Two Cheers for China's Climate Obstruction

Two Cheers for China's Climate Obstruction

Since the Copenhagen climate summit's failure, many politicians and pundits have pointed the finger at China's leaders for blocking a binding, global carbon-mitigation treaty. But the Chinese government's resistance was both understandable and inevitable. Rather than mustering indignation, decision-makers would do well to use this as a wakeup call: it is time to consider a smarter climate policy. China is unwilling to do anything that might curtail the economic growth that has enabled millions of Chinese to clamber out of poverty. This development can be seen in the ever-expanding Chinese domestic market. In the next six months, one-quarter of young Chinese consumers intend to buy new cars "� the main source of urban air pollution "� up an astonishing 65 percent from a year ago. A poll by the China Youth Daily revealed that eight of 10 young Chinese are aware of climate change, but are prepared to support environmental policies only if they can continue to improve their living standards "� including acquiring new cars. The cost of drastic, short-term carbon cuts is too high. The results of all major economic models reveal that the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature increases below two degrees Celsius would require a global tax of 71 euro per ton to start (or about 0.12 euro per liter of gasoline), increasing to 2,800 euro per ton (or 6.62 euro per liter of gasoline) by the end of the century. In all, the actual cost to the economy would be a phenomenal 28 trillion euro a year. According to most mainstream calculations, that is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it would likely prevent. Trying to cut carbon emissions drastically in the short-term would be particularly damaging, because it would not be possible for industry and consumers to replace carbon-burning fossil fuels with cheap, green energy. Renewable energy alternatives are simply far from ready to take over. Consider the fact that 97 percent of China's energy comes from fossil fuels and burning waste and biomass. Renewable sources like wind and solar meet just 0.2 percent of the China's energy needs, according to the most recent International Energy Agency (IEA) figures. The IEA estimates that on its current path, China will get a mere 1.2 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. As if these reasons were not enough to explain the Chinese government's opposition to an expensive global carbon deal, economic-impact models show that for at least the rest of this century, China will actually benefit from global warming. Warmer temperatures will boost agricultural production and improve health. While heat-related deaths in summer will increase, this will be more than offset by a significant reduction in cold-related deaths in winter. In short, China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century. Little wonder, then, that Ed Miliband, Britain's secretary for energy and climate change, found ``impossible resistance" from China to a global carbon mitigation deal. Trying to force China into line would be impractical and foolhardy. The inescapable but inconvenient truth is that the response to global warming that we have single-mindedly pursued for nearly 20 years "� since the leaders of rich countries first vowed to cut carbon "� is simply not going to work. It is time to recognize the impracticality of trying to force developing countries to agree to make fossil fuel ever more expensive. Instead, we need to make a greater effort to produce cheaper, more widely used green energy. And to do this, we must dramatically increase the amount of money we spend on research and development. A global deal in which countries committed to spending 0.2 percent of GDP to develop non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would increase current spending 50-fold, and it would still be many times cheaper than a global carbon deal. It would also ensure that richer nations pay more, taking much of the political heat out of the debate. Most importantly, such an approach would bring about the transformational technological breakthroughs that are required to make green energy sources cheap and effective enough to fuel a carbon-free future. We cannot browbeat China and other developing nations into embracing hugely expensive, ineffective global carbon cuts. Rather than hoping that we can overcome their ``impossible resistance" with political maneuvering, leaders of developed countries need to shift their focus to a strategy that is both feasible and effective. Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of ``The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." For more stories, visit Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org). For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link: http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/lomborg56.mp3.

