strategies for addressing climate change: policy perspectives from around the world

Energy Vol. 17, No. 12, pp. 1121-1136, 1992 Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved

0360-5442/92 $5.00 + 0.00 Copyright @ 1992 Pergamon Press Ltd

STRATEGIES FOR ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE: POLICY PERSPECTIVES FROM AROUND THE WORLD?

MARK D. LEVINE,$.$ JAYANT A. SATHAYE,~ PAUL P. CRAIG,~ and STEPHEN C. PECK (1

$ Energy Analysis Program, Energy & Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720 n Department of Applied Science, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 and

11 Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA 94303, U.S.A.

(Received 3 April 1992)

Abstrad-The greenhouse effect is intrinsically global. Accordingly, effective responses require global coordination. While limited policies have been adopted, notably for phasing out chlorofluorocarbons, there is no clear consensus as to what to do about other greenhouse gases. In this paper, we survey attitudes and policy responses among the nations of the world. Public opinion surveys are consistent in showing that considerable sensitivity to environmental issues exists virtually everywhere. On the other hand, there is acute awareness that other issues, especially economic development, can conflict with global climate-change mitigation goals. In such a state of uncertainty there is a strong argument to be made for implementing policies which are good ideas independent of greenhouse-gas considerations. There is also good reason to expand research. What is feasible depends strongly on present and changing attitudes of the citizens of the world, and of their governments. It is thus critical to follow closely the evolution of attitudes. The kind of work summarized in this paper needs to be updated on a continuing basis, and the results made available routinely to the global policy community. We conclude our review with several recommendations for research designed specifically to reduce uncertainty about costs and institutional issues relating to responses to global climate change.

INTRODUCTION

Within the space of only a few years, global climate change issues have moved from the

periphery to stage center of the international arena. Since 1988, virtually every corner of the world. The topic was a dominant theme of discussions of the major international G7 summit meetings in 1989 and 1990, and was the sole focus of a European ministerial meeting (Noordvick, Holland, November 1989), a U.S. White House conference (April 1990), and a gathering of parliamentary leaders (Washington, DC, May 1990).

There have been a variety of reviews and analyses of technological, scientific, and economic issues of global climate change. For example, Yu and Kinderman review the capital requirements and energy-cost savings that are possible to achieve global carbon emission reductions. ’ The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate has published a major review of the science of global climate change,* with an update released in February 1992. A number of analysts have studied the economics of achieving different levels of CO2 emissions. Particular attention has been devoted to economic impacts in the United States.3 However, there has been little attention paid to how information of this type has resulted in differing views of measures to control greenhouse-gas emissions. In this paper, we focus on the perspectives of individual countries and regions of the world at a time when the international debate on a possible greenhouse gas convention continues to intensify. We review public awareness of the issues involving global climate change. To what extent is the general population in different parts of the world aware of climate change as an environmental issue? How do populations in different countries view environmental issues in general? How have views of the environment

tThis paper is based in part on a series of papers reviewing the status of global climate change policy issues throughout the world commissioned by the Electric Power Research Institute. For details, see Refs. 5, 9, 14, 16, 29 and 33.

8To whom all correspondence should be addressed. 1121

1122 MARK D. LEVINE et al

Table 1. Countries with largest CO, emissions.

Country United States USSR China

Japan Germany (West) India UK Poland Canada Italy France Mexico South Africa Australia Czechoslovakia Romania Korea Brazil

Millions of Metric Tons (1988)

4804 3982 2236

989 670 601 559 459 438 360 320 307 284 241 234 221 205 202 188

Tons per capita 19.4 13.9

2.1 8.1

11.0 0.7 9.9

12.0 19.9 6.2 5.9 3.7 8.4

15.0 15.0 9.5 4.8 1.5 4.8

and of global climate change evolved over the past years? Have any significant actions been taken to date because of concern about climate change (e.g., shifting of research and development priorities)?

We examine the policy debates that have occurred in different countries. We summarize actions taken by legislative or executive bodies to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases or to otherwise reduce the likelihood of adverse consequences of global climate change, government positions concerning a possible climate change convention and other ways in which global climate change has become an element of domestic politics. We also review the increasing linkage between global climate change and other environmental, economic, and political issues. Examples are perceptions in nations that they may be especially susceptible to effects of climate or to impacts on particular political or other interest groups. We devote special attention to a major new organization, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), established in October 1988 under the auspices of the United Nations.

We conclude with a proposal for an international research project designed to develop needed information on prospects for implementing efficiency measures to reduce greenhouse

gas emissions. The review is structured in terms of regional breakdown: the United States, Western

Europe, Japan, major oil-exporting countries, the republics comprising the former Soviet Union, China, and the developing countries. We begin with the United States, the largest single contributor of greenhouse gases. Though at different stages of development, China and the former Soviet Union consume large quantities of coal and are major contributors. Other OECD nations as a group produce emissions comparable to those of the United States and somewhat greater than those of the former Soviet Union. Table 1 summarizes, for selected countries, the total and per capita CO2 emissions in 1988 in millions of metric tons and in metric tons per capita. 4

United States PUBLIC PERCEPTIONS ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE

Public awareness in the United States about global climate change has increased rapidly in the past few years. A poll conducted by the Union of Concerned Scientists in November 1989 showed 80% of respondents to be aware of the problem of global warming, up from 58% in a 1988 ~001.~ In a poll conducted by the Roper organization in December 1987 and January 1988, the greenhouse effect was ranked 24th most serious of the 28 environmental problems

Strategies for addressing climate change 1123

addressed, well below such issues as hazardous waste disposal, industrial pollution of water, and exposure of workers to toxic wastes.6 In the March 1990 resurvey, the greenhouse effect

had moved up to the 19th most serious problem, and the percentage of respondents who considered it to be a “very serious” problem increased from 33 to 48%. Only oil spills showed a similar increase, and that was likely the result of the then-recent Exxon Valdez accident.

