Climate change is a global challenge and requires a global solution. Through analysis and dialogue, the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions is working with governments and stakeholders to identify practical and effective options for the post-2012 international climate framework. Read more
Press Release: International Climate Change Conference Draws Deputy Prime Minister and Other High-Level Speakers
For Immediate Release
March 30, 2000
International Climate Change Conference Draws Deputy Prime Minister and Other High-Level Speakers
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and The Royal Institute of International Affairs will co-host an international conference on Innovative Policy Solutions to Global Climate Change. Government officials, business executives, and individuals from the non-governmental and academic communities will gather in Washington D.C. on April 25 and 26 to discuss progressive yet pragmatic solutions to climate change being undertaken in industrialized countries.
The conference will feature:
- John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister, United Kingdom;
- Jan Pronk, Minister for Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, The Netherlands;
- Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Australia;
- Rodney Chase, Deputy Group Chief Executive, BP Amoco; and
- Theodore Roosevelt, IV, Managing Director, Lehman Brothers, Inc.
Panel topics will include common policy approaches (taxes, trading and negotiated agreements), crosscutting issues such as competitiveness and trade, energy and transportation sector policies, and state and local level programs.
The Pew Center will also co-sponsor with the Shell Foundation Sustainable Energy Programme a roundtable discussion on Developing Country Perspectives to climate change. Bakary Kante of the United Nations Environment Programme has been invited to chair the discussion, which will feature Luiz Gylvan Meira, Espen Ronneberg and other distinguished individuals from various developing countries. There is no fee to register for the Roundtable.
To register, contact Pilliod Meeting Planning at +1 (202) 544-7900.
Press Release: International Conference to Examine Innovative Policy Solutions to Global Climate Change
For Immediate Release:
February 10, 2000
Contact: Kelly Sullivan, 202-289-5900
Katie Mandes, 703-516-4146
International Conference to Examine Innovative Policy Solutions to Global Climate Change
Environmental Officials and Business Executives from Around the World to Gather in Washington, D.C. to Discuss their Climate Change Mitigation Policies
WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Pew Center on Global Climate Change and the Chatham House/Royal Institute of International Affairs will host an international conference to discuss what industrialized country governments and the private sector are doing to address the serious issue of global climate change.
The conference will be held April 25 and 26 at the Willard Inter-Continental Washington Hotel and will feature innovative policy measures currently being implemented to address global climate change. High-level government officials and senior business executives will present their views and help launch thoughtful and provocative discussion among the conference panelists and the audience. Speakers will include:
- John Prescott, Deputy Prime Minister, United Kingdom;
- Jan Pronk, Minister for Housing, Spatial Planning and the
Environment, The Netherlands;
- Robert Hill, Minister for the Environment and Heritage,
- Rodney Chase, Deputy Group Chief Executive, BP Amoco.
T opics of discussion during the 1 1/2 - day conference will include common policy approaches (taxes, trading and negotiated agreements), cross-cutting issues such as competitiveness and trade harmonization, energy and transportation sector policies, and state and local level programs.
Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change and former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, will deliver the conference's opening and closing remarks.
The Pew Center was established in May 1998 by the Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the nation's largest philanthropies and an influential voice in efforts to improve the quality of America's environment. The Pew Center supports businesses in developing marketplace solutions to reduce greenhouse gases, produces analytical reports on the science, economics and policies related to climate change, launches public education efforts, and promotes better understanding of market mechanisms globally.
The Pew Center includes the Business Environmental Leadership Council, which is composed of 21 major, largely Fortune 500 corporations all working with the Pew Center to address issues related to climate change. The companies do not contribute financially to the Pew Center - it is solely supported by contributions from charitable foundations.
For more information on the Innovative Policy Solutions To Global Climate Change Conference, visit the Pew Center web site at www.c2es.org.
Address by Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Whenever I appear before an international group such as this, with people from different countries who speak different languages, I am reminded of a joke I first heard long ago. We all know that if you can speak three languages, you're trilingual. And if you can speak two languages, you're bilingual. But what are you if you can speak only one language? Why, you're American, of course.
Today, I would like to speak to you as an American, but as an American who has been in close contact with others around the world on the topic of global climate change. And I would like to base my remarks on an American expression. That expression is "reality check." It means taking a moment to reflect on what is really happening in the world. And it means being truthful with ourselves and others about what we are capable of achieving. A reality check is an affirmation of yet another American expression-an expression that our mothers repeated again and again while we were young. "Honesty is the best policy," they would tell us. And, of course, there was no doubt that they were right. They were our mothers, after all.
And the reality is that honesty is the best policy when we are addressing the issue of global climate change. It was honesty about the risks of a changing climate that brought 150 nations together to negotiate a framework for reducing greenhouse gas emissions around the world. In the same way, today we all need to be honest about what we can achieve and when-and about how best to move forward so that future generations don't look back and wonder why we couldn't work together to meet this global challenge.
In the time that I have with you tonight, I want to talk about some of the issues that the United States, Germany and other nations need to be more honest about in order to achieve real progress in addressing the challenge of climate change. I also would like to offer a realistic view of what is happening on this issue in the United States-in both the public and private sectors, as well as among the media and the general public. And I will close with some recommendations about how to move the global dialogue on this issue forward and achieve real progress.
Getting Real: What We Can Achieve
So let us begin with a few reality checks. From my perspective, there are three issues that our governments need to be more honest about as the world addresses the challenge of climate change in the months and years ahead. The first is the timeframe in which the world can achieve entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. The German government-which, to its infinite credit, has been out front on this issue for years-is urging entry into force in 2002. Although this is surely an admirable goal, the honest truth is that it is unlikely to happen.
While it is certainly true that many European countries are anxious and willing to ratify the Protocol in the near term, some of them-such as the Netherlands-have said that the United States must ratify at the same time. Ratification by non-European countries such as Japan, Canada and Australia also is unlikely without U.S. action on this issue. And here is the reality check: Given the current mood and political situation in Washington, U.S. ratification of the Kyoto Protocol-in the near term at least-is about as likely as hell freezing over. And if hell did freeze over, I am certain that many in the U.S. Congress would make every effort to attribute it to nothing more than normal climatic variations.
Another reason why entry into force in 2002 is unlikely is the sheer volume of work that remains to be done. We should not diminish the complexity or the importance of establishing environmentally effective, private sector-friendly rules for the Kyoto mechanisms; or of determining how to handle the sequestration of carbon in trees or soils; or of establishing a compliance regime that is both meaningful and fair. It is absolutely essential that these issues be addressed in an honest and an effective way. The system we create is likely to be in place for many, many years. Completing all of these jobs this year to give countries the time that would be required for entry into force in 2002 is both unrealistic and unlikely.
The second thing that our governments need to be realistic and honest about is the ability to meet the targets in the Kyoto Protocol if entry into force comes later in this decade. Reality check number two, therefore, is this: For the United States at least, meeting the targets in the existing timeframe will be impossible.
Even if we saw a profound shift in Washington on this issue in the next one or two years, the United States will not be able to achieve the Kyoto targets as they are currently drawn for the simple reason that administrative process in our county can be enormously time-consuming. For the Kyoto Protocol to become U.S. law, the Senate would have to grant its advice and consent; both Houses of Congress would have to pass implementing legislation that would then have to be signed by the President; and a designated Agency would have to draft rules and regulations that would have to go through formal notice and comment procedures before they could be finalized and then implemented.
Given that such legislation and regulation would clearly result in regional and sectoral economic impacts, the odds of all this activity occurring by 2008 are very small indeed.
Lest you think that my doubts are reserved to my own country, I firmly believe that the United States will not be alone in its inability to move fast enough to meet the Kyoto targets. Surely, there is much effort on this issue in Europe and elsewhere, but even in the countries that have fully embraced the importance of reducing emissions, it is not a given that the targets can be met, particularly with current programs. And I would venture to say that the likelihood that these targets will be met will decrease as people and governments become convinced that the United States will not be able to meet its targets.
This brings up the third issue that we all must be realistic and honest about, which is the serious engagement of the developing world. The reality, whether we like it or not, is that most developing countries are unlikely to agree to binding emission reduction targets that would take effect in this decade. This is based in part on their fear that emission limitations would place unacceptable constraints on their economic development. It is also based on their view that, even among environmental issues, climate change is less of a priority than such things as reducing local air and water pollution.
But the developing world's opposition to targets cannot be allowed to hide the fact there is movement on this issue among these countries. For example:
Privatization of the electricity sector is moving forward in India, where competition is expected to increase the use of natural gas and lower greenhouse gas emissions.
Korea is beginning to plan for opening up its power sector to competition, again with a projected increase in the use of natural gas.
And China, which has dramatically lowered its energy consumption per unit of output over the last decade, is on a path to continue making significant energy-saving improvements over the decade to come.
In these and other developing nations, investment decisions made in the power and transportation sectors in the coming years will have a significant impact on global greenhouse emissions for decades to come. And the reality is that many opportunities exist for lowering these countries' emissions from a business-as-usual trajectory. In other words, binding commitments for these countries may not be possible, but significant action to lower emissions from their expected path may very well be. Indeed, this is already happening in some countries.
