I think everybody - no matter what walk of life or profession - should try to read the summaries for policy makers of the reports issues by the world’s scientific authority on climate change - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). IPCC reports are based on peer reviewed and published scientific and technical literature. No matter what people do, where they live, what political beliefs they have - one day they will be affected by climate change in their professional and personal life. However, for anybody who is really too busy to do so, I am providing a "summary of the summary". This is the modified and shortened version of an article I've published on a business publication.
A milestone in climate science?
A new report issued earlier this month by the IPCC said the scientific community is at least 90% certain humans are responsible for the problem. The Panel also made fresh predictions and clarified many uncertainties. The key issue now is whether a crucial temperature threshold risks being breached – and what to do about it.
This report follows the Third Assessment Report (TAR), issued in 2001. The IPCC Working Group 1 report- Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis - is part of the Fourth Assessment Report. It assesses the latest scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change.
Based on recent observations and measurements, scientists now say humans are responsible for climate change with at least 90% certainty – higher than in the TAR, which placed it at 66%. Scientists have also improved their ability to predict future climate change. They adjusted predictions for temperature rises over this century and said the rate of warming has recently increased. The 11 warmest years on record have all occurred in the past 12 years. The second half of the 20th century was the warmest period in the northern hemisphere for at least 1,300 years.
Confidence in regional climate change projections has also improved, thanks to new models and computer technology. Scientists have now clarified a number of issues which had been left partly unresolved in the TAR. For example, both volcanic eruptions and man-made aerosols have had a relative cooling effect, offsetting some of the warming that would have otherwise been observed.
There are now fewer uncertainties on so-called feedbacks – effects of climate change which can accelerate or decelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists clarified that increased temperatures will cause a decay of organic matter rather than speeding plant growth. Some had hoped increased plant growth would slow down climate change. Some economists had argued this might be a positive impact of climate change, which could potentially increase agricultural yields in parts of the world. However, scientists now say plants and soils will absorb less CO2 as the world warms. It is now thought that this may accelerate the rate of warming because a larger fraction of the CO2 emitted will remain in the atmosphere, and the magnitude of climate change caused by a given level of emissions will be larger than previously thought.
In reaction to the report, the European Commission said that without more action to limit greenhouse gas emissions, the global average temperature is likely to rise by a further 1.8-4.0°C this century, after increasing by over 0.7°C in the past 100 years. “Even the low end of this range would take the temperature rise since pre-industrial times to above 2°C, the level at which there could be irreversible and possibly catastrophic consequences,” the Commission said in a statement.
European Union (EU) climate change policy is based on a target agreed by member countries to keep global temperature increases below a 2°C rise compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Many scientists consider this limit to be crucial for avoiding the most catastrophic and irreversible climate change impacts.
The executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Achim Steiner told a press conferencel. “It is critical that we look at the report not only as a milestone but truly as a moment where the focus shifts from whether climate change is linked to human activities – to what on earth are we going to do about it,” he said.
“Anyone who would continue to risk inaction on the basis of the evidence presented here will one day in the history books be considered irresponsible.”
The IPCC was set up in 1988 by UNEP and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). It published previous comprehensive reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001. The working group 1 report was produced by around 600 authors from 40 countries. Over 620 expert and government reviewers also participated. Representatives from 113 governments reviewed and revised the summary line-by-line during the course of a week-long meeting in Paris, before adopting it and accepting the underlying report. The IPCC will issue the two other reports later this year.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Stern explains climate change "discount rate" dilemmas on the FT
The FT interviewed last week Sir Nicholas Stern, the author of the Stern Review, which the UK Treasury issued in 2006 and which had a major impact around the world. This article is very clear and explains very clearly why his critics are wrong. Interestingly, the reason has nothing to do with economics, but rather with ethics.
These critics said the Stern Review chose a "discount rate" that was too low. The discount rate is used to translate the probable future costs and benefits of climate change into a value for today. This, they say, makes action look more urgent than it is.
In the interview with the FT, Sir Nicholas said that a higher discount rate, such as used in some other economic models, made little sense in this case because it placed too low a value on the lives of future generations.
What he said:
"We made it very clear in the review that a pure time discount rate is going to influence whether you put a lot of money into climate change or not. A pure time discount rate of 1 per cent essentially takes out, if you look forward a hundred years, two-thirds of the benefit, irrespective of the wealth of future generations. So you are telling a grandchild who is 60 years younger than you: 'You are only worth half'.
"If you want to argue for a very high pure time discount, then give me a reason. I haven't heard a good one. And this is an ethical discussion we should have."
"For me the most persuasive argument is to describe those risks [of climate change] in some detail, look at the costs in different parts of the world, and then present yourself and decision-makers with the question: 'Would you be prepared to pay this amount to take those kinds of risks away?' And you don't need to do detailed aggregation to come to grips with that -question."