Reader's Comments �–� Other View Notice From KT Website Manager Bad language will not be tolerated. All comments considered discriminatory against race or sex, or which are considered offensive against certain people, will be eliminated by the manager. Violators will be deprived of their membership. Please stay on topic. �–� Managerial regulations You must log in to use this service. �—� Back �–�Top     • NK Threatens to Wage Holy War on South • Exporters Face Three Hurdles • 'Korean Air to Rise on Fall of Japan Airlines' • Korean Rescue Team Sent to Caribbean Nation • Lee to Visit India, Switzerland • New Nuclear Powerhouse • Revenge of History • Private Newsletters Drive Celebs Up Wall • Cold Spell Expected to Recede • Aid to Haiti Philip Morris Korea Managing Director Roman Militsyn ... Haiti Quake Anchorwoman Palin           +Login    +Register    +Find Id / Pw     Home  l  Archives  l  Learning Times  |  Sitemap  |  Subscription  l  Media Kit  l  PDF    Home > Newszone > Opinion > Today`s Column > Saturday, January 16, 2010 | 4:7 a.m. ET   Nation   Biz/Finance   Technology   Arts & Living   Sports   Opinion     Editorial       Thoughts of the Times       Today`s Column       Desk Column       Letter to the Editor       The Dawn of Modern Korea       Another Korea       What`s Your Take?       Letter from America       Random Walk       Sean Hayes       Michael Breen       Views From Overseas       Jon Huer       Tom Plate       Living Science       Pacific Perspective       Guest Column       Times Forum       Readers` Forum       Cartoon       Great and Simple Things       Back Home       Ideas & Ideals       Jim Hoagland       Choi Yearn-hong       Today in History       Reporter's Notebook       Washington Lounge       Hyon O'Brien     Community   Special         The Learning Times      Editorial Listening      Phone English      Dear Abby      Domestic News      Foreign News      Screen English      Live English in Drama      Discovery Education        Ancient Idiom        iBT Writing        English Writing I      English Writing II        English Grammar      Grasping Vocab      iBT Vocab      Korean Language              Junior Writing      Junior Reading      Junior Reporter            01-15-2010 15:50 Two Cheers for China's Climate Obstruction

By Bjorn Lomborg COPENHAGEN "� Since the Copenhagen climate summit's failure, many politicians and pundits have pointed the finger at China's leaders for blocking a binding, global carbon-mitigation treaty. But the Chinese government's resistance was both understandable and inevitable. Rather than mustering indignation, decision-makers would do well to use this as a wakeup call: it is time to consider a smarter climate policy. China is unwilling to do anything that might curtail the economic growth that has enabled millions of Chinese to clamber out of poverty. This development can be seen in the ever-expanding Chinese domestic market. In the next six months, one-quarter of young Chinese consumers intend to buy new cars "� the main source of urban air pollution "� up an astonishing 65 percent from a year ago. A poll by the China Youth Daily revealed that eight of 10 young Chinese are aware of climate change, but are prepared to support environmental policies only if they can continue to improve their living standards "� including acquiring new cars. The cost of drastic, short-term carbon cuts is too high. The results of all major economic models reveal that the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature increases below two degrees Celsius would require a global tax of 71 euro per ton to start (or about 0.12 euro per liter of gasoline), increasing to 2,800 euro per ton (or 6.62 euro per liter of gasoline) by the end of the century. In all, the actual cost to the economy would be a phenomenal 28 trillion euro a year. According to most mainstream calculations, that is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it would likely prevent. Trying to cut carbon emissions drastically in the short-term would be particularly damaging, because it would not be possible for industry and consumers to replace carbon-burning fossil fuels with cheap, green energy. Renewable energy alternatives are simply far from ready to take over. Consider the fact that 97 percent of China's energy comes from fossil fuels and burning waste and biomass. Renewable sources like wind and solar meet just 0.2 percent of the China's energy needs, according to the most recent International Energy Agency (IEA) figures. The IEA estimates that on its current path, China will get a mere 1.2 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. As if these reasons were not enough to explain the Chinese government's opposition to an expensive global carbon deal, economic-impact models show that for at least the rest of this century, China will actually benefit from global warming. Warmer temperatures will boost agricultural production and improve health. While heat-related deaths in summer will increase, this will be more than offset by a significant reduction in cold-related deaths in winter. In short, China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century. Little wonder, then, that Ed Miliband, Britain's secretary for energy and climate change, found ``impossible resistance" from China to a global carbon mitigation deal. Trying to force China into line would be impractical and foolhardy. The inescapable but inconvenient truth is that the response to global warming that we have single-mindedly pursued for nearly 20 years "� since the leaders of rich countries first vowed to cut carbon "� is simply not going to work. It is time to recognize the impracticality of trying to force developing countries to agree to make fossil fuel ever more expensive. Instead, we need to make a greater effort to produce cheaper, more widely used green energy. And to do this, we must dramatically increase the amount of money we spend on research and development. A global deal in which countries committed to spending 0.2 percent of GDP to develop non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would increase current spending 50-fold, and it would still be many times cheaper than a global carbon deal. It would also ensure that richer nations pay more, taking much of the political heat out of the debate. Most importantly, such an approach would bring about the transformational technological breakthroughs that are required to make green energy sources cheap and effective enough to fuel a carbon-free future. We cannot browbeat China and other developing nations into embracing hugely expensive, ineffective global carbon cuts. Rather than hoping that we can overcome their ``impossible resistance" with political maneuvering, leaders of developed countries need to shift their focus to a strategy that is both feasible and effective. Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of ``The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." For more stories, visit Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org). For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link: http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/lomborg56.mp3.

