IPCC says Quick Action Can Avert Worst Climate Impacts

IPCC says Quick Action Can Avert Worst Climate Impacts



May 2007 - Catastropic global warming can be 
avoided without excessive economic cost but the world must begin to act at 
once, a UN climate change panel representing 2,500 international 
scientists said today. 
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, says the new assessment by 
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. 
"If we continue to do what we are doing now, we are in deep trouble," said 
Ogunlade Davidson of Sierra Leone, who served as co-chair of the IPCC 
Working Group that produced the report with Bert Metz from the Netherlands 
Environmental Assessment Agency. 
"This report is all about solutions to climate change," Davidson said. 

Co-chairs of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Third Working 
Group at climate talks in Bangkok. From left: Bert Metz, Ogunlade 
Davidson. 
Based on the most up-to-date, peer-reviewed literature on emissions 
modeling, economics, policies and technologies, the report shows how 
governments, industry and the general public could together reduce the 
energy and carbon intensity of the global economy even with growing 
incomes and population levels. 
"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 Programme, 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," 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. 
According to "Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climate Change," without 
additional action by governments the emissions from the basket of six 
greenhouse gases covered by the Kyoto Protocol will rise by 25 to 90 
percent by 2030 compared to 2000. 
The six gases are carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur 
hexafluoride, PFCs and HFCs. 
There is "high agreement," based on "much evidence" that global greenhouse 
gas emissions have grown since pre-industrial times, with an increase of 
70 percent between 1970 and 2004, the report states. 
Still, by adopting stronger climate change policies governments could slow 
and reverse these emissions trends and ultimately stabilize the level of 
greenhouse gases remaining in the atmosphere. 
The suggested changes range from simple measures like more efficient 
electrical appliances and reforestation to well known solutions such as 
generating electricity from solar, geothermal, tidal and wave energy. 
But they also include advanced nuclear power, which emits litle carbon but 
has waste disposal and safety issues, and the storing of carbon dioxide 
underground instead of releasing it into the atmosphere, an undeveloped 
technology. 
The IPCC concludes that global greenhouse gas levels should peak by 2015 
and then fall to 50 to 85 percent of 2000 levels by 2050. 
This could limit global mean temperature increases to 2 to 2.4 degrees 
Celsius above pre-industrial levels, the point generally viewed as the 
threshold at which some of the most extreme impacts of climate change will 
begin. 
The report's Summary for Policymakers was finalized and adopted this week 
by representatives from 105 countries. The full set of underlying 
chapters, written by 168 authors, about 40 percent of whom are from 
developing and transition countries, and reviewed by hundreds of other 
experts, will be available shortly. 

Government delegates go over the text of the IPCC report one line at a 
time to reach agreement. 
Although the week-long process included a line-by-line approval from all 
governments at the meeting, the governments were not in complete agreement 
on all aspects of the report. 
There were objections from China, which is about to take over from the 
United States as the world's single largest greenhouse gas emitter. 
Chinese delegates argued that moves to cut emissions should be delayed so 
as to avoid limiting its economic development. Yet, a draft of the final 
report contains references to strict emissions targets, which they had 
opposed earlier. 
The U.S. delegation 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. 
Dr. Harlan Watson heads the U.S. delegation to the IPCC meeting in 
Bangkok. 
The United States has attempted to steer the group towards voluntary 
climate change actions and away from mandatory solutions such as the Kyoto 
Protocol, adopted by Europe and Japan. 
U.S. environmental groups were critical of the American approach. 
"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," said 
Larry Schweiger, president of the National Wildlife Federation. "Rather 
than embrace the report's window of opportunity message, the Bush 
administration tried to shut the window and draw the shades." 
"We have a window of opportunity, but it won't stay open forever," said 
Steve Cochran, national climate campaign director at the American 
nonprofit group Environmental Defense. "Anyone pushing for delay is 
pushing for higher costs and longer odds." 
"There is much good news here and even reason for optimism if we listen 
and heed the call to action," said National Audubon Society President John 
Flicker. "The U.S. can start filling the scientists' prescription by 
rapidly adopting emissions caps, renewable electricity standards, energy 
conservation measures, and improving fuel efficiency." 
"The report makes it clear that voluntary measures have had no effect - 
these cannot be take 'em or leave 'em approaches. The world's best 
scientists are telling us that it will take serious changes backed by the 
force of law if we want to minimize the risk to people and wildlife," 
Flicker said. 
"Every poll confirms that the American public is clamoring for solutions 
to this grave threat," he said. "The clock is ticking and the White House 
has failed to lead the way. Now it's up to Congress to set the course that 
science prescribes to lead us away from the threats of global warming and 
toward a brighter energy future." 
The report addresses ways of reducing emissions from key sectors such as 
the energy supply sector, buildings, transport, and land use. 
The IPCC concludes that no single economically and technologically 
feasible solution would on its own be enough to reduce greenhouse gas 
emissions from the energy sector. Instead, governments would need to 
promote a range of options. 
For example, they could encourage natural gas over more carbon-intensive 
fossil fuels as well as mature renewable energy technologies such as large 
hydro, biomass combustion and geothermal. 