Ford Motor Company in 1989 polled 7000 individuals in leadership positions in the media, government environmental advocacy groups, university and research organizations, and the business community. Sixty-nine percent placed curtailment of global warming among their “10 highest priority [environmental] issues at the national and international levels.” Related questions such as preserving the ozone layer and reducing acid rain also appeared in the top 1o.5

The many congressional hearings relating to global climate change also attest to the high level of public concern in the U.S.‘,’ If the considerable rise in awareness of global climate change that has occurred in the past 2 yr continues into the future, then attitudes of the U.S. population could play an important role in influencing public policy on climate change.

Other OECD: Western Europe

Public awareness of the concern about global climate change in Western Europe are in many ways similar to that in the United States; recognition of global climate change as an issue has increased in the past several years and the problem is seen in many quarters as a serious one. In a pool conducted for the European Economic Commission in 1986 in the 12 member countries, 38% of respondents expressed “great concern” about climate change. By 1989, the percentage of respondents expressing “great concern” had risen to 74%. The percentage of respondents throughout Western Europe (EC 12) finding the problem of environmental degradation “very important” rose from 61 to 78% in similar polls administered in 1987 and 1989.9

The 1989 poll showed the greatest concern about environmental degradation among the population of European Community countries to be in Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands; the least, in Greece, Ireland, and Spain.7 The countries that showed the greatest concern about climate change in 1989 were Belgium, Germany, and Greece. Those showing the least concern in 1989 were Portgual, France, and Spain. In the course of 3 yr (1986 to 1989) Belgium went from the lowest concern about climate change (with 28% of the population expressing great concern) to the highest (81%). Surprisingly, citizens of The Netherlands, who could be impacted disproportionately from global warming, appear less concerned than those of other European Community nations. The French, with the most active nuclear power program in Europe and possibly the most to gain economically by a possible threat of global warming, consider the problem less important than do others in the European community.$

It is useful to distinguish among attitudes in different parts of Europe. Northern Europe is at one extreme (greatest concern about the environment), Southern Europe is at the other, and public opinion in the other Western European countries, especially in the large European powers is less certain and subject to more rapid change depending on circumstances.

In Scandinavia, environmental awareness is traditionally high and environmental issues have often been integrated into the decision-making processes, i.e., they are not the preserve of small political parties or interest groups. The Scandinavian nations-notably Sweden and Norway-have taken a leadership position in the international community in promoting a convention to limit greenhouse gas emissions. Because of the widespread attention the

tThe 12 countries in the European Community are Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy,

Luxemburg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom. While Northern Europe (Scandinavia) is omitted from the poll because they are not part of the European Community, there is no doubt that concern for the

environment is very high there.

Scare must be taken in making inter-country comparisons such as this as, for example, different cultures may react

differently to such terms as “great concern” or “very concerned.”

EGY 17:12-B


populations of these countries give to environmental issues, it is likely that Northern European governments will continue to play a strong role in advocating international action on climate change.

In several European nations, “green” political parties are not often scoring significant votes in local and national elections-especially in Germany-and are causing traditional political parties to pay much greater attention to environmental issues. Global climate change is high on the agenda of these parties, and is both widely publicized and made a part of the broader political process through them.

A poll in the United Kingdom carried out for the Department of the Environment in 1989 dealt both with public understanding of global climate change and possible solutions. Ninety-five percent of those interviewed had heard of the greenhouse effect and 72% were worried about the warming of the atmosphere. Fifty-nine percent believed that the solution would have to be sought through an international organization. The survey found that substantial majorities of respondents stated they would pay higher prices (about 10% more) for gasoline and electricity so that “less harm is done to the air.“9

The only exception to this generally positive European response is found in Southern Europe. Here, the public generally has shown more limited concern about local pollution and even less about climate change. (The polls suggest that Greece may be an exception on climate change, although not on environmental degradation in general.) Economic growth, expansion of industry, tourism and related topics can, when there are significant economic problems, take precedence over environmental issues. This is an obvious fact of life, and must be recognized as the most likely reason that response to global climate change may come more slowly than some would prefer.

Other OECD: Japan

There is considerable awareness of global climate issues among the Japanese. The results of a public opinion survey on environmental problems were announced by the Prime Minister’s Office in May 1988.” More than 70% of those surveyed were concerned or very concerned about global climate change. The survey, administered to over 3000 persons, asked respondents to state their degree of concern regarding six environmental problems: (1) decline in wild fauna and flora, (2) decrease in natural resource (e.g., deforestation), (3) meteorological change due to increased carbon dioxide resulting from consumption of coal, petroleum, etc., (4) depletion of the ozone layer due to the use of chlorofluorocarbons, (5) environmental problems, such as air and water pollution, in developing countries, and (6) damage to forests and lake waters due to acid rain. The greatest concern was shown for acid rain, with 35.6% of respondents indicating “very concerned” and 38.4% indicating “concerned.” The second most significant concern was registered for meteorological change due to increased carbon dioxide, with 32% “very concerned” and 42.1% “concerned.” The survey results showed men to be more concerned about meteorological change than women and younger respondents to exhibit greater concern than older.

