Top Environmental Economist says Next US Administration must Focus on Climate Change - PART 3 of 5 | Voice of America - English
A top environmental expert in America is advising the next president of the US to put a high priority on efforts to deal with global warming. David Wheeler is a senior fellow at a leading US think tank, the Center for Global Development (CGD). He says Africa will be at the center of American attempts in the future to lessen the damage done by climate change. Wheeler maintains that the response to global warming and environmental degradation represents an ?opportunity for greatness? for the new man in the Oval Office.
Wheelersays the new president ?can?t afford to waste a minute? as the world continuesto slide towards what could be ?environmental disaster? in the near future. ?We have very few more years, at this rate, before we willprobably go past an irreversible tipping point to lead to enormous increases inglobal temperatures and probably a series of environmental catastrophes. Sothis is really the time we need to move,? says the specialist in environmentaleconomics, climate change and natural resource conservation. Wheeler?sconducted his research and led projects throughout the developing world,including in sub-Saharan Africa. He says developing countries are ?critical? toUS engagement relating to global warming. Hewarns that even if the US and other developed nations were to ?veryaggressively? lower their carbon emissions and could even drive their carbonoutput ?down near zero,? emissions from developing countries are ?growing soquickly that within about 20 years, we would have the same climate crisisoccurring. Without addressing the problem in developing countries, we have verylittle hope of solving the global problem.? Wheelerforecasts several ?critical effects? of ?unchecked? global warming. At theforefront, he says, ?which relates centrally to the problem of poverty,? isagriculture. ?Agricultureis key; we foresee big problems here unless measures are taken?. As climatechanges, as the atmosphere heats up and as rainfall patterns change, theanticipated effect on agriculture in poor countries will be devastating in manycases.? Recentresearch into agriculture and global warming by one of Wheeler?s colleagues atthe CGD, William Cline, found that agricultural output on the Indiansubcontinent would drop by about 40 per cent by 2070 as a direct result ofclimate change. ?Thisis really unimaginably large, and obviously in the context of India, this wouldbe terrifically tragic. One sees similar numbers in Africa,? Wheeler warns. Hesays rising temperatures will also cause sea levels to rise, although heacknowledges that this phenomenon is ?more contentious because we?re not quitesure at what speed ice caps may break up. The consensus (though) amongscientists keeps advancing the time forward when we will start to experience criticalproblems with sea level rise.? Wheelersays many scientists agree that within this century, ?we may see a meter of sealevel rise.? If this is combined with ?storm surges,? he explains, that meansan ?enormous number of people ? in the many tens of millions in coastalpopulations in poor countries ? will be subject to recurrent flooding anddisastrous conditions over the next half-century to three-quarter century.? Butthere are skeptics who take issue with Wheeler?s dire predictions and who assertthat he?s exaggerating the problem of global warming. These more conservativeelements are concerned that under a new administration, US government environmentalprotection agencies will ?over-regulate? and impose a plethora of new taxes onAmericans. They point to evidence that appears to cast doubt on the phenomenonof global warming, and say laws limiting carbon emissions will double gasprices and raise the price of electricity in the US by as much as six-fold. Theconservative Heritage Foundation has released a study it says shows thatproposed limits on carbon emissions will reduce US GDP by almost seven trilliondollars over the next 20 years and lead to almost three million lost jobs andgreat harm to the US economy. Thedisadvantages of so-called clean energy, they argue, outweigh the benefits ofsuch a program. But Wheelermaintains that the US must lead what he terms a ?clean energy revolution? ifthe world is to save itself from environmental disaster. undertaken in renewable energy ? solar, wind, geothermal, hydro and soforth ? energy sources that are really independent of fossil fuels, that havelow or even zero carbon emissions.? Wheeler acknowledges, though, that the investmentsrequired for renewable sources of energy are at the moment too expensive fordeveloping countries. The new president, he says, will have to support thesenations? efforts to be more environmentally friendly. ?The common problem is to change the relative price ofrenewable energy so that it?s cheaper than coal and other fossil fuels. Oncethat is