RI 'important' to global warming fight
RI 'important' to global warming fight
The world cannot afford to wait any longer before tackling global warming, according to a report by British economist Nicholas Stern, which suggests that without immediate action climate change could cost the global economy up to 20 percent per annum, now and forever. But taking action now to reduce greenhouse gasses could cost as little as 1 percent of global gross domestic product. The Jakarta Post's Riyadi Suparno and Stevie Emilia recently interviewed Stern, an adviser to the British government on climate change and development, and the author of the authoritative Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, to get his views on efforts to curb global warming.
Question: Why does it make sense for the world to invest stopping in climate change?
Answer: If we go on doing business as usual, as well as adding a lot of greenhouse gasses every year, they build up in the atmosphere and cause global warming and climate change. It's not simply the temperature that is the problem, it's what happens to the climate; that means storms, floods, droughts and sea level rise.
Developing countries would be the most vulnerable partly because they're already living in low latitudes, so they feel it stronger since it's already a warmer climate. But they are also more vulnerable because they are less wealthy, less able to defend themselves, in terms of straightening infrastructure, roads and irrigation schemes that have to be stronger.
For around 1 percent of world GDP, we would be able to reduce those risks very radically. What we're arguing in the report is that the savings you make around the world in those reduced risks would be much larger than the cost of action. It's a very good investment to make.
Land use change emissions, mainly from deforestation, accounts for 18 percent of global greenhouse gasses. Currently, 30 percent of land use emissions are from Indonesia and a further 20 percent from Brazil. In the absence of a global trading scheme to address deforestation, you proposed establishing an international fund of between $10 and $15 billion. How would your proposal work?
Over the next two to three years, it's very important to get that kind of fund in place so they can start work and they can be strong support for work in Indonesia, Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Congo, Cameroon and in countries around the world where the forests stand. Because this is happening very quickly, it's urgent to get action going.
And I think it will take a little time to build the trading scheme. A trading scheme is more complicated because at the moment they operate at the micro-level, whereas a lot of the action would be at the country level, such as law enforcement and developing alternative income-generating activity for people close to the forest.
So what you really need is support for national programs, and in the short run it's best through direct support, through the international aid structure.
But in the medium term, we have to move quickly toward private financing support. The idea would be that private finance would come to the trading system. As the rich countries build the trading system, we should be moving quickly toward replacing those public funds by private money.
You also mention the importance of international support for adaptation. Could you elaborate on that?
International support for adaptation is important because adaptation makes development more difficult. If you go on trying to improve your living standard, and then disaster and disruption occur due to climate change, it's damaging to development. You have to build your roads, infrastructure, irrigation systems, and you have to build them stronger. You have to think of strengthening Jakarta against floods. These make development more costly.
It's also important that in the adaptation process that rich countries deliver on their promises. Because the problem is actually more difficult, even more difficult than we thought about 10 years ago when we didn't fully realize the challenges of climate change.
In the upcoming global meeting on climate change being held in Bali in December, what agenda should be pursued by countries like Indonesia?
I think Indonesia has a very important role to play. Indonesia is the host and the chair. But also Indonesia is well placed internationally.
Priorities for Bali, first is to get a very strong sense of urgency and collaboration. I don't think in the past that has been strong enough. There has been recognition of the problem but not the urgency for action. The longer we wait, the more difficult it becomes because you are building up stocks in the atmosphere.
And it should not be too much arm wrestling. In the past, for example, there has been a stand-off between the U.S. on one hand and China on the other hand, while each is saying the other must do something before I do something. They put weight on everybody else and nothing happened. We need to go beyond that. We have to collaborate, we have to get together. I think Indonesia is very well placed to do that.
Within that, I think that it's important to find a way of building up a trading system quickly. And that will involve strong objectives by each country. Generate very strong demands for carbon trade, and build the supply side from developing countries that can work well on a big scale.
Currently we have the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is a good idea and the principle is good. But it is very difficult to make it work on a big scale because everything is by project and not all the technology, in fact quite few, is included and eligible under the CDM. I don't think the CDM, although the principle is good, can carry the weight of the size of the trading.
The second thing is the need to build this funding for deforestation. I'll make and bring them to big parties in Bali.
What should be done beyond the Kyoto Protocol, which expires on 2012?
The importance of Bali is to try to get a new system in place in good time. I think we can't leave that longer than 2007 and 2008. The years 2007 and 2008 will be key decision years because it takes time to get things in place. People look ahead in the market. There will be a problem if we don't get things done in 2007 and 2008, that's why the Bali conference is important.
How to send messages to big players, like the U.S., to join a new global cooperation, especially after Kyoto?
The challenge is to get everybody to understand their own law, to respect what other people are doing. There will be no forcing of any country. Each country can recognize that it can do better if it's a part of collaborative system. Each country has to take some responsibility.
And Indonesia can really lead that, as Indonesia plays a big role in the mission but also is very vulnerable and has the advantage of being at the center of so many networks.
