expert meeting on climate change and sustainable development€¦ · sufficient turnover of such...

Expert Meeting onClimate Change andSustainable Development

- Summary -

November 19∼20, 2002Seoul, Korea

Organized byKorea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI), Korea Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan

Supported byMinistry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Korea

Expert Meeting on Climate Change & Sustainable Development 1

Summary of the“Expert Meeting on Climate Change and Sustainable

Development”19-20, November 2002, Seoul, Korea

Contents

IntroductionSession I: Climate Change: Scientific Assessment and Future Prospects.......2Session II: Climate Change and Equity: Country Mitigation Measures and

Equity Perspectives........................................................................5Session III: Global Participation and Sustainable Development ......................8Session IV: Roundtable Discussion..................................................................11

INTRODUCTION

The Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI, Korea) and the Institute forGlobal Environmental Strategies (IGES, Japan) jointly hosted the Expert Meeting on ClimateChange and Sustainable Development from November 19-20, 2002, in Seoul, Korea. The ExpertMeeting was supported by the Korean Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

The aim of the Expert Meeting was to provide an opportunity for experts to assess thecurrent state of climate science and international efforts to mitigate climate change, and to explorethe prospects for possible global participation and its implications for sustainable development.

The Expert Meeting was opened by Prof. Sang-Gon Lee (President, KEEI). Dr. Nishiokamade welcoming remarks on behalf of Prof. Akio Morishima (President, IGES). A welcomingspeech was given by Hon. Mr. Bu-Young Lee, who is the chairman of special committee for theUNFCCC of the National Assembly of Korea.

2 Expert Meeting on Climate Change & Sustainable Development

SESSION I: Climate Change: Scientific Assessment and Future Prospect

GHG Emissions Scenarios, Their Driving Forces and the Sustainability Transition

Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic (International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria)

Dr. Nakicenovic presented energy scenarios and their implications on sustainability. Energyscenarios provide a framework for exploring future perspectives in general as well as a frameworkfor assessing the suitability of the transitions, including various combinations of technologyoptions and their implications. Many scenarios in the literature illustrate how energy systemdevelopments may affect global change. Examples are the new emissions scenarios by theIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the energy scenarios by the World EnergyAssessment (WEA). Some of these scenarios describe energy futures that are compatible withsustainable development goals, such as improved energy efficiencies and the adoption of advancedenergy supply technologies. Sustainable development scenarios are also characterized by lowenvironmental impacts (at local, regional and global scales) and equitable allocation of resourcesand wealth.

The scenarios of alternative global developments explored by the IPCC and the WEAsuggest how the future could unfold in terms of economic growth, population trends and energyuse. The challenge is formidable. For example, by 2100, at least six billion additional people—significantly more than the world population today—will need access to affordable, reliable,flexible, and convenient energy services. All three scenarios presented in the paper achieve thisthrough different energy system developments, but with varying degrees of sustainability.

The considerable differences in expected total energy consumption among the scenariosreflect the varying approaches used to address the need for energy services in the future anddemonstrate that policy matters. Increases in research, development and deployment efforts fornew energy technologies are a prerequisite for the achievement of the three scenarios that havecharacteristics of sustainable development. Significant technological advances will be required, aswell as incremental improvements in conventional energy technologies. In general, significantpolicy and behavioral changes will be needed during the next few decades to achieve moresustainable development paths.

Taken together, changes assumed in sustainable development scenarios represent a cleardeparture from a business-as-usual approach and current energy trends. Another crucialprerequisite for achieving sustainability in the scenarios is near-universal access to adequate andaffordable energy services and a more equitable allocation of resources. Finally, environmentalprotection—from indoor pollution to climate change—is an essential characteristic of sustainabledevelopment in the scenarios. The resolution of these future challenges offers a window ofopportunity between now and 2020. Because of the long lifetimes of power plants, refineries,energy end-use systems and other energy-related infrastructure investments, there will not besufficient turnover of such facilities to reveal large differences among the alternative scenariospresented here before 2020. But the seeds of the post-2020 world will have been sown by then.Although choices about the world’s future energy systems are relatively wide open now, they willnarrow by 2020, and development opportunities, such as achieving sustainability, might not beachievable later if forgone today.


