The Rich Must Face Their Personal Carbon Responsibility

The Rich Must Face Their Personal Carbon Responsibility
Dear Sir/Madam,

We would like to take this opportunity to follow Sunita Narain’s invitation in her latest Editorial
(“Climate: the market's Achilles heel”, CSE's Fortnightly News Bulletin, 30 November 30, 2006)to discuss how we can “make space for emissions.”

We wholeheartedly agree with Ms Narain’s assessment that the warming of the global
atmosphere is possibly the biggest and most difficult economic and political issue the world has
ever needed to confront. And we agree with emphasising – in line with Sir Nicolas Stern’s recent
review – that the cost of taking mitigation action now is a small fraction of what we would have
to pay as the cost of inaction: i.e. the cost of climate change impact damages which we will have
to face if we fail to act now. Costs, it has to be emphasised that will be – and, indeed, are already
– falling predominantly on the poorest and most vulnerable who are least responsible for the
problem. Climate inequity extends beyond mitigation!

Ms Narain rightly points out that “the world has changed [and that] there is clear understanding that the rich and the emerging rich world needs to make the transition to a low carbon economy”.

But we feel the world has changed even further. While Ms Narain’s discourse is still couched in
terms of ‘worlds’ – i.e. remains at the level of countries – we believe the urgency of the situation, and indeed justice, demand that we start including responsibilities and capabilities of individuals as well as of countries in our deliberations on how we deal with the problems of climate change.

An Issue of Distributive Justice

To explain this, let us assume that we agree, for reasons of equity, to calculate emission
restrictions after the Kyoto targets expire in 2012 on a ‘per capita’ basis. More precisely, let us
assume that each country would be allocated an emission cap – an ‘assigned amount’ of emission
permits – totalling some target per capita amount (a fraction of today’s global average emissions
per person) multiplied by the country’s (present day) population.

In the case, for example, of India – whose current emissions per inhabitant are much lower than
the world average – this would entail a considerable surplus of emission permits. And as long as
there are surplus permits, India would hence not be forced to introduce emission mitigation
measures to stay within its assigned amount. Indeed, under an international trade in such permits,

India could legitimately earn significant export revenues from the sale of these surplus permits.
So much for the ‘big picture’. To illustrate our point let us now take a closer look at the domestic
situation. In other words, let us ask what would be an equitable distribution of, to stay with the
example, India’s domestic ‘ecological space’. Even though the national emission cap – i.e. the
over-all size of this space – would not require India to introduce any domestic mitigation
measures, we believe that considerations of domestic equity would do. Why? Because anyone
emitting more than the agreed average target would occupy part of the Indian ecological space of someone in India who is emitting less. And distributive justice would demand that those who
occupy more than their fair share of domestic ‘ecological space’ – i.e. who emit more than that
target average – should either make room for those of their compatriots who do not (i.e. reduce
their emissions), or at least compensate them for the use of their space.

The fact that a national target is ‘non-binding,’ in other words, does not mean that ‘business as
usual’ is morally justifiable, for the strictures of distributive justice would still demand that the
(carbon) rich either reduce their carbon footprints to give the (carbon) poor their fair share of the domestic ecological space, or pay an appropriate compensation.

Of course, it is unlikely that India – or, for that matter, any other developing country – is going to adopt any form of cap on their overall emissions in the near future, which makes the issue of
equitably sharing a limited domestic ecological space a rather moot one. And yet there are other,
equally pertinent reasons why (carbon) rich individuals have a moral duty to reduce their
emissions, where ever they may be domiciled.

An Issue of Compensatory Justice

The crucial fact, particularly from the point of view of the poor and vulnerable, is that emissions
are not just a matter of occupying one’s fair share of ecological space, it is also a matter of
causing harm, something which is in danger of being overlooked if one’s focus is solely on the
just allocation of emission rights.

Indeed, the principle of common but differentiated responsibility and respective capability
demands that whoever is capable should not only reduce their responsibility but contribute to
compensate for the harm done. And this, we believe, applies not only to countries, but also to
individuals, regardless of creed, colour or, for that matter, nationality.

For example, if we assume that the global sustainable ecological space – i.e. the level of
emissions that can annually be emitted without causing harm – were given by the 1900 global
fossil fuel emissions level (approx 2GtCO2), the personal sustainable ecological space would
currently be around 300kgCO2/cap. In other words, everyone on the planet would have a budget for (at most) 300kg of harmless fossil carbon emissions. Any additional emissions are harmful and thus carry responsibility. Of course, in a great many cases, the additional emissions are due to subsistence activities and thus should not be held culpably responsible. However, there are personally attributable emissions, such as the ones associated with (international) air travel, which can hardly be excused on these grounds. People who travel by air are capable to face the personal responsibility for that activity and should be made to do so.

This is why we support the idea put forward at the recent Nairobi UN climate conference by
Bangladesh on behalf of the Group of Least Developed Countries to introduce an international air travel adaptation levy. And this is why we would like to reciprocate Ms Narain’s call to action
and invite the Centre for Science and Environment to join us in promoting the idea that (carbon)
rich individuals, as well as countries, need to face up to the responsibility entailed by what its
founder Anil Agarwal so aptly referred to as ‘luxury emissions.’

Yours sincerely

Dr Benito Müller
Oxford Climate Policy (ocp)
Oxford Institute for Energy Studies (OIES)

Dr Saleemul Huq
Bangladesh Centre for Advanced Studies (BCAS)
International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED)

Accountability: the other climate change

The Stern Review’s report on the economics of climate change published on 30 October 2006 is an impressive document that calls for action to meet a global challenge on a civilisational scale. It is also unlikely – on present evidence – to have the effect required, for one simple reason.

Today’s vested political and economic interests are likely to prevent us from effectively addressing climate change, and so securing a decent future on this planet. It’s ghastly, it sticks in the throat, and it’s awesome to think it even as I write it. But it’s probably true.

This prognosis is suggested by Jared Diamond’s best-selling analysis of why societies collapse. Societies are endangered, he argues, when their elites insulate themselves from the negative impact of their own actions in pursuit of power and privilege. His paradigmatic case is of Easter Island, where the overuse of wood products in the production of competing religious totems eventually destroyed its inhabitants’ survival prospects.


