"Climatopolis" - we are not all doomed after all (or are we)

Monday 27 September 2010

The new Matt Khan book is out. Climatopolis. I enjoyed his previous books on Green cities and the American Civil War.

It is always impressive when academics can publish well and also write accessible books for a general audience.

I can't provide a full review as I have not bought the book yet although there are a number of obvious questions. I agree that it is pretty much too late to stop significant climate change and that adaption will be crucial. Luckily for him and many Americans, the US will suffer a lot less than many countries. Those on subsistence wages and the poor in developing countries will find it harder to move anywhere - that is where the real suffering will take place.

Arguing that "economic development" will solve the problem misses the endogeneity issue. Environmental degradation will impact on growth making development even harder and the suffering all the greater.



You can read a Grist interview with Matt Khan HERE.

His new book, Climatopolis: How Our Cities Will Thrive in the Hotter Future, argues that while it's too late to avoid the major effects of global warming, that's OK because most people will simply move to places that are effectively adapting to the changes. And here we'd been so worried! Kahn, a University of Chicago graduate, takes the school's free-market tradition to an extreme, arguing that rational agents in a market economy will simply "vote with their feet" and make winners out of the cities that are most able to innovate and attract new residents. It's a provocative argument, to say the least.

This question gets to the heart of the issue:

Q. You seem to see this all as a market problem. To me, 10 million Bangladeshis who can't feed themselves anymore and are crossing the border into India where they're not wanted -- that's a humanitarian and political problem. How does an entrepreneur innovate for that?

A. In India, many households benefit from access to cheap labor. Migrants to India will move to those cities where they will have the greatest opportunities. One could imagine a win-win, where the growing Indian middle class is actually happy to see many of these Bangladeshis if they need help with household chores.

But I agree with your point that adaptation in the developing world is the trickiest. My magic bullet is economic development. The Nobel laureate Tom Schelling contrasts malaria in Singapore and Malaysia. These countries are very close and have the same geographic conditions. Yet one [Malaysia] has much more malaria than the other. Schelling argues that economic development helps to mitigate environmental challenges through things like better diets and better access to medical care.

.

Economist - special report on "Forests"

The always excellent economist has a great "special report" on forests. It is a fact filled and well written report.

The implications are serious and it is about time this was highlighted. The dynamic and feedback loops are crucial and deforestation is one reasons why climate change could speed up far beyond that by which we could do anything to further increases.

Think "tipping points". This is an impressively gloomy report and well timed.

What is interesting is the issue of paying forest owners not to deforest. Is this a good use of money? Should the West be paying developing countries not to deforest?

I have picked out just a few of the more choice quotes to provide a taster.

Seeing the wood [Economist]

This is the latest reason—and it is a big one—why destroying forests is a bad idea. Roughly half the dry weight of a tree is made up of stored carbon, most of which is released when the tree rots or is burned. For at least the past 10,000 years man has been contributing to this process by hacking and burning forests to make way for agriculture. About half the Earth’s original forest area has been cleared. Until the 1960s, by one estimate, changes in land use, which mostly means deforestation, accounted for most historic man-made emissions. And its contribution to emissions is still large: say 15-17% of the total, more than the share of all the world’s ships, cars, trains and planes.

Stopping deforestation would appear easier that weening us off oil and cars.

The outlook for the Amazon is also grave. Recent modelling suggests that the mutually reinforcing effects of increasing temperatures and aridity, forest fires and deforestation could bring the rainforest far closer than previously thought to “tipping points” at which it becomes ecologically unviable. So far 18% of the rainforest has been cleared. The loss of another 2%, according to a World Bank study last year, could start to trigger dieback in the forest’s relatively dry southern and south-eastern parts. A global temperature increase of 3.5%, comfortably within the current range of estimates for the end of this century, would put paid to half the rainforest. This would release much of the 50 gigatonnes of carbon it is estimated to contain—equivalent to ten years of global emissions from burning fossil fuels.

Only 2% to go until we reach the point of no return. We may get there a lot sooner that you think and then it will be too late.
The Earth’s need for forests to soak up carbon emissions is almost limitless. Saving the forest that is left should therefore be considered a modest aim. But even that will require huge improvements in forest management, such as reforming land registries and tightening up law enforcement. Above all, it will require governments to prize forest very much more highly than they do now. Otherwise there will be no chance of the many reforms required outside the forestry sector: in land-use planning and rural development, in agriculture, energy and infrastructure policies, and much else. It will also require politicians to get serious about climate change. All that amounts to a revolution, which is a lot to hope for. But if anything can help bring it about, forests might.

