|  BONN, Germany (Reuters) - Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to slow global warming and adapting to impacts such as droughts and rising sea levels are likely to cost about $300 billion a year, the top U.N. climate change official said.
Yvo de Boer also told Reuters on Tuesday, on the sidelines of August 10-14 U.N. climate talks in Bonn, that cuts in emissions by 2020 so far promised by rich nations were "miles away" from long-term goals set by a Group of Eight summit last month.
"Over time, according to my own analysis, we are going to need $200 billion a year for mitigation and probably in the order of $100 billion a year for adaptation ... from 2020 onwards," he said.
Mitigation means curbs on greenhouse gases while energy production switches to renewables such as wind and solar power. Developing nations say they will need cash to adapt to impacts of warming such as more floods, heatwaves and rising sea levels.
De Boer, head of the U.N. Climate Change Secretariat, said the numbers were rough estimates to illustrate overall needs for a long-term shift to a green economy. A new U.N. climate pact is due to be agreed at a meeting in Copenhagen in December.
"It's a phenomenal amount of money but how much of that money is needed at the end of the day is to a large extent dependent on how ambitious the climate change response is," de Boer said.
For comparison, a U.S. economic stimulus package agreed this year was worth a total $787 billion.
NEW FINANCE
De Boer said that a U.N. climate pact this year should set up a fair mechanism for raising long-term funds, rather than set overall numbers. "A robust burden-sharing formula is the most important thing," he said.
De Boer reiterated that the Copenhagen talks should also start with some cash on the table, perhaps $10 billion.
Developing nations such as China and India say the rich need to make pledges of financing before developing nations can agree to take more action to slow the rise of their emissions.
Leaders of the Group of 20 have asked finance ministers to report back about climate finance at a meeting in Pittsburgh in the United States next month.
De Boer said the current 180-nation talks in Bonn faced the task of reducing a 200-page draft text for a new climate pact which he said had about 2,000 square brackets, indicating points of disagreement.
"It's not rocket science: that's the core of what this process really needs to deliver now," he said.
He said he hoped the talks would raise developed nations' targets for cuts in greenhouse gases toward a "beacon" of 25-40 percent below 1990 levels by 2020 outlined by the U.N. Climate Panel to avoid the worst of global warming.
G8 leaders agreed at a summit in Italy last month to cut developed nations' emissions by 80 percent by 2050 and to limit global warming to a 2 Celsius rise (3.6 Fahrenheit). But average 2020 goals fall well short of a 25-40 percent cut.
"What we have on offer at the moment from rich nations is miles away from what leaders were talking about in the G8," de Boer said. (By Alister Doyle; Editing by Tim Pearce)
Source: UK Reuters
Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license
Tags: climate change , finance |
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 08 September 2009 13:58 ) |
|
|
| 
NEW DELHI — The Indian government unveiled a major plan to protect its forests on Tuesday, saying the initiative was a key element in its strategy to combat climate change.
"Countries like India must get adequate credit for increasing its forest cover that absorbs greenhouse gases," said Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh, who is under pressure ahead of global climate change talks in December.
"We are amongst the few countries in the world who are not just stopping deforestation but are actually increasing forestation," he told reporters here.
India has set up a fund to manage its forests with an initial budget of 2.5 billion dollars and annual funding of one billion dollars, a report by the Ministry of Environment and Forests showed Tuesday.
Forests cover 65 million hectares of Indian territory or just over 20 percent of the country, according to the ministry.
While per capita emissions are low in India -- the average Indian produces one tonne of carbon dioxide per year to the average American's 20 tonnes -- its huge population puts it among the world's leading emitters.
India and fellow emerging market heavyweight China have consistently opposed binding emission cuts in a new climate treaty until developed nations, particularly the United States, present sufficiently stringent targets of their own.
Ramesh's statement came ahead of the December conference in Copenhagen, which is meant to seal a new international accord on fighting climate change after the Kyoto Protocol's requirements expire in 2012.
Ramesh also reiterated his belief that the Indian scientific community found "no robust scientific evidence" that climate change was causing Himalayan glaciers to melt.
"There could be other factors," he said.
The United Nations has warned that rising surface temperatures have led to rapid melting of regional ice caps, which are the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers.