Adaptation to Climate Change: Strengthening Local Capacity toward Sustainable DevelopmentDr. Shuzo Nishioka (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan)

Dr. Nishoka presented on the importance of adaptation to climate change in relation tosustainability. Adaptation to climate change emerges as one of the most urgent and critical issuesthat contemporary society needs to prepare for. The IPCC reported a 0.6 degree temperature riseand indicated stronger evidence of the need for human intervention. It also projected a 1.4-5.8degree temperature increase with high uncertainty, showed clear evidence of impacts alreadyaffecting ecological system, and concluded there will be no winner when climate change isaccelerated. Those findings suggest the necessity of dealing with climate change from riskmanagement point of view. Steps should start to be taken now to not only mitigate climate changebut also to become more adaptable to it. These steps, based on the precautionary approach, wouldat least serve as a safety net. And the adaptation strategy should be integrated into sustainabledevelopment process.

The adaptation strategy should take its grounding on the following specific characteristics.(1) The object is the local environment as a whole, where humans and nature coexist and consist ofthe vernacular identity. (2) Adaptation relates to global change or multiple pressure issues. (3)Adaptation is the response to local impacts caused by global scale phenomena. (4) Decisions aremade under scientific and societal uncertainty. (5) A wide scope of insight is needed in terms ofexposure units and associated stakeholders. (6) Actors of adaptation are diversified. (7) Impacts ofclimate change may be non-linear, and are often accompanied by thresholds (showing largechanges) and delays (inertia). (8) The impacts of climate change, and adaptation thereto, are of along-lived nature. (9) Adaptation must be economically efficient and contribute to theadvancement of social and environmental objectives.

Global participation and Technology StrategiesDr. Jae Edmonds ( Pacific Northwest National Lab., U.S.)

Dr. Edmonds presented on the role of technologies in relation to sustainable development.The net introduction of carbon dioxide from sources that have been isolated from the atmospherefor long periods of time has resulted in a rising concentration in the atmosphere of CO2, which isan important greenhouse gas and regulator of the Earth’s climate system. The 1992 FrameworkConvention on Climate Change, signed by all major countries, has as its goal the stabilization ofthe concentration of greenhouse gases, which means that emissions of carbon dioxide shouldeventually peak and decline.

Technology is one of the most important determinants of the cost of stabilizing theconcentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The character of its role is both complexand evolving. Dr. Edmonds examined the potential role of a suite of technologies that could have aprofound impact on the cost of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. These technologiesinclude those which capture and dispose of carbon in reservoirs permanently isolated from theatmosphere (CC&D), technologies that make and use hydrogen (H2), advanced transportationtechnologies, and biotechnology.


The focus on CC&D, H2 and biotechnology should not be taken to imply that researchshould focus on the development and improvement of these technologies instead of core energytechnologies such as energy intensity improvements, including energy efficiency in both theconsumption and transformation of energy, renewable energy such as solar and wind technologies,and nuclear power including fission and fusion power. Analysis of future energy and greenhousegas emission regimes assume very substantial progress in the development and deployment ofthese core technologies.

Several results emerge from this analysis. The first clear implication of the exercise is thattechnology plays a major role in shaping the structure of the global energy system and exerts apowerful influence on the cost of responding to climate change. It is worth noting, however, thatthe development of advanced technologies in the absence of limitations on the concentration ofcarbon dioxide may not lead to reductions in emissions, depending on the nature of thetechnological advances.

Several technologies have the potential to be major components of the global energy system,which are not currently deployed at scale. These include carbon capture and disposal, hydrogenenergy systems, and modern commercial biomass. Furthermore, technologies interact inimportant ways. In some instances, they compete for the same market, e.g. conservation andrenewable energy, and in other instances technologies complement each other, e.g. carbon captureand disposal can complement fossil fuel use. Much research will be needed to determine whetherthese technologies have a place in the future of the global energy system or not. DISCUSSION

There was discussion on the role of other major renewables, such as solar and wind energy,in transition to sustainable energy system. Though biomass provides some important contributionespecially in developing countries, the role of solar and wind energy should not be ignored.