So there they are-three issues that the governments of the United States, Germany and other nations need to get real about in order to push this discussion forward. The timeframe for entry into force. Whether the existing Kyoto targets can be met. And the serious engagement of the developing world. If we follow our mothers' advice and are honest with one another about these issues, I believe we will go a long way to ushering in the next phase in the global effort to meet the challenge of climate change-a phase that will move us from rhetoric to reality and from discussion to action.
The View from the U.S.
Just as it is important to understand what is truly happening on this issue in developing countries, I believe it is also critical that everyone clearly understand the current situation in the United States. While there is still bickering within and outside the U.S. government about: 1) whether climate change is even real; and 2) what the United States should do about it and when, the reality is that the American news media is devoting more attention than ever before to the topic of climate change, the American people accept that it is something that demands our government's attention, and American businesses are moving ahead on their own in the absence of government action.
Let me talk briefly about the news media first, because I believe this is a very important development. Based in part on the growing consensus among scientists that global climate change is real-and in part as well on the fact that 1997, 1998 and 1999 were the three hottest years on record-the U.S. news media has devoted increasing attention to this issue over the last year or two.
In a television news report just last month, CBS correspondent Jim Axelrod reviewed some of the likely effects of global climate change-including rising sea levels and shifts in water resources. He also made note of a likely increase in global temperatures that he suggested, rightly or wrongly, was already evident in the early January hot spell that hit much of the country and had residents of Washington, DC, jogging in shorts and t-shirts. The correspondent concluded his report with this observation:
"Such thoughts used to be called "doom and gloom" by many. Now, however, a growing number of scientists are hearing the critics, looking at the data, and saying it's a forecast that can't be ignored."
The U.S. television networks are not alone in drawing fresh attention to the risks of global climate change. The Washington Post, in a January editorial entitled "Warming to Reality," issued its own warning that-quote-"reckless inaction in the face of global warming is the costliest of all options." And, in the American news media's turn-of-the-century rush to identify the critical issues of the new millennium, global climate change was always front and center.
No doubt in response to the news media's increasing attention to this issue, the American public is more willing than ever to accept that global climate change poses a real threat and that action is needed to avert a crisis.
A September 1998 survey conducted for the World Wildlife Fund revealed that nearly 60 percent of Americans believe global warming is happening now, and another 26 percent believe it will happen in the future. According to the survey, fully three-quarters of Americans want the United States to take action to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide as a way to address the problem.
In an effort to determine whether these opinions carry over into the realm of national decisionmakers and opinion leaders who influence U.S. policy, the Pew Center did its own survey in March 1999. We conducted nearly 450 interviews with staff members in Congress, industry association leaders, corporate decisionmakers in the affected industries, media representatives, economists, scientists and policy experts across the country-in short, a fairly comprehensive sample of the wide assortment of quote-unquote "elites" who are in a position to influence U.S. action-or inaction-on this topic.
What did we find? Well, to our surprise, we found that these elites are even more likely than the general public to believe that global warming is happening now. We also found broad support among elites for U.S. action to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Even the Kyoto Protocol-the target of often-harsh criticism from many in Congress--attracted strong bipartisan support. More than one-third said the agreement actually would help our economy and create new jobs because we would develop new technologies that would help reduce our greenhouse emissions.
Business Accepts the Challenge
The belief that progress on this issue can be compatible with sustained economic growth in the United States-and may even contribute to that growth-is one reason there is increasing acceptance among U.S. businesses of the need for strong action to reduce emissions.
In late 1999, as many of you may know, the Ford Motor Company announced it was resigning from a coalition of oil companies, auto makers, electric utilities and others who stubbornly argue that we still don't have enough evidence to know whether or not global warming is real-and that we shouldn't do anything serious about it until more is known. Word of Ford's decision was followed closely by the news that Daimler Chrysler also would be leaving the group known as the Global Climate Coalition. The companies' moves were seen as an indication of the growing acceptance of the reality and the urgency of this issue-even in the nation's corporate boardrooms-and as yet another sign of a growing consensus for rational action to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
But the fact is that many American businesses have long been way ahead of the U.S. government-and even ahead of the media and the general public-in their willingness to acknowledge and work on the issue of global climate change. This progressive stance became obvious when a large group of mostly Fortune 500 companies became affiliated with my organization, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, to help forge a consensus response to the problem.
The Pew Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council now includes 21 companies with combined annual revenues of more than $550 billion. Working together, these companies developed a joint statement asserting that in the new millennium-quote-"one of our most important challenges at home and abroad will be addressing global climate change as we work to sustain a growing global economy."
"One of our most important challenges." That is an enormously powerful statement coming from these companies, which include such household names as American Electric Power, Boeing, BP Amoco, Lockheed Martin, Shell International, Toyota, Enron, United Technologies and Whirlpool. And, in making this statement, these companies announced publicly that they:
1) Accepted that there was enough known about the science of global climate change to warrant action;
2) Would establish their own emission reduction targets--and meet them;
3) Viewed the Kyoto Treaty as a first although incomplete step to addressing the issue internationally; and
4) Believed that addressing climate change can be compatible with sustained economic growth in the United States.
Some of the member companies of our Business Environmental Leadership Council already have announced their emission reduction targets, all of which are at least as stringent as those in the Kyoto Protocol. One large company affiliated with the Pew Center, DuPont, has established a goal of reducing emissions to 65-percent below 1990 levels by 2010, with an additional commitment of obtaining 10 percent of its energy needs from renewable sources. This is a stunning target, far in excess of the 7-percent reduction required for the United States as a whole in the Kyoto Protocol.
The commitment of DuPont and these other companies is an important reminder that there are many steps industry can and should be taking now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, however, the fact that these forward-thinking companies are acting of their own volition and without a clear sense that their actions will be rewarded in the marketplace is a reminder of something else. And that something else is the lack of leadership the U.S. government has taken on this issue, particularly at home, where a government framework for reducing U.S. emissions is sorely needed.
The U.S. Government: A Lack of Leadership
The U.S. government's lack of leadership is especially unfortunate because the United States is the largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world--responsible for 25 percent of global emissions in a nation that comprises less than 5 percent of the global population. If leadership on this issue should come from anywhere, it should come from the United States.
But leadership is not coming from the United States. It is rare both in Washington and on the presidential campaign trail for the discussion of this issue to get past the question of whether to support the Kyoto Protocol or whether to declare it dead. What the discussion has not touched on-and should-is the further development and implementation of programs that would change the expected trajectory of our nation's greenhouse gas emissions. The U.S. Congress, in particular, appears determined to let absolutely nothing happen that would even remotely suggest that the United States is concerned about this issue. Virtually every budget item that deals with emission reductions is viewed by many in Congress as a quote-unquote "backdoor" attempt to implement the Kyoto Protocol and is therefore voted down or pushed aside.
What, you may ask, is driving the U.S. government's reluctance to deal with this issue in a serious way? I would like to suggest that there are two issues at the heart of the debate. And, while these issues are significant, my belief is that they have not been framed in ways that are honest or open to solution. The first issue relates to the economic costs of action to reduce emissions; the second centers on developing country participation. In my view, these are the chief stumbling blocks to serious action on this issue in the United States. Only by confronting them head-on will we be able to mount an effective response to the challenge of global climate change-both in the United States and throughout the world.
So let me begin with the economics. There is a popular joke in the United States that says economists have predicted nine of the last five U.S. recessions. And it is hard to argue with the premise of the joke when one looks at the varying predictions that have been made about the potential impacts of achieving the Kyoto targets on the U.S. economy. Interest groups across the ideological spectrum have produced markedly different results from economic models that are often not that different in their structure but that use very different assumptions to achieve the results these groups want to achieve. And the only result that is truly achieved is confusion.
How do we get beyond this confusion? We get beyond it by admitting that the models we are using-even when stripped of assumptions that bear no resemblance to reality-are not infallible. The complexity and time frame of the climate change problem stretches the capabilities of even the most sophisticated economic models on the benefits side. And the ability of models to quantify the value of reducing the risks of climate change is still in its infancy. On the cost side, models are still confronted with a series of challenges, the most important of which is anticipating the pace and direction of technological progress. As far as I know, no economic model would have predicted the information technology or communications revolutions that we are now witnessing. Nor have any models anticipated the decoupling of economic growth and carbon emissions that has occurred in the United States in recent years.
I am not mentioning these things to suggest there will be no costs to the United States should it act decisively to reduce emissions. There is almost always a cost associated with major changes to the economy. What I would like to suggest is that a fixation with 10 or 20-year-out predictions of increases or decreases in the U.S. GDP really misses the mark. To argue, as some have done, that the costs will be catastrophic and that entire industrial sectors will immediately be wiped out is as dishonest as the assertion that the economy can effortlessly achieve major emission reductions at no cost. What the United States should be concerned about are the impacts that are likely to occur in certain industries, certain labor categories, and certain regions of the country. The question is how these impacts can be minimized over time--and with careful transitional planning.