Jared Diamond argues that this self-destructive spiral might have been halted if those with the power to enforce the cutting down of wood had far earlier suffered the economic and political consequences of this process. As economists would have it, these leaders succeed for too long to “externalise” these costs onto the shoulders, and ultimately the lives of others.

But surely, some might argue, this could not happen to the rich countries of the world, with the knowledge they have, their many institutions for collective action and capacity to hold those with power to account?


Here, however, is exactly where the problem lies: a lack of accountability where it really matters. In the microcosmic areas of social life - fines for taking our children on holiday before the school break, or for allowing our dogs to do what is natural to them in the park – we are overwhelmed by accountability mechanisms. Yet on big, important, collective issues, accountability mechanisms are either non-existent or failing. After all, no rich-nation leader will pay the human and financial costs of the Iraq war, or compensate for the poverty resulting from the failure of the Doha trade round.

Jared Diamond’s story shines a sad and disturbing light on our current situation. Our elite do not feel enough pain to allow, let alone lead in making the changes we need.

So what is to be done? Pragmatism and a hard-headed reading of history suggest that “the people” are unlikely to resolve our current crisis. Far from it, we are more likely to degenerate into a toxic blend of hedonism and divided fundamentalisms. Faced with an apparently insoluble problem, the citizens of the world will unite in partying until the curtain comes down.



The terms of debate

Yet there is an alternative – unpalatable but essential. If we cannot make those with power feel the pain, can we help them to profit from taking us along the right path?

This would involve rewarding political leaders who take a stand on climate change, who are willing to tell citizens the tough story, make enemies of those who would deny, and dedicate themselves to creating coalitions of the unwilling. Such political leaders must be empowered, whether by the ballot-box or the amplifying effects of global civil society and the media. And those leaders who choose to pipe an old tune, whoever and wherever they are, along with their advisors and sponsors, must be exposed in their naked splendour for all to see.

And that brings us to business leaders. Business will not solve climate change by what it does not do; compliance will only ever be a marginal part of any serious solution. Business will make a difference by what it does and does best: inventing, making and selling new products and services. (That is why our Accountability Rating of the world’s largest hundred companies measures how smart rather than how moral they are in embedding social and environmental dynamics into their business models and practices).

Co-opting those who can make, or prevent, change requires that “corporate responsibility” grows up and becomes a driver in shaping a global, responsible competitiveness between nations and regions. We need global markets where money is to be made by doing the right thing, creating value and profit by “internalising externalities” that will otherwise destroy us.

Business cannot, and will not do this on its own. Reshaping markets requires unlikely alliances between business, governments and civil society. We have proven we can do this across such diverse challenges as labour standards, access to life-saving drugs, corruption and animal rights. We can and must do it for climate change, reshaping the terms on which business is done to our collective good.

Who will take the lead?

On Easter Island, no leader emerged from any of the dozen clans to reshape timber markets. It is instructive to consider which countries or regions - today’s global “clans” - will provide leadership in driving forward responsible competitiveness tomorrow.

Europe has enormous potential, with its leadership on Kyoto and its history of linking social inclusion and markets. But a region characterized (by Nick Robins) as having a “responsibility surplus and an innovation deficit” has to date failed to turn this “social good” to its competitive advantage.

The United States too is an unlikely candidate, essentially the mirror-image of Europe's strengths and weaknesses, over-innovating without focus on the things that count. Directing its business community towards long-term issues is, with some notable exceptions, a contradiction in terms. It would require a seismic shift in the time-horizons and interests of the American electorate and its investment community, unlikely although not impossible on both counts.

Perhaps then we need to bet on China for leadership. We might point today to its dirty economy in more senses than one. But China's culture and practice of decision-making is like no other, rooted in a history of long-termism. Could it be that tackling climate change will be China's equivalent of the moai in the era of their creation: a powerful symbol of emerging leadership?

Trading in a carbon limited world

Reducing carbon emissions requires all of us to change our behaviour. But how? Matt Prescott explores the potential for a market mechanism that will transform our personal economies and could help save the planet.

The idea of trading carbon as commodity began with Kyoto. Now the carbon market appears to be here to stay. There is a strong interest at all levels – individual, business and government, in engaging with this newcomer in the financial world.

Carbon is an unusual commodity. It evokes a great deal of emotion and is tied to areas of social and environmental thinking that have never previously been aligned with conventional capitalist thinking. But through the carbon market we are beginning to see the ecological future of our planet priced and traded as a commodity.

Whilst this may sound like an unfeeling solution to the climate change crisis, environmental groups in the west are warming to the carbon market’s potential. Why? Because we need to reduce emissions dramatically in the next ten years, according to the world’s leading climate scientists. With time so short, we have to go with the biggest tool we’ve got – the market.

Carbon trading is one of the mechanisms approved by the Kyoto Protocol for nations to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases. The Kyoto Protocol created the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) to enable emissions being saved in one part of the world to be sold in another. The result is a vast number of projects, mostly in developing nations, being certified for emissions reductions. Renewable energy projects such as wind power are common. These are checked to avoid ‘double counting’ and sold into one of a number of carbon markets from where the credits can be purchased.

The outcomes, in terms of environmental and social impact have been mixed so far, and the Kyoto Protocol is under fire for failing to deliver anything near the emission reductions the world needs. Indeed global emissions are continuing to rise and few countries can claim to have bucked the trend. But much has been learned since Kyoto and the learning curve is getting steeper.

Learning from the EU

The European Union has been operating an Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS) since January 2005, with the first phase due to end in December 2007. beyond which the second phase will coincide with the first Kyoto commitment period which operates from 2008 to 2012 and requires signed-up developed nations to have reduced their greenhouse gas emissions by around 5% below their 1990 levels. At its peak, the price for a tonne of carbon (CO2 equivalent) was above €30. Currently it is hovering around €12.

This is a "cap and trade" scheme. In such a scheme, those that emit carbon are each given credits -- an allowance that entitles them to emit a specific amount of carbon. The total amount of credits cannot exceed the cap – which is the overall limit of total agreed emissions. The EU ETS covers around 40% of total greenhouse gas emissions from EU nations in several industry sectors such as paper, mineral and energy. The basic logic of any cap and trade scheme is that the market will find the cheapest savings. Any organisation covered by the scheme has two options if it exceeds its permitted allowance. It can purchase the more emissions rights in the market or it can reduce its own emissions through greater energy efficiency. According to the theory of the market, each installation will tend to make the most economically rational decision within its capped "carbon budget".

