18 Scientific-Technical Analyses of Impacts, Adaptations, and Mitigation of Climate Change emissions of greenhouse gases or sequestering carbon. Current analysis suggests the following: 4.4. Competing Uses of Land, Water, and Other Natural Resources. A growing population and expanding economy will increase the demand for land and other natural resources needed to provide, inter alia, food, fiber, forest products, and recreation services. Climate change will interact with the resulting intensified patterns of resource use. Land and other resources could also be required for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Agricultural productivity improvements throughout the world and especially in developing countries would increase availability of land for production of biomass energy. Geoengineering Options. Some geoengineering approaches to counterbalance greenhouse gas-induced climate change have been suggested (e.g., putting solar radiation reflectors in space or injecting sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere to mimic the cooling influence of volcanic eruptions). Such approaches generally are likely to be ineffective, expensive to sustain, and/or to have serious environmental and other effects that are in many cases poorly understood. Policy Instruments Mitigation depends on reducing barriers to the diffusion and transfer of technology, mobilizing financial resources, supporting capacity building in developing countries, and other approaches to assist in the implementation of behavioral changes and technological opportunities in all regions of the globe. The optimum mix of policies will vary from country to country, depending upon political structure and societal receptiveness. The leadership of national governments in applying these policies will contribute to responding to adverse consequences of climate change. Governments can choose policies that facilitate the penetration of less greenhouse gas-intensive technologies and modified consumption patterns. Indeed, many countries have extensive experience with a variety of policies that can accelerate the adoption of such technologies. This experience comes from efforts over the past 20 to 30 years to achieve improved energy efficiency, reduce the environmental impacts of agricultural policies, and meet conservation and environmental goals unrelated to climate change. Policies to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions appear more easily implemented when they are designed to address other concerns that impede sustainable development (e.g., air pollution and soil erosion). A number of policies, some of which may need regional or international agreement, can facilitate the penetration of less greenhouse gas-intensive technologies and modified consumption patterns, including: Reducing or removing other subsidies (e.g., agricultural and transport subsidies) that increase greenhouse gas emissions Tradable emissions permits Voluntary programs and negotiated agreements with industry Utility demand-side management programs Regulatory programs, including minimum energy efficiency standards (e.g., for appliances and fuel economy) Stimulating RD&D to make new technologies available Market pull and demonstration programs that stimulate the development and application of advanced technologies Renewable energy incentives during market build-up Incentives such as provisions for accelerated depreciation and reduced costs for consumers Education and training; information and advisory measures Options that also support other economic and environmental goals. Accelerated development of technologies that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance greenhouse gas sinks— as well as understanding the barriers that inhibit their diffusion into the marketplace-requires intensified research and development by governments and the private sector. Authors/Reviewers Robert T. Watson, USA; M.C. Zinyowera. Zimbabwe. Richard H. Moss, USA. Roberto Acosta Moreno, Cuba, Sharad P. Adhikary, Nepal, Michael Adler, USA, Shardul Agrawala, India; Adrian Guillermo Aguilar, Mexico: Saiyed Al-Khouli, Saudi Arabia. Barbara AllenDiaz, USA. Mitsuru Ando. Japan, Rigoberto Andressen, Venezuela; B.W. Ang, Singapore: Nigel