We cannot control uncertainty related to climate change. We can and should controluncertainty related to emissions path. Uncertainly argument related to emissions path should notbe used as an excuse for no action. Rather, we need to take precautionary approach, aiming forlower range of emissions path.

It was noted that food insecurity is an important element of impacts aspects in developingcountries. When we consider sustainability in energy side, what to do with the abundant coalreserves should be seriously examined.


SESSION II: Climate Change and Equity: Country Mitigation Measures and Equity Perspectives

Negotiating Commitments for Further Emission ReductionsDr. Erik Haites ( Margaree consultants Inc., Canada)

Dr. Haites analyses options for negotiating further reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.More stringent emission limitation and reduction commitments by more countries are needed.Many options for future commitments by developing and developed countries have been proposed.None is likely to be acceptable to all countries. Rather an agreement is likely to featurecommitments that differ by type, stringency and timing.

Future agreements should also incorporate other strategies for increasing the share of globalgreenhouse gas emissions subject to emissions limitation or reduction actions. These strategiesinclude separate strategies for some gases (e.g., HFCs and PFCs), global agreements with specificindustries to limit emissions, and the option to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with anon-Party to implement emission reduction actions.

Future agreements should also have features to reduce the economic risk associated withemissions limitation or reduction commitments. Such features include commitments that varywith economic growth, safety valve price caps, retention of the Kyoto mechanisms (improved asnecessary), sanctions for non-Parties, and possibly shorter commitment periods.

The preferred option is to negotiate a new agreement under the Climate Change Convention.But this may not be feasible for some time given the current reluctance of the United States anddeveloping countries to negotiate. When the Kyoto Protocol comes into force, negotiations couldfocus on reducing the economic risk and other options for expanding coverage and then turn tofuture commitments by countries.

An Equity and Sustainability-Based Assessment of the Kyoto ProtocolProf. John Byrne (Univ. of Delaware, U.S.)

Prof. Byrne noted that to date, climate change policy has largely focused on the problem ofdesigning market-based tools to encourage efficient adjustments in the carbon intensity of theglobal economy. He offered a method for evaluating the equity and sustainability implications ofcurrent climate change policy. He suggested using 3.3 tons of carbon dioxide and equivalents(tCO2-e) as an equitable and sustainable GHG emissions rate. It is based on the IPCC’s estimate ofa 60% emissions reduction requirement and a democratic commitment of per capita emissionsequality converging in 2050.

He contended that the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms, including ‘hot air,’ sink allotments andCDM and other trading mechanism – made even more flexible at Marrakech – have introduced thepossibility of worsening inequality between Annex B and non-Annex B countries and slowerprogress toward sustainability. If Annex B, including the U.S. and Australia, takes advantage ofthe low-cost options of the flexibility mechanisms, per capita CO2-e emissions is estimated toescalate to 12.67 tons per year above the equitable and sustainable CO2 rate by 2010. He arguedthat there is a reasonable basis for concern that the treaty may shift the burden of action forgreenhouse gas reductions to countries with little or no responsibility for the problem. He


concluded that the Kyoto Protocol-Marrakech Accord is unlikely to improve climate equity orsustainability.

Criticizing hot air trading and sinks as loopholes by substituting ‘actual decreases’ with‘virtual reductions’ in GHGs, he contended there should be some limit on the use of flexiblemechanism. He advocated contraction of GHG emissions and global convergence upon asustainable per capita basis. He concluded that participation of developing countries in futurestages of the treaty process are likely to hinge on demonstrable equity and sustainabilitycommitments. Global political supports will be strong if treaties are firmly based on equity and theneeds of sustainable development.

The Process for Equitable Burden Sharing - Perspectives from JapanDr. Naoki Matsuo (Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan)

Dr. Matsuo discussed Japan’s view on the equity in relation to the 2nd period’s commitments.The essential concern on the “equity” in the climate target setting for Japan has been focused onhow to incorporate the “past efforts/current performance” into the target, both internationally(Kyoto Protocol’s QERLC negotiations) and domestically (cap-and-trade emissions tradingdiscussions). He noted differences in intensity target and rate of change in intensity. In addition tothis aspect, Japan may claim for standardized criteria, global participation and facilitative approachwith long-sighted views to promote technologies along with the coming 2nd period’s commitmentsnegotiations.

