Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gestures at a press briefing at the Asian Development Bank (ADB) headquarters in Manila in June 2009. (AFP/File/Jay Directo)
Jul 20, 2009
Measures needed to tackle global warming could save economies more money than they cost, the world's top climate change expert said today.
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
told the Guardian: "The cost could undoubtedly be negative overall."
This is because of the additional benefits that reducing greenhouse gas
emissions could bring, beyond limiting temperature rises.
Until
now, estimates of the price of preventing dangerous climate change have
all indicated significant costs. The most authoritative study, the 2006
Stern report, concluded that 1% of global GDP would be required, and he
has since said 2% is now more likely.
Pachauri's
comments came ahead of a press announcement in New York today about the
IPCC's plans for its next series of reports in 2013. He said these
would include a greater emphasis on the economics, as well as ethical
and humanitarian concerns.
Funding for reducing and
adapting to climate change in one of the most difficult issues in the
negotiations towards a global deal at a UN summit in December in Copenhagen.
But Pachauri argues that if the costs are negative, then "inertia and
vested interests would be washed away. As the Americans say, it would
be like dollar bills lying on the sidewalk."
Alex Bowen,
one of the Stern report authors, said: "[Pachauri's] is a defensible
postion, not delusional. But I am more of a sceptic."
"My
hunch overall is that it will be a little more costly than we estimated
in 2006. But if well designed policies are put in place, we can still
do it remarkably cheaply. And there is still no doubt that strong
action now is much cheaper than no action," added Bowen, an economist
at the Grantham Research Institute On Climate Change at the London School of Economics.
The
associated benefits Pachauri pointed to include better energy security,
protecting consumers from oil price spikes, new employment in green
industries, more productive agriculture and lower air pollution,
cutting health costs. He said one good example was insulating draughty
homes and installing better energy control systems. "This can yield
very high rates of returns, with pay back in one year."
The idea of co-benefits is also central to the "green new deals" promoted by the UN Environment programme, Lord Stern's group and others.
Bowen
said: "Negative costs depends on assumption that policy design and
implementation is sensible and very consistent across countries all
over the world. But we have gone three years [since the Stern report]
without global policies. Emissions have grown rapidly and a lot of
people now think economic growth will be much higher later in the
century." The faster you have to reduce emissions, he said, the more
expensive it is likely to be.
Pachauri's comments came as
he led discussions what the next set of reports from the IPCC should
cover. Its last report in 2007 is acknowledged to have settled the
argument over whether emissions from human activities were causing climate change.
In
the next series, due in 2013, Pachauri said the focus would change.
"The IPCC cannot address the issue in purely scientific terms. For
adaptation and mitigation, we need to put euro or dollar values on
those. But there are also some costs you can't quantify. For example,
take Hurricane Katrina. You can put a value on property losses, what
about psychological, sociological, and institutional costs. I would not
like to try to quantify those."
The IPCC meeting
raised a range of further issues that it believes need more attention,
including extreme weather events, new greenhouse gases, the full
impacts of aviation and global scale geo-engineering.
The
reports take between five and seven years to complete, but Pachauri
argued that this is their strength: "The IPCC process of regular peer
review means the reports are far more defensible than anything else.
Comments received are posted on our website as are actions."
Join Us: News for people demanding a better world
Common Dreams is powered by optimists who believe in the power of informed and engaged citizens to ignite and enact change to make the world a better place. We're hundreds of thousands strong, but every single supporter makes the difference. Your contribution supports this bold media model—free, independent, and dedicated to reporting the facts every day. Stand with us in the fight for economic equality, social justice, human rights, and a more sustainable future. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover the issues the corporate media never will. Join with us today! |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Measures needed to tackle global warming could save economies more money than they cost, the world's top climate change expert said today.
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
told the Guardian: "The cost could undoubtedly be negative overall."
This is because of the additional benefits that reducing greenhouse gas
emissions could bring, beyond limiting temperature rises.
Until
now, estimates of the price of preventing dangerous climate change have
all indicated significant costs. The most authoritative study, the 2006
Stern report, concluded that 1% of global GDP would be required, and he
has since said 2% is now more likely.
Pachauri's
comments came ahead of a press announcement in New York today about the
IPCC's plans for its next series of reports in 2013. He said these
would include a greater emphasis on the economics, as well as ethical
and humanitarian concerns.
Funding for reducing and
adapting to climate change in one of the most difficult issues in the
negotiations towards a global deal at a UN summit in December in Copenhagen.
But Pachauri argues that if the costs are negative, then "inertia and
vested interests would be washed away. As the Americans say, it would
be like dollar bills lying on the sidewalk."
Alex Bowen,
one of the Stern report authors, said: "[Pachauri's] is a defensible
postion, not delusional. But I am more of a sceptic."