Results of the Louis Harris” multinational poll suggested that the Japanese are very much aware of environmental problems. t The Japanese rated each of the 11 problems addressed

tThis survey was administered between February 1988 and June 1989. Seven of the countries were industralized and nine were developing. The survey included four countries in Africa (Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, and Zimbabwe), four in Asia and the Pacific (China, India, Japan, and Saudi Arabia), four in Latin America and the Caribbean (Argentina, Brazil, Jamaica, and Mexico), one in Eastern Europe (Hungary), and three in Western Europe and North America (Norway, West Germany, and the United States). Between 300 and 1250 persons were interviewed in each country, plus a separate group of 50 leaders in each country. The survey queried respondents on 11 environmental problems: loss of agricultural land; increasing deserts; loss of forest; drinking water pollution; pollution of lakes and rivers; climate change; radioactivity from nuclear power plants; air pollution; industrial solid wastes; pesticides; and acid rain.


in be more serious than did other countries on average, with typically 70 to 80% of Japanese respondents calling these “major problems.”

Sixty-seven percent of Japanese rated global climate change as a major problem, compared to only 45% for all countries surveyed. Among Japanese leaders, 75% rated global climate a “major problem,” as compared to 39% of leaders in all countries. Only 13% of the Japanese (15% of leaders) believed that the country has done a good job in “keeping the atmosphere free of chemicals which may change the climate,” compared with 23% of respondents in other countries (but only 16% of leaders in other countries).

Relevant government and research communities in Japan are much involved in global climate issues. In addition to active participation in the meetings of the IPCC, Japan has hosted a number of international conferences dealing with climate change. These conferences have received good coverage in newspapers and thus serve to keep climate change in the public eye. A scan of energy policy articles in the periodical Energy in Japan reveals that the topic is very frequently mentioned in many contexts.‘2*13

Former Soviet Union

Global climate change has received considerable attention within the scientific community in the former U.S.S.R. Soviet scientists have been particularly active in seeking information

about correlations between CO2 levels and various aspects of climate over geologic time. Prominent Soviet climatologists have suggested that warming might be beneficial to the former Soviet Union by, for example, improving the climatic conditions in the northern regions and increasing the extent and productivity of arable land in the country. Other Soviet climatologists are not so sanguine, as they note the likely increase in variability in weather with climate change and the possibility of reduced rainfall leading to poorer agricultural productivity.i4,i5

Though little is known, it appears that the issue has not engaged the general public. With an economy that appears to be in shambles and a social/political system teetering and unstable, not to mention revelations about the environmental and ecological insults throughout the land, neither the people nor the governments in the republics comprising the former Soviet Union are in a position to focus attention on long-term matters of uncertain impact on the nation, such as global climate change.16 Nonetheless, as a major actor on the world scene, the position of the Soviet government, as distinct from the awareness and viewpoint of the general population, will be of major consequence in international arenas.

China

Media exposure to issues of global climate change is rare in China. The Harris (1989) survey is one of the very few sources of information about public attitudes in China about global change. Thirty-two percent of the Chinese respondents (and 28% of Chinese leaders) indicated that climate change is a major problem. This rating was much lower than the ratings the Chinese gave to the other 10 environmental problems. (All but one of these problems were rated as a major problem by 68% or more of the population.) The 32% rating for climate change as a major problem was also lower than the average 45% rating in other countries.

It is likely that even these low numbers overstate the public concern of the problem. They may better reflect the fraction of the population who have heard about global climate change at all. Clearly, the Chinese are more concerned about immediate environmental problems that affect them today, such as air pollution, degradation of lakes and rivers, pollution of drinking water, and the like.

Developing countries

Environmental issues are moving higher on the priority lists of developing countries.” The change is being driven by the increasing frequency of problems such as the poison gas leak in Bhopal which caused several thousand deaths and new hydro dams proposed in India,


Thailand, and Brazil that could cause the dislocation of inhabitants from areas submerged under the dams. Burning forests in the Amazon to gain access to the land for agriculture and cattle ranching has provoked national and international debate. New environmental groups are pushing for consideration of the environment as an important element in the process of development. In India, environmentalists are displaying increasing flair in lobbying against large dam projects. A plan to put over 30 dams across the Narmada river to generate 1450 MW of power is under fire. Environmentalists maintain that this plan will disrupt the lives of 1.2 million people, physically uproot entire communities, and flood important archeological sites. Environmental activism is causing foreign donors to pay considerable attention to the environmental consequences of projects.

Urban air pollution has also reached levels that are beyond the guidance levels specified by the World Health Organization (WHO) for exposure to pollutants. In Delhi, the incidence of respiratory diseases is 12 times the national average. Pollution has increased 75% over the past decade and particulate levels have reached 300 micrograms per cubic meter, double the safety limit set by the WHO. Similar readings have also been recorded in Beijing and Mexico City. Mexico City recently experimented with a ban on driving every other day in order to reduce air

pollution. The Harris poll cited above” showed a variety of reactions among the nine developing

countries surveyed. Majorities of the urban public in India, Kenya, Argentina, Brazil, and Mexico saw global climate change as a major problem. Only a minority of the respondents did so in Saudi Arabia, Jamaica, Senegal, and Nigeria. The fraction of respondents worldwide who rated climate change as a major problem was 45%. Those developing countries with a majority of respondents showing concern are, with the exception of Kenya, large nations with relatively well-informed urban households. Nairobi (in Kenya) is the location of the United Nations Environmental Program headquarters and may, for this and other reasons, have a population that is especially aware of environmental issues. Thus, urban dwellers in the developing world may, in many cases, not be so very different from their counterparts in more developed countries in their perception of global climate change.

A surprising result is that a majority of both the public and leaders in India, China, and Brazil (the most signficant developing countries in terms of greenhouse gas emissions) felt that protecting the environment in their own country could be achieved without cooperation with the governments and peoples of other countries. An overwhelming 78% of leaders in Brazil claimed that protecting the environment in Brazil could be done by themselves exclusively. This attitude is not confined to climate change. These countries have opted out of international cooperation on other issues as well.

Despite a higher level of concern voiced about climate change in developing countries than might be expected, leaders in these countries generally take the position that they need the available financial and human resources for economic development and cannot afford to address a problem that appears remote. One factor that reduces conflicts between environmental and development goals is that current efficiencies are often low in developing nations so that industralization programs are likely to reduce emissions per unit output.?

