by David Steven | Jun 26, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity
Chris Dodwell, a senior climate change official at the UK’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, supports a long-term stabilisation goal. A goal is important for three reasons, he argues.
First, it gives business a long term signal. Second, it provides a guide for countries on how to cope with the change in climate that we’re all going to have to learn to live with. Finally, it tells consumers that all governments are in it together – everyone is doing their bit.
Jennifer Morgan, from E3G, disagrees. A long-term goal will not be easy to negotiate. It also focuses attention on burden sharing – how will available emissions be divided up?
by David Steven | Jun 26, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Economics and development
At Chatham House, this morning, DFID’s chief economist, Tony Venables gave a somewhat elusive presentation on what developing countries want from climate change policy.
Taking it as a given that climate change will hit the poorest hardest, Venables argued that carbon trading between countries increases both efficiency and equity. Emissions are reduced in the most cost effective fashion, while income is distributed from rich to poor countries.
But all this depends on how property rights are allocated within the carbon markets. What DFID is surely thinking about, but not willing to talk about publicly, is what a fair share of future carbon emissions for poor countries would be.
Maybe Pakistan’s environment minister will have something to say about this later this afternoon…
by David Steven | Jun 26, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity
In the post below, Alex envisages an implausibly high stabilization target (1000ppm say), followed by a dramatic shock (one that, presumably, everyone needs to accept is largely caused by climate change), which leads to a rapid revision (down to a stable 450ppm).
But maybe we can expect a more dynamic target, subject to regular revision. A model would be interest rates – as set by a monetary committee charged with examining all factors that are driving inflation and setting an interest in response.
Normally, these committees don’t change rates dramatically. Instead, they squeeze them up or down, probing for a sweet spot that will keep the economy healthy.
So the world needs need to: (i) agree the principle of a stabilization target; (ii) set an initial figure based on what seems both realistic and politically achievable; (iii) agree a review mechanism that meets every couple of years to sift the latest evidence and move the target up or down.
Using this model, we’d expect to see a slow convergence on a permanent target over a ten, or even twenty year period.
There are political, economic and scientific benefits to this approach.
No-one would be signing up to a ‘forever’ agreement. The system would respond to new information as it appeared, insuring it against uncertainty. And there’d be much more chance of competing interests agreeing to an initial target that they could all live with…
by Alex Evans | Jun 26, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Influence and networks
David’s right below about the lack of specifics on stabilisation levels. But it’s worth remembering the lessons of Ken Livingstone’s Congestion Charge in London: start with lax targets, then ratchet them up later, after people have got used to the principle of having them.
What would this mean in the global climate policy context? Agree the principle of having a target; set it as high as we like (1,000ppm, anyone?) – and then build in triennial or quinquennial review by policymakers.
Then, when the damages really start stacking up and a sharp intake of breath is heard from electorates and policymakers, we can avoid the usual kneejerk policy responses that tend to follow scary events; and instead, simply ratchet the target down to a credible figure, like 450.
In the meantime – presto! – the policymakers who agreed the principle of a stabilisation target in the first place will have moved on to greater things (a job as a Middle East peace envoy, perhaps), leaving the heavy lifting to their successors.
by David Steven | Jun 26, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity, Influence and networks
Dr Per Stig Møller, Danish Foreign Minister, was Environment Minister in Rio in 1993. Now he’s looking forward to the big climate showdown in Copenhagen in 2009, when optimists hope a post-2012 framework will be agreed.
Møller has a six step agenda for getting to 2009.
First, increase awareness worldwide and engage all levels of society. Second, find a way to get all major emitters to the negotiating table, while ensuring the richest take the lead. Third, develop common standards, regulations and incentives that promote low carbon growth. Fourth, invest in new technologies. Fifth, set a price for carbon that includes the full social costs of emissions. Sixth, spend more money helping developing countries adapt.
All well and good.
But where are the specifics? The Minister wants stabilization, but doesn’t talk about what target he favours – 450ppm, 550ppm, higher? He acknowledges there’s going to be a huge fight about how we will bear the brunt of cutting emissions, but doesn’t say who should get scarce allocations from the carbon budget. And he skates over how developing countries are expected to cope as their climate deteriorates. (more…)
