Home » Opinion » Foreign Views
Vast sums spent on climate pacts better spent on helping the poor
By Bjorn Lomborg |
December 27, 2012, Thursday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
THE Doha meeting continued 20 years of failed climate negotiations, since the original Earth Summit in Rio in 1992.
There, countries pledged to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The OECD countries fell short by almost 9 percent. The Kyoto Protocol from 1998 has almost entirely failed. And the effort intended to save the world in Copenhagen in 2009 collapsed spectacularly.
So far, the world's emissions have continued to rise - and at an accelerating pace - with emissions in 2011 about 50 percent higher than in 1990. The last 20 years of global climate negotiations has reduced that increase by only about half a percentage point.
Assuming, somewhat optimistically, that this reduction will be maintained throughout the century, it will reduce the temperature increase by about half of one-hundredth of a degree Celsius (about one-hundredth of a degree Fahrenheit) in 2100. Sea levels will rise about one millimeter (one-twentieth of an inch) less. Even in a hundred years, these changes will not be measurable.
The cost of achieving these underwhelming results has probably run about US$20-30 billion a year - mostly foregone economic growth, owing to the forced use of more expensive energy. The benefits to humanity - measured in terms of marginally less flooding, an almost negligible reduction in heat waves, and so forth - total roughly US$1 billion annually.
It is time to change tack. There are smart ways to address global warming, through innovating downward the price of green energy; unfortunately, they are not pushed in the United Nations-sponsored climate negotiations.
But, while we need to tackle climate change, it is also worth remembering our priorities. As usual, a flurry of alarmist reports about climate change tried (but failed) to beef up interest around Doha.
The World Bank, in a disappointing departure from its usual, careful reports, put out the alarmist tract "Turn Down the Heat," coauthored by William Hare, a longtime climate policy director for Greenpeace. At its launch, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim claimed, "We will never end poverty if we don't tackle climate change."
Priorities
Really? Climate policies so far have proven to be extremely costly ways of helping very little - and very far in the future. This is especially true for the world's poor. Maybe we should start thinking about the other Doha negotiation that started 11 years ago, on global free trade, which could help the world's poor many thousands of times more.
Models from the World Bank show that even the least ambitious agreement to liberalize trade further and reduce agricultural subsidies would generate substantial benefits. The classic argument for free trade holds that specialization and exchange benefits everyone, because goods are produced where they are produced best.
The Bank's models show that this so-called static benefit could increase annual global GDP by several hundred billion dollars by the end of the decade, with perhaps US$50 billion accruing to developing countries. Toward the end of the century, the annual benefit would reach US$1.5 trillion, with half going to the developing world.
But, over the last two decades, a growing number of studies have demonstrated that this is only a small part of the argument. The same message comes from computable general-equilibrium models of the global economy: even modestly freer trade helps domestic markets to become more efficient, and helps supply chains to become better integrated and transfer knowledge more readily, thereby spurring innovation.
In a recent review of the economics literature, one of the World Bank's leading modelers, Professor Kym Anderson, showed that the long-run benefits from even a modestly successful Doha round of world trade talks would be vast. Annual GDP around 2020 would be about US$5 trillion higher than it would be in the absence of an agreement, with US$3 trillion going to the developing world.
Freer trade will allow more people to escape poverty and secure sufficient food and clean water. It will increase education and extend health care. It will make societies more resilient against floods and hurricanes. And, with higher incomes, more people will be able to afford to care for the environment.
Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, founded and directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2012.www.project-syndicate.org
There, countries pledged to cut greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000. The OECD countries fell short by almost 9 percent. The Kyoto Protocol from 1998 has almost entirely failed. And the effort intended to save the world in Copenhagen in 2009 collapsed spectacularly.
So far, the world's emissions have continued to rise - and at an accelerating pace - with emissions in 2011 about 50 percent higher than in 1990. The last 20 years of global climate negotiations has reduced that increase by only about half a percentage point.
Assuming, somewhat optimistically, that this reduction will be maintained throughout the century, it will reduce the temperature increase by about half of one-hundredth of a degree Celsius (about one-hundredth of a degree Fahrenheit) in 2100. Sea levels will rise about one millimeter (one-twentieth of an inch) less. Even in a hundred years, these changes will not be measurable.
The cost of achieving these underwhelming results has probably run about US$20-30 billion a year - mostly foregone economic growth, owing to the forced use of more expensive energy. The benefits to humanity - measured in terms of marginally less flooding, an almost negligible reduction in heat waves, and so forth - total roughly US$1 billion annually.
It is time to change tack. There are smart ways to address global warming, through innovating downward the price of green energy; unfortunately, they are not pushed in the United Nations-sponsored climate negotiations.
But, while we need to tackle climate change, it is also worth remembering our priorities. As usual, a flurry of alarmist reports about climate change tried (but failed) to beef up interest around Doha.
The World Bank, in a disappointing departure from its usual, careful reports, put out the alarmist tract "Turn Down the Heat," coauthored by William Hare, a longtime climate policy director for Greenpeace. At its launch, World Bank President Jim Yong Kim claimed, "We will never end poverty if we don't tackle climate change."
Priorities
Really? Climate policies so far have proven to be extremely costly ways of helping very little - and very far in the future. This is especially true for the world's poor. Maybe we should start thinking about the other Doha negotiation that started 11 years ago, on global free trade, which could help the world's poor many thousands of times more.
Models from the World Bank show that even the least ambitious agreement to liberalize trade further and reduce agricultural subsidies would generate substantial benefits. The classic argument for free trade holds that specialization and exchange benefits everyone, because goods are produced where they are produced best.
The Bank's models show that this so-called static benefit could increase annual global GDP by several hundred billion dollars by the end of the decade, with perhaps US$50 billion accruing to developing countries. Toward the end of the century, the annual benefit would reach US$1.5 trillion, with half going to the developing world.
But, over the last two decades, a growing number of studies have demonstrated that this is only a small part of the argument. The same message comes from computable general-equilibrium models of the global economy: even modestly freer trade helps domestic markets to become more efficient, and helps supply chains to become better integrated and transfer knowledge more readily, thereby spurring innovation.
In a recent review of the economics literature, one of the World Bank's leading modelers, Professor Kym Anderson, showed that the long-run benefits from even a modestly successful Doha round of world trade talks would be vast. Annual GDP around 2020 would be about US$5 trillion higher than it would be in the absence of an agreement, with US$3 trillion going to the developing world.
Freer trade will allow more people to escape poverty and secure sufficient food and clean water. It will increase education and extend health care. It will make societies more resilient against floods and hurricanes. And, with higher incomes, more people will be able to afford to care for the environment.
Bjorn Lomborg, an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, founded and directs the Copenhagen Consensus Center. Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2012.www.project-syndicate.org
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
