Asian perspectives on climate change
Saturday, 15 March 2008
Recently the Institute of Global Environmental and Strategies (IGES) published a report on Asian perspectives to climate change. For the report, which followed a series of stakeholder meetings in 2005, key academics, NGO representatives, government officials and business leaders were interviewed. The focus of the consultations was a post 2012 climate regime.
The lengthy report provides a degree of situational awareness and climate change policies in Asia. It makes sweeping statements about what needs to be done by the emerging economies.
Here are more instructive guide to the issues and some suggestions of solutions for some Asian countries.
China's economy is growing fast, its consumption patterns are showing similar rapid growth. It is by no means certain that China could attain the levels of consumption comparable to the developed world considering the acute environmental stresses. Such growth is not unprecedented in Asia, as the recent trends in the Republic of Korea shows. During 2003 China's power consumption rose by 15 per cent, markedly higher than its 9 per cent economic growth.
"China's active participation in international negotiations and its political will to implement concrete measures will ultimately determine the future of china and the world", states the report. The issue must be tackled from two angles -- On what basis does china feel a need to act on climate change? How is this commitment effectively translated?
There are many reasons for China to resist action on climate change: it has lower per capita emissions, compared to developed nations (and energy is currently strongly correlated to wealth); developed nations have a historical responsibility. A leadership role is justly required of wealthy nations. If China has to act to mitigate climate change it can ask for something in return, possibly payment of some kind. This is an overly pessimistic look at the situation with China already feeling climate change impacts in its North and East. Action on climate change is therefore, in its own interest.
"Studies on extreme weather events and trends [in China] show that both drought frequency and flooding are likely to become more frequent and intense". For this reason the need to act on climate change is widely accepted in China, the matter of debate is the approach to be taken. For nations of the south development is not mere accumulation of material wealth. Wealth is required for adequate food, health care and basic education. Development for the very poor 200 million in China is a matter of life and death-it is essential.
China has a limited responsibility for action. This responsibility is arguably contingent on co-commitant action by the west. It is important therefore to look for solutions to climate change in China from less of an ideological angle. How can climate change mitigation depend on sustainable development such as improvements in air quality, how can adaptation to climate change be linked to mitigation and how can the North help to promote climate change mitigation in an efficient manner?
Ultimately, it is essential to have a global cap on emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG's). To reconcile this with the limited responsibility that China has is a great challenge. This will require the USA to be involved. It will require flexibility in the framework. Emissions limit is unavoidable. Carbon markets are an insufficient good place to start, with support from China. Other approaches are needed. Technology transfer will definitely be required in any future regime. Agreements on policies and measures are also desirable, the baseline for traditional clean development mechanism (CDM) projects has to be increased, there is to much slack in the system. Adaption funding is one issue that arose consistently across Asia, although it was a particular issue in China and amongst ASEAN members.
Perhaps the single greatest challenge for policy makers in the world today is how to ensure that the coal fired power stations, China is building, are encouraged to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. China currently produces 67 per cent of its primary energy needs from coal. The number is astronomical, if these power stations -which will be built-are not at least CCS compatible in the short term then we will not avert catastrophic climate change. The reason that these plants will be built is that China has huge, and cheap domestic coal supplies: coal offers more energy security than gas or oil and is cheaper than renewables. One of the vital roles that the climate regime must play is supporting the spread of renewables through training of both technical and managerial staff to run and operate modern electricity systems that include renewables. Coal produces 70 per cent more CO2 than natural gas power generation. Particularly with lignite that, commonly used in china causes toxic and environmentally damaging precipitation. This is one indirect route into climate change mitigation, local air quality can be tackled very effectively with ccs. It is vital that these synergies are exploited and that policy measures to address climate change also address local health issues wherever possible.
India too is increasing its contribution to the problem at an alarming rate. Coal is currently responsible for 50 per cent of electricity generation in India and more coal fired power stations are being built at a considerable rate.
"It is likely that energy use will increase by around 5 per cent per year, resulting in an increase from 120,000 to 400,000 MW by 2030, from coal". Adaption is a major concern in India. This priority is to be expected as India is ranked 127 out of 188 on the UN's development scale. The country is also strongly divided between the increasing middle classes of the urban areas and the still large number of peasants in the countryside. It is primarily the peasants who will bear the brunt of climate change, particularly through water scarcity, as a result of both decreased summer flows from the Himalayas and from changes in the precipitation regime.