The second issue that has become a roadblock to progress in the United States is that of developing country commitments. I call this the "fairness issue." Is it fair, people ask, for the United States to have to abide by the Kyoto targets while competitors such as China, India and Mexico get a quote-unquote "free ride?" One fear is that American jobs will be lost to these and other countries because their production costs will be lower. But lost in the debate is the reality that fairness demands a decisive U.S. response for two reasons. First, because the United States is responsible, both historically and currently, for more emissions than anyone else. And second, because the United States has the ability to pay the costs of reducing our emissions.
Also lost in the debate about global climate change in the United States-and this may be even more important-is the question of what the problem actually is, and how it can most effectively be addressed. As I suggested earlier, emissions in developing countries will grow as these nations industrialize, and the infrastructure that will support this growth--for power generation and transportation, in particular--will set in place the global emissions trajectory for decades to come. So the real issue is not how to pressure these countries into accepting binding emission reduction targets in this decade. Rather, the issue should be how to influence the character of this infrastructure investment so that it becomes more climate friendly. We should look to our export credit agencies and to private investors for the tools to accomplish these objectives.
So what is the world to do? We have all these difficult issues on the table, and yet we all understand-or at least most of us do-that we need to start acting to address this global challenge as soon as possible. I already have laid out some of the steps I believe need to be taken in order for this discussion to move forward and in order for Germany, the United States and other nations to move from discussion to action. These include being honest about the Kyoto targets and timetables even while working to complete the Kyoto framework; devoting more attention to encouraging progress on this issue in the developing world; and fostering discussion in the United States and elsewhere of some of the fairness and economic issues that must be resolved in order to build support for strong and decisive action.
But what about the Kyoto Protocol itself? I would not be honest if I didn't tell you there are many voices in the United States that have proclaimed that Kyoto is dead-some of them with the same satisfaction as the characters in the American movie "The Wizard of Oz" who dance and sing to celebrate the demise of the wicked old witch. But I believe it is important for all of us to remember that while some of those who have said Kyoto is dead come from industries that would be negatively affected by any regime to control greenhouse gases, others have much less, if anything, at stake. At issue for these critics are the complexity of the Kyoto framework, and the stringency of its targets and timetables.
Of course, the reality about the fate of the Kyoto Protocol is that it is unlikely to be cast aside even if it does not deliver on its first set of emission reduction targets. But at the same time, we all must accept that Kyoto remains a work in progress.
This leads me to one final reality check: Making the Kyoto Protocol into an agreement that can deliver on the promise of reducing the risk of global climate change will, in all likelihood, take longer than from now until the meeting this November in The Hague. The delegates should do what they can at that meeting, but they cannot and should not expect that all of these issues will be resolved. And, just because it takes longer than everyone hoped does not mean the Kyoto framework is not valuable and ultimately viable. In fact, I believe that structuring the framework more definitively into one that has realistic timetables and targets and is environmentally effective, economically sound, and-yes-fair will go a long way to improving its chances of success, whether we have agreement this year, next year or the year after that.
In the meantime, I am not suggesting that the governments of the world stand around and wait for a better document on which to base their work on this issue. The reality is that the United States and other governments should be implementing substantive programs now that seriously respond to the overall Convention goal of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels that will prevent dangerous interference with the climate system. And it is heartening to see the initiatives that have been taken by Germany since the negotiation of the Kyoto Protocol.
A priority for the United States, I believe, should be to design a straightforward system that will recognize and give credit to corporations that want to take early action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Put very simply, these companies need to know that reducing their emissions now won't put them at a competitive disadvantage down the line.
In addition to addressing the early action issue, the United States must start planning seriously for how it will reduce greenhouse gas emissions over the long haul. I cannot state more emphatically that what is most important now is the trying. In the United States, in Germany, and throughout the world, we need to experiment with different approaches to reducing greenhouse gas emissions-for example, by testing both national and company-specific emissions-trading regimes, or by imposing carbon taxes. We need to establish clear procedures for inventorying and verifying emission reductions, something that many in the private sector are already working on. And we must begin to build the capabilities and the institutions we will need when a full-fledged international regime does come into effect.
These will not be easy or painless goals to achieve, but the reality is that we need to achieve them. There is no escaping our responsibility to address the challenge of global climate change in an effective and, of course, an honest way. We all have a higher authority to answer to on this issue. That's right, our mothers. And we all need to work together to make them proud.
Thank you very much.
For Immediate Release:
December 14, 1999
Contact: Kelly Sullivan/Laurie Casaday
Report Shows International Emissions Trading Can Reduce the Costs of Climate Change
Broader Participation in Trading Yields Greater Benefits
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A new report released today by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change highlights the importance of international emissions trading in reducing the costs of climate change. An international greenhouse gas emissions trading regime would significantly lower global mitigation costs, the report states.
The report, International Emissions Trading & Global Climate Change: Impacts on the Costs of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation, finds that compliance costs for parties limiting their greenhouse gas emissions can be lowered by providing greater flexibility in trading mechanisms, such as allowing trading across emissions sources, and allowing trades to occur over time.
"As policy-makers explore ways to meet the global challenge of climate change, emissions trading should be high on their agenda," said Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "Greenhouse gases released anywhere in the world can contribute to changes in global temperatures. International emissions trading capitalizes on this by allowing the lowest cost emissions reductions to occur first."
While broader participation in trading is likely to yield greater benefits, any amount of trading will lower the costs for those participating, the report states.
"If a climate policy regime is in place that allows emissions trading, all parties, with or without obligations, are better off trading than not," said Claussen, who noted that issues of program design and institutional structure must be addressed carefully to realize the full economic potential of trading regimes.
The report is the first in a series designed to explore how economic models address the climate change issue. It was researched and written by Jae Edmonds, Mike Scott, Joe Roop and Chris MacCracken of Battelle of Washington, D.C. for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
A number of global economic models have been used to access the effects of emissions trading. The models conclude that:
- Costs of controlling carbon emissions would be significantly lower if emissions trading is permitted than if each nation has to meet its emissions reduction responsibilities alone. The broader the trade possibilities, the lower the costs of control.
- All parties with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation obligations benefit from trade.
- Given a regime that allows trading, parties without obligations will be better off trading than not trading.
- Because the costs of fuels could be affected by emissions control and emissions trading, countries and regions may be affected whether or not they participate in emissions reductions and emissions trading.
- Gains from trade are sensitive to the difference between the base case and target emissions and to the difference in marginal (incremental) abatement costs between countries.
- The actual cost savings from trade in emissions are likely to be less than the theoretical savings shown in most analyses performed with integrated assessment models because these models do not include the various measurement, verification, trading and enforcement costs that would and should characterize any real trading system.
"International trade holds the potential of reducing costs of controlling world emissions of greenhouse gases because the nations of the world experience very different costs for achieving emissions reductions on their own," Claussen said.
A complete copy of the report is available on the Center's web site, www.c2es.org.
The Pew Center was established in May 1998 by the Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the nation's largest philanthropies and an influential voice in efforts to improve the quality of American's environment. The Pew Center is conducting studies, launching public education efforts, promoting climate change solutions globally and working with businesses to develop marketplace solutions to reduce greenhouse gases. The Pew Center is led by Eileen Claussen the former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs.
The Pew Center includes the Business Environmental Leadership Council, which is composed of 21 major, largely Fortune 500 corporations working with the Pew Center to address issues related to climate change. The companies do not contribute financially to the Pew Center, which is solely supported by contributions from charitable foundations.
International Emissions Trading & Global Climate Change: Impacts on the Cost of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
International Emissions Trading & Global Climate Change: Impacts on the Cost of Greenhouse Gas Mitigation
Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Jae Edmonds, Michael J. Scott, Joseph M. Roop, and Christopher N. MacCracken, Battelle, Washington, DC
Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Several factors influence the costs of greenhouse gas mitigation. This report illustrates the importance of one such factor—international emissions trading—in reducing the costs of carbon control. The authors find that an international greenhouse gas emissions trading regime will significantly lower global mitigation costs. Specifically, the report finds:
- The costs of controlling carbon emissions would be significantly lower if trade is permitted than if each country is required to meet its obligations alone.
- Providing greater flexibility in trading mechanisms—for example, allowing trading among various greenhouse gases and across emissions sources, and allowing trades to occur over time—lowers the costs.
- Emissions trading reduces the potential for "leakage" of jobs, industry, and emissions compared to a control case with no trading because changes in world fuel prices would be moderated through the availability of trading.
- While broader participation in trading is likely to yield greater benefits, any amount of trading will lower the costs for those participating. If a climate policy regime is in place that allows emissions trading, all parties—with or without obligations—are better off trading than not.
- Issues of program design and institutional structure must be addressed carefully to realize the full economic potential of trading regimes.
- By making transparent the core structure and assumptions of economic models, the Pew Center hopes to provide policy-makers and consumers of economic information with tools to better understand the important assumptions driving the models’ projections of costs.
This report is the first in a series designed to explore how economic models address the climate change issue. The first phase of this effort will make a direct and significant contribution to economic modeling in the following four areas: (1) review of existing models and identification of their key assumptions; (2) investigation of the models’ theoretical frameworks; (3) encouraging best practices in modeling specific aspects of the climate change issue; and (4) integrating innovative modeling practices into a state-of-the-art assessment of the costs of climate change and the policies used to address it.