Arnell, UK; Anne Arquit-Niederberger, Switzerland. Arthur J. Askew, Switzerland, Walter Baethgen, Uruguay, Bryson Bates, Australia, Martin Beniston, Switzerland. Max Beran, UK, Sten Bergström, Sweden: Laitzen Bijlsma, The Netherlands, Rosina Bierbaum. USA; Michel Boko, Republic of Benin: Bert Bolin, Sweden, Suzanne Bolton, USA, Evelyne Bravo, Venezuela; Sandra Brown, USA; James P. Bruce, Canada; Peter Bullock, UK. Melvin G.R. Cannell, UK, Osvaldo F. Canziani, Argentina. Rodolfo Carcavallo, Argentina. William Chandler, USA. Fred C. Cheghe, Kenya, Chunzhen Liu, China, Carlos Clemente Cerri. Brazil, Bryan W. Christmas, New Zealand, Vernon Cole, USA, Richard M. Cowling, South Africa, Wolfgang P. Cramer, Germany: Rex Victor Cruz, Philippines, Ogunlade Davidson. Sierra Leone, Ehrlich Desa, India, Deying Xu, China; Sandra Diaz, Argentina: Andrew F Dlugolecki, Scotland, David Dokken, USA, James A. Edmonds, USA; Lin Erda, China, John Everen, USA; Zhou Fenggi, China; Andreas Fischlin, Switzerland, Bernard Fisher, UK; B. Blair Fitzharris, New Zealand, Douglas G. Fox, USA, Jaafar Friaa, Tunisia, Margaret Friedel. Australia, Alexander Rauja Gacubi, Kenya, W. Galinski, Poland: Habiba Gitay, Australia: Peter M. Groffman, USA. Arnulf Grubler, Austria, Howard Gruenspecht, USA. Steven P Hamburg, USA, M.T. (Timm) Hoffman, South Africa; Jarle Inge Holten, Norway, Hisashi Ishitani, Japan, Venugopalan Inekkot, Germany, Michael Jefferson, UK, David S. Jenkinson, UK. Thomas B. Johansson, Sweden, Zdzislaw Kaczmarek, Poland; Takao Kashuwagi, Japan; Robert M. Kirk, New Zealand, Miko Kirschbaum, Australia. Paul Komor, USA; Andrei Krovnin, Russian Federation, Richard J.T. Klein, The Netherlands; S.M. Kulshrestha, India, Herbert Lang, Switzerland; Henry Le Hoverou, France, Susan E. Lee, UK. Rik Leemans. The Netherlands; Mark D. Levine, USA; Daniel Lluch-Belda, Mexico, Michael MacCracken, USA: John J. Magnuson, USA; Gabriel M. Mailu, Kenya, Joseph Mworia Maitima, Kenya. Gregg Marland, USA, Kathy Maskell, UK; Roger F. McLean, Australia; Anthony J. McMichael, UK; Laurie Michaelis, France. Ed Miles, USA; William Moomaw, USA. Roberto Moreira, Brazil, Nebojsa Nakacenovic, Austria; Neville Nicholls, Australia, Robert J. Nicholls, UK, Shuzo Nishioka, Japan, lan Noble, Australia; Leonard A. Nurse, Barbados: Rispa Odongo, Kenya, Ryousuke Ohashi, Japan. Ezekiel Okemwa, Kenya; Mats Oquist Sweden, Flo Ormond, USA; Martin L. Parry, UK: Martha Perdomo, Venezuela, Michel Petit France: Rick Piltz, USA, Warren T. Piver, USA; P.S. Ramakrishnan, India. N.H. Ravindranath, India, John Reilly, USA, John C. Rodda, Switzerland, Hans-Holger Rogner, Canada, Jayant Sathaye, USA; Dieter R. Sauerbeck, Germany, Hans-Wilhelm Scharpenseel, Germany, Robert J. Scholes, South Africa, Michael J Scon, USA: Subodh K. Sharma, India, David Shriner, USA, S.K. Sinha, India, Jim F. Skea, UK, Allen M. Solomon, USA, Eugene Z. Stakhiv, USA, Oedon Starosolszky, Hungary, Su Jilan, China, Avelino Suarez, Cuba. Bo Svensson, Sweden, Hidekazu Takakura, Japan, Kevin Russell Tate, New Zealand, Melissa Taylor, USA: Lucien Tessier, France. Dennis Tirpak, USA; Tran Viet Lien. Vietnam; JeanPaul Troadec, France, Hiroshi Tsukamoto, Japan, Itsuya Tsuzaka, Japan, Laura Van Wie. USA. Pier Vellinga. The Netherlands, Richard Warrick New Zealand, Marthuas Weber. Switzerland, Stanley Jeffress Williams, USA. Ted William, USA. Youyu Xie, China, Patrick Young, USA, Peter P. Zhou, Botswana, Lewis H. Ziska. The Philippines SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS SECOND ASSESSMENT REPORT, WORKING GROUP III 3. 4. 5. 6. Applicability of Cost-Benefit Analysis. 