Global impacts

Many project-based carbon reductions take place in China and India – two fast growing economies which offer many opportunities to deliver verifiable reductions because the pace of development of their energy infrastructure is so fast. Investment in clean renewable energy technologies aided by the finance made available through the carbon market makes low carbon developments more attractive to them. As the market for carbon expands, there is an ever greater opportunity to further reduce emissions.

On many fronts, carbon trading has so far proved to be a successful mechanism, though some criticise it for its traditional capitalist approach. However, criticism is muted, given the current lack of alternatives. Given the urgent need to reduce emissions, a strong carbon market offers a way to unlock the creative potential of many of the world’s great financial and cultural centres to try to solve the greenhouse gas emissions problem.

You, the new actor

At the present time, 44% of emissions in the UK are attributable directly to individuals, but the individual is not currently a player in the carbon market. In a globalised carbon market, the initiative to reduce emissions may not stay with governments. Companies and communities who recognise the scale of the threat of climate change to their own futures and the future of their families could themselves become the drivers.

As a concerned citizen, one could buy verified carbon reductions and not sell them – hence removing carbon from the market and therefore forcing the price up, but the RSA does not believe this is enough. We are looking at an entirely new approach to individual carbon trading which we hope could hold the key to balancing the development of the economy with the need to control carbon emissions in a fast, effective and equitable manner. It is the new show in town.

At present, there are few actors in the EU ETS – 12,000 installations, representing approximately 45% of EU CO2 emissions. The RSA conceives of every individual in the UK becoming an actor and, if the scheme succeeds, every individual in the EU – nearly 500 million people.

It would work like this: The government of the UK would allocate to each adult in the UK an equal per capita share of the 44% of the country’s emissions that are attributable directly to individuals (through fuel and electricity purchases). The remaining 56% of the UK’s carbon emissions would be auctioned to government and business.

That 56% operates in much the same way as the EU ETS. However individuals are now actors in the same market. If they emit less than their personal allocation, they can sell their emissions rights to those emitting more than their share.

Decoupling emissions from growth

So what would happen if each person was financially responsible for his or her own emissions? Firstly we would find out where our allowance was going: do we drive a big car? Do we leave the lights on? Do we have the heating turned up too high? Do we take many flights? If there was a strong financial incentive and individual access to the market, we think we would see a rapid move away from wasteful to low-carbon lifestyles. People would look for low-carbon products and services to save on their emissions allocations. If there was demand for low-carbon products, entrepreneurs, in turn, would develop and produce them for the market.

Each year, to fight climate change, the carbon budget will have to shrink. As the budget is shrunk, the goods and services required to meet the lowered targets will become available and affordable and a new low-carbon culture will continue to propel this change.

It would be good in other ways, too. It would enhance public health and energy security and, indeed, the Contraction and Convergence model could also be delivered through this mechanism. So what starts out looking like an idea with a strong core of market economics, on closer inspection turns into something which speaks to the heart of a strong and just society.


Matt Prescott is the director of CarbonLimited. The Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce (RSA) is at the heart of work to further the debate on personal carbon trading through the CarbonLimited project. CarbonLimited runs until December 2008 and is delivering a programme of research, public debate and piloting. www.rsacarbonlimited.org

Time to Tighten up the Carbon Trading System

Financial Times, 24 November 2006 - European industry will have to slash its greenhouse gas emissions from 2008 under plans by the European Union to tighten up the carbon trading system seen as a pioneering weapon in the world's battle against climate change.

Next Wednesday, the European Commission will require some member states to cut the number of carbon permits they give companies for the second phase of trading from 2008 to 2012.

Most member states have proposed awarding themselves a generous allocation of permits to lighten their companies' obligations to cut emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Under the scheme, launched in January 2005, companies are issued with permits to emit carbon dioxide. Cleaner companies with spare capacity can sell permits to dirtier businesses needing to emit more.

The scheme is increasingly the focus of international interest as other developed countries take climate change more seriously. However, Brussels must rescue the credibility of the system, which suffered a serious blow this spring when it emerged that member states had given their industries many more permits to emit carbon than they needed for the first phase, which ends on December 31 next year.

This ran counter to the purpose of the scheme – to force companies to reduce emissions by ensuring they have fewer permits than they need, in effect, putting a price on pollution.

Stavros Dimas, environment commissioner, told the Financial Times: “If it appears there are over-allocations, we will adjust to the right numbers.”

He said governments would not be allowed to allocate more permits in the second phase than in the first. Some assessments had suggested the plans submitted by member states were about 15 per cent above the limits required to meet the EU's commitments under the Kyoto protocol, which required a 6 per cent cut in emissions compared with the first phase. Mr Dimas would not say how many would be rejected. “All of the plans have some small things wrong with them,” a senior Commission official told the FT yesterday.

Research by the UK's government-funded Carbon Trust found all member states, except the UK, Spain and Italy, would have to cut emissions by more than they had planned. The report said the countries requiring the biggest revisions were Austria and Finland, while Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France would have to make significant cuts.

The biggest losers are expected to include Germany, which is heading for a showdown with Brussels over a loophole in its carbon trading scheme, which generated windfall profits for its big power producers. The Commission will ask Berlin to remove an exemption for new coal-fired power stations under which stateowned banks will be able to buy extra permits on their behalf for the next 14 years. Mr Dimas believes this amounts to illegal state aid and is among the worst flaws in governments' national allocation plans.

The stakes are high for both sides. Germany argues companies need legal certainty to embark on a new generation of more efficient generators. It also needs to prop up the mining industry of the former East Germany, where jobs are scarce. RWE yesterday announced a €2bn ($2.6bn, £1.35bn) investment in a new coal-fired plant in Saarland, but said any change to emissions trading “would put question marks on these investments”.

Electricity generators, making decisions on power stations that will last for three or four decades, want as much clarity on the future system as possible. Carbon traders want tough curbs to bolster the market.