The second phase of the Pew Center’s economics program will focus on how businesses react to climate change—and policies to ameliorate it—in the context of sound business strategy and practice. The Center is in a unique position to provide insight into the inner working of firms through the participation of our Business Environmental Leadership Council.
The Center and authors appreciate the valuable input of several reviewers of previous drafts of this paper, including Ev Ehrlich, Judi Greenwald, Eric Haites, Elizabeth Malone, and others.
One of the earliest and most robust findings of economics is that, where relative costs of performing an activity differ among individuals, business firms, or regions, there are almost always potential gains from trade. In today’s jargon, trade can always be win-win. Traditional approaches to addressing environmental problems have generally not taken advantage of this potential. Rather, command and control regulatory policy instruments have been the tools of choice. While these tools can be effective in reaching an environmental goal, they can also be expensive. Recently environmental policy-makers have begun to explore ways of obtaining more environmental benefits per dollar expended, and the use of emissions trading has been on the cutting edge of these efforts. Because climate change is an issue that requires a sustained policy commitment over the course of a century, attention to the cost of policy intervention is especially important. This paper explores the degree to which trade among parties to an international agreement can reduce the cost of greenhouse gas reductions.
International trade holds the potential of reducing costs of controlling world emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) because the nations of the world experience very different costs for achieving emissions reductions on their own. However, the potential gains from trade, like the costs of compliance themselves, may be very unevenly distributed across the world’s participants. While all of the parties to an agreement stand to gain collectively under trade in emissions rights as compared with "independent compliance" (i.e., each country meeting its obligations alone), non-participants in the agreement may either benefit or not depending on their own particular circumstances. The detailed rules for trading affect how effective trading could be, as well as the level of gains that would be captured in practice. Details of the trading rules will influence both the total gains from trade and distribution of such gains. Key issues include definitions of the emissions rights to be traded, the rules for crediting carbon sinks, and regulations governing participation in the trading framework. In addition, there are economic uncertainties, such as the behavior of countries that have significant market power in supplying emissions credits, and the transaction costs associated with trading and enforcement. These effects could significantly increase the costs of mitigation compared to the most favorable case and could reduce the amount and benefits of trading.
A number of global economic models have been used to estimate the effects of emissions trading. Empirical results derived from these models can be summarized as follows:
- Costs of controlling carbon emissions would be significantly lower if trade in carbon emissions allowances were permitted than if each nation had to meet its emissions reduction responsibilities alone. The broader the trade possibilities, the lower the costs of control.
- All parties with GHG emissions mitigation obligations benefit from trade. Both permit buyers and permit sellers will benefit.
- Parties without obligations may be better or worse off under a trading regime relative to a regime that does not allow trading. However, given a regime that allows trading among parties with obligations, parties without obligations will be better off trading (i.e., selling emissions reductions) than not trading.
- Because the costs of fuels could be affected by emissions control and emissions trading, countries and regions may be affected whether or not they participate in emissions reduction and in emissions trading. Parties without obligations may be either better off or worse off after obligations are established for others. For example, if emissions trading is prohibited, the prices paid to fossil fuel producers are reduced, and the energy-exporting countries are worse off relative to a no-control case. Emissions trading mitigates this effect. Results for other non-participating regions are more ambiguous.
- Gains from trade are sensitive to the difference between the base case and target emissions and to the difference in marginal (incremental) abatement costs among countries. For any limit to emissions, the higher the future level of emissions is expected to be without intervention, the more difficult and costly mitigation is expected to be. Although the gains from trade depend on the differences between countries’ marginal abatement costs, not their absolute level, the analysis in this paper shows that the gains from trade are larger for more ambitious emissions targets.
- The actual cost savings from trade in emissions are likely to be less than the theoretical savings shown in most analyses performed with integrated assessment models because these models do not include the various measurement, verification, trading, and enforcement costs that would characterize any real trading system. Programs must be carefully designed to assure that the potential gains from trade are realized.
Developing Countries & Global Climate Change: Electric Power Options in India
Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
P.R. Shukla, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
William Chandler, Battelle, Advanced International Studies Unit
Debyani Ghosh, Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad
Jeffrey Logan, Battelle, Advanced International Studies Unit
Eileen Claussen, Executive Director, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
The electric power sector in India is characterized by low per capita energy use, rapid growth in demand, heavy losses in transmission and distribution, and tariffs well below average costs. Coal dominates usage, which combined with hydropower represents 85 percent of generated power. The power sector is responsible for half of India's carbon dioxide emissions, which were 92 million tons in 1995. Even with the prospect of market and industrial reforms, the 'business-as-usual' path for India in 2015 increases both generating capacity and carbon dioxide emissions by around 150 percent over 1995 levels. But the scenarios modeled in this study show that growth in emissions can be reduced to only 60 percent greater than 1995 if progressive sustainable development policies are implemented.
What are the drivers that will influence future technology choices in India?
- The ability of India's power producers to fuel-switch and lower carbon dioxide emissions is heavily dependent on the availability and cost of alternative fuels (especially natural gas). In the scenario simulating stricter local environmental controls, this restriction steers decision-makers to sulfur control equipment and does not necessarily lead to reductions in coal use. On the other hand, striving to attain sustainable development goals can reduce costs and capacity needs, and achieve the most dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.
- Market reforms can lower costs by 11 percent and carbon emissions by 7 percent through a reduction in the need to build more power plants through increased supply efficiency and earlier availability of new technologies.
- More widespread adoption of cost-effective energy efficiency measures could also reduce carbon emissions by 23 percent and sulfur dioxide emissions by 60 percent, by reducing demand for power by around 15 percent.
Developing Countries and Global Climate Change: Electric Power Choices in India is the third in a series examining the electric power sectors in developing countries, including four other case studies of Korea, China, Brazil, and Argentina. The reports findings are based on a lifecycle cost analysis of several possible alternatives to current projections for expanding the power system.
The Pew Center was established in 1998 by the Pew Charitable Trusts to bring a new cooperative approach and critical scientific, economic, and technological expertise to the global climate change debate. The Pew Center believes that climate change is serious business and a better understanding of circumstances in individual countries helps achieve a serious response.
Electricity consumption in India has more than doubled in the last decade, outpacing economic growth. The power sector now consumes 40 percent of primary energy and 70 percent of coal use. This sector is the single largest consumer of capital, drawing over one-sixth of all Indian investments over the past decade. Despite these huge expenditures, electricity demand continues to outstrip power generating capacity, leaving a 12 percent electricity deficit and a 20 percent peak power shortage.
The government has assumed the predominant role in electricity supply in the post-independence era. State electricity boards (SEBs) and power corporations plan and govern power plants financed with state funds. SEBs in particular are wide open to political influence and tariff distortions. Operational inefficiencies grew in the absence of competition and financial discipline, undermining the power sectors financial health. By the early 1990s, the sector was overdue for sweeping reforms to enhance revenues and mobilize investment in the short run, and to change ownership and the regulatory structure in the long run. Reforms underway fall broadly into the categories of SEB corporatization, privatization of power corporations, unbundling (vertical divestiture), and regulatory restructuring.
Despite enhanced competition from other fuels, coal remains the mainstay of power generation in India. The present power technology mix relies on domestic coal to provide three-fifths of the countrys power; large hydroelectric dams provide about one-quarter. Gas-fired power has grown from almost nothing to one-twelfth of total generation in the last decade due to the reduced risk associated with lower capital requirements, shorter construction periods, diminished environmental impacts, and higher efficiencies. Nuclear power contributes less than 3 percent to total generation and renewables (other than large hydro) just over 1 percent. India has a significant program to support renewable power, exemplified by wind power capacity that rose from 41 megawatts in 1992 to 1,025 megawatts in 1999.
Power transmission and distribution has suffered from losses amounting to over one-fifth of generated electricity, more than double the level of most countries. An institutional restructuring process began in 1989 to consolidate various suppliers and distributors under an agency called "Powergrid." Faced with unreliable power supply, many industries have invested in on-site power generation that now accounts for 12 percent of total capacity.
The phenomenal rise in agricultural electricity consumption is due to greater irrigation demand by new crop varieties and the very low price of electricity provided to that sector. The average electricity tariff in India is 20 percent below the average cost of supply. The gap is mainly due to subsidized rates for agriculture. Industrial consumers pay higher costs and provide a cross-subsidy that was worth over US$5 billion in 1997, equal to almost half of power sector investments that year.
Concerns about the environmental impacts of power plant projects have grown in the past twenty years. The power sector contributes about half of Indias carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen oxide emissions. Hydroelectric projects also have generated social concerns. Dam construction has forced the relocation of many Indians, a problem the government has handled poorly. Managing environmental and social impacts has therefore drawn considerable attention in policy-making, project development, and operations.
Press Release: New Analysis Outlines Opportunities for Korea and India to Reduce Emissions and Maintain Economic Growth
For Immediate Release:
October 27, 1999
Contact: Lisa McNeilly(Bonn)/Kelly Sullivan(USA)
New Analysis Outlines Opportunities for Korea and India to Reduce Emissions and Maintain Economic Growth: Studies Presented at COP 5
BONN, GERMANY-— Two case studies presented today at COP 5 outline realistic opportunities for Korea and India to address the challenge of climate change. The studies commissioned by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change examine ways to reduce emissions without comprising economic growth.