The policy debate on global climate change

In this section, we are concerned with two interrelated issues: the positions of the countries regarding their own efforts to control greenhouse gas emissions and their viewpoints regarding international agreements. We discuss both explicitly articulated and nascent policy positions. We begin with an international organization that is playing a key role in the debate, and then turn to nations and groups of nations.

tSteel manufacturing typically requires 900-1000 kg of oil equivalent per tonne of rolled steel (kgoe/tonne) output in developing countries vs 775 kgoe/tonne in the U.S. and other industralized countries. Advanced steel production techniques require a little over 550 kgoe/tonne today.18


The intergovernmental panel on climate change (ZPCC)

The IPCC has emerged as the major international actor in global climate change. IPCC

activities have commanded governmental resources from the U.S. and many other nations. Its existence clearly signifies the beginning of a process of international negotiations aimed toward limiting emissions of greenhouse gases. The IPCC issued three major integrating reports in the fall of 1990.2 They dealt with (1) the science of global climate change, (2) impacts of such changes, and (3) policy responses. The IPCC has also issued a report on developing country perspectives on climate change.

The report of IPCC’s first working group, on science, is of particular note.’ This was the first international group of scientists brought together under impartial (U.N.) auspices who were willing to state clearly that they felt that greenhouse gas concentrations are likely to have a significant impact on the world’s climate in the next century. l9 World reaction to the circulation of this draft has been positive. Prior to this report, virtually all studies had been done by independent groups of scientists, by think tanks, or by various agencies within countries. While many of these latter studies have been important and valuable, none can claim to represent an international scientific consensus as can the IPCC report.

To understand what IPCC might accomplish, one needs to review policy in the major nations. We begin with a regional economic organization, the Commission of the European Communities.

Commission of the European Communities

The Commission includes all major economic powers of western Europe outside of Scandinavia. The Commission works closely with the IPCC and other organizations such as the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). The Commission has adopted as policy the need for urgent action for enhancing energy efficiency and introducing non-fossil fuels to reduce CO2 emissions.20*2’ A major goal is to develop “a clear commitment by the industrialized countries to stabilize their CO2 emissions by the year 2000.” Other goals include halting deforestation and promoting technology transfer. While the Commission has only the power to encourage, not to commit, it is a major forum and nations are not likely to endorse a Commission position unless it is consistent with their nation’s policy.

United States

In the United States, uncertainties about costs of reducing emissions play a more critical role in the policy debate than uncertainties about the impacts of global climate change. The prevailing view in the Administration is that global climate change remains unproven, and the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions have the potential to be very high. Research on the scientific aspects of the problem is important but policy actions to limit greenhouse emissions need to be approached very cautiously and supported only if their costs are low. The Administration has interest only in policies desirable for reasons other than to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is the so-called “no regrets policy.“22 Hence, international agreements to achieve CO2 targets have been rigorously resisted by the U.S. government.

The view in Congress is more diverse. At least three pieces of comprehensive legislation, two of which require reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, were initially introduced in Congress in 1989, as have a host of lesser bills. The three major bills were those proposed by Representative Claudine Schneider (H.R. 1078), Senator Al Gore (S. 201), and Senator Timothy Wirth (S. 324). H.R. 1078 requires a 20% reduction in annual CO, emissions by 2000, provides greatly increased funding for research on energy conservation and renewable energy technologies, and requires the United States to enter into international negotiations on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. S. 324 carries much the same philosophy. Senator Wirth proposed a new bill in 1990 which substitutes for the 20% reduction in CO2 emissions a study of the “. . . feasibility and economic, energy, and environmental implications of achieving a 20% reduction in the generation of CO2 by the year 2005. . . .“5


Several studies have looked at the costs of CO2 reduction. The most notable of these are by economists. Manne and Richels23*24 suggest that major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will be expensive. A different perspective comes from some scientists, engineers, and technologists. They propose that better energy technologies can, in the near-term, reduce CO2 emissions at lower costs through cost-effective investments in higher energy efficiency, and in the longer term through new energy supply technologies and continued application of energy efficiency technology. Specific data in support of the use of better technology to achieve low (or in some cases negative) costs of reducing CO2 emissions are presented in a report to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.25 A recent report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences makes an effort to narrow the differences between different schools.’ This report suggests that the energy intensity of the U.S. economy (and thus carbon emissions) could be reduced by between 10 and 40% at low cost, depending on degree of optimism about technology. This effort notwithstanding, disagreement about the costs and the institutional feasibility of making changes clearly makes policy formulation extremely difficult.

The U.S. Administration, though unwilling to make commitments on CO2 emissions policy, has provided considerable support for research. The U.S. has spent more than $1 billion in FY 1991 on global environmental change research, a 57% increase over FY 1990 spending. About two-thirds of this research has gone to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for satellite measurements; the remainder has been spread among many agencies to support a wide array of research on the topic.5

A position that would be more accommodating to an international agreement on greenhouse gases may be emerging in the U.S. At the gathering of more than 100 nations in Chantilly, Virginia, under U.N. auspices that initiated discussion of a framework convention, the U.S. stressed the importance of a comprehensive approach that includes all greenhouse gases. Because of its commitment to eliminating chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions, the U.S. appears able to maintain overall greenhouse gas emissions constant over the next lo-15 yr without any major policy changes.26,27

Other OECD: Western Europe

The basic issue in Western Europe concerns setting limits on greenhouse gas emissions. We have already noted a difference between northern and southern European populations in their attitudes and concerns about climate change. The views of the governments follow closely those of the public. However, there are divergent viewpoints, even within governments. “. . . [A] characteristic of the current status of policy debates on the issue of climate change is the often divergent points of view put forward by Ministries responsible for environment, by those in charge of energy policy and by various parliamentary commissions which in most European countries have been given the task of studying the problem.“’