Reader's Comments �–� Other View Notice From KT Website Manager Bad language will not be tolerated. All comments considered discriminatory against race or sex, or which are considered offensive against certain people, will be eliminated by the manager. Violators will be deprived of their membership. Please stay on topic. �–� Managerial regulations You must log in to use this service. �—� Back �–�Top     • NK Threatens to Wage Holy War on South • Exporters Face Three Hurdles • 'Korean Air to Rise on Fall of Japan Airlines' • Korean Rescue Team Sent to Caribbean Nation • Lee to Visit India, Switzerland • New Nuclear Powerhouse • Revenge of History • Private Newsletters Drive Celebs Up Wall • Cold Spell Expected to Recede • Aid to Haiti Philip Morris Korea Managing Director Roman Militsyn ... Haiti Quake Anchorwoman Palin           +Login    +Register    +Find Id / Pw     Home  l  Archives  l  Learning Times  |  Sitemap  |  Subscription  l  Media Kit  l  PDF    Home > Newszone > Opinion > Today`s Column > Saturday, January 16, 2010 | 4:7 a.m. ET   Nation   Biz/Finance   Technology   Arts & Living   Sports   Opinion     Editorial       Thoughts of the Times       Today`s Column       Desk Column       Letter to the Editor       The Dawn of Modern Korea       Another Korea       What`s Your Take?       Letter from America       Random Walk       Sean Hayes       Michael Breen       Views From Overseas       Jon Huer       Tom Plate       Living Science       Pacific Perspective       Guest Column       Times Forum       Readers` Forum       Cartoon       Great and Simple Things       Back Home       Ideas & Ideals       Jim Hoagland       Choi Yearn-hong       Today in History       Reporter's Notebook       Washington Lounge       Hyon O'Brien     Community   Special         The Learning Times      Editorial Listening      Phone English      Dear Abby      Domestic News      Foreign News      Screen English      Live English in Drama      Discovery Education        Ancient Idiom        iBT Writing        English Writing I      English Writing II        English Grammar      Grasping Vocab      iBT Vocab      Korean Language              Junior Writing      Junior Reading      Junior Reporter            01-15-2010 15:50 Two Cheers for China's Climate Obstruction