November 15th - High Level Segment begins

November 15, 2006 saw the start of the high level segment. This important part of the meeting started with a speech from UN secretary general Kofi Annan. Proving that there still are still die hard climate change skeptics out there, Annan began by stressing that climate change was not science fiction.

Annan pointed out that that low emissions need not mean low growth. "So let there be no more denial. Let no one say we cannot afford to act. The Nairobi conference must send a clear, credible signal that the world’s political leaders take climate seriously. The question is not whether climate change is happening, but whether, in the face of this emergency we ourselves can change fast enough." Clearly, Anan in his speech was reprimanding countries like the US for not playing a pro-active role in the Kyoto Protocol.


And the US response...

Interestingly, soon after his speech the US delegation had organized a press conference, during which it proudly pronounced that it is trying its best to fight global warming. “The US policy is guided by a multi-dimensional approach. We believe in the power of partnerships. It is building partnerships with nations that have common goals. We firmly believe that public-private partnership is a means to fight climate change. We are happy that we are contributing to addressing climate change,” said Paula Dobriansky, under secretary for democracy and global affairs, the US government. “At COP 12 the US delegation is highlighting the efforts taken by the nation to flight climate change.

Adaptation is important here and the US has already financed such activities in many of the developing countries,” Dobriansky added.

When questioned about the lack of leadership from the US, Dobriansky responded by saying that the US is leading and climate change requires global efforts. All countries must be engaged in the effort. “Our recent election will continue to ensure that climate changer is an important issue. In terms of the congress, they are both people for and against the Kyoto protocol in the democrats and the republicans.

When Down To Earth questioned David Miliband, secretary of state, department for environment, food and rural affairs, UK about the UK’s stand on future commitment periods, he said that his country was willing to take up commitments depending on future circumstances.

Other highlights of the day were the presentation of the Stern report, which focuses on the impacts of climate change. Most delegates welcomed the report, which states that the world would incur huge financial losses if steps are not undertaken soon to contain global warming, and what economic opportunities did action on climate change present for different countries and sectors.

During another plenary session, ministers and heads of delegation from more than 35 nations reinstated their general position where action for fighting climate change was concerned.
Tomorrow’s plenaries would see the adoption of some draft decisions taken by SABTA, AWG, and SBI. Other important that would be discussed is the review of the protocol, which was to be done at this COP

High Level Sigment: Day 2

On November 16, 2006, the joint COP and COP/MOP high-level segment continued; the second workshop of the “Dialogue on long-term cooperative action to address climate change by enhancing implementation of the Convention” also continued.

Informal consultations and contact groups took place on CDM, review of the Protocol (Article 9), the Russian proposal, and the Belarus proposal to join the Kyoto regime. An informal ministerial meeting was held late night to consider a number of these outstanding issues.

On the post-2012 issues, most delegates highlighted the urgency of agreeing on a post-2012 regime, with delegates from developed countries stressing on common but differentiated responsibilities. India said several key Annex I countries had failed in their Protocol commitments, and described calls for developing countries to take on emissions commitments post-2012 as “shrill,” “surreal,” and a threat to poverty alleviation efforts. Belarus urged resolution of its proposal in Nairobi.

Where the adaptation issue was concerned, most developing countries showed an aggressive stand. Many African countries also showed concerns about their poor share in the CDM regime. Several countries highlighted forests’ contribution to addressing climate change, and positive incentives on deforestation.
Regarding the financial mechanism, The developing countries said that GEF should be more responsive to developing country needs and opposed conditionalities in the operation of the climate funds.

India also emphasised sustainable consumption and production, technology transfer and capacity building. The US underscored placing climate change within a broader agenda than just development and poverty reduction, including energy and food security, and air pollution. Australia stressed enabling environments. Parties agreed to ask the COP to request the Secretariat to prepare an analysis on climate-related financial flows.

Contact group and informal discussions

The CDM contact group faced difficulties on three accounts: on relates to carbon capture and storage and the other was about afforestation and deforestation projects, and lastly on the regional distribution and capacity building. On the latter, the outstanding issues were referred to ministers, and the EU accepted an African Group proposal to encourage Annex I parties’ further initiatives, including financial support, for the development of projects, especially in LDCs.

Where the second issue was concerned, The EU dropped its reservation on a matter referring to CDM EB annexes on the eligibility of land for A/R projects, and the text was agreed by the group. Decisions related to carbon capture and storage were deferred to the next COP.

The review of the Protocol (Article 9) was taken up in consultations throughout the day, and in the evening as part of a ministerial meeting. Following Chair Tudela Abad’s introduction of draft text , progress was made on the text, but differences remained on issues including a “confidence” clause specifying that the review will not lead to non-Annex I commitments, and the dates for the next review, with proposals ranging from 2 to 5 years. The text reportedly remained bracketed as of midnight. According to NGOs like Greenpeace and Friends of Earth, it is highly unlikely that a decision is going to be taken where Article 9 is concerned.

They expect the COP 12 to end with at least a mandate set for the revision for the next COP. They are quite disappointed that the most important item on this year’s COP met with no consequences. They are also disappointed that no timeline has been set where the implementation of the draft decision of Article 3.9 is concerned.

Throughout the day meetings were being held to resolve issues related to Article 9 and the Belarus and Russian proposals. But they were still no signs of any agreement on these matters, especially the Belarus proposal of joining the protocol The matter is as hot as the hot air that Belarus may contribute to the Kyoto regime if it joins.

Also our business

“Adaptation is also our business,” was the title of a side even this afternoon put on by members of the EU. The room was packed, and as we sat in rows and sweated, the presenters made some interesting and important points.

