007. Assuming a world population of 9 billion in the year 2050, this means a reduction of ca. 2 tons per capita (20 Gt divided by 9 billion people). Considering the 10-11 tons per capita we have in the industrialised countries today, this means a reduction of 80% of emissions as a result of the 2° C goal.
Concerning financial commitments, a global deal has to include 100bn $ each for mitigation and adaptation between 2020 and 2030. But against the background of the upcoming Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, also goal-formulation for the nearer future – 2015 – is important. Especially on the part of the rich industrialised countries, the level of their external support must be clear in order to ensure the credibility of their promises. A 50bn $ commitment would parallel 0.1% of rich countries’ GDP. An amount that seems feasible. In addition to the financial commitments of rich countries, their targets for 2020, especially that of the US, have to be included in the deal in order to ensure its tenability.
Early action has to be achieved in the area of energy efficiency, the halting of deforestation – especially in the tropics – and in innovation and development of low-carbon technologies.
Despite the highlighted European leadership in climate change mitigation, efforts taken and promised by other actors should not be forgotten. Japan, for example, posed a 25% emission reduction goal on 1990 levels by 2050, China announced to decrease its emissions by a “notable” margin. Also India and Brazil promise new initiatives to tackle the climate issue. The US remains a difficult case due to the problems of getting legislation through Congress.
Copenhagen entails the possibility of a global momentum! Europe’s task is to keep the dynamic of the climate change topic alive in the last few weeks before the Climate Change Conference. It should also talk about the 30% emission reduction not as a remote, but a likely target.
The role of Germany within the European climate change approach has to be emphasised; its leadership is central to European leadership. The biggest EU country has been a pioneer in big parts of the story, an example being renewable energy promotion and the crucial role Angela Merkel played during the 2007 Spring Council that decided on the 20% emission reduction target.
Only Annex I countries have committed to binding reduction targets, not the developing countries. Therefore, countries like India or China will most probably not accept binding targets in Copenhagen. They will rather accept conditions under which they are willing to commit, so it will be about ‘committing to commit’. Those conditions will involve technology transfer from rich to developing countries and financial assistance.
Kathrin
Lord Nicholas Stern of Brentford opened this year’s Climate lecture at the Technical University of Berlin with a presentation on “The Economics of Climate Change”, mainly drawing on his famous “Stern Report” from 2006.
Being a well-known economist and policy advisor, he is especially praised for his ability to bridge science and policy-making in the area of climate change. With his 2006 report he, for the first time, quantified what is at stake in the face of climate change and with that he put climate change high up on the international agenda. His main point is the adoption of a target approach, stating 2° C as the maximum global mean temperature increase and he covers the following 4 issue areas:
1. The estimation of costs of (in)action→ “the social costs of carbon”
2. Taking into consideration the effects of today’s policies on future generations → justice and fairness, ethical reasoning
3. Technological change
4. Institutional change
I have summarised a few points I feel are worth noting of this, to my mind, very interesting lecture, which ended with standing ovations for Lord Stern. The following is therefore no complete outline and single points can seem a bit unrelated.
The world faces 2 main problems today: poverty and climate change. They are unavoidably linked and therefore we can only succeed or fail on them together.
The poor countries will be hit earliest and hardest by the consequences of climate change.
The climate problem begins and ends with people: The earth cannot absorb all the emissions produced by mankind (flow-stock problem) and the consequences of the change of the climate affect peoples’ life – although to a different extent – everywhere on this planet. The effects are usually connected to water or the shortage thereof, for example in the form of droughts, floods, sea level rise etc.
Emissions are mainly caused by high economic activity and deforestation. Eight countries produce 2/3 of all global emissions! The per capita emissions of rich countries are much higher than for poor ones, but those of the developing countries have a higher growth rate. Nevertheless, the per capita emissions of the rich countries remain around three times as high in comparison to developing countries.
The inequity characterising the comparison between developing and developed countries is striking: rich countries got rich because they grew carbon-intensively, but now all countries have to cut emissions and – even worse – the poor countries are hit harder and earlier by the already occurring consequences of climate change.
If we go on with ‘business as usual’, there is a 50% chance that there will be a 5° C temperature increase by 2050, which would be a temperature change the world has not seen for 30 million years! The effects for mankind would be catastrophic.
There is a 50/50 chance of achieving the maximum 2° C temperature rise goal and this can be achieved by an 80% emissions reduction on the part of the big emitting countries. How does this number come about?
First of all, the emissions have to peak before 2020 in order to be able to bring them down sufficiently. At the moment we are close to 50 Giga (or billion) tons, we have to be below 35 Gt by 2030 and below 20 by 2050. Below 20 Gt by 2050 means 50% below 1990 levels. The G8 countries agreed on this goal on their meeting in Heiligendamm in 2007. Assuming a world population of 9 billion in the year 2050, this means a reduction of ca. 2 tons per capita (20 Gt divided by 9 billion people). Considering the 10-11 tons per capita we have in the industrialised countries today, this means a reduction of 80% of emissions as a result of the 2° C goal.
Concerning financial commitments, a global deal has to include 100bn $ each for mitigation and adaptation between 2020 and 2030. But against the background of the upcoming Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, also goal-formulation for the nearer future – 2015 – is important. Especially on the part of the rich industrialised countries, the level of their external support must be clear in order to ensure the credibility of their promises. A 50bn $ commitment would parallel 0.1% of rich countries’ GDP. An amount that seems feasible. In addition to the financial commitments of rich countries, their targets for 2020, especially that of the US, have to be included in the deal in order to ensure its tenability.
Early action has to be achieved in the area of energy efficiency, the halting of deforestation – especially in the tropics – and in innovation and development of low-carbon technologies.
Despite the highlighted European leadership in climate change mitigation, efforts taken and promised by other actors should not be forgotten. Japan, for example, posed a 25% emission reduction goal on 1990 levels by 2050, China announced to decrease its emissions by a “notable” margin. Also India and Brazil promise new initiatives to tackle the climate issue. The US remains a difficult case due to the problems of getting legislation through Congress.
Copenhagen entails the possibility of a global momentum! Europe’s task is to keep the dynamic of the climate change topic alive in the last few weeks before the Climate Change Conference. It should also talk about the 30% emission reduction not as a remote, but a likely target.
The role of Germany within the European climate change approach has to be emphasised; its leadership is central to European leadership. The biggest EU country has been a pioneer in big parts of the story, an example being renewable energy promotion and the crucial role Angela Merkel played during the 2007 Spring Council that decided on the 20% emission reduction target.
Only Annex I countries have committed to binding reduction targets, not the developing countries. Therefore, countries like India or China will most probably not accept binding targets in Copenhagen. They will rather accept conditions under which they are willing to commit, so it will be about ‘committing to commit’. Those conditions will involve technology transfer from rich to developing countries and financial assistance.
Kathrin
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen