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
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 25, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity
We’re talking about leadership…
John Llewellyn, Senior Economic Policy Adviser for Lehman Brothers, makes the case for economic incentives. Exhortation, he says, won’t work.
If he’s right (and accepting that unchecked climate change will be disastrous), then I think it’s fair to say that the world is stuffed.
Because something has to come before incentives – the decision by a hundred or so leaders to apply those incentives, and the decision by a few billion voters to support their government’s actions.
That will require an awful lot of exhortation. And it’s also where we’re flying blind. (more…)
by David Steven | Jun 25, 2007 | Climate and resource scarcity
Interesting differences of opinion about how serious a problem we’re facing…
Potted Bert Metz: To avoid dangerous climate change (a 2 degree increase in mean global temperature), we need to stabilise emissions by 2015 and get them back to current levels by 2040. Even if this is achieved, we’re still going to see very costly damage.
Potted Matthew Hulbert: Don’t expect a ‘seminal moment’ where climate change is definitively linked to conflict, but security is undoubtedly going to get worse. Climate change is an undoubted ‘threat multiplier’. Africa is most vulnerable, where the climate is already challenging, many people live close to the edge, and resilience is in short supply.
Potted Brahma Chellaney: Yeah it’s going to be bad, but the doomsayers are painting too black a picture. “Scaremongering makes it harder to come up with a realistic response.” The green bandwagon is already leading us down some dead ends. Biofuels, for instance, are a sop for the farm lobby, but will push food prices higher and harm the poor. Innovation and ingenuity are the answer. (more…)