The Mahanagdong geothermal power plant in the Philippines. Utilitizing 
steam from beneath the Earth's surface, geothermal power produces no 
greenhouse gases. 
Other renewable sources include solar assisted air conditioning, wave 
power and nanotechnology solar cells, although they all still require more 
technological or commercial development. 
Yet another option could be carbon capture and storage technology. This 
involves capturing carbon dioxide before it can be emitted into the 
atmosphere, transporting it to a secure location, and isolating it from 
the atmosphere, for example by storing it in a geological formation. 
Irrespective of climate change, over $20 trillion is expected to be 
invested in upgrading global energy infrastructure from now until 2030. 
The additional cost for altering these investments in order to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions would range from negligible to an increase of 
five to 10 percent. 
This structure in France across the Rance River near its mouth at the Gulf 
of Malmo houses the world's largest tidal power plant, using tide 
variations of up to 13 meters. 
Governments can play a major role in motivating the private sector to 
invest in innovative technologies by providing companies with "incentives 
that are clear, predictable, long term and robust," the IPCC said. 
Government policies can be counterproductive, the report states. Direct 
and indirect subsidies for fossil fuel use and agriculture remain common 
practice, although those for coal have declined over the past decade in 
many OECD and in some developing countries. In addition, government 
funding for many energy research programs declined after the 1970s oil 
shocks and have remained at these lower levels. 
There are many ways that public policy can promote the development, 
deployment and diffusion of new technologies. 
The IPCC finds that governments are successfully using a wide range of 
policies and measures that address climate change, including regulations 
and standards, taxes and charges, tradable permits, voluntary agreements, 
subsidies, financial incentives, research and development programs, and 
information instruments. 
"The most effective policy mix will vary from country to country," the 
experts said. "If integrated with other government policies, climate 
change policies can contribute to sustainable development practices in 
both developed and developing countries." 
China's coal-fired Shentou-2 power plant in Shanxi. China has abundant 
reserves of coal. 
For their policies to be effective, however, governments would need to pay 
special attention to identifying and removing barriers to innovation. 
These can include market prices that do not incorporate externalities such 
as pollution, misplaced incentives, vested interests, lack of effective 
regulatory agencies and imperfect information. 
Because no one sector or technology can address the entire mitigation 
challenge, the best approach is to adopt a diversified portfolio of 
policies and to address all major sectors. 
Some of the cheapest options for reducing emissions involve electricity 
savings in buildings, fuel savings in vehicles and increased soil carbon 
content in agriculture. 
Because energy supply is the largest contributor to emissions, policies to 
promote a shift to less carbon-intensive energy sources are particularly 
effective. 
Many economic models report the costs of reducing emissions in terms of 
losses in the Gross Domestic Product, GDP. 
For example, the IPCC says, by the year 2030 the global average 
macro-economic cost of ensuring that greenhouse gas levels eventually 
stabilize in the range of 445 to 710 parts per million is estimated at 
from less than three percent to a gain of 0.6 percent. 
"This translates into an annual reduction in the GDP growth rate of less 
than 0.12 percent to less than 0.06 percent. This small loss should be 
compared to projections that the global economy will likely expand 
dramatically over the next several decades," the report states. 
The Independence coal-fired power plant in Arkansas is jointly owned by a 
group of nine municipal, coop, investor-owned, and deregulated power 
companies. 
A carbon price reflecting the true cost of greenhouse gas emissions will 
provide signals to individual firms and households to cut emissions and 
stimulate the research and development of low-carbon technologies, the 
IPCC report concludes. 
Emissions trading, or cap-and-trade, systems have been a subject of 
particular interest to researchers and policymakers alike. 
The volume of allowed emissions – the "cap" – determines the carbon price 
and the environmental effectiveness of this instrument, while the 
distribution of trade allowances or permits can affect its cost 
effectiveness and competitiveness. 
Uncertainty about the actual price of carbon makes it difficult to 
estimate the total cost of meeting emission reduction targets in this 
manner. The reverse holds true for carbon taxes - the costs are clearer 
but the reductions less so. Carbon prices can also be created by 
regulations, taxes and charges. 
While a positive carbon price would by itself create signals for producers 
and consumers to invest in lower carbon products, technologies and 
processes, additional incentives related to direct government funding and 
regulations are also important. 
Cap-and-trade systems, then, May 2007 - : Mitigation of Climate Change, Summary for 
Policymakers" is online at: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM040507.pdf   
       

       
      

---