©Jakarta Post
The world cannot afford to wait any longer before tackling global warming, according to a report by British economist Nicholas Stern, which suggests that without immediate action climate change could cost the global economy up to 20 percent per annum, now and forever. But taking action now to reduce greenhouse gasses could cost as little as 1 percent of global gross domestic product. The Jakarta Post's Riyadi Suparno and Stevie Emilia recently interviewed Stern, an adviser to the British government on climate change and development, and the author of the authoritative Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change, to get his views on efforts to curb global warming.
Question: Why does it make sense for the world to invest stopping in climate change?
Answer: If we go on doing business as usual, as well as adding a lot of greenhouse gasses every year, they build up in the atmosphere and cause global warming and climate change. It's not simply the temperature that is the problem, it's what happens to the climate; that means storms, floods, droughts and sea level rise.
Developing countries would be the most vulnerable partly because they're already living in low latitudes, so they feel it stronger since it's already a warmer climate. But they are also more vulnerable because they are less wealthy, less able to defend themselves, in terms of straightening infrastructure, roads and irrigation schemes that have to be stronger.
For around 1 percent of world GDP, we would be able to reduce those risks very radically. What we're arguing in the report is that the savings you make around the world in those reduced risks would be much larger than the cost of action. It's a very good investment to make.
Land use change emissions, mainly from deforestation, accounts for 18 percent of global greenhouse gasses. Currently, 30 percent of land use emissions are from Indonesia and a further 20 percent from Brazil. In the absence of a global trading scheme to address deforestation, you proposed establishing an international fund of between $10 and $15 billion. How would your proposal work?
Over the next two to three years, it's very important to get that kind of fund in place so they can start work and they can be strong support for work in Indonesia, Brazil, Papua New Guinea, Congo, Cameroon and in countries around the world where the forests stand. Because this is happening very quickly, it's urgent to get action going.
And I think it will take a little time to build the trading scheme. A trading scheme is more complicated because at the moment they operate at the micro-level, whereas a lot of the action would be at the country level, such as law enforcement and developing alternative income-generating activity for people close to the forest.
So what you really need is support for national programs, and in the short run it's best through direct support, through the international aid structure.
But in the medium term, we have to move quickly toward private financing support. The idea would be that private finance would come to the trading system. As the rich countries build the trading system, we should be moving quickly toward replacing those public funds by private money.
You also mention the importance of international support for adaptation. Could you elaborate on that?
International support for adaptation is important because adaptation makes development more difficult. If you go on trying to improve your living standard, and then disaster and disruption occur due to climate change, it's damaging to development. You have to build your roads, infrastructure, irrigation systems, and you have to build them stronger. You have to think of strengthening Jakarta against floods. These make development more costly.
It's also important that in the adaptation process that rich countries deliver on their promises. Because the problem is actually more difficult, even more difficult than we thought about 10 years ago when we didn't fully realize the challenges of climate change.
In the upcoming global meeting on climate change being held in Bali in December, what agenda should be pursued by countries like Indonesia?
I think Indonesia has a very important role to play. Indonesia is the host and the chair. But also Indonesia is well placed internationally.
Priorities for Bali, first is to get a very strong sense of urgency and collaboration. I don't think in the past that has been strong enough. There has been recognition of the problem but not the urgency for action. The longer we wait, the more difficult it becomes because you are building up stocks in the atmosphere.
And it should not be too much arm wrestling. In the past, for example, there has been a stand-off between the U.S. on one hand and China on the other hand, while each is saying the other must do something before I do something. They put weight on everybody else and nothing happened. We need to go beyond that. We have to collaborate, we have to get together. I think Indonesia is very well placed to do that.
Within that, I think that it's important to find a way of building up a trading system quickly. And that will involve strong objectives by each country. Generate very strong demands for carbon trade, and build the supply side from developing countries that can work well on a big scale.
Currently we have the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), which is a good idea and the principle is good. But it is very difficult to make it work on a big scale because everything is by project and not all the technology, in fact quite few, is included and eligible under the CDM. I don't think the CDM, although the principle is good, can carry the weight of the size of the trading.
The second thing is the need to build this funding for deforestation. I'll make and bring them to big parties in Bali.
What should be done beyond the Kyoto Protocol, which expires on 2012?
The importance of Bali is to try to get a new system in place in good time. I think we can't leave that longer than 2007 and 2008. The years 2007 and 2008 will be key decision years because it takes time to get things in place. People look ahead in the market. There will be a problem if we don't get things done in 2007 and 2008, that's why the Bali conference is important.
How to send messages to big players, like the U.S., to join a new global cooperation, especially after Kyoto?
The challenge is to get everybody to understand their own law, to respect what other people are doing. There will be no forcing of any country. Each country can recognize that it can do better if it's a part of collaborative system. Each country has to take some responsibility.
And Indonesia can really lead that, as Indonesia plays a big role in the mission but also is very vulnerable and has the advantage of being at the center of so many networks.
©Jakarta Post
Every cloud has a silver lining