Currently 550 million people in India have no access to electricity. It creates a massive opportunity to develop affordable micro-renewables. The challenge is to bring the poor the electricity they need to improve their quality of life without. Renewables can make the price reasonable.
The electricity system for more than half billion Indians is still to be decided upon. The current grid for industrialised India is amongst the least efficient in the world. It is estimated that due to inefficiency savings of 120MtC could be achieved at 0-15$ per tonne. Studies have recently found that for certain industries such as cement, efficiency can be increased up to 40 per cent, with relatively low levels of investment, by changing industrial processes, without using revolutionary technologies.
The concept of the CDM is popular in India. But the major problems facing India are: the bureaucratic obstacle to application of technology and the lack of focus on sustainable development. Alternatives to the CDM could possibly make sure that the projects could be undertaken in India. Industrialised countries can't simply offset their emissions by encouraging changes through the CDM. The baseline has to rise to have environmental integrity. These low cost technological advances should be promoted trough agreements on policies and measures related to local air quality or flexible climate agreements stipulating pledging and review. Pledging and review encourage initiative. A target orientated protocol like Kyoto requires the negotiators to consider the non trivial matter of how their economies are likely to perform and what would be their baseline for emissions.
In Indonesia, forestry the largest source of emissions, is expected to strengthen, because of economic growth, as well as the government's policy of promoting coal to increase energy security. With significant potential for exploiting renewable geothermal and solar energy, the costs of these technologies due to patent protection is an issue for Indonesia, as is its lack of trained maintenance technicians. Technology transfer and capacity building in the renewable sector are, therefore, key issues to be addressed in a post 2012 regime. For most countries with GDP, as low as 690$ US, the primary focus is adaption.
Land use change is of huge importance for Indonesia. Only Brazil, Malaysia and Venezuela emit more greenhouse gasses from this source. Clearly there needs to be room in the next climate regime for discouraging deforestation. Payment for protecting the forests is supported by many as the only realistic way of supporting those who would use the land to make a living.
Considering its economic might Japan has been relatively quiet on the international scene on climate change. Conflicts within the Japanese ministries may explain this weak stance internationally. The primary point of interest gleaned form the Japanese stakeholders is the fact that the 6 per cent emission reduction target that they have signed to achieve is widely considered unjust to them.
This represents a striking failure of the current regime. The second wealthiest nation in the world, and perhaps its most technologically advanced society feels that a 6 per cent emission reduction is harsh! This highlights the manner of thinking of the wealthy. Japan has amongst the lowest emissions per unit GDP of any country in the world. This point must be considered as it indicates efficiency achieved by its manufacturing industry. But the case for emissions intensity targets is poor indeed.
The Republic of Korea has the 11th largest economy in the world with per capita emissions level to match. It simultaneously represents the power for helping people out of poverty. The world quakes at the realisation that the rest of Asia may follow its path.
The instance of Korea raises the question how emissions reduction targets are allocated to countries? Korea, though an economy based on manufacturing and the export of goods, does not choose the industries on which it thrives. These are a product of historical, geopolitical and geographical factors. Threrfore it would be grossly unfair to hold Korea responsible for emissions by its industries, producing goods, consumed by other nations. These other nations are responsible for the energy consumed by its industries and transportation. Contraction and convergence must be on a fair basis. A nation is responsible for what it consumes. In a globalised world what relevance has domestic industry emissions? Surely nations cannot simply outsource their emissions problems! Korea is particularly sensitive to energy prices due to its high proportion of energy intensive industries. It is important to consider the sensitivity of the economies of these countries to energy prices.
Korea is a key example of a nation where an emissions cap is essential. But that must be done by the rest of the world to make this acceptable. Two ideas that receive widespread support in Korea are technology transfer and a pledge and review system for targets.
Given perfect foresight a country may be able to commit to emissions cuts of 20 per cent below the baseline; particularly those currently developing commitments of 15 per cent to give themselves a buffer. If they then find that the economy grows slowly a 25 per cent cut may be feasible but they will have no motivation to actually achieve this within a Kyoto based system.