According to IPCC predictions, the Mediterranean is going to be one of the areas of the world most affected by climate change. Christina Narbona, Minister of Environment for Spain, pointed out that Spain is already experiencing massive dispalcement of population, severe droughts, a predicted 5-14% decrease in water resources in the 2030 horizon, and is also a developed nation which will be one of the first to receive migrants from Africa if and when the effects of more drastic climate change displaces them. Spain is also one of the only nations to have developed a NAPA (a National Adaptation Plan of Action). This includes trying to optimize water resources (currently Spain has very low water price and very high water consumption) and increase water resources. The plan also includes a lot of investment in research into future scenarios, which leaves me wondering about urgency and priority, two concepts which are difficult to concretize in this context because, in terms of the future, absolute certainty can never exist. The question and answer period brought an intelligent question to the minister: what about when adaptation plans undermine mitigation plans, such as the increased energy it would require to run desalinization plants to increase water supply? To this, the minister responded that there exists a program to produce renewable energy at the same rate as engergy conumption increases. (This, however, includes such things as hydro-electric dams, which wreak their own kind of environmental havoc, and on top of that, Spain has the second largest number of dams in the world.) The question of justice and equality also arises: Spain has the infrastructure to develop a NAPA, and compared to developing countries is very well off. However, like all nations, and perhaps (because of its location) moreso than other developed nations, it will be suffering from the predicted environmental changes as well. What is its responsibility to its own people and to those of other nations? What is everyone’s role in this world of changes? Big questions, and, like most big questions, probably unanswerable until we see what roles we take.

Francois Gemenne of the University of Liege pointed out the current and future problems of environmental refugees. Under the Geneva Convention, environmental refugees are not recognized. However, as Gemenne stated, recognition under Geneva probably wouldn’t meet the needs of environmental refugees (it is intended to protect those fleeing political turmoil), and anyway only applies to parties to the convention, which consists mostly of Northern states. According to the now-infamous Stern report, 200 million people could be permanently displaced by 2050, mostly due to rising sea levels (the Small Island Developing States (SIDS), those in the Arctic, and those living in coastal cities and floodplains). Village relocation, I found out, is already happening. For example, the US government apparently pays for trucks to come in to Arctic villages with cranes and physically move them.

The demographic, cultural, psychological, and resource burden of mass migrations is an overwhelming prospect. This is truly a human side to climate change. Although environmental factors have always and will always displace people, cause people suffering, as well as cause people times of great joy and prosperity (depending on how conducive the environment is to livlihood at the time), displacement- detachment from a place you feel is your home, disconnect from family and friends, loss of culture and language, increased potential for conflict between people who are different and feel they do not understand each other, increased strain on resources, the role of human emotions- will never be easy.

Gemenne proposed to extend the mandate of the UNHCR (High Commissioner for Refugees)- which was absent at this conference- to cover environmental refugees temporarily displaced. For the permanently displaced, he said, a “copycat of Kyoto” which consists of regional burden-sharing schemes- based on the polluter pays principle and on where the resources are- could be part of a solution. It’s Europe’s business, he said, because the EU needs to acknowledge its share of responsibility and needs to make massive shifts in immigration policy. (This is also entirely true of the U.S.)

And so we come back to it: the complexities of the challenge, the responsibility we share.

Technology transfer

Rob Bradley
Nov 14, 8:28 AM

Few negotiating groups are expecting big results in Nairobi, but some gather with a particular lack of sparkle. It's been well over a decade that we've been negotiating international climate agreements, and there are some issues that have remained essentially unchanged. Today we will take you inside one of these perpetually-deadlocked debates. You're welcome.

No-one would dispute that technology transfer is important in fighting climate change: indeed, developing and deploying clean technologies is really what climate policy is about. But there is little common understanding of what really drives technology deployment in different countries.

Take the group of 134 developing countries known as the G77 and China. We don't have the money to spend on your fancy technology, they say. Cancel the intellectual property rights on all the technology, and we'll make it ourselves. Or set up a large fund to buy the patents and send it over.

But, reply the rich countries, that's not how it works. The intellectual property doesn't belong to us, but to companies in the private sector. The best way to ensure that you get new and efficient technologies is to create what we call "enabling environments," meaning removing trade barriers, reducing corruption and perverse regulation, and creating a good investment climate. In the absence of these measures a fund would be simply wasted money, and we'd prefer not to do that.

Oh come on, say the G77 & China, governments call the shots and control the private sector, and if you really wanted to you could share the patents. And telling us that all will be well if we completely fix our economies and institutions is not massively helpful in the near term.

And so on. Year after year developing countries focus on the removal of intellectual property protections and the creation of a new fund. Rich countries decline, and frame broad intentions to help create enabling environments. In the meantime the issue is punted to a working group to consider the options.

At the moment that working group is known as the Expert Group on Technology Transfer. The developing countries are proposing a new group with greater scope to call panels of experts and make strong policy recommendations. Since progress on funds or intellectual property seem out of the question, the scope of a final deal might include the substitution of one arcane body by another. In the meantime, emissions trading, the clean development mechanism and national policies and measures will have to achieve what the negotiators can only talk about.

Belarus, a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in controversy

Rob Bradley
Nov 16, 7:41 AM

Followers of the tectonic struggles of the great powers probably do not spend too much time worrying about Belarus. Wedged between Russia and the European Union, this former part of the Soviet Union is not deeply involved in world environmental affairs. It is, however, raising an interesting conundrum for climate politics.

Belarus did not ratify the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) until 2000, eight years after it was agreed. This meant that when the Kyoto Protocol, which is an offshoot of the UNFCCC, was negotiated in 1997, Belarus was not among the negotiators. It is therefore not in the Kyoto Protocol?s Annex B, and has no target for emission reductions. This leaves it in a kind of limbo?now that it has ratified the Convention, it is an Annex I country, which means that it cannot benefit from developing country mechanisms such as the various funds or the Clean Development Mechanism. But without a target neither can it participate in Annex I mechanisms such as emissions trading or Joint Implementation.

In the meantime, Belarus has now ratified both the Convention and, last year, the Kyoto Protocol. Its delegation is now asking to adopt an emissions target and to play a full role in the Protocol. Other countries are taking this offer cautiously. So why does Belarus now want to participate where it didn?t before? And since it does, why might other countries not welcome it?

There are two reasons why Belarus might want to play a fuller role in the Kyoto Protocol. First, its relations with other countries are not uniformly smooth. More active participation in an important international process offers an opportunity to put its international relations on more constructive footing. Second, Belarus has realized that it could potentially gain significant new financial flows if it could take part in international emissions trading. Assuming it is treated in a similar way to its fellow former-Soviet states, its target would very likely leave it with a tasty surplus of emission rights (known in the usual impenetrable jargon as Assigned Amount Units, or AAUs) which it could in principle sell to other countries that fall short of meeting their emission reduction commitments.

