IPCC calculates cost of global warming fix

International delegates agreed on May 4 that the world has the technology and money to limit catastrophic global warming, but that it must act now to reduce the harmful effects of greenhouse gas emissions. Promptly adopting biofuels, renewable energy sources and greater energy efficiency can mitigate worldwide disaster, according to the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report adopted by scientists and government-appointed delegates from more than 120 countries at a conference in Bangkok, Thailand. The fourth assessment report, "Mitigation of Climate Change," focuses on the scientific, technological, environmental, economic and social aspects of mitigation of climate change. It follows two studies by the IPCC earlier this year warning that unabated greenhouse gas emissions could trigger a rise in ocean levels, destruction of species, economic devastation and mass human migrations due to water and food shortages. Drought-affected areas are likely to increase in extent, while heavy precipitation is likely to increase flood risk in other regions. Current efforts are aimed at capping the increase in temperatures to 3.6 degrees, but even an increase that small could subject up to billions of people to water shortages by 2050. The full version of the final report was not made available when the meeting ended, but delegates said it largely resembled a draft version that said emissions can be cut below current levels if the world shifts away from carbon-heavy fuels like coal, embraces energy efficiency and significantly reduces deforestation. Solutions are affordable, scientists say Overall, the report said, blunting the consequences of global warming will require different lifestyles, higher prices for basics including gasoline and electricity and a much greater investment in research and development efforts. The impact of those costs, however, would be significantly offset by the benefits of a less carbon-dependent economy, including a cleaner environment, more secure sources of energy and, in some cases, reduced costs for more energy-efficient cars, appliances and houses, the summary said. The world community could slow and then reduce global emissions of greenhouse gases over the next several decades by utilizing cost-effective policies and current and emerging technologies. "Measures to reduce emissions can, in the main, be achieved at starkly low costs especially when compared with the costs of inaction," said Executive Director Achim Steiner of the UN Environment Program, which, together with the World Meteorological Organization, established the IPCC. "Indeed some, such as reducing emissions by 30 percent from buildings by 2020, actually contribute positively to GDP [gross domestic product]," Steiner said. "It is now up to governments to introduce the mechanisms and incentives to unleash the ingenuity and creativity of the financial and technological markets in order to realize these economic, social and environmental gains," he said. The report's primary instrument for reducing greenhouse gas concentrations is a system in which governments would place a cap on emissions and charge polluters for every ton of carbon dioxide beyond that point. That would force companies to cut emissions and invest in alternative fuels and energy efficiency. IPCC conference Chairman Rajendra K. Pachauri said it will be necessary to put a price on carbon emissions, either through taxes or "cap and trade" systems, in which polluters buy and sell rights to put given amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Unless governments take action and "market forces [are] present to attach a price to carbon, we're not likely to get a major dissemination of technologies, no matter how meritorious they may be." The IPCC concludes that emissions need to start declining by 2015 to avoid the worst effects of global warming. From this peak, emissions should then gradually fall by 50 percent to 85 percent below 2000 levels. This, the scientists said, would limit global warming to an increase of 3.6 to 4.3 degrees, generally recognized as the threshold at which some of the most extreme impacts of climate change will begin. Opposition to the mitigation plan The United States has opposed calls for mandatory emissions cuts and carbon taxes, instead placing its hopes on voluntary reductions and future technologies that would be cleaner and cheaper. They wanted statements inserted in the report to the effect that the cost of current available technologies to reduce emissions "could be unacceptably high," and calling for a greater emphasis on "advanced technologies," many aimed at extending the use of coal. The Bush administration quickly denounced the IPCC recommendations as too expensive. "It would cause a global recession," said James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality. "Our goal is reducing emissions and growing the economy," he said during a news conference in Bangkok. Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation said, "it's especially troubling that the Bush administration was seeking last-minute changes to play down the report's conclusion that quick, affordable action can limit the worst effects of global warming. Rather than embrace the report's window of opportunity message, the Bush administration tried to shut the window and draw the shades." China also has opposed mandatory reductions, saying they would derail its economic growth. The country unsuccessfully fought to delete the most stringent emissions scenario from the report, participants in the conference said. India, the world's fifth biggest polluter, joined the effort. The most prominent supporters of the plan were European nations. The crux of the problem is deciding who should pay to contain global warming. China and other developing countries argue that industrialized nations should foot the bill, since they are responsible for the bulk of carbon dioxide accumulation in the atmosphere over the last two centuries. The report concludes that the greatest potential for curbing future emissions lies in the developing world, since those countries tend to be the least energy efficient. Plan called unrealistic by economists Some economists said the report's call for a global, multi-trillion-dollar effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is unrealistic. The price per ton charged for every ton of carbon dioxide beyond the cap would reach up to $100 by 2030. By then, the report's suggestions for climate mitigation could reduce the world's GDP by two to six percent. The report also notes that for specific countries and regions costs would vary considerably. "It's not realistic from a political standpoint, and it's not realistic because those targets are incredibly expensive," said Robert Mendelsohn, an economist at Yale University. Even supporters of the plan were daunted by the speed and scale of action required by the report to stabilize carbon concentrations at slightly above current levels. "It's hard to imagine," said Jae Edmonds, an economist at the Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland. "So many things have to happen so fast, and they are so big." But Robert Socolow, a carbon mitigation expert at Princeton University, said that taking a cheaper and slower path could still be costly. A study by the British government last year found that damage from global warming–flooding, starvation, drought and other calamities–would easily top five percent of global GDP annually. Environmentalists' criticisms Some environmental groups are deeply concerned that the IPCC includes a recommendation for large-scale expansion of biofuels from monocultures, including from genetically modified crops, even though monoculture expansion is a driving force behind the destruction of rainforests and other carbon sinks and reservoirs, thus accelerating climate change. The IPCC also recommends the expansion of large-scale agroforestry monoculture plantations. These plantations, which will include genetically modified trees, are similarly linked to ecosystem destruction. Monoculture expansion is a major threat to the livelihoods and food sovereignty of communities, many of which are already bearing the brunt of climate change disasters caused largely by the fossil fuel emissions of industrialized countries. Almuth Ernsting of Biofuelwatch stated: "It is already clear that the burgeoning demand for biofuels that has been created to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is actually increasing them by deforestation in the tropics and accelerating climate change. So far, only one percent of global transport fuel comes from biofuels, yet already biofuels cause steep rises in grain and vegetable oil prices, threatening the food security of poor people and spurring agricultural expansion into forests and grasslands, on which we depend for a stable climate." Others are particularly troubled by the recommendation to expand the use of nuclear power. "The report looks like a compromise rather than a serious plan. It offers something for everyone without making the tough choices," Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder said. "Some of these recommendations make a lot of sense, but unfortunately, some of them–especially the push for nuclear power–moves us in the wrong direction. Nuclear power threatens humans and the environment. It is not necessary to combat climate change." Nuclear power has come under criticism from a variety of fronts because of the difficulty of disposing of radioactive waste, the extremely high cost of construction and operation, and because of security threats posed by the risk of weapons proliferation and the susceptibility of power plants to terrorist attack. "The IPCC got a number of things right," Blackwelder said. "Increasing energy efficiency and using clean energy sources such as wind power are steps that can be taken right now to reduce global warming–without damaging other parts of the environment. Let's focus on those measures, and not nuclear power, which has such harmful side effects."