To date, four European countries have set CO2 targets.** The Dutch government has stated that it will not exceed 1989/90 emission levels after 1994/95.a,29 The Swedish parliament has set a policy of maintaining CO2 emissions at 1988 levels. The Norwegian parliament has limited CO2 emissions to their 1989 level by 2000, with reductions after that date. Since emissions in Norway are expected to grow by 2 to 3% per annum over this period, this commitment to reduction will require vigorous action. Germany has made the most ambitious commitment by announcing a policy of achieving 30% reductions in CO2 by 2005.t

One measure of the ability to achieve these goals over the next lo-15 yr is the historical change in CO, emissions in key European nations since 1973. Table 2 makes clear that some

tThis 30% reduction was stated as the goat of the West German government prior to the reunification with East Germany. In the negotiations at the October 1990 WMO/UNEP conference in Geneva, unified Germany pledged 30% reductions as part of a proposal to limit worldwide emissions. Because East Germany had the highest per capita CO, emissions of any country in the world, the unification of Germany makes it easier for Germany to achieve its stated goals.


Table 2. CO, emissions from fossil fuel and cement for selected European countries in 1986 as percent of 1973.

Source: LBL internal data.

countries, notably Sweden and France, reduced CO* emissions considerably over this period. Much of this reduction occurred as a result of nuclear power, which is presently being phased out in Sweden. Norway, which has pledged to reduce CO* emissions, has had the fastest growth in emissions in the past.

The general desire in Western Europe is for a negotiated international agreement on CO2 limits rather than a unilateral agreement. There presently appears to be a rough consensus on the terms of such an agreement among European countries: CO2 emissions limits for industrialized countries are favored that would be somewhere between current levels and 20% below current levels. Dates for achieving these limits tend to be 2000 or 2005.

Europe is operating as a relatively cohesive force in favor of an international agreement that requires containment of COZ emissions. Until 1990, it seemed the United Kingdom might be the only major dissenter,? siding with the United States in opposing a CO;? limitation target until greater scientific understanding was achieved. However, the United Kingdom has shifted its position to be in the mainstream of European views; in the October 1990 WMO/UNEP meetings, the United Kingdom indicated its willingness to achieve the EC-wide CO* targets for the year 2000 within the U.K.

Many European nations appear to recognize the need for assistance to developing countries if they are to be able to reduce growth in CO* emissions. Several European countries, most notably France, Norway, Austria, and Belgium, have supported the concept of an international environmental fund, part of which could assist developing countries to contain greenhouse gas emissions.

In spite of the general agreement to limit emissions, specific proposals to achieve these reductions have not been worked out in many countries. The Netherlands, through its National Environmental Policy Plan, is probably the furthest along in establishing concrete plans.* The United Kingdom, a recent supporter of the EC proposals to limit CO* emissions, has nonetheless canceled many energy efficiency programs during the past few years. Norway (home of the leader of the Brundtland Commission) has not yet developed specific plans to achieve large emissions reductions.

Other OECD: Japan

“The Japanese government supports aggressive measures be taken to preserve [the] global environment. But, as to the manner to push such a drive forward, Japan advocates a cautious approach.“12*‘3 This curious statement of aggressive measures chosen cautiously reflects a deep ambivalence. On the one hand, Japan has attempted to take a leadership position on international environmental issues, in part to counter preceptions of Japan as an economically

tThe Southern European countries such as Spain and Greece have not been active in discussions and probably do not favor limitation agreements, but appear willing to go along with the views of the other members of the European

Community. *The Dutch programs include building energy standards, appliance efficiency standards, subsidies for energy

conservation programs and renewable energy technologies, active involvement of electric utilities in demand-side programs and, in early stages, provisions for a carbon tax.

1130 MARK et al

aggressive power. On the other hand, Japan has been concerned about any results of an international convention limiting CO2 emissions that in their view could restrict economic development.

In 1988, the basic positions of the Japanese government on global climate change were established in a report of the advisory committee on climate change entitled “Policy Recommendations Concerning Climate Change.“” The report, summarized by Nishioka,30

notes that “indications about warming are extremely difficult to detect. . . the extent and timing of the warming, the effect on the global environment, as well as its social and economic impacts are not at all clear. . . . However, global warming will seriously affect the whole world and it is a gradual, complex process which will have an irreversible impact on the environment. Hence, appropriate provisions must be made in advance.” The report called for continued scientific research efforts to understand impacts of climate change, and development of technologies that contribute to reductions or control of CO2 and trace gas emissions.

Two other features of this report, which have become important aspects of Japan’s policy response to climate change, should be noted. The first is Japan’s concerns about a convention limiting CO2 emissions. “However, in order to achieve international agreement on a program aimed at reducing CO2 emissions, further discussion by experts is required because of the current deficiency in data . . . and also because each nation’s available energy sources and

ability to achieve energy reduction will differ. Provisions for reducing CO2 emissions are recommended to be as flexible as possible.”