done, the private sector will be able to take over and make therequisite investments.? He explains that richer countries have the resources toenable them to implement laws that effectively regulate carbon emissions andhave the effect of ?making fossil fuels like coal more expensive.? But Wheeler says poorer countries generally don?t have thenecessary institutions and/or resources to enable them to enforce suchregulations. ?Therefore in developing countries one needs to look atthe other side of the equation: If we can?t make carbon more expensive, can wemake renewable energy cheaper This, Wheeler stresses, is possible through a ?focusedprogram of investment?. through multilateral development banks and other aidagencies ? on the renewable (and clean) energy sources whose costs can bedriven down to competitiveness with coal and other fossil fuels very quickly.? Hecalls on the next president to provide incentives to African countries tosupport them to switch to producing cleaner energy. This, Wheeler states, willhave the added benefit of helping Africa conserve its forests, many of whichare being cut down at a rapid rate by timber companies and poor people who needwood to sell for income, as well as to build houses and burn for heating andcooking purposes. Wheelerexplains, ?In Africa, south-east Asia and Latin America, we have a similarproblem. In the whole central tropical belt of forest, we have an enormousstock of carbon locked up in those trees. As people clear the land, aspopulation grows and as people exploit this new resource, they clear forest andburn the wood and release all that carbon into the atmosphere. This representsa very substantial chunk of total emissions of carbon. At this point in ourhistory, globally, probably about 20 per cent of the total. So one certainlyneeds to address that.? Buthe acknowledges that the US will in future have to be ?very sensitive to theproblem of poverty. People who are clearing these forests are doing so becausethey?re (poor)?. It makes sense (at this point in time for them) to convertforest to other uses.? Wheelersays, ?If the (richer) countries are serious about trying to reduce emissionsfrom deforestation, the key is to develop a program that will actually pay thedeveloping countries to conserve those forests, at a rate commensurate with thevalue of that land and other uses.? Headds that while the World Bank is undertaking such a program, its funding is?still rather modest.? However, Wheeler adds, ?most of the people who haveanalyzed the relative costs of controlling carbon emissions have concluded thatsuch a program would represent a bargain and should be pursued, because it isrelatively cheap to pay the cost that would compensate people for notdeforesting.? Somedeveloping countries have said their continued progress depends to a largedegree on further industrialization, on building more factories, and so on, andtherefore probably harming the world around them in order to lift themselvesout of poverty. This, they emphasize, is exactly the path that has enableddeveloped countries like the US to become rich. They say it would behypocritical of the wealthy nations to now demand that Africa, for example,stop its industrialization. Wheeler?sresponse is emphatic. ?Ithink those arguments (by developing countries) are correct. The developedcountries (have) really contributed by far the most to the current loading ofthe atmosphere with greenhouse gases. One has to acknowledge that. There is noway that one can expect poor countries to suffer additional cost for makingthis transition, if?developed countries are not themselves willing to incursuch costs.? Hesays rich countries will simply have to compensate developing countries that?undertake a clean development path for the difference in the cost between thepath that they would undertake otherwise ? that is to say a path intensive inthe combustion of fossil fuels or forests ? and a path that would be cleaner.The latter is unquestionably more costly.? Wheelersays the ?critical policy problem? that the world, and the new US president,will face over the next few years will be ?to organize a system of financialflows to cover that additional cost so that in fact developing countries canchoose the clean path without sacrificing development.? Hesays the first step the next American administration must take with regard toglobal warming is ?absolutely clear: In the United States we must passmeaningful carbon regulation that sets a substantial price for carbon andbegins to create incentives for us to switch from dirty to clean fuels in thepower sector and other sectors.? Wheelermaintains that if the US does not do this, it will have ?no credibility? in theeyes of the rest of the world at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in November 2009. ?Wewill be unable to persuade developing countries to undertake any (carbon)limitations if we are not ourselves willing to do that.?