By Bjorn Lomborg COPENHAGEN "� Since the Copenhagen climate summit's failure, many politicians and pundits have pointed the finger at China's leaders for blocking a binding, global carbon-mitigation treaty. But the Chinese government's resistance was both understandable and inevitable. Rather than mustering indignation, decision-makers would do well to use this as a wakeup call: it is time to consider a smarter climate policy. China is unwilling to do anything that might curtail the economic growth that has enabled millions of Chinese to clamber out of poverty. This development can be seen in the ever-expanding Chinese domestic market. In the next six months, one-quarter of young Chinese consumers intend to buy new cars "� the main source of urban air pollution "� up an astonishing 65 percent from a year ago. A poll by the China Youth Daily revealed that eight of 10 young Chinese are aware of climate change, but are prepared to support environmental policies only if they can continue to improve their living standards "� including acquiring new cars. The cost of drastic, short-term carbon cuts is too high. The results of all major economic models reveal that the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature increases below two degrees Celsius would require a global tax of 71 euro per ton to start (or about 0.12 euro per liter of gasoline), increasing to 2,800 euro per ton (or 6.62 euro per liter of gasoline) by the end of the century. In all, the actual cost to the economy would be a phenomenal 28 trillion euro a year. According to most mainstream calculations, that is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it would likely prevent. Trying to cut carbon emissions drastically in the short-term would be particularly damaging, because it would not be possible for industry and consumers to replace carbon-burning fossil fuels with cheap, green energy. Renewable energy alternatives are simply far from ready to take over. Consider the fact that 97 percent of China's energy comes from fossil fuels and burning waste and biomass. Renewable sources like wind and solar meet just 0.2 percent of the China's energy needs, according to the most recent International Energy Agency (IEA) figures. The IEA estimates that on its current path, China will get a mere 1.2 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. As if these reasons were not enough to explain the Chinese government's opposition to an expensive global carbon deal, economic-impact models show that for at least the rest of this century, China will actually benefit from global warming. Warmer temperatures will boost agricultural production and improve health. While heat-related deaths in summer will increase, this will be more than offset by a significant reduction in cold-related deaths in winter. In short, China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century. Little wonder, then, that Ed Miliband, Britain's secretary for energy and climate change, found ``impossible resistance" from China to a global carbon mitigation deal. Trying to force China into line would be impractical and foolhardy. The inescapable but inconvenient truth is that the response to global warming that we have single-mindedly pursued for nearly 20 years "� since the leaders of rich countries first vowed to cut carbon "� is simply not going to work. It is time to recognize the impracticality of trying to force developing countries to agree to make fossil fuel ever more expensive. Instead, we need to make a greater effort to produce cheaper, more widely used green energy. And to do this, we must dramatically increase the amount of money we spend on research and development. A global deal in which countries committed to spending 0.2 percent of GDP to develop non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would increase current spending 50-fold, and it would still be many times cheaper than a global carbon deal. It would also ensure that richer nations pay more, taking much of the political heat out of the debate. Most importantly, such an approach would bring about the transformational technological breakthroughs that are required to make green energy sources cheap and effective enough to fuel a carbon-free future. We cannot browbeat China and other developing nations into embracing hugely expensive, ineffective global carbon cuts. Rather than hoping that we can overcome their ``impossible resistance" with political maneuvering, leaders of developed countries need to shift their focus to a strategy that is both feasible and effective. Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of ``The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." For more stories, visit Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org). For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link: http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/lomborg56.mp3.

Reader's Comments �–� Other View Notice From KT Website Manager Bad language will not be tolerated. All comments considered discriminatory against race or sex, or which are considered offensive against certain people, will be eliminated by the manager. Violators will be deprived of their membership. Please stay on topic. �–� Managerial regulations You must log in to use this service. �—� Back �–�Top     • NK Threatens to Wage Holy War on South • Exporters Face Three Hurdles • 'Korean Air to Rise on Fall of Japan Airlines' • Korean Rescue Team Sent to Caribbean Nation • Lee to Visit India, Switzerland • New Nuclear Powerhouse • Revenge of History • Private Newsletters Drive Celebs Up Wall • Cold Spell Expected to Recede • Aid to Haiti Philip Morris Korea Managing Director Roman Militsyn ... Haiti Quake Anchorwoman Palin           +Login    +Register    +Find Id / Pw     Home  l  Archives  l  Learning Times  |  Sitemap  |  Subscription  l  Media Kit  l  PDF    Home > Newszone > Opinion > Today`s Column > Saturday, January 16, 2010 | 4:7 a.m. ET   Nation   Biz/Finance   Technology   Arts & Living   Sports   Opinion     Editorial       Thoughts of the Times       Today`s Column       Desk Column       Letter to the Editor       The Dawn of Modern Korea       Another Korea       What`s Your Take?       Letter from America       Random Walk       Sean Hayes       Michael Breen       Views From Overseas       Jon Huer       Tom Plate       Living Science       Pacific Perspective       Guest Column       Times Forum       Readers` Forum       Cartoon       Great and Simple Things       Back Home       Ideas & Ideals       Jim Hoagland       Choi Yearn-hong       Today in History       Reporter's Notebook       Washington Lounge       Hyon O'Brien     Community   Special         The Learning Times      Editorial Listening      Phone English      Dear Abby      Domestic News      Foreign News      Screen English      Live English in Drama      Discovery Education        Ancient Idiom        iBT Writing        English Writing I      English Writing II        English Grammar      Grasping Vocab      iBT Vocab      Korean Language              Junior Writing      Junior Reading      Junior Reporter            01-15-2010 15:50 Two Cheers for China's Climate Obstruction

