Global Warning
Two Cheers for China’s Climate Obstruction
Bjørn Lomborg
|
|
|
|
COPENHAGEN – Since the Copenhagen climate summit’s failure, many politicians and pundits have pointed the finger at China’s leaders for blocking a binding, global carbon-mitigation treaty. But the Chinese government’s resistance was both understandable and inevitable. Rather than mustering indignation, decision-makers would do well to use this as a wake-up call: it is time to consider a smarter climate policy.
China is unwilling to do anything that might curtail the economic growth that has enabled millions of Chinese to clamber out of poverty. This development can be seen in the ever-expanding Chinese domestic market.
In the next six months, one-quarter of young Chinese consumers intend to buy new cars – the main source of urban air pollution – up an astonishing 65% from a year ago. A poll by China Youth Daily revealed that eight of ten young Chinese are aware of climate change, but are prepared to support environmental policies only if they can continue to improve their living standards – including acquiring new cars.
The cost of drastic, short-term carbon cuts is too high. The results of all major economic models reveal that the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature increases below two degrees Celsius would require a global tax of €71 per ton to start (or about €0.12 per liter of gasoline), increasing to €2,800 per ton (or €6.62 per liter of gasoline) by the end of the century. In all, the actual cost to the economy would be a phenomenal €28 trillion a year. According to most mainstream calculations, that is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it would likely prevent.
Trying to cut carbon emissions drastically in the short-term would be particularly damaging, because it would not be possible for industry and consumers to replace carbon-burning fossil fuels with cheap, green energy. Renewable energy alternatives are simply far from ready to take over.
Consider the fact that 97% of China’s energy comes from fossil fuels and burning waste and biomass. Renewable sources like wind and solar meet just 0.2% of the China’s energy needs, according to the most recent International Energy Agency (IEA) figures. The IEA estimates that on its current path, China will get a mere 1.2% of its energy from renewable sources by 2030.
As if these reasons were not enough to explain the Chinese government’s opposition to an expensive global carbon deal, economic-impact models show that for at least the rest of this century, China will actually benefit from global warming. Warmer temperatures will boost agricultural production and improve health. While heat-related deaths in summer will increase, this will be more than offset by a significant reduction in cold-related deaths in winter.
In short, China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century. Little wonder, then, that Ed Miliband, Britain’s Secretary for Energy and Climate Change
, found “impossible resistance” from China to a global carbon mitigation deal.
Trying to force China into line would be impractical and foolhardy. The inescapable but inconvenient truth is that the response to global warming that we have single-mindedly pursued for nearly 20 years – since the leaders of rich countries first vowed to cut carbon – is simply not going to work.
It is time to recognize the impracticality of trying to force developing countries to agree to make fossil fuel ever more expensive. Instead, we need to make a greater effort to produce cheaper, more widely used green energy. And to do this, we must dramatically increase the amount of money we spend on research and development.
A global deal in which countries committed to spending 0.2% of GDP to develop non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would increase current spending 50-fold, and it would still be many times cheaper than a global carbon deal. It would also ensure that richer nations pay more, taking much of the political heat out of the debate.
Most importantly, such an approach would bring about the transformational technological breakthroughs that are required to make green energy sources cheap and effective enough to fuel a carbon-free future.
We cannot browbeat China and other developing nations into embracing hugely expensive, ineffective global carbon cuts. Rather than hoping that we can overcome their “impossible resistance” with political maneuvering, leaders of developed countries need to shift their focus to a strategy that is both feasible and effective.
Bjørn Lomborg is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist’s Guide to Global Warming.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2010.
www.project-syndicate.org
For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link: http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/lomborg56.mp3
You might also like to read more from Bjørn Lomborg or return to our home page.
|
|
Nico 02:13 14 Jan 10
I don't think it matters what the economic costs will be when millions of people will die from ever-larger natural disasters, the emergence of new and currently unknown diseases, the spread of tropical diseases to more densely populated areas in the North, untold number of species that will go extinct or face significant losses in population that could threaten the global food chain, e,g., Bee's.
