The time has never been better to tackle the immense and
multidimensional challenge of climate change – that is the message of 2010World Development
Report, the thirty-second in the series, titled, “Development and Climate Change”. Climate change is one of the most
complex challenges of our young century. No country is immune. No country alone
can take on the interconnected challenges posed by climate change, including
controversial political decisions, daunting technological change and
far-reaching global consequences.
Human activity is warming the planet. Such warming has never
been experienced by mankind and the resulting physical impacts would severely
limit development. Only through immediate and ambitious actions to curb
greenhouse gas emissions may dangerous warming be avoided. Global climate
models that estimate the effect of different future emission scenarios on
Earth’s climate predict a range of possible global temperatures for this
century. These estimates show that even the most aggressive mitigation efforts
may lead to warming of 2ºC or more (a level already considered dangerous), and
most models project that less mitigation would lead to warming of 3ºC or even
up to 5ºC and beyond (though with less certainty around these higher amounts of
warming).
Global cooperation at the scale needed to deal with climate
change can happen only if it is based on a global agreement that addresses the
needs and constraints of developing countries, only if it can separate where
mitigation happens from who bears the burden of this effort, and only if it
creates financial instruments to encourage and facilitate mitigation, even in
countries that are rich in coal and poor in income or that have contributed
little or nothing historically to climate change. Whether these countries seize
the opportunity to embark on a more sustainable development path will be
heavily influenced by the financial and technical support that higher-income
countries can muster. Otherwise the transition costs could be prohibitive.
Global cooperation will require more than financial
contributions, however. Behavioral economics and social psychology show that
people tend to reject deals they perceive as unfair toward them, even if they
stand to benefit. So the fact that it is in everyone’s interest to collaborate
is no guarantee of success. There are real concerns among developing countries
that a drive to integrate climate and development could shift responsibility
for mitigation onto the developing world. Enshrining a principle of equity in a
global deal would do much to dispel such concerns and generate trust. Another
major concern of developing countries is technology access. Innovation in
climate-related technologies remains concentrated in high-income countries,
although developing countries are increasing their presence (China is seventh
in overall renewable energy patents, and an Indian firm is now the leader in
on-road electric cars). In addition, developing countries – at least the
smaller or poorer ones – may need assistance to produce new technology or
tailor it to their circumstances. This is particularly problematic for
adaptation, where technologies can be very location specific.
International transfers of clean technologies have so far
been modest. They have occurred in at best one-third of the projects funded
through the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), the main channel for financing
investments in low-carbon technologies in developing countries. According to the 2010 World Development Report (page
23), the CDM has in many ways exceeded expectations, growing rapidly,
stimulating learning, raising awareness of mitigation options, and building
capacity. However, the CDM also has many limitations, including low development
co-benefits, questionable additionality (because the CDM generates carbon
credits for emission reductions relative to a baseline, the choice of baseline
can always be questioned), weak governance, inefficient operation, limited
scope (key sectors such as transport are not covered), and concerns about
market continuity beyond 2012.For the effectiveness of climate actions it is
also important to understand that CDM transactions do not reduce global carbon
emissions beyond agreed commitments – they simply change where they occur (in
developing rather than developed countries) and lower the cost of mitigation
(thereby increasing efficiency).
The Adaptation Fund under the Kyoto Protocol employs a novel
financing instrument in the form of a 2 percent tax on certified emission
reductions (units of carbon offset generated by the CDM). This clearly raises
finance that is additional to other sources, but this approach has several
undesirable characteristics. The instrument is taxing a good (mitigation
finance) rather than a bad (carbon emissions) and like any tax, there are
inevitable inefficiencies (deadweight losses). Analysis of the CDM market
suggests that most of the lost gains from trade as a result of the tax would
fall on developing-country suppliers of carbon credits. Adaptation finance will
also require an allocation mechanism that ideally would embrace the principles
of transparency, efficiency, and equity-efficient approaches would direct
finance to the most vulnerable countries and those with the greatest capacity
to manage adaptation, while equity would require that particular weight be
given to the poorest nations.
The current negotiations, culminated in Copenhagen
in December 2009, have been making slow progress – inertia in the political
sphere. For all the reasons which include – inertia in the climate system,
inertia in infrastructure, inertia in socioeconomic systems – a better climate
deal is urgently needed. However, it must be a smart deal, one that creates the
incentives for efficient solutions, for flows of finance and the development of
new technologies. Furthermore, it must be an equitable deal, one that meets the
needs and aspirations of developing countries. Only this can create the right
climate for development.
Dr. M. L. Yakubu (Lawal Karmanje)
No comments:
Post a Comment