By Bjorn Lomborg COPENHAGEN "� Since the Copenhagen climate summit's failure, many politicians and pundits have pointed the finger at China's leaders for blocking a binding, global carbon-mitigation treaty. But the Chinese government's resistance was both understandable and inevitable. Rather than mustering indignation, decision-makers would do well to use this as a wakeup call: it is time to consider a smarter climate policy. China is unwilling to do anything that might curtail the economic growth that has enabled millions of Chinese to clamber out of poverty. This development can be seen in the ever-expanding Chinese domestic market. In the next six months, one-quarter of young Chinese consumers intend to buy new cars "� the main source of urban air pollution "� up an astonishing 65 percent from a year ago. A poll by the China Youth Daily revealed that eight of 10 young Chinese are aware of climate change, but are prepared to support environmental policies only if they can continue to improve their living standards "� including acquiring new cars. The cost of drastic, short-term carbon cuts is too high. The results of all major economic models reveal that the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature increases below two degrees Celsius would require a global tax of 71 euro per ton to start (or about 0.12 euro per liter of gasoline), increasing to 2,800 euro per ton (or 6.62 euro per liter of gasoline) by the end of the century. In all, the actual cost to the economy would be a phenomenal 28 trillion euro a year. According to most mainstream calculations, that is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it would likely prevent. Trying to cut carbon emissions drastically in the short-term would be particularly damaging, because it would not be possible for industry and consumers to replace carbon-burning fossil fuels with cheap, green energy. Renewable energy alternatives are simply far from ready to take over. Consider the fact that 97 percent of China's energy comes from fossil fuels and burning waste and biomass. Renewable sources like wind and solar meet just 0.2 percent of the China's energy needs, according to the most recent International Energy Agency (IEA) figures. The IEA estimates that on its current path, China will get a mere 1.2 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. As if these reasons were not enough to explain the Chinese government's opposition to an expensive global carbon deal, economic-impact models show that for at least the rest of this century, China will actually benefit from global warming. Warmer temperatures will boost agricultural production and improve health. While heat-related deaths in summer will increase, this will be more than offset by a significant reduction in cold-related deaths in winter. In short, China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century. Little wonder, then, that Ed Miliband, Britain's secretary for energy and climate change, found ``impossible resistance" from China to a global carbon mitigation deal. Trying to force China into line would be impractical and foolhardy. The inescapable but inconvenient truth is that the response to global warming that we have single-mindedly pursued for nearly 20 years "� since the leaders of rich countries first vowed to cut carbon "� is simply not going to work. It is time to recognize the impracticality of trying to force developing countries to agree to make fossil fuel ever more expensive. Instead, we need to make a greater effort to produce cheaper, more widely used green energy. And to do this, we must dramatically increase the amount of money we spend on research and development. A global deal in which countries committed to spending 0.2 percent of GDP to develop non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would increase current spending 50-fold, and it would still be many times cheaper than a global carbon deal. It would also ensure that richer nations pay more, taking much of the political heat out of the debate. Most importantly, such an approach would bring about the transformational technological breakthroughs that are required to make green energy sources cheap and effective enough to fuel a carbon-free future. We cannot browbeat China and other developing nations into embracing hugely expensive, ineffective global carbon cuts. Rather than hoping that we can overcome their ``impossible resistance" with political maneuvering, leaders of developed countries need to shift their focus to a strategy that is both feasible and effective. Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of ``The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." For more stories, visit Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org). For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link: http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/lomborg56.mp3.