"The cost of drastic, short-term carbon cuts is too high."
Firstly, what is the cost of not doing anything? Secondly, if we accept your premise, then cutting carbon, in absolute terms, will NEVER be feasible and will never happen. As the economy grows inefficient carbon consumption raises, since it is cheaper than alternatives and without taxation or regulation to correct that socially inefficient outcome of the capitalist economy, will merely compound on itself that will and is leading to even stronger vested interests oppose reform; ergo, when will this be possible, if not now?
"In short, China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century."
If there was ever a non-sensical statement it is this, the effects of global warming are being felt today and will only increase. Basically, what you Mr. Lomborg are saying is that today's generation (parents) should not care about the future generations (children, etc.). This goes against the basic human impulse of self-preservation of the species in the interest of profit and materialism?
http://perspectivos.blogspot.com/
hsgross 10:14 14 Jan 10
...economic-impact models show that for at least the rest of this century, China will actually benefit from global warming. Warmer temperatures will boost agricultural production and improve health. While heat-related deaths in summer will increase, this will be more than offset by a significant reduction in cold-related deaths in winter.
-At the same time, China is experiencing extensive desertification and shrinking aggregate freshwater reserves while already having some of the lowest per-capita water reserves of any country in the world. Global warming is exacerbating these problems. As China can important grains on the global market, surely the negatives of climate change will outweigh any of the alleged positive benefits for China as expounded by Professor Lomborg in this column.
PADRAEG 05:24 15 Jan 10
BRAVO: "It is remarkable to consider that we could cancel out this century’s global warming with 1,900 unmanned ships spraying seawater mist into the air to thicken clouds. The total cost would be about $9 billion, and the benefits of preventing the temperature increase would add up to about $20 trillion."
limkokang 07:23 17 Jan 10
Actually the way to solve the problem is very easy but we just don't want or reluctant to practice it. Indeed we just hope other will help us to solve it because we are unlikely to sacrifice what we have now. Try to think abt. Do you willing to pay more just for the future of the earth. Speaking is very easy but when it turn into reality it becomes complicated. Just pray the best for the earth.
rtechow11 12:48 18 Jan 10
Bjorn, it was rather ignored but China scuttled a global ETS in a subtler way than simply refusing to accept higher energy prices. China also demanded that new clean energy technology be made available without royalty or licencing costs.
The way an ETS is meant to work is that by making carbon based energy sources more expensive it will lead to new clean energy technology being developed by private enterprise seeking profit.
There far less chance of profit if the largest energy consumer is out of scope. And even less if China should, on the moral basis that energy technologies must be freely available to all, take the technology, manufacture and export it without any financial return to the inventors/developers of the technology.
Without global support for the development of clean energy sources by for-profit organizations an ETS will eventually founder. People will see they are not getting the new breakthrough technology they were so blithely promised.
You can browbeat some of the people all of the time, all of the people for some of the time, but never all of the people all of the time. An ETS has to achieve the later - an incredible unlikely feat when you think about it.
Eventually there will be an Australian-like Pauline Hanson voter rebellion against high energty costs.
KaareFog 07:18 24 Feb 10
Lomborg´s article is full of errors.
The claims about the share of renewable energy in China´s total energy consumption are extremely misleading.
It is not true that global warming is projected to increase the agricultural production of China.
The costs of investing in more renewable energy sources in order to contribute to the global target of maximally 2° C temperature rise are much more affordable than stated by Lomborg.
To see details about this, read the criticism written by Ole Odgaard on
www.Lomborg-errors.dk/China.htm
OlivierReuland 12:03 14 Jan 10
"In all, the actual cost to the economy would be a phenomenal €28 trillion a year."
I would be interested to know how you calculated this number. I spinned the number in all directions but can't come any close to this number.
You are a scientist, you should know you have to tell which sources you are using and how you get your results...