The weakees of the initial 15 per cent target is in itself an issue. The pledge and review system could ensure more resources to flow in upon reaching a target. A real attempt at achieving a target may lead to further progress. The pledge and review system has the potential for progress if the review is thorough and the inducements for further progress strong.
Vietnam is at the beginning of what promises to be a rapid process of development. Its energy demand is expected to triple between 2001 and 2010. With a population of 82M and emissions 0.73MtCo2e per capita Vietnam is amongst the countries that have higher emissions from land use change than from energy use. It gets 60 per cent of its power from hydro electricity. This is changing rapidly. Coal is the chosen fuel of the future.
This political choice to pursue coal reflects a general trend across Asia, could disastrous for climate change policy. It highlight the direct contradiction between fuel security and climate change policy. Renewables and CCS provide both security and climate mitigation.
Vietnam needs CDM to take on small projects, assisting in clean development at the community level.
Vietnam also pointed out that committing to targets is something they would readily do given the resources and financing to pursue these goals. If Asian leaders by deciding to catch up with the developed world could opt to destroy the planet.
Asian interests have not, thus far, been adequately addressed in the climate negotiations. This inadequacy results, in part, from the lack of their negotiating capacity.
Asian concerns are more often related to adaption and mitigation linked to sustainable development. Lack of financial, technological and knowledge resources needed for adaptation, development and mitigation are key challenges for Asian countries.
Future regimes have to consider historical responsibility, ability and egalitarian ideals to be effective. Criticism of the Kyoto framework is that it lends itself to 'horse trading'.
Non annex-one countries are not encouraged to act. But action they take is advantageous to them if they can get it accredited as a CDM project. Action must be encouraged in developing countries based on principles. This action must be supported but not to the exclusion of action by the wealthy.
The Adaption funds, in various guises, largely proved ineffective and inadequate.
The flexibility mechanisms are currently focused on large projects in the south that are readily validated, the criteria of sustainable development (SD) are not represented sufficiently.
Due to economies of scale many SD projects would not be supported. The CDM is clearly advantageous to the north and in a limited degree to the south. It cannot however be thought of as an all encompassing mechanism and other routes to support SD in developing nations are required.
.............
Internet
The lengthy report provides a degree of situational awareness and climate change policies in Asia. It makes sweeping statements about what needs to be done by the emerging economies.
Here are more instructive guide to the issues and some suggestions of solutions for some Asian countries.
China's economy is growing fast, its consumption patterns are showing similar rapid growth. It is by no means certain that China could attain the levels of consumption comparable to the developed world considering the acute environmental stresses. Such growth is not unprecedented in Asia, as the recent trends in the Republic of Korea shows. During 2003 China's power consumption rose by 15 per cent, markedly higher than its 9 per cent economic growth.
"China's active participation in international negotiations and its political will to implement concrete measures will ultimately determine the future of china and the world", states the report. The issue must be tackled from two angles -- On what basis does china feel a need to act on climate change? How is this commitment effectively translated?
There are many reasons for China to resist action on climate change: it has lower per capita emissions, compared to developed nations (and energy is currently strongly correlated to wealth); developed nations have a historical responsibility. A leadership role is justly required of wealthy nations. If China has to act to mitigate climate change it can ask for something in return, possibly payment of some kind. This is an overly pessimistic look at the situation with China already feeling climate change impacts in its North and East. Action on climate change is therefore, in its own interest.
"Studies on extreme weather events and trends [in China] show that both drought frequency and flooding are likely to become more frequent and intense". For this reason the need to act on climate change is widely accepted in China, the matter of debate is the approach to be taken. For nations of the south development is not mere accumulation of material wealth. Wealth is required for adequate food, health care and basic education. Development for the very poor 200 million in China is a matter of life and death-it is essential.
China has a limited responsibility for action. This responsibility is arguably contingent on co-commitant action by the west. It is important therefore to look for solutions to climate change in China from less of an ideological angle. How can climate change mitigation depend on sustainable development such as improvements in air quality, how can adaptation to climate change be linked to mitigation and how can the North help to promote climate change mitigation in an efficient manner?