Reader's Comments �–� Other View Notice From KT Website Manager Bad language will not be tolerated. All comments considered discriminatory against race or sex, or which are considered offensive against certain people, will be eliminated by the manager. Violators will be deprived of their membership. Please stay on topic. �–� Managerial regulations You must log in to use this service. �—� Back �–�Top     • NK Threatens to Wage Holy War on South • Exporters Face Three Hurdles • 'Korean Air to Rise on Fall of Japan Airlines' • Korean Rescue Team Sent to Caribbean Nation • Lee to Visit India, Switzerland • New Nuclear Powerhouse • Revenge of History • Private Newsletters Drive Celebs Up Wall • Cold Spell Expected to Recede • Aid to Haiti Philip Morris Korea Managing Director Roman Militsyn ... Haiti Quake Anchorwoman Palin           +Login    +Register    +Find Id / Pw     Home  l  Archives  l  Learning Times  |  Sitemap  |  Subscription  l  Media Kit  l  PDF    Home > Newszone > Opinion > Today`s Column > Saturday, January 16, 2010 | 4:7 a.m. ET   Nation   Biz/Finance   Technology   Arts & Living   Sports   Opinion     Editorial       Thoughts of the Times       Today`s Column       Desk Column       Letter to the Editor       The Dawn of Modern Korea       Another Korea       What`s Your Take?       Letter from America       Random Walk       Sean Hayes       Michael Breen       Views From Overseas       Jon Huer       Tom Plate       Living Science       Pacific Perspective       Guest Column       Times Forum       Readers` Forum       Cartoon       Great and Simple Things       Back Home       Ideas & Ideals       Jim Hoagland       Choi Yearn-hong       Today in History       Reporter's Notebook       Washington Lounge       Hyon O'Brien     Community   Special         The Learning Times      Editorial Listening      Phone English      Dear Abby      Domestic News      Foreign News      Screen English      Live English in Drama      Discovery Education        Ancient Idiom        iBT Writing        English Writing I      English Writing II        English Grammar      Grasping Vocab      iBT Vocab      Korean Language              Junior Writing      Junior Reading      Junior Reporter            01-15-2010 15:50 Two Cheers for China's Climate Obstruction