A second noteworthy position taken in 1988 concerned developing countries. “Although industrialized countries are mainly responsible for the discharge of greenhouse gases, developing countries will take some of this responsibility in the future. Moreover, developing countries may well suffer from the most serious damage caused by climate change. Due to technological and financial difficulties and the lack of expertise in developing countries, there will be a greater need for support from other countries.“30

In the fall of 1990, the Japanese position on a convention limiting CO2 changed dramatically. The Japanese position changed from opposing a specific emissions limit to a pledge to have no per capita increases in CO2 above 1989 levels. The reasons for this major change in approach to an international limit on CO2 by the Japanese are not clear. The Japanese have concluded that an international agreement limiting CO, could create markets for Japanese technology.31

Japan is among the most conspicuous nations in the policy debate, especially within the IPCC, over climate change. They have carried out a number of investigations of impacts of global climate change. They are in the process of making substantial commitments of aid to developing countries to address environmental problems, including climate change. The change in the Japanese position in late 1990 will undoubtedly influence other nations involved in discussions of a greenhouse gas convention. Assuming that Japan adheres to the discussions to accept emissions limits, the future debate in Japan may be expected to concern specifics of protocols as well as discussions about policy approaches, such as CO2 taxes, subsidies for technological development and deployment, tradable emission permits, debt for environment swaps, mandatory regulations, and the like.

Former Soviet Union

The former Soviet Union has been active in its participation in the IPCC meetings, and has been the co-chair of the Working Group II on social and economic impacts of climate change. Assuming co-chair of this group is consistent with Soviet concerns about global climate change, which have been much more related to scientific aspects than to those of public policy.

As noted above, global climate change has been largely absent from domestic policy discussions. “This lack of attention is in large part due to the enormous economic and local environmental challenges facing the current leadership at home, and has been complicated by a system in the midst of turmoil and change. [In the words of a foremost scientist working on


global climate, Professor Georgii Golitsyn,] “Politicians know about this, but it does not play a

main role. . . . There are far more pressing needs facing our country.“16 There has been some, relatively limited discussion of global climate change in domestic

policy proposals. As of May 1990, the section of the 13th Five-Year Plan concerned with the environment and use of natural resources states that one of the basic goals concerning air pollution involves “lowering the negative effects of economic activity on climate.” The section on international cooperation calls for participation in agreements to prevent global climate

change. l6 Also the latest draft of the proposed comprehensive environmental law provides the government with authority to close down any establishment that violates established norms in producing chemicals dangerous to the climate.

With the tremendous number and severity of immediate environmental concerns in the former Soviet Union, virtually no action will be motivated solely by the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The fact that some Soviet scientists believe that climate change may be good for the former U.S.S.R. makes it even less likely that policies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will soon emerge.14 However, energy conservation is of growing interest in many

of the republics of the former Soviet Union, motivated by the need for modernizing the energy and economically inefficient economy.

China

Greenhouse gas emissions policy could have profound effects on China’s development plans. As a developing country, China has low per capita emissions. As a country with a vast population, it has large total CO2 emissions, the third largest in the world. As a developing country, its plans for economic growth are aggressive and depend on energy, and especially coal, for their achievement. At the same time, China has paid considerable attention to energy efficiency improvements and has achieved notable successes in the past decade.

The Chinese are among the more cautious participants in the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for a Framework Convention on Climate Change (INC). They have not taken a position with respect to the development of a protocol. It is uncertain if they would sign a protocol if one were developed, unless it were clearly perceived to be beneficial to themselves or unless other developing countries joined, pressures were brought to bear on China to join, and the Chinese convinced themselves that a protocol would not impede economic growth. At the present, this does not seem likely. China co-chairs (with Japan) a key IPCC subgroup examining energy and industry response strategies.

Two official statements summarize the present view within China. Luo Jibin, Associate Director of the National Bureau of Meteorology, made the following official statement: “China realizes that all countries must be involved in slowing down the pace of global climate change. China still needs time to understand this complicated issue. Possible climate change could have important impacts on China’s long-term economic development. We should enhance meteor- logical observations and research about climate and educate people about climate protection. The government should also adopt relevant policies as soon as possible.“32

A second official statement was prepared in 1989: “We all know that the greenhouse effect and ozone layer depletion are mainly caused by

industrialization in the past 100 yr. Developed countries have the major responsibility for this situation. China has realized that further deterioration of these problems would greatly threaten China’s society and economy. So, China is closely watching the development of global environmental problems. We also realize that it is not effective to count on one country’s effort to mitigate these problems. For example, to prevent a build-up in the greenhouse effect, CO2 emissions must be controlled. This would require major changes in current energy policies, the structure of energy systems, and energy technologies. A huge capital investment would be needed. That is a great burden for developing countries. Developed countries have, in the past, exploited large amounts of cheap energy and resources, to the benefit of their development and

EGY 17:12-C


wealth. They can use their accumulated capital to support environmental protection. But the environmental problems faced by developing countries are basically caused by their poverty. . .

We consider that developed countries should provide more capital and technology and other resources to enhance work on global environmental issues. They should also share the responsibility for helping developing countries financially and technically to improve the regional and global environment.” [Chinese Delegation of the International Conference on Protecting the Ozone Layer (1989). Cited in 30.1

Because China is such an important actor in this arena, it will be important to observe the application of these ideas and the evolution of the Chinese viewpoints.

Developing countries

In many ways, the quotation above for China applies very well to developing countries as a whole. The policy issues for developing countries regarding the limitation of greenhouse gas emissions are very difficult. These countries are highly dependent on natural resources and natural systems which in turn are more susceptible to the vagaries of climate. For example, agriculture accounted for 40% of GDP in India in 1979. A single drought was sufficient to bring about a decline in food production and in national GDP that year. Several countries are vulnerable to rising sea levels and floods. For example, Bangladesh, a country with 100 million people, would have one-third of its land inundated by a 2 m sea level rise.

It is extremely difficult to devise a way of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions that would be seen as fair to the developing world. Per capita emissions in the developing world are vastly lower than those of the industrialized countries while the industralized countries are responsible for the largest portion of the cumulative emissions of greenhouse gases.

Numerous formulas could be used to limit CO2 emissions. Four approaches that have been discussed are: fixed percentage reductions in CO* emissions, limits on increases in CO* emissions, limits on emissions per capita, and limits on CO* emissions per unit of energy consumed. Any of these could include emissions trading schemes among countries.