These critics said the Stern Review chose a "discount rate" that was too low. The discount rate is used to translate the probable future costs and benefits of climate change into a value for today. This, they say, makes action look more urgent than it is.
In the interview with the FT, Sir Nicholas said that a higher discount rate, such as used in some other economic models, made little sense in this case because it placed too low a value on the lives of future generations.
What he said:
"We made it very clear in the review that a pure time discount rate is going to influence whether you put a lot of money into climate change or not. A pure time discount rate of 1 per cent essentially takes out, if you look forward a hundred years, two-thirds of the benefit, irrespective of the wealth of future generations. So you are telling a grandchild who is 60 years younger than you: 'You are only worth half'.
"If you want to argue for a very high pure time discount, then give me a reason. I haven't heard a good one. And this is an ethical discussion we should have."
"For me the most persuasive argument is to describe those risks [of climate change] in some detail, look at the costs in different parts of the world, and then present yourself and decision-makers with the question: 'Would you be prepared to pay this amount to take those kinds of risks away?' And you don't need to do detailed aggregation to come to grips with that -question."
Monday, January 15, 2007
Exxon & U.S. in possible U-turns on climate, and more European news
The past few days have been very eventful.... Exxon Mobil has started "denying its climate change denial" arguing that its position on climate has been "misunderstood".
The company claims it has stopped funding climate change denial lobbies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which have been extremely active over many years in generating misleading information on climate science in the US and around the world. However, it remains to be seen whether it has really stopped funding this group, and whether the company will do the same with other smaller denial lobby groups it has been financing. However, the fact they are now willing to start discussing climate change policy options is a major step forward in this debate.
The UK's Observer reported on Sunday that the US is on the verge of a U-turn on climate change policy (this would be a logical step, given the US position against any regulation of greenhouse gases has been largely determined by the position of the strongest industry lobbies such as ExxonMobil). However, this is being denied by the US government, according to the New York Times.
As anticipated in the earlier post, the EU has also announced its new energy measures and a proposal for a long term climate target, which has received a lot of media coverage and which I have briefly outlined in another post on Europe, Planet Earth.
Another announcement that got slightly less attention was that in two weeks (24 January) the EU Commission will put forward proposals for binding legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions of new cars sold in the 27-nation trading bloc to an industry average of 120 grams per kilometre in 2012.
Currently car makers are subject to a voluntary agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to an industry average of 140 g/km by 2008, but they are set to miss that target. Asian manufacturers have until 2009 to meet the voluntary target, Reuters reported. The car industry is opposed to mandatory legislation, arguing that that voluntary agreements are better than mandatory ones (except that they are missing the current voluntary target largely because they chose to produce bigger and heavier cars and SUVs, which is why the Commission is now considering making the target mandatory).
The company claims it has stopped funding climate change denial lobbies such as the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which have been extremely active over many years in generating misleading information on climate science in the US and around the world. However, it remains to be seen whether it has really stopped funding this group, and whether the company will do the same with other smaller denial lobby groups it has been financing. However, the fact they are now willing to start discussing climate change policy options is a major step forward in this debate.
The UK's Observer reported on Sunday that the US is on the verge of a U-turn on climate change policy (this would be a logical step, given the US position against any regulation of greenhouse gases has been largely determined by the position of the strongest industry lobbies such as ExxonMobil). However, this is being denied by the US government, according to the New York Times.
As anticipated in the earlier post, the EU has also announced its new energy measures and a proposal for a long term climate target, which has received a lot of media coverage and which I have briefly outlined in another post on Europe, Planet Earth.
Another announcement that got slightly less attention was that in two weeks (24 January) the EU Commission will put forward proposals for binding legislation to reduce carbon dioxide emissions of new cars sold in the 27-nation trading bloc to an industry average of 120 grams per kilometre in 2012.
Currently car makers are subject to a voluntary agreement to reduce CO2 emissions to an industry average of 140 g/km by 2008, but they are set to miss that target. Asian manufacturers have until 2009 to meet the voluntary target, Reuters reported. The car industry is opposed to mandatory legislation, arguing that that voluntary agreements are better than mandatory ones (except that they are missing the current voluntary target largely because they chose to produce bigger and heavier cars and SUVs, which is why the Commission is now considering making the target mandatory).
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
European Commission to issue energy policy reccomendations Wednesday
This post also appears on another blog, Europe Planet Earth , which I co-write.
European Union (EU) commissioners are reportedly struggling to reach a final agreement on the detail of the forthcoming package of policies on EU energy, to be published Wednesday. The package will include proposals on issues such as coal, carbon capture and storage, renewables, and long term climate change targets.
A preliminary analysis of the leaked documents, most of which I've seen, indicates that some of the documents will be heavily drawing on the UK government’s Stern Review report issued in 2006, which warned of massive economic and social damages if the world failed to tackle climate change.
