Greenhouse Gas To Cost Less
Recent studies show that it would cost the world less than 1% of its GDP to put in place measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions in order to reduce the impact of global warming and climate change, an intergovernmental panel meeting in Bangkok said yesterday. The panel suggested several measures that ordinary people could contribute to in order to ensure more efficient use of energy. It also urged promotion of renewable fuels.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued the report after four days of discussions. The report is expected to have some ”influence” on talks about measures to counteract climate change among parties to the Kyoto Protocol in Bali, Indonesia, in December. Bert Metz, the mitigation working group co-chairman, said there was substantial economic potential to cutting greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades. ”We are talking about a reduction of the world’s GDP, but there will be other benefits such as health benefits from reducing air pollution, improvement of energy security,” Mr Metz said.
All sectors and regions can contribute to reducing emissions, he said. The transport sector could simply shift modes, buildings could adopt energy-saving lighting, or change air-conditioning systems, while industry could go for recycling, he added. Ogunlade Davidson, also the co-chair of the IPCC’s third working group, said the report is about solutions that required contributions from governments, non-governmental organisations, industry, and individuals.
”If we continue to do what we are doing now, we are in deep trouble,” he said.
Thai participants said the IPCC had come up with more concrete measures for policy makers to ponder than in previous rounds. Kansri Boonprakob, a lecturer at Ramkhamhaeng University’s science faculty, said the measures the report suggested in general were not complicated. Everyone could help reduce greenhouse gas emissions by changing their behaviours and lifestyles, she said. But she urged more developing countries to do more scientific research on climate change.
”Most information and scientific evidence came from developed countries. We can’t have ‘weighted evidence’ to defend our benefits, although the IPCC has allowed members from developing countries to object or express their views and opinions toward the study,” she said. IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri described the report as ‘’stunning, brilliant, and razor sharp,” with a remarkable step forward from the knowledge contained in the agency’s third assessment report done in early 2000.
He said the report would help raise awareness among the public and world leaders about the impact of climate change. But he stressed the IPCC’s work was only about evaluating and assessing what happened, and the decisions rested with government leaders.
Scientists praised the report, especially the bid to focus on the economic potential to act against climate change. Morlot Corfee, a lead author of the chapter on long-term mitigation issues, said the focus would help governments design proper policies.
”Now we can discuss mitigation against climate change in that it would not cost more, or even that it would become economically feasible, and this will help us discuss whether it would also be feasible in terms of policies more easily. However, to push policymakers to act still need public support,” she added.
Aree Wattana Tummakird, from the Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning, said most measures to save the world from climate change were already in place. The IPCC was ”not a place to make any commitment”. Countries were free to design options that were suitable to their respective conditions, she said.