Copyright © 2009 AFP. All rights reserved.
Source: AFP
Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license
Tags: climate change , India |
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 08 September 2009 13:56 ) |
|
| 
PARIS (AFP) – France's government was set to consider taxing carbon emissions as part of a drive to fight global warming, after experts handed in a report on the issue on Tuesday.
The government-named panel headed by former Socialist prime minister Michel Rocard recommended that the tax be paid "by everybody without exception and exemption."
Trade unions and consumers' associations have already said they oppose any new taxes for French households.
"The government will raise several billion euros from consumers, give them back a part and keep a substantial part for its general budget, or to lower the business tax," the UFC-Que Choisir consumers' lobby group warned.
The new tax "must not increase inequalities," said the CGT union.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy is to have the final word on Rocard's recommendations, possibly before the end of the year. The report was handed to Environment Minister Jean-Louis Borloo and Economy Minister Christine Lagarde.
Consultations before Sarkozy's final decision are to be held with the ministries and economic sectors most concerned by the new tax, junior environment minister Chantal Jouanno said.
The prospective carbon tax on fossil fuels -- oil, gas and coal -- is aimed at steering consumers and business away from energy-hungry goods and services.
Under Rocard's recommendations, leaked in Les Echos business daily last week and confirmed to AFP, France would bill 32 euros (46 dollars) for every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in 2010, rising to 100 euros per tonne in 2030.
In practice the levy -- intended to come into force from 2010 -- would add 0.077 euros to the cost of one litre of unleaded fuel and 0.085 euros to a litre of diesel.
Household gas and fuel heating costs would rise by between 60 and 170 euros per year, depending on the type of building and method used, according to the French agency for development and energy control.
Four European countries -- Sweden, Denmark, Germany and Britain -- have so far adopted similar measures to curb consumption of energy-hungry products.
The French climate contribution is separate from a proposal floated by Sarkozy in March for a carbon tax on imports from countries which have lower environmental standards than France.
Source: AFP
Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license
Tags: Carbon tax , France |
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 08 September 2009 10:11 ) |
|
|  27 July 2009 – Stressing that adaptation to the impact of climate change is an “essential investment in our common future,” Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today urged countries rich and poor to take practical steps to deal with the impact of global warming.
In a speech in front of senior Mongolian Government officials in Ulaanbaatar, the capital, Mr. Ban said cutting greenhouse gas emissions and trying to mitigate climate change should only be one part of the global response to the issue.
“We must get serious about adaptation and we must do so now… Adaptation is both a practical need and a moral imperative,” he said.
Mr. Ban emphasized that many of the people who are bearing the brunt of climate change are those who can least afford it or who contributed least to the problem, such as the citizens of landlocked developing countries like Mongolia, where desertification and extreme weather conditions are increasing threats.
“Expanding deserts suffocate livelihoods and a way of life. The degradation of vital pasture lands directly affects Mongolia’s economy and culture. And you are not alone. You are part of the one third of the world’s population – 2 billion people – who are potential victims of desertification.”
Mr. Ban said any climate change deal reached at global talks in Copenhagen, Denmark, in December must include provisions where affluent nations provide assistance to vulnerable and poorer States to adapt.
“Billions in public financing will be required. There must be new money, not just re-packaged official development assistance (ODA)… We must invest in making our communities more resilient and in reducing our vulnerability to natural disasters. And we must invest in the ecosystems that sustain us.”
The Secretary-General outlined a series of practical steps that he said must be taken, starting with the gathering of more detailed scientific data on climate impact so that local and national authorities can target resources where they can do the most good.
He called for a reduction in disaster risk wherever possible, noting that in countries such as Bangladesh, Cuba and Viet Nam, “it has proven to be among the most cost-effective investments the world can make.”
He cited the planting of mangrove trees on unprotected coastlines and the boost of community education and evacuation plans as relatively inexpensive ways in disaster risk can be reduced.
Mr. Ban also said that the world needs to “green” its development efforts so that “climate resilience, sustainability and low-carbon growth become the foundations of future prosperity.”