Ultimately, it is essential to have a global cap on emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG's). To reconcile this with the limited responsibility that China has is a great challenge. This will require the USA to be involved. It will require flexibility in the framework. Emissions limit is unavoidable. Carbon markets are an insufficient good place to start, with support from China. Other approaches are needed. Technology transfer will definitely be required in any future regime. Agreements on policies and measures are also desirable, the baseline for traditional clean development mechanism (CDM) projects has to be increased, there is to much slack in the system. Adaption funding is one issue that arose consistently across Asia, although it was a particular issue in China and amongst ASEAN members.
Perhaps the single greatest challenge for policy makers in the world today is how to ensure that the coal fired power stations, China is building, are encouraged to use carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. China currently produces 67 per cent of its primary energy needs from coal. The number is astronomical, if these power stations -which will be built-are not at least CCS compatible in the short term then we will not avert catastrophic climate change. The reason that these plants will be built is that China has huge, and cheap domestic coal supplies: coal offers more energy security than gas or oil and is cheaper than renewables. One of the vital roles that the climate regime must play is supporting the spread of renewables through training of both technical and managerial staff to run and operate modern electricity systems that include renewables. Coal produces 70 per cent more CO2 than natural gas power generation. Particularly with lignite that, commonly used in china causes toxic and environmentally damaging precipitation. This is one indirect route into climate change mitigation, local air quality can be tackled very effectively with ccs. It is vital that these synergies are exploited and that policy measures to address climate change also address local health issues wherever possible.
India too is increasing its contribution to the problem at an alarming rate. Coal is currently responsible for 50 per cent of electricity generation in India and more coal fired power stations are being built at a considerable rate.
"It is likely that energy use will increase by around 5 per cent per year, resulting in an increase from 120,000 to 400,000 MW by 2030, from coal". Adaption is a major concern in India. This priority is to be expected as India is ranked 127 out of 188 on the UN's development scale. The country is also strongly divided between the increasing middle classes of the urban areas and the still large number of peasants in the countryside. It is primarily the peasants who will bear the brunt of climate change, particularly through water scarcity, as a result of both decreased summer flows from the Himalayas and from changes in the precipitation regime.
Currently 550 million people in India have no access to electricity. It creates a massive opportunity to develop affordable micro-renewables. The challenge is to bring the poor the electricity they need to improve their quality of life without. Renewables can make the price reasonable.
The electricity system for more than half billion Indians is still to be decided upon. The current grid for industrialised India is amongst the least efficient in the world. It is estimated that due to inefficiency savings of 120MtC could be achieved at 0-15$ per tonne. Studies have recently found that for certain industries such as cement, efficiency can be increased up to 40 per cent, with relatively low levels of investment, by changing industrial processes, without using revolutionary technologies.
The concept of the CDM is popular in India. But the major problems facing India are: the bureaucratic obstacle to application of technology and the lack of focus on sustainable development. Alternatives to the CDM could possibly make sure that the projects could be undertaken in India. Industrialised countries can't simply offset their emissions by encouraging changes through the CDM. The baseline has to rise to have environmental integrity. These low cost technological advances should be promoted trough agreements on policies and measures related to local air quality or flexible climate agreements stipulating pledging and review. Pledging and review encourage initiative. A target orientated protocol like Kyoto requires the negotiators to consider the non trivial matter of how their economies are likely to perform and what would be their baseline for emissions.
In Indonesia, forestry the largest source of emissions, is expected to strengthen, because of economic growth, as well as the government's policy of promoting coal to increase energy security. With significant potential for exploiting renewable geothermal and solar energy, the costs of these technologies due to patent protection is an issue for Indonesia, as is its lack of trained maintenance technicians. Technology transfer and capacity building in the renewable sector are, therefore, key issues to be addressed in a post 2012 regime. For most countries with GDP, as low as 690$ US, the primary focus is adaption.
Land use change is of huge importance for Indonesia. Only Brazil, Malaysia and Venezuela emit more greenhouse gasses from this source. Clearly there needs to be room in the next climate regime for discouraging deforestation. Payment for protecting the forests is supported by many as the only realistic way of supporting those who would use the land to make a living.
