What is fair climate protection?

Johannes Wallacher of the Institute for Social and Development Studies at the Munich School of Philosophy outlined standards we can apply to ensure a just climate policy. He sees climate change as a global, interdependent environmental concern. Unlike the water issue, neither the adverse effects of greenhouse gases nor the positive effects of climate protection can be confined to a particular area. In consequence, Wallacher noted, the temptation was there to “jump on the bandwagon”: to reap the benefits without sowing the necessary effort. “This is an issue that can only be resolved by joint action. No country can deal with the problem on its own. The only solution is to sacrifice our individual short-term interests in favour of the long-term interests of mankind as a whole.”

A just and effective climate policy calls for objective standards based on human dignity and human rights. These are values that underlie a number of ethical traditions and can be applied to different cultures. Climate-change initiatives have to be judged on the criteria of needs and opportunities, of development and procedural justice. Moreover, international climate policy has to get it right in development terms: it has to promote certain kinds of development. At the same time, we must not overlook intragenerational and intergenerational justice concerns, but ensure that the present generation and those to come would not be robbed of the opportunities to which they were entitled.

One law for all: Is a “global deal” the answer?

The economic gap between industrialised and developing countries is bound to close, many of the latter aspiring to “western” living standards. But where will it all end? Developing and emerging countries are hit harder by environmental degradation and climate change than the industrialised nations, and in the long term their stability and economic growth are threatened. There is no doubt that political decisions continue to be heavily influenced by economic interests.

What is the solution to this dilemma? One law for all means that everyone has an equal share in progress and prosperity. Since this will also mean aligning per capita CO2 emissions, the onus is now on the industrialised nations to cut emissions. But one law for all also means that emerging countries whose levels now match those of the industrialised nations will also have to reduce per capita emissions. However, climate protection and adapting to climate change exact a tribute. PIK experts estimate that climate protection costs of around 1% of global economic output will be necessary to stabilise concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 ppm. According to the report by UK scientist Nicholas Stern on the costs of climate change, adaptation measures will cost US$ 50bn–170bn. Currently, the kitty holds a mere US$ 480m.

Experts are therefore calling for a “global deal” to ensure an equitable distribution of the burdens and advantages of climate protection, adaptation measures and action to tackle poverty. Edenhofer of the PIK believes the deal should address the following issues:

• Creation of workable emissions-trading markets and combining national trading systems to form a global emissions-trading market
• Driving major technologies: photovoltaics, solarthermics, carbon capturing and sequestration (CSS) have to emerge from the experimental stage as soon as possible
• Moves to prevent deforestation
• The developing countries also have to be party to the agreement. No binding targets to begin with but possibly relative goals
• Help to enable developing countries to adapt to climate change

“For decades we have been offloading our waste into the atmosphere as if there were no payback. That”, according to Hartmut Graßl, head of the advisory panel to the Climate Change and Justice project launched by the Munich Re Foundation and MISEREOR (The German Catholic Bishops’ Organisation for Development Cooperation), “is the biggest failure ever caused by market forces.” The right to pollute must carry a price; a global emissions-trading system was long overdue. If, as experts propose, the price of CO2 is fixed at around 30–50 euros per tonne at the outset, it will pay to develop major technologies designed to prevent CO2 emissions. The costs of climate protection will then largely be met by the industrialised nations together, for example, with some of the Middle East states. Apart from immediate emissions reductions, Edenhofer believed that a fully-fledged international emissions-trading system would mobilise around US$ 100bn per year. That money could be used to transform the energy industry and smooth the path for adaptation to climate change.

However, emissions globally are still tending to rise rather than fall. Higher oil prices have provided a fillip for exploration and given coal a new lease of life. Huge sums are being spent on coal liquefaction, a process that generates particularly high emissions. Fossil fuel reserves are sufficient to bring about a threefold to fourfold increase in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, with coal one of the main culprits.

Experts are therefore demanding that we leave no technological stone unturned.We can only meet the target of stabilised emissions by a combination of increased efficiency, CCS and greater use of biomass and renewable energies. Edenhofer: “CCS is not a long-term solution but, since projects for storing CO2 in the ocean have been abandoned, this low-risk technology could buy the time we so desperately need to reorganise our energy supplies, particularly in view of the increasing use of coal.”

He believes the ideal solution would be the combined use of solar energy, biomass, and CCS. “We must find out how to harness at least one five-thousandth of the sun's supplies by 2050. That would give each of the earth’s nine billion inhabitants two kilowatts.” Around 10–13% of current global primary energy consumption could be met by biomass. The emissions caused by a change in land use would have to be captured, food supplies guaranteed and steps taken to protect biodiversity and conservation areas.

Edenhofer does not believe that including forests in international emissions trading, as advocated by the Stern Report, is the answer. It is not clear whether it is possible to store CO2 in forests in the long term because growing demand for food, particularly from China and India, will bring greater incentives to cut down trees. Experts believe the key lies in a form of annuity payment that will compensate countries for conserving their forests.

                                                                                         Go on to page 4 of 4