Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

David Hone
Climate Change Adviser, Shell Group

David Hone

David Hone is the climate change adviser for the Shell Group and vice chairman of the International Emissions Trading Association. He also works closely with the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. ALL POSTS

Show me the money . . .

Q: The divide between rich and poor countries over climate change ultimately raises three fundamental concerns: morality, economics, and politics. Each also provides a different lens for approaching the issue. With the second week of Copenhagen now upon us and the days rapidly counting down to the conclusion of the summit, the true meaning of climate change politics is showing its hand - money. At issue are two things; how much should developed countries effectively compensate developing countries for past emissions by helping them to adapt to the changing climate and how much should developed countries pay developing countries to get them to reduce future emissions. The first of these I find impossible to make any judgment on at all, in part because I struggle to understand just what such money might be spent on (save for the expatriation of residents of some island states now literally disappearing) and then how it might be divided so that the world gets meaningful benefit from it that is actually related to the issue at hand. But the second issue is not quite as difficult. A view on this comes from considering the abatement curve (a chart of cost and volume for emission reduction activities) for the potential emission reduction opportunities in developing countries. Broadly speaking it can be divided into two parts. On the left side are a range of projects that give positive returns over time. They are largely energy efficiency projects and are things we should be doing anyway at current energy prices, but we shy away from them for all sorts of reasons ranging from capital allocation to plain laziness. Such projects exist in every country and are found in every sector. They range from home insulation to excellence in operation of industrial facilities. The right hand side of the abatement curve features projects that really need a carbon price to deliver positive returns over time. The best example is carbon dioxide capture and storage (CCS), which can never be revenue positive without a carbon market. A number of renewable energy technologies will continue to need the additional revenue that a carbon market can deliver, at least for some years, as might advanced biofuels with their low carbon footprint and more distant technologies such as hydrogen. Coming back to the issue at hand, money, the abatement curve offers a mechanism for judging just what type of help should be given to the rapidly developing economies (for the poorest countries help is desperately needed simply to provide energy in the first place, which is yet again another issue and arguably not one for a climate change conference). Energy efficiency projects should not really be funded by the developed economies given that they are attractive projects to do anyway. So the emphasis here needs to be on accelerating the uptake of such actions through loans, foreign investment and domestic policy initiatives. But projects requiring a carbon price are different. A carbon price is an artificial construct, which effectively delivers actions that the economy would not otherwise take. This does impose a cost on the economy and it is this cost that could be borne for a period of time by the developed countries for developing country projects. With per capita incomes often a fraction of those in developed economies it is a big ask to expect a developing economy to do this itself. But as incomes rise there should also be an expectation that developing countries eventually implement their own carbon price policies. Possibly the simplest way to steer this is to focus the money flow to developing countries on the electricity sector only, with the aim of accelerating decarbonisation. This has a number of benefits; results are likely to be very tangible for questioning voters in developed economies (e.g. xx coal fired power stations in South Africa had CCS fitted this year) major project opportunities result for technology companies and it has limited impact on competitiveness concerns emanating from developed countries - i.e. there is little appetite to fund projects in developing economies which simply enhance their industrial competitiveness. As much of the assistance to developing countries will be delivered through the carbon market, this means that future offset mechanisms should be targeted on the electricity sector and not across all emission activities within a developing economy.

By David Hone  |  December 15, 2009; 8:44 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg     Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Issues come down to morality, economics and politics | Next: Poor nations have better things to worry about

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



Nothing like the hard reality of economics to pull a climate change fundamentalist a little closer toward the real world!

Posted by: vanhook99 | December 22, 2009 11:50 AM
Report Offensive Comment

Is it alright to smile about Obama arriving for the snowstorm in Copenhagen?

:-)

I guess it was! Anyway, it seems China is about to dodge lasting commitments again. At this rate Copenhagen will be a bust no matter what Obama does (unless of course he has some incredible deal to change the minds of the Chinese).

Posted by: leafgreen | December 17, 2009 2:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company