Considering its economic might Japan has been relatively quiet on the international scene on climate change. Conflicts within the Japanese ministries may explain this weak stance internationally. The primary point of interest gleaned form the Japanese stakeholders is the fact that the 6 per cent emission reduction target that they have signed to achieve is widely considered unjust to them.
This represents a striking failure of the current regime. The second wealthiest nation in the world, and perhaps its most technologically advanced society feels that a 6 per cent emission reduction is harsh! This highlights the manner of thinking of the wealthy. Japan has amongst the lowest emissions per unit GDP of any country in the world. This point must be considered as it indicates efficiency achieved by its manufacturing industry. But the case for emissions intensity targets is poor indeed.
The Republic of Korea has the 11th largest economy in the world with per capita emissions level to match. It simultaneously represents the power for helping people out of poverty. The world quakes at the realisation that the rest of Asia may follow its path.
The instance of Korea raises the question how emissions reduction targets are allocated to countries? Korea, though an economy based on manufacturing and the export of goods, does not choose the industries on which it thrives. These are a product of historical, geopolitical and geographical factors. Threrfore it would be grossly unfair to hold Korea responsible for emissions by its industries, producing goods, consumed by other nations. These other nations are responsible for the energy consumed by its industries and transportation. Contraction and convergence must be on a fair basis. A nation is responsible for what it consumes. In a globalised world what relevance has domestic industry emissions? Surely nations cannot simply outsource their emissions problems! Korea is particularly sensitive to energy prices due to its high proportion of energy intensive industries. It is important to consider the sensitivity of the economies of these countries to energy prices.
Korea is a key example of a nation where an emissions cap is essential. But that must be done by the rest of the world to make this acceptable. Two ideas that receive widespread support in Korea are technology transfer and a pledge and review system for targets.
Given perfect foresight a country may be able to commit to emissions cuts of 20 per cent below the baseline; particularly those currently developing commitments of 15 per cent to give themselves a buffer. If they then find that the economy grows slowly a 25 per cent cut may be feasible but they will have no motivation to actually achieve this within a Kyoto based system.
The weakees of the initial 15 per cent target is in itself an issue. The pledge and review system could ensure more resources to flow in upon reaching a target. A real attempt at achieving a target may lead to further progress. The pledge and review system has the potential for progress if the review is thorough and the inducements for further progress strong.
Vietnam is at the beginning of what promises to be a rapid process of development. Its energy demand is expected to triple between 2001 and 2010. With a population of 82M and emissions 0.73MtCo2e per capita Vietnam is amongst the countries that have higher emissions from land use change than from energy use. It gets 60 per cent of its power from hydro electricity. This is changing rapidly. Coal is the chosen fuel of the future.
This political choice to pursue coal reflects a general trend across Asia, could disastrous for climate change policy. It highlight the direct contradiction between fuel security and climate change policy. Renewables and CCS provide both security and climate mitigation.
Vietnam needs CDM to take on small projects, assisting in clean development at the community level.
Vietnam also pointed out that committing to targets is something they would readily do given the resources and financing to pursue these goals. If Asian leaders by deciding to catch up with the developed world could opt to destroy the planet.
Asian interests have not, thus far, been adequately addressed in the climate negotiations. This inadequacy results, in part, from the lack of their negotiating capacity.
Asian concerns are more often related to adaption and mitigation linked to sustainable development. Lack of financial, technological and knowledge resources needed for adaptation, development and mitigation are key challenges for Asian countries.
Future regimes have to consider historical responsibility, ability and egalitarian ideals to be effective. Criticism of the Kyoto framework is that it lends itself to 'horse trading'.
Non annex-one countries are not encouraged to act. But action they take is advantageous to them if they can get it accredited as a CDM project. Action must be encouraged in developing countries based on principles. This action must be supported but not to the exclusion of action by the wealthy.
The Adaption funds, in various guises, largely proved ineffective and inadequate.
The flexibility mechanisms are currently focused on large projects in the south that are readily validated, the criteria of sustainable development (SD) are not represented sufficiently.
Due to economies of scale many SD projects would not be supported. The CDM is clearly advantageous to the north and in a limited degree to the south. It cannot however be thought of as an all encompassing mechanism and other routes to support SD in developing nations are required.
.............
Internet