Today the Secretary-General also helped launch a think tank in Mongolia to study issues related to trade and landlocked developing countries. In addition, he held talks with President Elbegdorj Tsakhia and Prime Minister Bayar Sanj.
At a joint press conference with the Prime Minister, Mr. Ban pledged that he would “continue to push for concrete and significant financial commitment for adaptation,” particularly to help landlocked developing countries.
He also emphasized that the UN is ready to help such States “in their efforts to establish efficient transit transport systems, including through provision of substantive and technical assistance and by raising awareness of the international community on the special needs of the landlocked developing countries.”
Source: UN News Centre
Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license
Tags: Ban Ki-moon , climate change |
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 08 September 2009 09:50 ) |
|
|  Just when you thought no more ink could be spilled about the merits or political viability of a carbon tax versus a cap-and-trade, it has. With the House passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), also known as Waxman-Markey, a version of the bill is now being considered by the Senate. And while there are certainly things to both love and hate about Waxman-Markey, it may be the only hope we currently have for meaningful climate change legislation. But are there other options?
Now, I’m not saying in all cases a carbon tax is superior to a cap-and-trade, in fact, I may just write a “7 Reasons a Cap-and-Trade is Better than a Carbon Tax” post after this one. But in some instances, the straight tax does have its advantages.
- A carbon tax provides more clarity and certainty of cost than does carbon trading. Whereas a cap-and-trade provides greater certainty in terms of capping emissions, it provides far less certainty in terms of revenue generation. The question I’m left with is: which is more important in the long run? If we just generate tons of revenue for the public or the state without controlling greenhouse gas emissions, then the policy is a failure. However, if we engage in some big carbon trading scheme, generate revenue for private interests and do nothing to control GHGs, then the policy goes well beyond failure.
- Call it what it is. Both mechanisms — cap-and-trade and carbon tax — are essentially a tax. Republicans and other opponents of cap-and-trade are have taken a liking to calling it a “cap-and-tax” anyway. At least the carbon tax is up front about it.
- Potential risk of a carbon market bubble bursting under the weight of “sub-prime carbon.” The US Commodity Futures Trading Commission estimates that the cap-and-trade market could grow to $2 trillion in five years. This system would create whole new classes of financial assets, which financial firms could securitize, derivatize, bundle, and who knows what else. A large carbon market would likely attract speculators, driving up the price of carbon permits and creating risky or low-value carbon credits. Writes Matt Taibbi at Rolling Stone: “the next bubble, is in carbon credits — a booming trillion- dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an “environmental plan,” called cap-and-trade.
- We have no idea how to regulate a carbon market. Existing financial regulations, as well as those in major cap-and-trade bills, are inadequate to govern carbon trading, creating a potentially huge regulatory gap, according to a report by Friends of the Earth.
- A carbon tax may actually be more politically viable than cap-and-trade. Except for the fact that it has the word, ‘tax’, in it, from liberals to libertarians, the carbon tax mechanism is preferred by people from across the ideological spectrum who support action on climate. While they may accept the theory of a cap-and-trade, environmental groups like Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace bemoan Waxman-Markey for handing out permits to the biggest polluters. Even Mr. Inconvenient, Al Gore, has been a vocal supporter of a revenue-neutral carbon tax. “I have long supported a sharp reduction in payroll taxes with the difference made up in CO2 taxes. We should tax what we burn, not what we earn,” Gore has said. But then again, citizen Gore is in a position to come out in support of a carbon tax, as John Laumer at Treehugger explains.
- The carbon cap-and-trade in Europe has not performed well (the one that doled-out in stead of auctioning off carbon permits to the biggest polluters) has not been effective at lowering carbon emissions. Not only that, but the price of carbon has fallen precipitously on the European Climate Exchange.
By no means is this document intended to be the definitive argument in favor of a carbon tax. Rather it is intended to spark some debate and critical thinking. Since Congress is behaving like it is predestined to go with a cap-and-trade, it seems that critical thinking and debate is exactly what is needed at this juncture. (by Timothy B. Hurst)
Source: RedGreen and Blue
Some rights for the image is reserved under Creative Commons license
Tags: ACES , cap and trade , Carbon tax |
| Last Updated ( Tuesday, 08 September 2009 09:43 ) |
|
|
|