7. Decision Making Framework to Address Climate Change Intertemporal Equity and Discounting The Social Costs of Climate Change: Benefits of Limiting 5 7 9 11 13 IPCC Secretariat, WMO, 41, Av. Giuseppe-Motta, C.P. N° 2300, 1211 Geneva 2 SWITZERLAND PNUE UNEP SUMMARY FOR POLICYMAKERS SECOND ASSESSMENT REPORT, WORKING GROUP III Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in November 1992 and charged with conducting "technical assessments of the socio-economics of impacts, adaptation and mitigation of climate change over both the short and long term and at the regional and global levels." Working Group III responded to this charge by further stipulating in its workplan that it would place the socio-economic perspectives in the context of sustainable development, and in accordance with the Framework Convention on Climate Change be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. This report assesses a large part of the existing literature on the socio-economics of climate change and identifies areas in which a consensus has emerged on key issues and areas where differences exist.' The chapters have been arranged so that they cover several key issues. First, frameworks for socio-economic assessment of costs and benefits of action and inaction are described. Particular attention is given to the applicability of cost-benefit analysis, the incorporation of equity and social considerations, and consideration of intergenerational equity issues. Second, the economic and social benefits of limiting greenhouse gas emissions and enhancing sinks are reviewed. Third, the economic, social and environmental costs of mitigating greenhouse gas emissions are assessed. Next, generic mitigation and adaptation response options are assessed, methods for assessing the costs and effectiveness of different response options are summarized, and integrated assessment techniques are discussed. Finally, the report provides an economic assessment of policy instruments to combat climate change. In accord with the approved work plan, this assessment of the socio-economic literature related to climate change focuses on the economic literature; material from other social sciences is found mostly in the chapter on equity and social considerations. The report is an assessment of the state of knowledge - what we know and do not know - and not a 1 The Framework Convention on Climate Change defines "climate change" to mean a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods. The question as to whether such changes are potential or can already be identified is analyzed in the Working Group I contribution to this IPCC Second Assessment Report (SAR). prescription for policy implementation. Countries can use the information in this report to help take decisions they believe are most appropriate for their specific circumstances. 2. SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT Climate change presents the decision maker with a set of formidable complications: considerable remaining uncertainties inherent in the complexity of the problem, the potential for irreversible damages or costs, a very long planning horizon, long time lags between emissions and effects, wide regional variation in causes and effects, an irreducibly global problem, and multiple greenhouse gases and aerosols to con^ider. Yet another complication is that effective protection of the climate system requires the global cooperation. Still a number of insights which may be useful to policy makers can be drawn from the literature; Analyses indicate that a prudent way to deal with climate change is through a portfolio of actions aimed at mitigation, adaptation and improving our knowledge. The appropriate portfolio will differ for each country. The challenge is not to find the best policy today for the next 100 years, but to select a prudent long term strategy and to adjust it over time in the light of new information. Earlier mitigation action may increase flexibility in moving toward stabilization of atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases (U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 2). The choice of abatement paths involves balancing the economic risks of rapid abatement now (that premature capital stock retirement will later be proved unnecessary) against the corresponding risk of delay (that more rapid reduction will then be required, necessitating premature retirement of future capital stock). The literature indicates that significant 'no regrets'' opportunities are available in most countries and that the risk of aggregate net damage due to 2 "No regrets" measures are those whose benefits, such as reduced energy costs and reduced emissions of local/regional pollutants equal or exceed their cost to society, excluding the benefits of climate change mitigation. They are sometimes known as "measures worth doing anyway." |