The first two approaches would be adamantly opposed by developing countries. These approaches would effectively lock developing countries into low-energy use patterns and would greatly curtail development plans. There is, however, sentiment in favor of applying one of these two formulas to developed countries and, at some later date, to advanced developing countries that have made the transition to industrialized economies.

The third approach, per capita limits, would be powerfully opposed by many industrialized countries. Because of low per capita emissions in developing countries, such an approach would not place any constraints on these countries in the foreseeable future. Since a substantial fraction of CO* emissions in coming decades is expected to be from developing countries, this approach by itself is likely to have considerably less impact on future emissions than the others.

The fourth approach of placing a limit on emissions per unit of energy consumed would require that nations shift their use of energy resources to those that are less carbon-intensive (i.e., especially away from coal). While countries can strive to achieve such goals, only those with abundant low-carbon energy resources or those relying on imported fuels are in a position to comply. This approach has not received a great deal of attention to date, because of these problems and because it provides only a partial approach to limiting CO2 emissions. Further, the major developing countries that have abundant coal resources and are dependent on these resources, such as China, would very strongly oppose such an approach.

Developing countries are increasingly recognizing the present inefficiency of their energy systems and the necessity of increasing this efficiency. Since they lack the financial and human resources to achieve large gains in efficiency, substantial assistance from the industrialized countries will be needed to support efficiency gains. There is an economic rationale for such an approach. In many instances, the most cost-effective reductions in COZ emissions worldwide


can be achieved by investing in more efficient production, transport, and use of energy in

developing countries.33 Because developing countries represent the major source of increased CO2 emissions,

including them in negotiations is important. Support by developed countries of efficiency programs in developing countries could help attract them into an agreement. However, there are major tensions and it will not be easy to merge the interests of developing and developed countries.

OTHER ISSUES: COMMON THEMES

There are numerous other issues that are important to different regions of the world in any dialogue on limits on greenhouse gas emissions. In this section, we briefly describe a selected

few. The electric utility perspective is important for all nations, both developed and developing.

Electricity is the most rapidly growing final energy form worldwide and is likely to remain so for many years. A variety of approaches to management of energy growth are being explored. For example, in the United States, many utilities have become involved in demand-side management programs on the customer side of the meter. There is a move in several regions of the United States to increase the profitability of utilities based on their success in promoting increased end-use efficiency among customers. It will be important to watch the development and implementation of such programs, as they represent novel ways of reducing CO2 emissions. The techniques have the potential for implementation throughout the world.

The role of nuclear power in reducing greenhouse gas emissions is receiving more attention. Industry and some environmentalists are reconsidering the role for nuclear power. On the one hand, opposition to nuclear power in many nations, the U.S. is one, remains strong. The Chernobyl experience strongly influences attitudes not only in the Soviet Union but also in many European nations. On the other hand, new reactor designs appear to be making major progress in reducing the risks of large scale accidents.

A carbon tax is one mechanism which could provide both incentives to reduce carbon emissions to the atmosphere as well as to provide a source of funds to support programs to further promote emissions reductions. Advantages of such a tax are its flexibility, its economic efficiency, and its ability to raise money to support programs including transfers to developing countries.34 A disadvantage is that taxes would probably have to be high in order to limit emissions.

Greenhouse emissions can be considered as the product of emissions per capita times population. This means that population control is an important issue. Without population control, the ability to limit emissions is substantially reduced. To date, there has been inadequate attention to including this topic in the dialogue on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. It is clearly of particular importance in developing nations with high population growth rates.

Finally, there is vast need for research and development. We address this key issue in the following, concluding section.

CONCLUSIONS: THE CENTRALITY OF RESEARCH TO RESOLVE CONTROVERSY

We see areas of increasing agreement as well as continuing disagreement among the major nations of the world. There is a growing consensus that the consequences of global climate change will at some future time be generally negative, and that many nations are likely to be adversely affected. However, there is little agreement on estimates of the magnitude of the damages that global warming could cause. Information is much too uncertain for other than


educated guesses about the costs of such damages, and such guesses vary enormously. There appears to be a growing consensus that industralized countries can reduce the intensity of greenhouse gas emissions at low cost up to a certain point. However, there is little consensus on the costs or practicality of an effort that could, for example, maintain greenhouse gas emissions worldwide at current levels over many decades, as many scientists believe is necessary to avert a warming of more than a few degrees Centigrade. This is a growing recognition of the need to involve developing nations in any worldwide program to slow the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. There is, however, little agreement on the best ways to do this.

Clearly there are substantial opportunities for such measures as energy efficiency, reforesta- tion, reduction in use of chlorofluorocarbons, prevention of methane releases, and similar activities that can reduce growth of greenhouse gas emissions over the coming decades. For the longer term, research and development is needed to advance energy technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Emerging technologies are a fundamental key to success. Yet the major problem is not only technical, but also institutional and political. Accordingly, there is a need for research and education to improve our understanding of what can be done and of how to overcome institutional obstacles to taking effective (and cost-effective) steps to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

Intensified research is needed to reduce uncertainty in analyses of the benefits and costs of limiting greenhouse gas emissions. It is important, and difficult, to understand how higher levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere translate into impacts on earth. The United States is committed to major research programs in this area. Some other countries are also active, but a more extensive international effort could be very valuable.