The studies are the subject of a roundtable discussion today at COP 5. Talks here will depend on a clear understanding of actions taken by developing countries to address local environmental and economic concerns, and how these actions might impact greenhouse gas emissions.
Similar to other developing countries, power demand in both India and Korea is outpacing economic growth. Electricity consumption in India and Korea has more than doubled in the last decade, and both countries expect to at least double their power supply again over the next 15 years. The energy choices these countries make today will affect the local and global environment for years to come.
"This analysis shows that there are reasonable and realistic opportunities developing countries can and are taking today to begin responding to the challenge of climate change," said Eileen Claussen, President of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. "The recommendations offer a clear roadmap for progress, moving the debate from the theoretical to the practical."
The Korea Energy Economics Institute and the Advanced International Studies Unit at Battelle completed the case study on Korea's electric power choices. The Indian Institute of Management, Ahmedabad, also worked with Battelle to conduct the analysis on India's electric power choices.
The studies are part of a series that began with an overview report, Developing Countries and Climate Change: Electric Power Options for Growth, which was released earlier this year. In addition to the case studies on India and Korea, the series also will include reports on Argentina, Brazil, and China. All the case studies are being conducted and completed by in-country authors to ensure a balanced and informed assessment.
The studies use a least-cost model to test the effect of various scenarios on the mix of power generation technologies. The impact of these technology choices on costs and emissions are estimated through 2015.
The Korean analysis yielded several interesting insights:
- Additional restructuring of the power sector and reform of industrial policy can reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 9 percent relative to the "business-as-usual" path, with slightly lower costs per unit of electricity generated. Increasing the supply of natural gas and reducing import tariffs on that fuel have similar results.
- Korea could boost economic performance, improve environmental quality, and ensure greater energy security by accelerating energy efficiency efforts. By reducing demand for power by 15 percent, these efforts could also reduce carbon and sulfur dioxide emissions by almost 25 percent.
- Further tightening of local environmental requirements might shift technology choices toward natural gas and nuclear, and achieve reductions in the emissions of sulfur dioxide (59 percent) and carbon dioxide (28 percent), with only a small increase in costs.
- Korea's economy and environment could benefit from advanced technologies such as fuel cells and wind power if research and development is accelerated and capital costs decline as a result.
The Indian case study also identified several key opportunities:
- Strict control of local pollutants may not necessarily lead to reduced coal consumption, because of limited supplies of low-cost natural gas. On the other hand, striving to attain sustainable development goals can reduce costs and capacity needs, and achieve the most dramatic reductions in carbon dioxide emissions (60 percent over 1995 levels, but 35 percent below business-as-usual).
- High economic growth does not have to lead to excessive coal emissions; instead, stricter emissions control and greater financial resources might cause a shift to cleaner fuels and more energy-efficient coal technologies.
- Natural gas use increases in all scenarios, indicating that enhancing the gas supply is a vital energy policy measure. For those cases where gas use increases the most, the analysis shows that carbon emissions can be reduced from 11 percent (by accelerating market reforms) to 23 percent (by more widespread adoption of cost-effective energy efficiency measures).
The Pew Center was established in May 1998 by the Pew Charitable Trusts, one of the nation's largest philanthropies and an influential voice in efforts to improve the quality of America's environment. The Pew Center supports businesses in developing marketplace solutions to reduce greenhouse gases, produces analytical reports on the science, economics and policies related to climate change, launches public education efforts, and promotes better understanding of market mechanisms globally. Eileen Claussen, former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs, is the President of the Pew Center.
The Pew Center includes the Business Environmental Leadership Council, which is composed of 21 major, largely Fortune 500 corporations all working with the Pew Center to address issues related to climate change. The companies do not contribute financially to the Pew Center - it is solely supported by contributions from charitable foundations.
Climate Change: A Challenge to the Conventional Wisdom
Executive Director, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
World Aviation Conference
San Francisco, California
October 20, 1999
Good morning. I had a lovely flight to San Francisco yesterday. So let me begin by thanking you for making that possible. And we can wait until my presentation is over to see whether you think I deserve a smooth flight back. I must tell you that I accepted your very kind invitation to speak at the World Aviation Congress because I thought it would be a perfect place to challenge two pieces of what could be called "the conventional wisdom:" the first is that industry always opposes responding to environmental problems by initially doubting the scientific basis of the problem, then arguing that responding to the problem is too costly, and finally, arguing for a delayed timetable for the response; the second is that leadership on public policy issues must always come from government.
But before I challenge these views, it may be useful for me to provide a little background on the global climate change issue. I believe this issue represents one of the most significant challenges of the next century: it's a science issue and an environmental issue; a global issue and a national issue; a technology issue and a fairness issue; a business issue and an economics issue. It is not likely to go away in the short term no matter what we do. And, if we don't do anything, it won't go away in the long term either. So let me give you a brief sketch of what we know and where we stand, and then spend a little time talking about practical solutions, the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, and the aviation industry. In so doing, I hope that I can convince you that the best response to the conventional wisdom is real information, analysis, assessment, and action, and that some in industry, and in the aviation industry in particular, are clearly up to the task. My job, I think, is to inspire all of you to take on this challenge and help provide the leadership that we need and that is so sorely lacking.
But to begin at the beginning, let's look at the science. The earth's atmosphere is made up mainly of oxygen and nitrogen, but it also contains other naturally occurring gases, including water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide, that are responsible for a natural greenhouse effect. Without this natural greenhouse effect, the earth would be about 34 degrees colder than it now is. But atmospheric concentrations of these gases have been rising, particularly since the late 1800's, as has the average surface temperature of the globe, which has warmed by 0.6 degrees centigrade. In their analyses of these and other data, most of the world's best scientists are agreed on two things: that the earth will continue to warm (we estimate 1.3 to 4.0 degrees centigrade by 2100), and that human-induced greenhouse gases will be at least partly responsible for that warming. I don't want to over simplify the consensus that exists here. There remain significant uncertainties (like how the formation and dissipation of clouds affect the climate), and there remain skeptical scientists. But the greatest uncertainties surround not whether there is, or will be, a change in the climate, but rather what the impacts of that change will be, where they will be felt, and when.
What do we know about the impacts of climate change? If the amount of warming over the next century is as currently predicted, it is quite clear that there will be a rise in sea level, estimated to be between 17 and 99 centimeters. For the United States, the rate of warming is expected to be noticeably faster than the global mean rate, particularly across the northern Great Plains and the northeastern states. These temperature changes are expected to increase winter precipitation in northern latitudes, increase the frequency of extremely hot days, and decrease the frequency of frosts. Changes in the incidence of daily precipitation extremes are highly uncertain, although there is some evidence suggesting an increase in the frequency of wet extremes. The effects of these temperature and precipitation change on agriculture, water resources, coastal resources, health and ecosystems are expected to be regionally significant. For example, while climate change is not expected to threaten the ability of the United States as a whole to feed itself, regional patterns of agricultural production are likely to change, and many crops will have to be grown in more northerly latitudes. Similarly, we can expect climate change to have impacts on our nation's water supply because of increased flooding in northern latitudes and snow-melt driven basins. At the same time, the frequency and severity of dry spells and droughts is also predicted to increase, although at different times and in different regions. Sea-level rise, with concurrent increases in storm frequency and/or intensity, is likely to affect some of our coastal areas, particularly the Atlantic coast, the Louisiana delta and the San Francisco basin. But my objective here is not to give you a laundry list of possible or probable environmental effects, but simply to suggest that we know enough about the science and the environmental impacts of climate change to begin taking steps to address its consequences. We all live in worlds where we analyze risks, make decisions, and take appropriate actions based on our risk assessments. This issue is clearly at a stage where we must move beyond denial and debate, and focus ourselves on rational action.
Rational action. It is probably a concept that we can all find appealing. But it seems to me that it is easier to say it than to take it, particularly when we are dealing with an issue like this where polarization of views is the norm, and coherent discourse and problem solving are rare. As some of you may imagine, and others of you may know first hand, this is a highly political issue, and I mean "big P" political: Republicans v. Democrats; Europe v. the United States; developed countries v. developing countries. It is also a "small p" political issue: scientists associated with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change v. skeptical scientists; industry winners v. industry losers; the Kyoto Protocol as the solution to the climate change issue v. Kyoto as an agreement that will never enter into force. So perhaps I can be most helpful by giving you a little context, and then moving into a discussion of some practical paths forward.
In thinking about the climate change issue, it is both obvious and easy to suggest that climate change is a global problem that demands a global solution. And, of course, it is true. Greenhouse gases emitted in Delhi can affect the climate in Dallas, just as emissions in Chicago can affect the climate in Calcutta. On the other hand, global solutions cannot be found unless individual nations, businesses, and even individuals search for, and implement their own solutions. We have a broad global framework negotiated in 1992 and now ratified by 179 countries, including the United States, that establishes an overall goal of preventing dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system, and requires all countries to take policies and measures to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, consistent with their circumstances and abilities. We also have the Kyoto Protocol, negotiated in December of 1997, and now signed by 84 countries, including the United States, and ratified by 15. This protocol establishes legally binding emission reduction targets for developed countries (7% below 1990 emission levels for the United States by 2012). It also allows for emissions trading and joint implementation among countries with targets, as well as use of a Clean Development Mechanism for project-based emission reductions between developed and developing countries. But perhaps the best way to look at the Kyoto Protocol is to look at what it does not contain, and what remains to be done.