"My
hunch overall is that it will be a little more costly than we estimated
in 2006. But if well designed policies are put in place, we can still
do it remarkably cheaply. And there is still no doubt that strong
action now is much cheaper than no action," added Bowen, an economist
at the Grantham Research Institute On Climate Change at the London School of Economics.
The
associated benefits Pachauri pointed to include better energy security,
protecting consumers from oil price spikes, new employment in green
industries, more productive agriculture and lower air pollution,
cutting health costs. He said one good example was insulating draughty
homes and installing better energy control systems. "This can yield
very high rates of returns, with pay back in one year."
The idea of co-benefits is also central to the "green new deals" promoted by the UN Environment programme, Lord Stern's group and others.
Bowen
said: "Negative costs depends on assumption that policy design and
implementation is sensible and very consistent across countries all
over the world. But we have gone three years [since the Stern report]
without global policies. Emissions have grown rapidly and a lot of
people now think economic growth will be much higher later in the
century." The faster you have to reduce emissions, he said, the more
expensive it is likely to be.
Pachauri's comments came as
he led discussions what the next set of reports from the IPCC should
cover. Its last report in 2007 is acknowledged to have settled the
argument over whether emissions from human activities were causing climate change.
In
the next series, due in 2013, Pachauri said the focus would change.
"The IPCC cannot address the issue in purely scientific terms. For
adaptation and mitigation, we need to put euro or dollar values on
those. But there are also some costs you can't quantify. For example,
take Hurricane Katrina. You can put a value on property losses, what
about psychological, sociological, and institutional costs. I would not
like to try to quantify those."
The IPCC meeting
raised a range of further issues that it believes need more attention,
including extreme weather events, new greenhouse gases, the full
impacts of aviation and global scale geo-engineering.
The
reports take between five and seven years to complete, but Pachauri
argued that this is their strength: "The IPCC process of regular peer
review means the reports are far more defensible than anything else.
Comments received are posted on our website as are actions."
Measures needed to tackle global warming could save economies more money than they cost, the world's top climate change expert said today.
Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),
told the Guardian: "The cost could undoubtedly be negative overall."
This is because of the additional benefits that reducing greenhouse gas
emissions could bring, beyond limiting temperature rises.
Until
now, estimates of the price of preventing dangerous climate change have
all indicated significant costs. The most authoritative study, the 2006
Stern report, concluded that 1% of global GDP would be required, and he
has since said 2% is now more likely.
Pachauri's
comments came ahead of a press announcement in New York today about the
IPCC's plans for its next series of reports in 2013. He said these
would include a greater emphasis on the economics, as well as ethical
and humanitarian concerns.
Funding for reducing and
adapting to climate change in one of the most difficult issues in the
negotiations towards a global deal at a UN summit in December in Copenhagen.
But Pachauri argues that if the costs are negative, then "inertia and
vested interests would be washed away. As the Americans say, it would
be like dollar bills lying on the sidewalk."
Alex Bowen,
one of the Stern report authors, said: "[Pachauri's] is a defensible
postion, not delusional. But I am more of a sceptic."
"My
hunch overall is that it will be a little more costly than we estimated
in 2006. But if well designed policies are put in place, we can still
do it remarkably cheaply. And there is still no doubt that strong
action now is much cheaper than no action," added Bowen, an economist
at the Grantham Research Institute On Climate Change at the London School of Economics.
The
associated benefits Pachauri pointed to include better energy security,
protecting consumers from oil price spikes, new employment in green
industries, more productive agriculture and lower air pollution,
cutting health costs. He said one good example was insulating draughty
homes and installing better energy control systems. "This can yield
very high rates of returns, with pay back in one year."
The idea of co-benefits is also central to the "green new deals" promoted by the UN Environment programme, Lord Stern's group and others.
Bowen
said: "Negative costs depends on assumption that policy design and
implementation is sensible and very consistent across countries all
over the world. But we have gone three years [since the Stern report]
without global policies. Emissions have grown rapidly and a lot of
people now think economic growth will be much higher later in the
century." The faster you have to reduce emissions, he said, the more
expensive it is likely to be.
Pachauri's comments came as
he led discussions what the next set of reports from the IPCC should
cover. Its last report in 2007 is acknowledged to have settled the
argument over whether emissions from human activities were causing climate change.
In
the next series, due in 2013, Pachauri said the focus would change.
"The IPCC cannot address the issue in purely scientific terms. For
adaptation and mitigation, we need to put euro or dollar values on
those. But there are also some costs you can't quantify. For example,
take Hurricane Katrina. You can put a value on property losses, what
about psychological, sociological, and institutional costs. I would not
like to try to quantify those."
The IPCC meeting
raised a range of further issues that it believes need more attention,
including extreme weather events, new greenhouse gases, the full
impacts of aviation and global scale geo-engineering.
The
reports take between five and seven years to complete, but Pachauri
argued that this is their strength: "The IPCC process of regular peer
review means the reports are far more defensible than anything else.
Comments received are posted on our website as are actions."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.