The whole question of the costs of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and the most efficacious means of doing so, needs much attention. Demonstration programs with carefully designed research components to establish the costs, effectiveness, and transferability of programs among nations could contribute greatly. This suggests to us a need for large-scale international experiments designed to enhance understanding of the practicalities of both low CO2 energy systems and efficiency improvement. Such efforts could be carried out simul- taneously in a number of nations, each of which would seek to identify and apply those technologies and institutions most likely to lead to success. The activities in the several nations could, for example, be reviewed and analyzed by an independent group operating at an international level with the objective of learning what works and what fails. Such a program, carefully carried out and documented, could provide the understanding and insight necessary to permit an assessment of the degree to which non-conventional energy and efficiency improvements have the potential to impact significantly international strategies for addressing greenhouse gas policy issues. Results of this type of research could be used in cost-benefit analyses that will likely contribute to the resolution of global climate change issues as they evolve over the coming decades.

REFERENCES

1. 0. S. Yu and E. M. Kinderman, Energy-Znternational Journal 16, 1503 (1991). 2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Climate Change: The ZPCC Scientific

Assessment, J. T Houghton, G. J. Jenkins, and J. J. Ephraums eds., Cambridge University Press, New York, NY (1990).

3. D. G. Streets, C. N. Bloyd, G. A. Boyd, D. J. Santini, and T. D. Veselka, Energy-The International Journal 16, 1437 (1991).

4. Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming, National Academy Press, Washington, DC (1991).


5. P. R. Portney, “Global Climate Change: A North American Perspective,” EPRI, Workshop on Cooperative Research on Climate Change, Vienna, Austria (1990).

6. Roper Reports, 88-l and 88-2, The Roper Organization, New York, NY (1988). 7. United States Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on HUD-Independent

Agencies, “Global Climate Change,” Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, Second Session, Washington, DC (1991).

8. United States Congress, Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, “Global Climate Change Prevention Act of 1989-S. 1610,” Hearing before the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, United States Senate, One Hundred First Congress, First Session, on S. 1610, Washington, DC (1991).

9. G. McInnes, “Climate Change: A Western European Perspective,” EPRI, Workshop on Cooperative Research on Climate Change, Vienna, Austria (1990).

10. S. Nishioka, Environmental Agency of Japan, “Policy Recommendations,” Japan (unpublished, 1989).

11. L. Harris, and Associates, Inc., “Public and Leadership Attitudes to the Environment in Four Continents,” conducted for the United Nations Environment Programme, Study No 884002, New York, NY (1989).

12. T. Tomitate, The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, “New Issues of Japan’s Energy Policy,” Energy in Japan, Tokyo (1990).

13. T. Tomitate, The Institute of Energy Economics, Japan, “Political Evolution of International Agreements on Global Warming,” Energy in Japan (February 1990).

14. Y. Sinyak, “Energy. Electricity and Global Warming Concepts in the U.S.S.R.” IIASA, Workshop on Cooperative Research on Climate Change, Laxenburg, Austria (1990).

1.5. Y. Sinyak, Energy-The International Journal 16, 791 (1991). 16. N. Lubin, “Climate Change: A Soviet Perspective,” IIASA, Workshop on Cooperative Research on

Climate Change, Laxenburg, Austria (1990). 17. J. A. Sathaye, “Developing Countries and Global Climate Change,” Workshop on Cooperative

Research on Climate Change, Laxenburg, Austria (1990). 18. M. D. Levine, A. Gadgil, S. Meyers, J. Sathaye, J. Stafurik, and T. Wilbanks, “Energy Efficiency,

Developing Nations and Eastern Europe,” Report to the U.S. Working Group on Global Energy Efficiency, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA (1990).

19. H. Lee, “International Efforts towards Reaching an Agreement on Global Climate Change,” presentation prepared for the Workshop on Cooperative Research on Climate Change, Laxenburg, Austria (1990).

20. Commission of the European Communities, “Communication to the Council: The Greenhouse Effect and the Community,” Commission Work Programme Concerning the Evaluation of Policy Options to Deal with the “Greenhouse Effect,” Brussels (February 1990).

21. Commission of the European Communities, “Community Policy Targets on the Greenhouse Issue,” Report SEC(90) 496 final, Brussels (16 March 1990).

22. C. B. Gray and D. B. Rivkin Jr., Foreign Policy 83, 46 (Summer 1991). 23. A. S. Manne and R. G. Richels, The Energy J. 11, 69 (1990). 24. A. S. Manne and R. G. Richels, The Energy J. 12, 87 (1991). 25. ICF Incorporated, “Preliminary Technology Cost Estimates of Measures Available to Reduce U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions by 2010,” Fairfax, VA (1990). 26. “The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States,” J. B. Smith and D. Tirpak

eds., Report to Congress, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC (1988).

27. The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States, J. B. Smith and D. Tirpak eds., Hemisphere Publishing Corp., New York, NY (1990).

28. International Energy Agency (IEA), “Energy Efficiency Update: Special Issue on Energy and The Environment,” No 10, International Energy Agency, Paris (November 1990).

29. F. Van Der Meer, “Climate and Energy in Western Europe,” IIASA, Workshop on Cooporative Research on Climate Change, Laxenburg, Austria (1990).

30. S. Nishioka, “The Japanese Response to Global Warming-Background, Policy and Research Work,” Paper prepared for the Workshop Responding to the Threat of Global Warming: options for the Pacific and Asia, Japan (June 1989).

31. A. Miller, Center for Global Change, University of Maryland, College Park, MD (persona1 communication, 1991).

32. F. Liu, Memorandum to Mark D. Levine, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA (1990).


33. M. D. Levine, A. Gadgil, S. Meyers, J. A. Sathaye, J. Stafurick, and T. Wilbanks, “Energy Efficiency, Developing Countries, and Eastern Europe: A Report to the U.S. Working Group on Energy Efficiency,” Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley, CA (June 1991).

34. D. Gaskins and B. Stram, “A Meta Plan: A Policy Response to Global Warming,” Workshop for Cooperative Research on Climate Change, Vienna, Austria (1990).

strategies for addressing climate change: policy perspectives from around the world

Documents