It does not, for example, include any emission reductions or limitations beyond a first step for developed countries only. This is an obvious problem, since successfully addressing the matter requires more than one-step as well as participation from countries beyond those in the developed world. Yet the Protocol does not come to grips with what future steps might look like, for either developed or developing countries, or even what the framework for making decisions on these steps might be. What are the factors that should be considered in determining appropriate obligations for different countries or groups of countries to reduce or limit their emissions? To what extent should responsibility for the problem, past, present and future be a factor? Should it be tempered by a country's ability to pay for mitigation activities? Should emission rights be granted to countries based on historic emission levels, or should they be distributed on a per capita emissions basis? And what kind of system is effective, practical and fair?
The protocol does contain a framework for achieving emission reductions where they will be most cost-effective by including provisions on emissions trading, joint implementation, and the establishment of a Clean Development Mechanism, but it provides no specifics on how these mechanisms might work. It includes the possibility of sequestering carbon in forests and soils, but contains no specifics on how carbon that is sequestered should be included in a nation's total emissions budget. And it does not contain any provisions related to compliance, another issue that requires a serious and thoughtful response.
But as a practical matter, it seems to me that a framework for international action to deal with the climate change issue will evolve over the next decade no matter what current national and global politics suggest about the Kyoto protocol. And if you take this view of the inevitability of global action, and couple it with the view that the science is compelling enough to begin taking serious steps to address it, then the emphasis shifts to action frameworks and actions closer to home: national actions, company actions, and individual actions.
So where do we stand domestically? Unfortunately, the complications at home are as daunting as the complications abroad. While there is concern, interest, and a willingness to act on the part of the general public, some in the business community, and some in government, particularly at the State and local levels, the issue is now enmeshed in difficult and frustrating partisan politics. While the science remains somewhat controversial (although far less than even one year ago), it is the Kyoto Protocol that has raised the tensions dramatically. It is rare, in Washington, to be able to get past the question of whether to support Kyoto or declare it dead. As a practical matter, this has translated into arguments on the size and scope of the climate change budget, debates over whether Federal employees should be allowed to talk about the Kyoto Protocol, and attempts to use economic analysis to prove either that Kyoto implementation would ruin the economy or that it would be virtually free. What it has not translated into is the further development and implementation of programs that would change the expected trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions, or the passage of legislation that would either protect the 1990 baseline for companies that have voluntarily reduced their emissions over the past decade or provide incentives for more companies to move forward with emission reduction efforts.
I feel compelled to add here that the situation in the United States is unique among the countries of the world. The United Kingdom is now in the process of planning a domestic emissions trading experiment. The Danish government has already secured legislative authority to implement a trading program, and other emissions trading programs are under development in Norway and Sweden. The Germans are implementing a modest tax program. The Netherlands has a more traditional program full of different policies and measures that has been approved by their parliament. Whether these programs will work, or how well they will work, remains uncertain. But they do reflect serious attempts to experiment and move forward, to take the risk necessary to determine what approaches will ultimately be successful. There is even movement in the less developed world: privatization of the electricity sector is moving forward in India, where competition is expected to increase the use of natural gas and lower greenhouse gas emissions; Korea is beginning to plan for opening up their power sector to competition, again with a projected increase in the use of natural gas; and China, which has dramatically lowered its energy consumption per unit of output over the past decade, is on a path to continue making significant energy intensity improvements over the next decade.
Can more be done to deal with this problem than is apparent from the current level of activity? Of course. But if the U.S. government, or global governments more broadly, are either not able to come to grips with the more challenging issues that must be addressed, or unwilling to exercise real leadership, who will? I believe the answer is obvious and already in evidence, and I hope you will forgive me for the following advertisement. When the Pew Center on Global Climate Change was formed in May of 1998, there was little that was pushing 13 companies (the Washington Post, in an editorial, called them "a few brave firms") to publicly declare that
1 - they accept the views of most scientists that enough is known about climate change for them to take actions to address its consequences;
2 - that businesses can and should take concrete steps now in the U.S. and abroad to assess their opportunities for emission reductions; establish and meet emission reduction objectives; and invest in new, more efficient products, practices and technologies;
3 - that the Kyoto agreement represents a first step in the international process but that more must be done to implement the market-based mechanisms that were adopted in principle in Kyoto, and to more fully involve the rest of the world in the solution;
4 - and that we can make significant progress in addressing climate change and sustaining economic growth in the United States by adopting reasonable policies, programs and transition strategies.
Three of these companies are leaders in your industry as well: Boeing, Lockheed Martin and United Technologies. And there was little pushing the additional 8 companies that have since affiliated with the Pew Center. And there was little pushing those companies that have already set reduction targets and established programs to implement those targets, including DuPont, BP Amoco, Shell and United Technologies. And if this isn't leadership and a serious challenge to the conventional wisdom, I'd like to know what is.
But the job is not over yet. In fact, it is barely beginning. This is not a problem that can be solved in one day or one decade. It is a long-term issue that will require a sustained and serious effort over a long period of time. And there is room for virtually everyone to play a role in developing solutions. In fact, without participation from everyone -- countries, industry sectors, companies, and individuals -- it is not clear that we can mount a serious response to the problem. And this brings me to the aviation community.
I recognize up front that you have a problem that inspires jealousy in most other industries: you have had, and are projected to continue to have, a strong annual growth rate. And with this growth rate comes a problem, for while you have been successful in reducing emissions per unit of output, continued growth will increase your total greenhouse gas contributions. Even at current levels, the aviation industry accounts for roughly 2 percent of total global carbon dioxide emissions. I also realize that this sounds like a relatively small contribution. But unfortunately most sectors make small contributions, and aviation outpaces chemicals, iron and steel, cement and aluminum. You could even compare yourselves to many countries. The global aviation sector emitted more carbon dioxide than China, Germany, France or the United Kingdom.
But I didn't come here to depress you. It seems to me that all of the players on this issue are different from one another. Their contributions to the problem differ; their opportunities for emission reductions differ; and the costs that these reductions would entail differ. There is no "one size fits all" solution, and while special pleadings have never appealed to me as ways to do business, there is much to be said for flexible systems that allow for these key differences to be addressed and resolved. So let me be specific in suggesting that you focus on three topics: governance, technology and flexibility.
The aviation industry is already in a unique position with respect to governance. Article 2.2 of the Kyoto Protocol grants the industry special recognition, and establishes ICAO, the International Civil Aviation Organization, as the body responsible for regulating international aircraft emissions. As someone who has worked for many years with various Convention Secretariats and their Conferences of the Parties, I can only assure you that you are very lucky to be dealing with an organization that knows your possibilities and your constraints. But what is important is that you not squander your good fortune; your credibility on environmental issues is at stake here. It should be possible to develop timely and effective solutions that allow you to grow your business in sustainable ways. Find them, before others find paths that are less in your interest.
The second topic that demands some attention is that of innovation and technological change. Your industry has been a leader in the development and diffusion of new, more advanced technologies for decades. As you make investments in research and development, and as you consider priority areas upon which to focus your efforts, I would urge you not to forget that growth in the 21st century will almost certainly have to be environmentally sustainable growth. It is no accident that several of the largest global oil companies (and I am referring here to Shell and BP Amoco) have begun to think of themselves as energy companies, and have begun to significantly expand their investments in less traditional, more environmentally friendly energy sources. I didn't come here to tell you how to spend your R&D dollars. But I would like to suggest that you think carefully about what may be required over the next several decades to deal with the issue of global climate change, and that you factor this picture of the future into your longer term planning. You should be the industry that is first at the starting gate, and first at the finish line.
And finally, I urge you to think constructively about the market mechanisms that are contained in the Kyoto Protocol. These mechanisms essentially allow firms and nations to achieve the lowest cost emission reductions regardless of where they occur. And by doing this, the mechanisms provide economic incentives for innovation and lowered compliance costs. The best known example we have of how emissions trading works can be found in the acid rain trading program under Title IV of the Clean Air Act, a program which coincidentally I managed while at the Environmental Protection Agency. That program was designed to be scrupulous in its accounting system, and highly flexible and open in its trading system, a balance that has worked well to ensure that emissions are lowered and costs are as low as possible. It seems to me that the "Kyoto mechanisms," emissions trading, joint implementation and the Clean Development Mechanism have a significant potential for use by the aviation sector, and I know that ICAO is exploring their use along with other policy choices. You should carefully consider whether they would work for you, and, if you become convinced (as I am) that they could be of value, work with governments to ensure that the rules that are used to implement these provisions are simple, straightforward and result in real emission reductions.
