‘The 2001 IPCC report also overstated the connection between climate change and malarial infections. Understandably, the top selling books by climate sceptics published in the last few years all feast on the weak scientific evidence for this assertion. These books usually quote the specialist in insect-borne diseases, Professor Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who has strenuously and effectively attacked the idea that increasing temperatures will necessarily produce a rapid rise in the incidence of insect-borne diseases. Professor Reiter points out that malaria transmission is a complex matter and that rising temperatures are only weakly linked to an increasing incidence of malaria. (The illustration at the head of this article provides us with some sense of just how complex malaria is). Why, he and others have asked, if temperature is so important, did the disease disappear from countries like Britain just as the climate was warming at the end of the ‘Little Ice Age’ during the 18th and 19th centuries?’

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/13/climate-change

Share/Bookmark

Julian Morris: The premise of Copenhagen was always dubious. Some non-government organisations have billed it as the last chance to save the planet from anthropogenic global warming. Vested interests – such as those who have made money from the European emissions trading scheme – saw it as an essential vehicle for  perpetuating their business models. Both groups want binding restrictions imposed on future carbon emissions. But the economic cost of such restrictions would likely be far larger than the benefits. Given that premise, it would be better if Copenhagen were to end with no agreement.

Of course, it could have been otherwise: the Framework Convention on Climate Change requires parties to seek cost effective ways to address climate change. In principle, actions could be taken to reduce barriers to adaptation, for example. Many of these would cost little and would have significant advantages. But those barriers to adaptation often benefit the elite in poor countries. In Ethiopia for example, restrictions on property ownership and trade reinforce existing power structures. Foreign aid has a similar effect, since elites are able to use it to insulate themselves from democratic accountabilty. Indeed, it is no surprise that the version of adaptation promoted by political leaders in Copenhagen focuses only on what can be done by central government through aid-funded projects.

Given those political realities, the absence of substantive agreement during the first week is probably a good thing. The question is whether the stand-off can hold out till the end, or whether political leaders will feel obliged to agree to do “something”, no matter how counterproductive.

Julian Morris is an economist, author and director of The International Policy Network.

Share/Bookmark

Commenting on today’s walkout by African nations at the Copenhagen COP15 climate meeting, Barun Mitra, director of an Indian NGO attending the Copenhagen negotiations and representative of the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change, stated:

“Today’s walkout at the Copenhagen climate conference is purely a negotiating tactic because there’s so much money at stake. Copenhagen is no longer about climate — it’s about cash and corruption, both for poor and wealthy countries. By accepting restrictions on carbon emissions in exchange for cash, the world’s poorest countries are offering to prevent growth and perpetuate poverty. Ultimately, this could be a tragic repeat of the aid industry in the 1960s and ‘70s, when the leaders of some of the world’s poorest countries stuffed their Swiss bank accounts — all in the name of the poor.”

Share/Bookmark

The offers countries made on emissions reduction prior to Copenhagen appear to be insufficient to prevent a 2-degree global temperature rise. Should industrialised nations or developing countries be expected to raise their offers first?

Julian Morris: Neither rich nor poor countries should “raise their offers”. We do not yet know enough about climate processes to say what level of greenhouse gas concentrations would result in a global mean temperature rise of 2-degrees. Nor do we know whether 2 degrees warming would be “dangerous”.

For mild warming, adaptation is almost certainly the most cost-effective option. It is feasible that humanity could adapt at relatively low cost to a warming of 4 degrees (see e.g. the various reports at www.csccc.info). But for that to be possible, it is essential that existing barriers to adaptation be removed; especially restrictions on trade and weak property rights.

Worryingly, the introduction of restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases, as well as further transfers to the governments of poor countries (including those done in the name of “adaptation”, or through REDD) would likely inhibit adaptation at the individual level.

Share/Bookmark

With the opening of the climate confere­nce in Copenhag­en, India has an oppo­rtunity to cha­nge the climate of negotiations.

Surprisingly, Jairam Ramesh, the minister for environment and forest, decided to play for a draw with his statement in Parliament last week proposing voluntary reduction in India’s carbon intensity. Despite his strong assertion that India will not accept any legally binding international commitment to reduce emission, he proposed to reduce the intensity of the economy by a modest 20 to 25 per cent.