In an apparent contradiction, though, there appears to be considerable debate on whether and how renewables should continue to grow. There has been much debate on whether this target should be expressed solely as a general energy target, or whether there should also be targets for electricity, heating and cooling, and transport. The current system includes targets for electricity and transport, and discussions were underway to set targets for heating and cooling. The renewable energy industry and environmental groups have been extremely alarmed about these attempts to change a system that is working well. The EU Parliament voted in December to keep and strenghen these sectoral targets.
The Commission will also issue league tables assessing how member countries are doing in meeting their existing renewable targets. Eight countries well on track on their renewables target, and some will exceed it. The UK is among the countries that are not on track and which may need to change their policies, the draft says.
The draft proposals also say global emissions should be halved by 2050 compared with levels in 1990 and that the EU should show world leadership on the issue. The documents mention the need for long term targets beyond 2012, as required by the Kyoto Protocol. There is considerable debate on how high this target should be, and we can expect a big battle later on how to achieve this target and what it includes.
Other issues covered in the draft proposals include:
-measures to promote so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology to store Carbon Dioxide underground, with the possibility of ten demonstration CCS plants by 2015 and a requirement for all new coal plants capture ready.
-the possibility that in the future the EU might put in place measures to tackle shipping emissions.
-the EU Commission modeling assumes that nuclear power will grow. However, nuclear power in Europe has stalled for decades and it is hard to imagine how this trend will be reversed. It is possible, although not certain, that there will no specific proposals leaving Member States to decide on this (also, most EU member states do not have plans to expand nuclear power and many do not have any nuclear capacity at all).
-proposals to liberalise energy markets further. According to a Reuters story Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes and Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson had pushed hardest for liberalisation of the sector while Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen and Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot, who are German and French respectively, opposed radical changes.
-measures to improve management of oil and gas stocks and better interconnectivity of power grids among EU countries. There are hopes this would potentially give the bloc one voice in dealing with third countries.
-proposal for a a major international agreement on saving energy with the aim of signing it during the Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008, as reported by Reuters.
The energy ministers of all 27 Member States will meet on 15 February to discuss the package, and environment ministers will meet five days later. On 8 and 9 March, all heads of state will meet to make final decisions on it.
European Union (EU) commissioners are reportedly struggling to reach a final agreement on the detail of the forthcoming package of policies on EU energy, to be published Wednesday. The package will include proposals on issues such as coal, carbon capture and storage, renewables, and long term climate change targets.
A preliminary analysis of the leaked documents, most of which I've seen, indicates that some of the documents will be heavily drawing on the UK government’s Stern Review report issued in 2006, which warned of massive economic and social damages if the world failed to tackle climate change.
In an apparent contradiction, though, there appears to be considerable debate on whether and how renewables should continue to grow. There has been much debate on whether this target should be expressed solely as a general energy target, or whether there should also be targets for electricity, heating and cooling, and transport. The current system includes targets for electricity and transport, and discussions were underway to set targets for heating and cooling. The renewable energy industry and environmental groups have been extremely alarmed about these attempts to change a system that is working well. The EU Parliament voted in December to keep and strenghen these sectoral targets.
The Commission will also issue league tables assessing how member countries are doing in meeting their existing renewable targets. Eight countries well on track on their renewables target, and some will exceed it. The UK is among the countries that are not on track and which may need to change their policies, the draft says.
The draft proposals also say global emissions should be halved by 2050 compared with levels in 1990 and that the EU should show world leadership on the issue. The documents mention the need for long term targets beyond 2012, as required by the Kyoto Protocol. There is considerable debate on how high this target should be, and we can expect a big battle later on how to achieve this target and what it includes.
Other issues covered in the draft proposals include:
-measures to promote so-called carbon capture and storage (CCS), a technology to store Carbon Dioxide underground, with the possibility of ten demonstration CCS plants by 2015 and a requirement for all new coal plants capture ready.
-the possibility that in the future the EU might put in place measures to tackle shipping emissions.
-the EU Commission modeling assumes that nuclear power will grow. However, nuclear power in Europe has stalled for decades and it is hard to imagine how this trend will be reversed. It is possible, although not certain, that there will no specific proposals leaving Member States to decide on this (also, most EU member states do not have plans to expand nuclear power and many do not have any nuclear capacity at all).
-proposals to liberalise energy markets further. According to a Reuters story Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes and Trade Commissioner Peter Mandelson had pushed hardest for liberalisation of the sector while Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen and Transport Commissioner Jacques Barrot, who are German and French respectively, opposed radical changes.
-measures to improve management of oil and gas stocks and better interconnectivity of power grids among EU countries. There are hopes this would potentially give the bloc one voice in dealing with third countries.
-proposal for a a major international agreement on saving energy with the aim of signing it during the Olympic Games in Beijing in 2008, as reported by Reuters.
The energy ministers of all 27 Member States will meet on 15 February to discuss the package, and environment ministers will meet five days later. On 8 and 9 March, all heads of state will meet to make final decisions on it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