In closing, I would like to briefly come back to the conventional wisdom. Yesterday's Wall Street Journal contained several articles on climate change. The lead story was titled "Inside the Race to Profit from Global Warming: Big Business Produces some Unexpected Converts." I call your attention to these articles not because I am quoted in them (alas, I am, and my quotes are not always diplomatic), but because I think they do point directly to the issue of leadership. If the marketplace has triumphed, at least temporarily, over government, as Daniel Yergin contends in his book "The Commanding Heights," then the marketplace will also have to stand ready to be judged by its commitment and contribution to environmentally sound solutions. The aviation industry is viewed as clean and green: technological giants in a world where technology is king. I urge you to live up to your reputation, exercise leadership, make a constructive contribution to the solution, and turn the conventional wisdom on its head.
Developing Countries & Global Climate Change: Electric Power Options in Korea
Prepared for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Jin-Gyu Oh, Korea Energy Economics Institute
Jeffrey Logan, Battelle, Advanced International Studies Unit
William Chandler, Battelle, Advanced International Studies Unit
Jinwoo Kim, Korea Energy Economics Institute
Sung Bong Jo, Korea Energy Economics Institute
Dong-Seok Roh, Korea Energy Economics Institute
Eileen Claussen, Executive Director, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
The Republic of Korea straddles the line between developed and developing countries. Power demand is expanding rapidly - a "business-as-usual" path doubles consumption by 2015 - and the economy is driven largely by basic, energy-intensive industries. In addition, Korea imports over 90 percent of its fuel. Because of this, the energy choices Korea makes are complicated and may have ramifications for the global environment that outstrip the nation's size. They could leave Korea's greenhouse gas emissions virtually unchanged - or more than double them.
What will be the likely drivers of the technology choices for the next twenty years of new power generation?
- Economic forces pulling Korea toward additional restructuring of the power sector and reform of industrial policy can reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 9 percent relative to the baseline, with slightly lower costs per unit of electricity generated. Increasing the supply of natural gas and reducing import tariffs on that fuel have similar impacts.
- Economic concerns also might lead to more widespread adoption of cost-effective energy efficiency measures and, by reducing demand for power by 15 percent, could also reduce carbon and sulphur dioxide emissions by almost 25 percent.
- Further tightening of local environmental requirements might shift technology choices toward natural gas and nuclear and achieve reductions in the emissions of sulphur dioxide (59 percent) and carbon dioxide (28 percent), with only a small increase in costs. Developing Countries and Global Climate Change: Electric Power Options in Korea is the second in a series examining the electric power sectors in developing countries, and will be followed by four more case studies of India, China, Brazil, and Argentina. The report's findings are based on a lifecycle cost analysis of several possible alternatives to current projections for expanding the power system.
The Center was established in 1998 by the Pew Charitable Trusts to bring a new cooperative approach and critical scientific, economic, and technological expertise to the global climate change debate. The Pew Center believes that climate change is serious business and a better understanding of circumstances in individual countries helps achieve a serious response.
Climate Change And Kyoto: Where We Are And Where We Are Going
Eileen Claussen, Executive Director
The Pew Center on Global Climate Change
Catherine N. Stratton Lecture Series
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)
October 6, 1999
It is perhaps easiest to begin a discussion of climate change and the national and international politics of climate change with the acknowledgement that what emerged from Kyoto in December of 1997 was a political deal, and not an agreement in substance. The United States and the "Umbrella Group," (including Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Japan) entered the final negotiating session hoping for a framework with a moderately stringent binding target for developed countries, binding obligations for developing countries, and a series of so-called "flexibility mechanisms," including emissions trading and joint implementation. The European Union argued for more stringent binding targets for developed countries only. And while most European countries were not totally opposed to the concepts of joint implementation and emissions trading, they were certainly skeptical of their value, and leery of how they might be implemented. The developing countries entered the negotiations committed only to insuring that they accepted no new commitments, a view that is consistent with the Berlin mandate, the internationally agreed authorizing language for the Kyoto negotiations.
What emerged from Kyoto? A collage with the Umbrella Group's framework, the European Union's targets, and no commitments for developing countries beyond what already existed in the Framework Convention on Climate Change. It is an agreement in principle, lacking in details and explanations on most issues, and subject to widely varying interpretations. Now that 18 months have elapsed since Kyoto, it is relevant to ask what has happened in the interim, and assess where we are going on the climate change issue.
We can begin this discussion with a review of European Union perceptions and activities. In Europe, there have been several changes that have occurred since the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated. For one thing, there is a growing interest on the part of many European countries in the concept and practice of emissions trading. The United Kingdom is now in the process of planning a domestic emissions trading experiment. The Danish government already has secured legislative authority to implement a trading program, and other emissions trading programs are under development in Norway and Sweden. These efforts may lead to a Scandinavian-wide trading system, or perhaps be folded into an EU-wide trading system (beyond the EU "bubble" of Article 17) being considered for the entire community by 2005. There is also an interest in Europe in experimenting with other approaches. The Germans are implementing a tax program, and the British have also proposed a carbon levy. In the Netherlands, a more traditional "policies and measures" program has been passed by the parliament. It is clear from all of this activity that there is a fair amount of planning and experimentation taking place in Europe, all within the context of the Kyoto agreement and the targets agreed in 1997.
But perhaps what binds Europe together the most on the climate change issue is the jaundiced view held of the United States by many in Europe. There is a strong sense among European governments that the U.S. negotiated the Kyoto agreement with no intention of ever implementing significant domestic emission reductions. This is the genesis of the widely held view that United States' implementation, if it was to occur at all, would be politically possible only if most of the reductions required were shown to be without cost or at a very low cost (with the majority purchased abroad through emissions trading and the Clean Development Mechanism). These impressions were key ingredients in the development of the European policy of limiting the quantity of emission reductions that can be taken outside a nation's borders, and are also at play, along with economic competitiveness considerations, in European reluctance to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without prior U.S. ratification.
Where, then, is the United States on the issue of Kyoto implementation? The Congress, of course, established a basic policy when the Senate supported the Byrd-Hagel resolution on July 25, 1997 by a vote of 95 to 0. This resolution urged the Administration not to negotiate an agreement with binding targets for the United States without the adoption of binding targets in the same compliance period by countries in the developing world. It also stipulated that the Administration should not be a signatory to a treaty that would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States. Since the Kyoto Protocol does not contain commitments for the developing world, many in the Congress have been vigilant in their efforts to see that there is no "backdoor implementation" of the Protocol on the part of the Administration. Over the past 18 months, there have been numerous proposed amendments and riders to appropriation bills that are strongly anti-Kyoto, most of which would prohibit the Executive Branch from speaking of, spending money on, or writing rules and regulations to implement the Kyoto Protocol. And while none of these amendments or riders has passed in its strongest form, many have passed in at least some form.
And what of the position and activities of the Administration? Upon negotiating the Protocol, and also upon signing it in November of 1998, the Administration has been clear that it does not view the agreement as complete, since it lacks the "meaningful participation" of key developing countries. It has studiously avoided being either vocal or positive about the agreement, and has not entered into a public dialogue on how it might be implemented domestically. The Administration has spoken publicly about climate change and the weather, and has attempted to work with the Congress to soften some of the language on proposed riders and amendments. In a more proactive way, it has attempted to show the Congress that Kyoto implementation can be virtually "free" if roughly 80% of the emission reductions are obtained abroad. Internationally, it has mounted a vigorous campaign to convince developing countries that they must "meaningfully participate" in the Kyoto agreement if the United States is to eventually ratify it. And it has pursued efforts to see that the emissions trading and Clean Development Mechanism rules are agreed.
It is easy to conclude from this summary of activity in the United States that the current mood would not allow for ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. The Administration is unlikely to submit it to the Senate for its advice and consent in the near term, and, even if it were submitted, it would stand little chance of ratification. Too much delay in submission, however, would clearly diminish the likelihood of meeting the targets contained in the first budget period (2008-2012). Administrative process in the United States is time-consuming. For the Kyoto Protocol to become U.S. law, the Senate would have to grant its advice and consent; both Houses of Congress would have to pass implementing legislation that would then have to be signed by the President; and a designated Agency would have to draft rules and regulations that would have to go through formal notice and comment procedures before they could be finalized and then implemented. Given that such legislation and regulation would clearly result in regional and sectoral economic impacts, similar but more significant in both size and scope than those of the acid rain provisions of the Clean Air Act, the odds of all of this activity occurring by 2008 are very small indeed. We should not forget that it took more than a decade from the first discussions of how to regulate sulfur dioxide emissions for acid rain purposes to the promulgation of rules and regulations under Title IV of the Clean Air Act. There is no reason to believe that imposition of greenhouse gas emission controls would proceed on a more rapid timetable.
What of the developing world? Activity there has been concentrated on understanding the potential of the Kyoto mechanisms for delivering investment dollars for clean development. This has been a difficult challenge as the negotiations have become more technical and as the international meetings are more widely separated in time, making exchanges of views within the G-77 less frequent. But moving beyond the mechanisms, it is clear that developing countries are highly unlikely to take on new binding commitments. This is based in part on their fear that emission limitations would place unacceptable constraints on their economic development, as well as the view that, even among environmental issues, climate change is less of a priority than either air or water pollution. Finally, there remains a strong view that the developed world needs to take action first in a significant way. And experiences over the past year in both Argentina and Kazakhstan, where developing baseline information and growth assessments have proven remarkably intractable, suggest that even for countries that are willing to consider voluntary targets, the path forward is difficult.