They are crucial in all sorts of ways because of the manifold services they provide. Western taxpayers need the Amazon rainforest to control their climate. Brazil needs it to help feed its rivers and generate hydro-power. Amazonian soya farmers need it to guarantee them decent rainfall. Yet policies at every level conspire to wreak its destruction. Changing them, in Brazil and across the tropical world, is a daunting task. But it is not impossible—and it must be done. The cost of failure would simply be too great.

.

China seeks binding deal "with principles"

China was unhappy with the post-Copenhagen reviews some of which squarely blamed China for the failure to come up with a deal that could be considered anywhere close to a "good deal for the climate".

China will not attempt to take the moral high ground and to put the pressure back on the US. My understanding is that China does accept its obligations and is making considerable progress to reduce per-capita emissions even in the face of continued economic growth.

Of course China has a strong incentive with China likely to experience significant discomfort from climate change induced whether events and rising sea levels.

What is interesting is China is blaming US politics for the failure at Copenhagen. It is hard to argue against this claim. Obama is well meaning but will find it hard to fight against the lobbying powers of big industry in the US.

What is more interesting from this small news item is the following quote:

Li Gao, a senior Chinese negotiator on climate change, said his government would remain unyielding on issues of "principle" in the talks aimed at forging a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.

What this means is that China will require a deal along the lines of the 80:20 that has been previously mooted. The West reduces emissions by 80% and the developing world by 20%. After all, the vast majority of CO2 in the atmosphere was put there by us.

What does this posturing really mean? It means that chances of a deal are close to zero and our expectations for Cancun should be low. Mine never got off "low" before Copenhagen and are certainly no higher. Chinese "principles" are hard to change.


China Seeks Binding Climate Treaty Late 2011: Report [Planet Ark]
China wants the world to seal a binding climate change treaty by late 2011, a Chinese negotiator said in a newspaper on Friday, blaming U.S. politics for impeding talks and making a deal on global warming impossible this year.

Li Gao, a senior Chinese negotiator on climate change, said his government would remain unyielding on issues of "principle" in the talks aimed at forging a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. The first period of that key treaty on fighting global warming expires at the end of 2012.

Li also vowed to keep pressing rich countries to promise deeper cuts to carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases from human activity that are stoking global warming, said the China Economic Times, which reported his comments.

Many governments and experts have already dismissed hopes for a full climate change treaty at the next major negotiation meeting, to be held in Cancun, Mexico at the end of this year.

Li underscored that gloom, but also said his government hoped Cancun could be a stepping stone to negotiations next year that will culminate in a meeting in South Africa in November.

"China hopes that based on the outcomes from Cancun, we'll be able to settle on a legally binding document at the meeting in South Africa," Li said, according to the Chinese-language newspaper.

"After the South Africa meeting, we'll move to concrete implementation."

Li oversees the international climate change negotiations office at China's National Development and Reform Commission, a sprawling agency that steers economy policy.

The deadline for a new binding global pact was originally set for late 2009, but a final round of negotiations in Copenhagen ended in acrimonious failure, with some Western politicians saying China was not willing to compromise.

China will be a crucial player in the follow-up talks.

With its 1.3 billion people, it is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases from human activity, but is also a developing country with average emissions per capita well below those of wealthy economies.

The United States, European Union and other governments want China to take on stronger commitments to control and eventually cut its emissions.

But Li said it was U.S. political uncertainty that had stymied any hope of the Cancun meeting agreeing on a treaty to succeed Kyoto.

"The biggest obstacle comes from the United States," he said. "Without any (climate change) legislation, it can't possibly join in a legally binding international document."

The U.S. Senate has dropped efforts to put emissions curbs in an energy bill now focused on reforming offshore drilling.

Negotiators from nearly 200 nations are haggling over a complex draft accord on climate change, and a further round of talks at the northern Chinese port of Tianjin opens on October 4.

Li said Beijing would keep pressing for certain principles, including that developing countries like China should not shoulder the same absolute caps on emissions that rich countries must take on.

.