So far so good, you might think. Welcome a strayed lamb back into the fold and bring more AAUs into the Kyoto system - why not? But that surplus is precisely what is making some countries hesitate. To understand why we need to revisit a perennial bugbear of the Kyoto system "hot air".

When the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997, rich countries and the former communist states were given emission reduction targets from a baseline set in 1990. For most OECD countries this meant that some early emission cuts would thereby be rewarded but that the resulting target still meant making real efforts to keep emissions down. However, the picture was very different for the economies in transition (EITs), as the former communist world was known. They were mainly given targets of stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels. However, the collapse of communism in 1989-91 had led to the closure of vast swathes of inefficient, uneconomic, and heavily-polluting industry in the EITs. As a result, by 1997 their emissions had dropped dramatically from 1990 levels - in some cases by nearly 50% - and the allocation therefore left them with a huge tradable surplus of AAUs. This was understood when the negotiations took place and was essentially a financial inducement for the EITs to agree to the Protocol. Since the group included such giants as Russia and the Ukraine, rich countries considered this as a price worth paying. The availability of such cheaper AAUs also alleviated US concerns about the cost of meeting their targets.

The EITs had a good case for getting some financial support. First of all, the collapse of communism had left their economies in terrible shape - or, perhaps more accurately, revealed what terrible shape they were in already. At the same time, their energy infrastructure was in the main much less efficient than in their rich country counterparts, which meant that there was plenty of scope to cut emissions cheaply. Some referred to Russia as "the Saudi Arabia of energy efficiency."

However, so deep was the economic collapse of the EITs, and so large are they, that the over-allocation of AAUs left a huge supply of tradable credits that could, through the trading system, allow countries to meet their emission targets while making no real emission reductions. The withdrawal of the United States, which was expected to provide much of the demand for these AAUs, meant that there was a real prospect of this over-allocation swamping all efforts to reduce emissions in rich countries. The term "hot air" was coined to describe the surplus, reflecting the sense that, far from being a legitimate part of the trading system, it was a fraud to undermine climate policy.

Still, it was part of the deal, and the participation of Russia in particular was essential to bringing the Kyoto Protocol into force. For many countries however, hot air was a necessary evil. It was certainly not something they embraced gladly.

Which brings us back to Belarus. It has undergone the same economic collapse and restructuring as the rest of the Soviet Union, and its enthusiasm for taking a target is based on the expectation of hot air on similar terms. It is requesting a target of 5% below 1990 levels, while in 2000 its emissions were 45% lower than in 1990. Even allowing for growth between 2000 and 2012, this means a major allocation of hot air. Estimates bandied about at the moment range from 30 to 50 million tons of CO2 through the commitment period. Even at moderate prices this means financial transfers in the hundreds of millions of dollars if Belarus can find a buyer.

The problem for Belarus is that the Kyoto Protocol is already in force, and the major post-Soviet countries are already in. For many countries therefore the problems of Belarus' participation - even more hot air sloshing around in the system - is not outweighed by many obvious advantages. And with diplomatic relations strained at the best of times (the EU maintains visa bans on top-level Belarus officials) there is little sign of an early push to do Belarus a favor. For the time being, Belarus is on a charm offensive, but there is not much sign of a quick decision. Whatever the technical details of the climate negotiations, bigger realpolitik is never far away.

The Stern Review of Climate Change: Media Coverage Survey

Today there has been a veritable hurricane of reporting about the just released Nicholas Stern review of the economics of climate change. Matters where complicated by speculation relating to UK govornment policies that have been rumoured to be announced along with the report.

UK National Press Coverage

Broadsheets (Left/Liberal)
Both the Guardian and the Indy devote substantial space to the stern report, prospects for green taxes and other climate change related stories. Good reviews are given of the main points from the stern report. Green taxes are supported and the general criticism is of to many fine words and not enough action.

Independant
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Guardian
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Broadsheets (Rights/Conservative)
The times and telegraph perform admiarably as Tory papers, they manage to give good accounts of the basic science of the report. They also publish entirely disconnected articles on green taxes. The times manages to write a slightly negative but not openly hostile article on green taxes (which both the libdems and tories broadly support). The Telegraph really impressed me by not speaking out against green taxes at all, after giving a very good review of the stern review and evena short video clip it merely states business concerns about international competativeness if the uk moves without other major economies. The FT was always going to be a special case. A good review of the report (perhaps the best from any paper!) is followed by little talk of uk green taxes and quite a bit of thought about the possible expansion of the EU ETS. I might start treading the FT more after this.

Times
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Telegraph
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Financial Times (perhaps free market but non partisan?)
Stern Review, Green Taxes

More serious tabloids (Entire political spectrum)
The daily express and mail played this in an entirely duplicitous manner. They both reported Sir Nicholas Stern's concluions as reasonable and then went on to trash govornment policy measure being proposed as a result of the report. The common line was, hard working families are going to be laboured with yet another stealth tax. The fact that what is largely being discussed by all three parties is tax restructuring was entirely absent.

Daily Express
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Daily Mail
Stern Review and Green Taxes

Less serious tabloids (Entire political spectrum)
The Sun leads with a front page article, we are going to save the planet and you are paying. The coverage of Sterns Review is present only in a letter penned by Tony Blair. Bearing in mind this interesting dichotomy, it seems quite obvious that blears concenrs about climate change are being presented as an elaborate ploy to raise taxes. The star mentions the stern review in brief but relatively objectively, it dosent mention green taxes. The People dosent make any mention of climate change. The Mirror gives a reasonable account of the importance of the review and a fairly supportive line on green taxes.

The Sun
Stern Review, Green Taxes

The Star
Stern Review, n/a

The People
n/a

The Mirror
Stern Review, Green Taxes

Sir Nicholas Stern Interviewed on The Economics of Climate Change

Sir Nicholas Stern, a former World Banks chief economist has just produced a report for the UK govornment into the economics of climate change.

Speaking about this report to the Today Show stern made a strong argument in favour of a higer magnitude of action, including a restructuring of the tax system to punish polloution not wealth.

The interview is available here.

Stern Review Conclusions via Climate Ark

Stern Review on Economics of Climate Change

Given overwhelming and robust evidence (Item #1 below), the scientific debate on global warming is now closed and it is time for action (#2) which will require going beyond science to
policy and advocacy formulation.