What can we then say broadly about the state of Kyoto implementation? The answer seems to reside in two circles. In the first circle, we have the United States declaring that it will not ratify the Kyoto Protocol without binding commitments from developing countries, and the developing countries arguing that they will not accept new commitments without U.S. and other developed country actions to implement the Kyoto Protocol. In the second circle, we can see the United States indicating that it will not ratify the Protocol if there is a ceiling on the quantity of emission reductions that can be taken abroad, and the European Union firmly announcing that the United States and others must be forced to accomplish at least half of their emission reductions domestically. What we need is to find a way out of these circles, move the process forward, and actually begin to address the problem of climate change. And there are some encouraging signs in the United States that suggest that a way out is not impossible.
The first change that has occurred since the winter of 1997 relates to the broader acceptance of the science of climate change on the part of both the general public and among opinion leaders in the United States. While climate change skeptics remain, the fact that there has been and will be a change in the climate is far more widely accepted than it had been in the pre-Kyoto period. This has made it easier for both businessmen and politicians to turn their attention toward the solutions - the technologies and the policies - that will be necessary to address the problem. Thus while Kyoto still remains a bone of contention, even a lightning rod, the reality of climate change, and the necessity of finding ways to deal with it, have changed the nature of the debate in the United States.
Perhaps the strongest indicator of this change can be seen in the business community. As in other issues, responsible businesses are ahead of government in their willingness to acknowledge and work on this issue. This progressive stance became obvious when a large group of mostly Fortune 500 companies affiliated with the new Pew Center on Global Climate Change. In doing so, these companies announced publicly that they accepted the science, would establish their own emission reduction targets and meet them, viewed Kyoto as a first although incomplete step, and believed that addressing climate change can be compatible with sustained economic growth. The Center's Business Environmental Leadership Council now numbers 21 companies with combined annual revenues in excess of $550 billion. Some have already announced their emission reduction targets, all of which are at least as stringent as those in the Kyoto Protocol. One large Pew affiliated company, DuPont, has established a goal of a 65% reduction below 1990 levels by 2010, with an additional commitment of obtaining 10% of their energy needs from renewable sources. This is a stunning target, far in excess of the Kyoto negotiated 7% required for the United States as a whole. Even those companies that oppose significant action (being led primarily by the energy and transportation industries) have modified their positions. Many are inventorying their emissions, looking at technological solutions, and publicly claiming that they, too, are searching for solutions.
As the business community has split and become more openly progressive on the need to address the climate change issue, the Congress has also begun a slow transformation. Three bills dealing directly with climate change, the Murkowski-Hagel bill, the Chaffee-Lieberman bill, and the Lazio bill, have been introduced, and although their prospects for passage remain unclear, the fact that there is Republican-sponsored legislation that acknowledges the importance of the climate change issue reflects a significant shift in attitude. And it is no coincidence that most opinion polling done since Kyoto, of both the general public and opinion leaders, reinforce these views. In fact, many of the polls suggest, by wide margins, that there is a general recognition of the importance of this problem, an acceptance of the consensus science, a view that the United States should be a leader in developing technological solutions, and, interestingly, support for the Kyoto agreement even in the absence of action and commitments by other countries.
Finally, there is an enormous amount of energy that is now going into the definition of the Kyoto mechanisms and other issues left undone in the core Kyoto agreement. This energy, coming from government officials, environmental NGOs, and businesses, is a factor to be considered both in the United States and abroad. If the common view was that climate change was not a serious issue, or that the Kyoto agreement was, for all practical purposes, dead, it is unlikely that such a high degree of effort would be spent on defining it and refining it. Yet even in the United States, where the skepticism is clearly strong, working through the nuts and bolts of the agreement remains a priority for government and business alike.
What, then, can we say about the future of the Kyoto Protocol? Three things seem clear. First, given the political realities surrounding the Kyoto Protocol in the United States, it is unlikely that the treaty will enter into force in time to deliver on the first set of targets (2008-2012). Of course, if all other major emitting countries ratified the Protocol (including Europe and Russia), it is possible that entry into force could occur without the United States. But the chances of ratification from all of these countries in the absence of U.S. ratification are small. Second, the Kyoto mechanisms could be fully negotiated over the next several years, given the current state of debate and interest, although they would not take effect until the agreement entered into force. And finally, developing countries are unlikely to take on binding targets in the next decade, although many are taking significant actions. Whether they could be persuaded to continue taking these actions, even if it was clear that all developed countries (including the United States) had begun to take their Kyoto targets seriously, remains unclear.
These conclusions, in turn, raise a number of questions that deserve serious discussion. First, is it conceivable that the United States could ratify the Kyoto Protocol without developing country binding commitments? While unlikely, it is plausible if three conditions are met: first, US targets would have to be achieved without major difficulty, either because of changes in the economy, or by making them less stringent (either by lengthening the time required to meet them, or by reducing the level of reduction required); second, the Kyoto mechanisms would have to be available for use; and third, the biggest emitters in the developing world would have to be able to show convincingly that they are taking steps to reduce their emissions growth, and that these would continue during the period covered by the Protocol.
The second question that requires a response relates to whether a serious domestic emissions reduction program would be possible in the United States in the absence of a ratified international agreement. Such an effort would be necessary both to spur developing country activity, but also as a prerequisite for a serous response to the climate issue. Again, the development and implementation of such a program might be possible, beginning with either legislation that would protect emissions baselines for companies that voluntarily reduce their emissions, or with a credit for early action law that would actually provide an incentive for action. Such an effort could also possibly be expanded into proposals that would provide incentives for capital stock turnover or for the development of the carbon free technologies that would be necessary in the coming decades. Other market-based approaches might also win favor as the public policy debate moved forward.
Third, it is important to ask whether other countries that are responsible for significant emissions might move forward without the United States. At the present time, this seems highly unlikely, particularly since, even within Europe, some countries (e.g., the Netherlands) have tied their ability to ratify the Kyoto Protocol to U.S. ratification. But if it appears that U.S. ratification is increasingly unlikely over the next decade, it is not impossible for Europe to rethink its position and, in response to a green public, move forward unilaterally with emission reductions and incentives for technology development. Whether such an effort could actually take hold and spread to other large emitters (e.g., Japan) without U.S. participation is impossible to judge at this time.
All of these questions beg the obvious question: would it be better to throw out the Kyoto Protocol and start again? The answer here can only be a resounding "no!" When 150 countries spend almost a decade negotiating a complex international treaty, turning away from it in one or two years would raise more questions than could be answered. What would substitute for the Kyoto Protocol that would both be a start in addressing the issue and be more politically palatable, not only in the United States, but also elsewhere in the world? And how could such a proposal to abandon the Kyoto Protocol come from the United States, a country that engineered most of the Protocol's design? And if the United States did submit an alternate proposal, would it be credible to any country at all? The reality is that the Kyoto Protocol is unlikely to be cast aside even if it does not deliver on its 2008-2012 target, although it is almost certain to evolve over time with amendments and supplements that make it more effective, more comprehensive, and more practical. How then should we proceed?
There are at least three sets of actions that would go some distance in both moving the debate forward and achieving some real emission reductions. First, it is important to continue work on negotiating and clarifying the Protocol itself. Sensible rules and guidelines dealing with the operation of the Kyoto mechanisms (Clean Development Mechanism, joint implementation, and emissions trading) that do not involve re-negotiation of what was negotiated in Kyoto (i.e., no artificial ceilings) would be a start in making governments and affected entities more comfortable both with the process and with the product. There are, as yet, no protocols for achieving or assessing compliance. These need to be developed and negotiated. How sequestration, in forests and soils, should be treated requires considerable work, and should be undertaken in a thoughtful and systematic way. Many of these tasks are already included in the Buenos Aires Plan of Action. And whether the target dates in the plan can be met or not, the work should continue until satisfactory agreements are reached.
Second, a treaty is only as good as the actions of its parties in fulfillment of their treaty commitments. The United States and 178 other countries are now party to the Framework Convention on Climate Change. And while this treaty was judged by its parties to be inadequate to the task of dealing with the climate change issue, it does obligate the parties to take measures to reduce their emissions. In light of the obvious fact that Kyoto, or any progeny of Kyoto, does or will demand more actions rather than less, the United States and other governments should be implementing substantive programs that seriously respond to the overall Convention goal of stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at levels that will prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. The extent to which these programs are already tested or experimental, voluntary or mandatory, incentive-based or requirement-based remains to be debated and decided. But the fact that they need to be designed, discussed and implemented is incontrovertible.
And finally, neither the Framework Convention nor the Kyoto Protocol deal in a satisfactory way with what an equitable international commitment might actually be, now and in the long term. If we are to emerge from the current quagmire of "who goes first," we will need the outlines of a broader framework that is based on a realistic assessment of what is actually occurring around the world on this issue, and takes into account, at a minimum, the issues of responsibility (past, present and future) and the ability to pay for climate mitigation. Beginning this dialogue within national governments is essential; and taking it forward into the international arena is a necessity if we are to make progress in addressing the very serous and challenging issue of climate change.