Beyond Copenhagen

The climate-change summit will not produce a plan. So it's time for a fresh approach.

Bjorn Lomberg

A

Should we be concerned that the Copenhagen Climate Change conference is not going to produce a concrete plan to produce greenhouse-gas emissions? Lots of people clearly are. Indeed, while activists prepare to unfurl protest banners, politicians are scrambling for a facesaving way to declare the summit a success. They should all save their energy. The failure of the summit may be a blessing in disguise, because when it comes to dealing with climate change, the last thing we need right now is yet another empty agreement and yet more moral posturing.

B

For years, we have been spinning our wheels on what I call the Rio-Kyoto-Copenhagen road to nowhere, slavishly following the notion - first endorsed at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and then extended in Kyoto 13 years later - that the only way to stop global warming is by means of draconian reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. All we have to show for this devotion is a continuing series of unmet targets, along with a startling increase in the number of people who no longer think climate change is worth worrying about.

C

Why has this approach led us to this dead end? Well, to begin with, it proposes a solution that costs more than the problem it's meant to solve. It is estimated that if we don't do anything about global warming, its damaging effects will cost the world close to $3 trillion by the end of this century. In an effort to avert this 'catastrophe', the industrialized nations have proposed a plan that would mandate cuts in carbon emissions in order to keep average global temperatures from rising any higher than 2°c above pre-industrial levels.

D

This is an enormously ambitious goal, but many experts agree it could make a real difference. The problem is that the cure may be worse than the disease. In a paper for the Copenhagen Consensus Center, climate economist Richard Toi, a lead author for the UN climate panel, determined that to cut carbon emissions enough to meet the 2°C goal, the leading industrial nations would have to slap a huge tax on carbon-emitting fuels - one that by the end of the century would reach something in the order of $4,000 per metric ton of carbon dioxide, or $35 per gallon of gas ($9 per liter). According to Toi, the impact of a tax hike of this magnitude could reduce world GDP 12.9 per cent in 2100 - the equivalent of $40 trillion a year. In other words, to save ourselves $3 trillion a year, we'd be giving up $40 trillion a year. No wonder we're not getting anywhere.

E

The problem isn't only a matter of economics. There's also technology to consider. On figures from the International Energy Agency, it is clear that to cut carbon emissions by three-quarters over the rest of this century while maintaining reasonable economic growth, we would have to develop alternative-energy sources capable of providing roughly 20 times the energy they do now. To be sure, there are plenty of promising alternative technologies on the horizon. But for all the optimistic talk of sustainable, non-carbon-emitting energy sources, none of them are remotely ready to shoulder such a load. The fact is, about half the world's electricity comes from coal. For emerging economies like those of China and India, the proportion is closer to 80%. Indeed, burning carbon-emitting fuels is the only way for such countries to rise out of poverty. No wonder so many of them have so much trouble with the largely Western plea that we all go on a carbon diet. It's simply not in their interest to do so.

F

It's time to stop trying to put the cart before the horse. Instead of trying to make fossil fuels more expensive, we should focus on making alternative energy cheaper. The cost of fully implementing the Kyoto Protocol (in terms -of lost economic growth) has been estimated at roughly $180 billion a year. For just a little more than half that amount, we could fund a fiftyfold increase in spending on .R&D for the kind of game-changing technological breakthroughs - like smart grids, ultra-efficient batteries or even cheap, manageable fusion - we will need to end our addiction to fossil fuels. Such a commitment would resolve many of today's political challenges. Developing nations would be much more likely to embrace a positive path of innovation than a punitive one that handicaps their abilities to grow their economies.

G

As things stand now, our political leaders continue to offer up little more than fanciful promises that either. mean nothing or have little or no change of being fulfilled. So let's not mourn the failure of the Copenhagen summit. If we are serious about tackling global warming, we need action that actually does good - as opposed to empty agreements and moral posturing that merely makes us feel good.

QUESTIONS 14-20

This passage has seven sections, A-G.
Choose the correct heading for each section from the list of headings below.
Write your answers in boxes 14-20 of your answer sheet.

14. Section A
15. Section B
16. Section C
17. Section D
18. Section E
19. Section F
20. Section G

QUESTIONS 21-26

Complete each sentence with the correct ending A-J from the box below.
Write your answers in boxes 21-26 of your answer sheet.

21. The Copenhagen conference failed to bring about
22. The solutions proposed in Rio and Kyoto aim to restrict
23. It is hoped that temperatures can be kept close to
24. The benefits may be outweighed by the costs of
25. Developing nations get most of their energy from
26. It would be relatively cheap to fund

A. new technology.	B. a definite plan of action.
C. industrial nations.	D. political posturing.
E. a carbon tax.	F. coal.
G. economic growth.	H. carbon emissions.
I. pre-industrial levels.	J. two degrees.