Just when the world of climate science was getting shaken by allegations of massaging of data to support claims of global warming, the minister acknowledged that Indians are among the most vulnerable to global warming, and then promised to announce domestic emission norms by 2011. Yet, he failed to drive home the point.

Between 1992 and 2005, India’s energy intensity, that is energy needed to produce a unit of GDP, improved by about 52 per cent, from 1,281 kg of oil equivalent per $1,000 of GDP in 1992 to 618 kilogram of oil equivalent (kgoe) per $1,000 by 2005. During this period, carbon intensity declined by 45 per cent, from a high of 3.15 tonne of CO2 per $1,000 to 1.73.

These figures are impressive, and comparable to the major economies of the world, which varied in 2005 from 0.44 tonne per $1,000 for the US, 0.252 tonne for Europe area and 2.44 tonne for China.

India’s GDP in 2008 was estimated by the World Bank to be $1,217 billion (current dollar). At 2005 energy intensity level of 618.46 kgoe/$1,000, this required total energy of 752,969 million kg of oil equivalent (mkgoe).

But in 1971 energy intensity was a high 2,259 kgoe per $1,000. To achieve the GDP level of 2008 would have required 263 per cent more energy than it actually did. Likewise, at 1981 energy intensity of 1,154, would have required 87 per cent more energy. And at 1991 energy intensity of 1,409, would have required 127 per cent more energy to attain the GDP level of 2008.

The improvement in energy intensity is mirrored in carbon intensity. At 2005 carbon intensity level of 1.73 MT per $1,000, the GDP of 2008 emitted 2,094,083,144 MT of carbon. But at carbon intensity levels of 3.08 (1971), 1.96 (1981) and 2.72 (1991) the GDP of 2008, would have emitted 79 per cent, 14 per cent and 58 per cent more carbon, respectively, than it actually did.

This suggests that between 1992 and 2008, effective saving in total energy used was 127 per cent and effective decline in total carbon emission was 58 per cent, for the 2008 GDP level. The decrease in carbon intensity between 1992 and 2005 was a whopping 82 per cent from the 2005 base, and energy efficiency improved by 56 per cent, according to an analysis of the World Development Indicators.

The minister’s defensive strategy became apparent, when invoking national interest he offered to do domestically, emission reduction and emission standard, while vehemently rejecting similar measures under any international legal mandate.

The dramatic improvements in energy use since 1992 were not a coincidence. Equally, there was little conscious effort aimed at such environmental goals. The real secret of this amazing transformation is the economic liberalisation initiated during this period, which unleashed greater competition, ushered in a relatively free trade regime and facilitated investment and technology adaptation.

Globally, however, decarbonisation of the economy has been going on for the past 400 years as societies moved from fuel wood to coal, oil and electricity, driven by economic needs, leaving a safer environment in its wake.

Given this track record, rather than seeking to balance economics and environment, we need to push ahead with economic reforms with much greater vigour. We need to recognise that cleaner and safer environment is like value added products, which become accessible only with higher economic growth and prosperity.

We need to recognise that the poor are vulnerable to natural hazards, were so in the past, are in present and will be in the future, because of their poverty, quite irrespective of any change in the planet’s climate. If we are really concerned about the plight of the poor, then it is the intellectual climate that we need to change.

Even at a nominal economic growth rate of 8 per cent annually, India’s GDP will rise 150 per cent from 2008 level to over $3,000 billion by 2020. At our current carbon intensity level of 1.73 MT of CO2 per $1,000, the total carbon emission could increase by 2.5 times. But if our carbon intensity falls to European or Japanese levels, 0.252, prevalent today, the total carbon emission would fall by a sixth. This is possible at current levels of technological development.

And this could happen irrespective of whether man-made carbon is the cause of climate change or not. It would happen because of the economic need to improve energy efficiency. This is the real “business as usual” model.

The minister will emerge as a true ‘deal maker’ in Copenhagen if he succeeds in changing the intellectual climate at the negotiations. Economic freedom generates gre­ater wealth and makes energy ac­cessible, and that in turn, enables people to better insulate themselves from the vagaries of nature.

A slightly longer version, with charts and graphs, is available on our website.

The writer is director of Delhi-based Liberty Institute, an independent think tank.

Share/Bookmark