A major new report by chief British government (#3-6) and former World Bank chief economist
Nicholas Stern finds that the benefits of determined worldwide steps to tackle climate change far outweigh the costs, and that failure to make these investments will lead to

"economic upheaval on the scale of the 1930s Depression",

costing

"more than both world wars"

while rendering

"swathes of the planet uninhabitable"

and turning

"200 million people into refugees".

This is not alarmist doomsdayism - it is the best policy predictions based upon the current science. There are many ways to know climate change, science being important but just one of
them. The report is the best policy document to date regarding likely apocalyptic social and economic outcomes of doing nothing to address the global ecological crises of which climate change is part and paramount.

"The chance to keep greenhouse gases at a level which scientists say should avoid the worst effects of climate change 'is already almost out of reach... the benefits of strong, early action considerably outweigh the costs'."

The report estimates stabilizing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will cost about one per cent of annual global output by 2050. But if the world does nothing, it could cut global consumption per person by between five and 20 per cent. He suggested rich nations take responsibility for emissions cuts of 60-80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050. Further, a global carbon price was needed, affixing a clear cost to pollution, and this could be created through tax (#7) [EI's carbon tax plan at http://www.climateark.org/lincoln_plan/ ], trading or regulation. And with only perhaps a decade to act with force, it is imperative that a Kyoto successor agreement is negotiated as early as next year.

We can achieve green growth

China Dialogue Editor Isabel Hilton with UK Climate Change Minister Ian Pearson

Isabel Hilton: This is the first ministerial meeting in the UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue. What do you hope to get out of it?

Ian Pearson: We hope to get an agreement on joint work in sustainable consumption and production. When you look at the embedded carbon in the products that we buy and the fact that China manufactures most of them these days, it’s clear that we have a common agenda here. Some work has also been done on forestry policy and we hope to take that forward as well – global deforestation is a huge issue that we need to tackle. The Chinese have been particularly keen to talk about urban development and of course the biggest issue today is climate change – the science and some of the daily reports we are now seeing are very worrying.

IH: Your department has given some support to www.chinadialogue.net. Is the UK China Sustainable Development Dialogue between governments and experts or do you envisage a wider dialogue?

IP: I would like it to be all of those. I think government to government dialogue is important. You can get some things done at a ministerial level that there can be some reticence about at official level. But official level cooperation is also extremely important – we’ve been pleased how much of this we’ve seen so far under the dialogue. China’s 11th Five Year Plan has sustainability written into it and I think it’s a remarkably impressive document.

IH: Although China’s last Five Year Plan missed several of its environmental targets. Is it your impression that the 11th Plan will hit them?

IP: I get the sense that they are taking it more seriously this time. There’s nothing like talking to people to really get an assessment of how important it is to them. I know the priority has been growth – and trying to ensure balanced growth, but sustainability has risen up the agenda in China.

IH: After twenty years of growth in China, there has certainly been a change of tone and a shift in official statements from the top. How much of a priority is it now for China to balance the economy and the environment?

IP: I think the environment is being given a higher priority under the 11th Five Year Plan and in the way that it will be implemented. I don’t think there’s any doubting that. The Chinese government has recognised the severe pollution problems that have been created as a result of its rapid industrial development and is taking practical measures to deal with that.

IH: How far do you think it goes?

IP: China is such vast country this can’t just be driven from the centre. It requires people in towns and cities to develop policies and to work on environmental issues. In such a vast country, performance is bound to be patchy. But I think a lot has happened in Shanghai. Shanghai wants to set higher standards environmentally and in terms of its economy and skills base. And if you talk to the mayors of Shenzhen or Guangzhou, they want to do something about it too. They still want to grow, but they are committed to doing something about the environment as well.

IH: What do you think Britain can learn from China in this process?

IP: I’d be interested to hear more about the green GDP report that China has produced. I also think we can learn from the Chinese commitment to building the world’s first carbon neutral city in Dongtan. I’m pleased that ARUP, a British-based international company, have provided a lot of expertise in this. In terms of the scale of their ambition to tackle the environment in creating a city like that, there’s something we can learn. We need to be looking at our proposals for developing new homes in the Thames Gateway with the same degree of ambition that the Chinese are adopting in Dongtan.

IH: You are minister for climate change and this dialogue is about sustainable development – can you explain the connection between climate change and sustainable development?

IP: Sustainable development, as I see it, is about one planet living. If everybody consumed resources at the same level as the UK, we would need three planets to live on – and we’ve only got one. It’s about living within our environmental means as well as our economic means. In the past we’ve just put the word “sustainable” in front of everything and devalued what sustainable development means. But one planet living can give us all a moral purpose.

IH: But this is not something the UK has achieved, so why should China listen to the UK on this question?

IP: We certainly haven’t achieved one planet living, but we believe that’s the direction we need to go in – and go in quickly. Our economy has grown by over 40% since 1990. At the same time, greenhouse gas emissions went down by 15%; it’s estimated that if we hadn’t taken action our greenhouse gas emissions would actually be 15% higher today, rather than 15% lower. We have put in place a range of different policy initiatives – we were the first country in the world to introduce a climate change levy and the first country to introduce an emissions trading scheme. We were the architects of the European Trading Scheme. We were the first country in the world to introduce an energy efficiency commitment on energy supplies, which has already produced around £3 billion of benefits in terms of energy efficiency measures, whether it be loft insulation or energy-efficient light bulbs in people’s houses.

The UK needs to do more, both domestically and internationally, but I don’t think people should forget some of the things we actually have done – and in a fairly painless way. I don’t think that our economy has suffered. So my message is that we can achieve green growth – and China can as well. It’s going to be vitally important that China does exactly that, because in the next 10 or 15 years it is set to be the world’s biggest economy. And the US has got to do it as well.

IH: At the launch of chinadialogue about ten days ago, a Chinese journalist came up to me and said: “What China needs is money and technology, not dialogue.” As you embark on this dialogue, what do you feel about that?

IP: I don’t think China needs money, but I do think it needs technology. I think we have a historical responsibility as a result of our past CO2 emissions. The message should be: the UK has discovered that there are better ways of industrialising, we think it’s worth your looking at them. There are opportunities for growth in ways that we weren’t aware of when we were growing strongly back in the 19th century.