By Bjorn Lomborg COPENHAGEN "� Since the Copenhagen climate summit's failure, many politicians and pundits have pointed the finger at China's leaders for blocking a binding, global carbon-mitigation treaty. But the Chinese government's resistance was both understandable and inevitable. Rather than mustering indignation, decision-makers would do well to use this as a wakeup call: it is time to consider a smarter climate policy. China is unwilling to do anything that might curtail the economic growth that has enabled millions of Chinese to clamber out of poverty. This development can be seen in the ever-expanding Chinese domestic market. In the next six months, one-quarter of young Chinese consumers intend to buy new cars "� the main source of urban air pollution "� up an astonishing 65 percent from a year ago. A poll by the China Youth Daily revealed that eight of 10 young Chinese are aware of climate change, but are prepared to support environmental policies only if they can continue to improve their living standards "� including acquiring new cars. The cost of drastic, short-term carbon cuts is too high. The results of all major economic models reveal that the much-discussed goal of keeping temperature increases below two degrees Celsius would require a global tax of 71 euro per ton to start (or about 0.12 euro per liter of gasoline), increasing to 2,800 euro per ton (or 6.62 euro per liter of gasoline) by the end of the century. In all, the actual cost to the economy would be a phenomenal 28 trillion euro a year. According to most mainstream calculations, that is 50 times more expensive than the climate damage it would likely prevent. Trying to cut carbon emissions drastically in the short-term would be particularly damaging, because it would not be possible for industry and consumers to replace carbon-burning fossil fuels with cheap, green energy. Renewable energy alternatives are simply far from ready to take over. Consider the fact that 97 percent of China's energy comes from fossil fuels and burning waste and biomass. Renewable sources like wind and solar meet just 0.2 percent of the China's energy needs, according to the most recent International Energy Agency (IEA) figures. The IEA estimates that on its current path, China will get a mere 1.2 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2030. As if these reasons were not enough to explain the Chinese government's opposition to an expensive global carbon deal, economic-impact models show that for at least the rest of this century, China will actually benefit from global warming. Warmer temperatures will boost agricultural production and improve health. While heat-related deaths in summer will increase, this will be more than offset by a significant reduction in cold-related deaths in winter. In short, China is aggressively protecting the economic growth that is transforming the lives of its citizens, instead of spending a fortune battling a problem that is unlikely to affect it negatively until next century. Little wonder, then, that Ed Miliband, Britain's secretary for energy and climate change, found ``impossible resistance" from China to a global carbon mitigation deal. Trying to force China into line would be impractical and foolhardy. The inescapable but inconvenient truth is that the response to global warming that we have single-mindedly pursued for nearly 20 years "� since the leaders of rich countries first vowed to cut carbon "� is simply not going to work. It is time to recognize the impracticality of trying to force developing countries to agree to make fossil fuel ever more expensive. Instead, we need to make a greater effort to produce cheaper, more widely used green energy. And to do this, we must dramatically increase the amount of money we spend on research and development. A global deal in which countries committed to spending 0.2 percent of GDP to develop non-carbon-emitting energy technologies would increase current spending 50-fold, and it would still be many times cheaper than a global carbon deal. It would also ensure that richer nations pay more, taking much of the political heat out of the debate. Most importantly, such an approach would bring about the transformational technological breakthroughs that are required to make green energy sources cheap and effective enough to fuel a carbon-free future. We cannot browbeat China and other developing nations into embracing hugely expensive, ineffective global carbon cuts. Rather than hoping that we can overcome their ``impossible resistance" with political maneuvering, leaders of developed countries need to shift their focus to a strategy that is both feasible and effective. Bjorn Lomborg is director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of ``The Skeptical Environmentalist and Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming." For more stories, visit Project Syndicate (www.project-syndicate.org). For a podcast of this commentary in English, please use this link: http://media.blubrry.com/ps/media.libsyn.com/media/ps/lomborg56.mp3.

Reader's Comments �–� Other View Notice From KT Website Manager Bad language will not be tolerated. All comments considered discriminatory against race or sex, or which are considered offensive against certain people, will be eliminated by the manager. Violators will be deprived of their membership. Please stay on topic. �–� Managerial regulations You must log in to use this service. �—� Back �–�Top     • NK Threatens to Wage Holy War on South • Exporters Face Three Hurdles • 'Korean Air to Rise on Fall of Japan Airlines' • Korean Rescue Team Sent to Caribbean Nation • Lee to Visit India, Switzerland • New Nuclear Powerhouse • Revenge of History • Private Newsletters Drive Celebs Up Wall • Cold Spell Expected to Recede • Aid to Haiti Philip Morris Korea Managing Director Roman Militsyn ... Haiti Quake Anchorwoman Palin           +Login    +Register    +Find Id / Pw     Home  l  Archives  l  Learning Times  |  Sitemap  |  Subscription  l  Media Kit  l  PDF    Home > Newszone > Opinion > Today`s Column > Saturday, January 16, 2010 | 4:7 a.m. ET   Nation   Biz/Finance   Technology   Arts & Living   Sports   Opinion     Editorial       Thoughts of the Times       Today`s Column       Desk Column       Letter to the Editor       The Dawn of Modern Korea       Another Korea       What`s Your Take?       Letter from America       Random Walk       Sean Hayes       Michael Breen       Views From Overseas       Jon Huer       Tom Plate       Living Science       Pacific Perspective       Guest Column   Read Full Article »

Comment
Show commentsHide Comments

Related Articles