IH: But the British government comes under a lot of criticism at home for the rather stately pace of all this. Missing your own emissions targets for a government which is quite keen on targets is rather embarrassing, isn’t it? You could have been more vigorous more early, surely?

IP: I do agree we should do more. We must do more, though I certainly wouldn’t use the phrase “stately pace”. We certainly haven’t given up hope of achieving a 20% reduction in CO2 by 2010. Measures in the energy white paper next year will also help set us on the path to a 60% reduction in CO2 emissions by 2050. We will continue to look at what more we can do as a government. It’s an increasingly urgent task, and although we’re only 2% of the world’s problem, I believe we have a moral responsibility because we were the first nation to industrialise. You can only credibly give international leadership if you’ve got credible domestic policies. You’ve got to walk the walk.

IH: People are now thinking beyond 2012 to the regime that will follow Kyoto. What would you like to see China do for that regime?

IP: Firstly I’d like to see China fully participate in the debate. It’s good that China has been involved in the Gleaneagles dialogue process, which provides a unique space in which we can collectively discuss what needs to be done, rather than getting into negotiating mode where lines are drawn between different parties. China has got some of the best scientists, the most thorough analyses to be found anywhere in the world. China knows that as it grows it’s going to be a world-leading force. It knows that climate change and climate security is going to be an issue for China. I’m very optimistic that China will come to the conclusion it’s in their own interest to do something about tackling their CO2 emissions.

If you look at the figures for world population growth, we will grow to 9 billion by 2015. If you look at the carbon costs of feeding 9 billion people – you can’t avoid carbon when you’re producing food -- that amount of carbon equates to the amount you can safely emit into the atmosphere if you’re going to avoid dangerous climate change.

In other words, everything that’s non-food related will have to be zero carbon: we will need zero-carbon power generation and zero carbon transport by 2015.

It shows the scale of the challenge. Zero-carbon power generation is possible. I’m keen that in the UK and Europe we lead the way. We need to say that all power generation in Europe will be zero carbon by 2020.


(During his visit to China, Ian Pearson will be meeting Du Ying, his counterpart at the National Development and Reform Commission. He will also be taking part in a roundtable event on Sustainable Development Governance and will attend the Asia Carbon Expo.)

The authors:


Ian Pearson is the minister of state for climate change and the environment in the British government.

Isabel Hilton is the editor of chinadialogue

Japanese Solar Market to Grow 30-40% a Year until FY2008

Driven by a strong demand in Germany and other European countries, the Japanese solar industry is expected to grow 30 to 40 percent a year, with a focus on exports. Annual market demand for Japan's photovoltaic equipment industry in fiscal 2008 will be 2,350,050 kilowatts (367 percent of the 2004 level) based on the shipment in terms of power generation capacity, according to a report by Yano Research Institute Ltd. As part of the firm's extensive study on new energy system markets, this 2005 report on solar photovoltaics was compiled based on interviews with manufacturers in the relevant fields, statistics, questionnaires and other data collected between April and June 2005.

The total capacity of the photovoltaic (PV) cells and modules shipped in fiscal 2004 including exports was estimated at 640,136 kilowatts. The market for residential solar power systems, the primary applications of photovoltaics, reached 359.5 billion yen (about U.S.$3.07 billion) in fiscal 2004, with 58,600 units installed, the report said. Of all the residential systems installed in fiscal 2004, 80.6 percent were for existing homes.

The report predicts that PV systems for existing homes will continue to lead the market. In fiscal 2008, the number of units installed is projected to reach 147,600 (252 percent of the 2004 level), which will be worth 698.9 billion yen (about U.S.$5.97 billion), or 194 percent of the 2004 level. Specifically, 457.5 billion yen (about U.S.$3.91 billion) is for new homes and 241.3 billion yen (about U.S.$2.06 billion) for existing homes, both of which will represent 185 percent and 215 percent of the 2004 levels, respectively.

The use of PV systems in the public sector was also surveyed through questionnaires sent to municipal governments. Of 242 respondents, 55.6 percent answered that they had "already installed one or more PV systems," while 23.2 percent replied that they "are considering the introduction of new or additional PV systems." When asked about the purpose of new/additional installation (multiple choices allowed), by far the largest number of respondents (91.4 percent) cited "environmental education and awareness promotion," followed by "reduction in carbon dioxide emissions" (74.1 percent) and "energy savings" (63.8 percent). The intended installation sites were "school buildings" (51.7 percent), "municipal office buildings" (22.4 percent), "street lights" (10.3 percent) and others. These results show that the installation of PV systems on educational facilities is most likely to increase in the public sector.

AL GORE MAKES DRAMATIC PRESENTATION TO LONDON BUSINESS COMMUNITY

Former US Vice President Al Gore has expressed his belief that tackling climate change presents the global community with an opportunity to unite around a shared moral purpose. Mr Gore was addressing an audience of business leaders and opinion formers brought together by The Climate Group on the climate change crisis facing the planet.

At the start of his presentation, Mr Gore explained that in Chinese, the word crisis is represented by 2 characters, one meaning danger, one meaning opportunity. His dramatic multi-media presentation addressed both these in the context of global warming.

Images and animation of the earth from space, of glacial retreat and shattering ice, of projected sea level rise and the shut down of the gulf stream were beamed onto the vast screen of London’s Imax cinema as the former Vice President explained the indisputable correlation between C02 and rising temperatures.

But Mr Gore did not dwell simply on the impacts. He was clear that, as well as the economic opportunities associated with moving to a low carbon economy, action on this issue would present a much greater opportunity still – the chance to find a shared moral purpose. According to Mr Gore, “this is a rare opportunity that few generations experience. As we rise to the challenge of climate change the moral clarity and vision we develop will enable us to identify other problems masquerading as political problems that are in fact moral imperatives. The opportunity is there for us to transform the way we go about our lives.”

Mr Gore’s presentation was given to a select audience of opinion formers, business leaders and company representatives gathered together by The Climate Group. However, his message, and his mesmerising presentation, will soon be accessible on a much broader scale with the forthcoming release of the movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

This film, a surprise hit at the Sundance Film Festival, intercuts the multimedia lecture with searching interview footage with the former Vice President. For more information on the movie and release dates click here.