It should be recognized that the (determining) process-oriented approach is as important as(expected) result-based approach to accept the outcomes. He showed several steps beginningwith the preparation of most possible options. Many options not only for target setting but also forsupportive legal instruments etc. may provide possible solutions for each party concerned and areto be integrated into a standardized formula by using a menu approach which enables parties toselect their best option.

DISCUSSION

Further presentation was given by Dr. Young-Gun Kim (Korea Environment Institute,Korea) on ‘a perspective on global solutions to climate change’. ‘Perspectives from Mexico’ wasmade by Dr. Julia Martinez Fernandez (Instituto Nacional de Ecologia, Mexico).

There was question on issue of making shorter commitment periods with less negotiatingtime involving less risks, particullary for industries with capital stocks with long lifetime. It maybe useful to distinguish long term context based on equity principle and targets and short termnegotiation details for the matter of commitment periods.

In the context of climate change and sustainability transition, equity plays a very high role.One discussant introduced ‘greenhouse gas parameter’ which shows inequality between north andsouth. He discussed driving forces such as GDP, and population, energy use, and emissions. The80 percent of GDP is from north, 20 percent lives in the north, 30 percent of cumulativepopulation from 1800 in the north. Cumulative emisssions about 80 percent of carbon dioxides aredue to north. But, accounting for all the greenhouse gases, he argued, it becomes very close to theparity between north and south. He provided counter argument to the Brazilian proposal, whichrequests for country’s reduction responsibility to be proportional to the contribution to the climatechange. The current emissions in the year 1990, he argued, in fact represent proxy for the historicalresponsibility.


There was some concern on the role of the market mechanism. One discussant noted thatthere are many countries in transition to the market economy. The world seems to welcome thesecountries to be fully involved in the free competitive market economy. However, the freecompetitive market system itself, he argued, creates climate problem rather than solves theproblem. So there is conflicting signals for the transition to the market economy. There may beneed for government intervention in the market economy to address climate issues, as a countrytransits itself to the free market system.

In looking at measures to achieve mitigation on a country by country basis, several keypoints emerged from the discussions. First, it is at the country level where the detailed issues ofimplementation make an impact. These details are where the real difficulties of implementationarise. Second, the mitigation agenda of a country is based on its own local circumstances. For themost part mitigation measures are place-based, energy supply strategies are place-based andadaptation needs and strategies will also place-based. Therefore, the question of equity amongcountry strategies must be place-based as well. The principle that each nation has a common butdifferentiated responsibility for mitigation is appropriate, but at the same time complicates thenegotiations and the specific translation of those differentiated responsibilities into real obligations.

In a similar context, the experts recognized the inter-country issues that arise because of theasymmetry of impact and mitigation. Dr. John Byrne argued that the issue of differential impact bethe starting point for any considerations of equity. This argument is similarly place-based. As thediscussion evolved, it was clear that national strategies and desires for equitable treatment are'place-based' in broadest possible sense. The broader sense of place includes not only the questionof differentiated impact, but differentiated local resources and the state and robustness of nationalstrategies for local development. The discussion highlighted the fact that the conversation aboutresponsibility is usually shaped by one nation articulating the 'obligation' of another nation, and thesecond nation attempting to get others to recognize their special circumstances, the differentiatingcharacteristics of their place.

The discussion was framed by the broad concepts of equity and the plans of nations such asJapan, Mexico, and Korea for mitigation, but the discussion really emphasized the nature of thechallenge facing developing nations. Here the differentiation among developing nations was alsorecognized. Dr. Shukla pointed out that all developing countries are not equal. But the heart of thediscussion was the question of what should be the primary focus of the developing nations. Theemphasis of the discussion highlighted the primacy of development. Specifically, it was arguedfrom several perspectives that for a developing nation development is the essential task. Fromdevelopment sprouts the ability to mitigate and to adapt. Similarly, for China in particular, Dr.Dadi noted that huge progress had been made on climate related matters for which very little creditwas forthcoming, simply because emissions were still rising.

The discourse highlighted the fact that while the UNFCCC allows for differentialresponsibility, we do not yet have a method for agreeing to those differential obligations. Variousanalyses highlight the dilemma. From a top down perspective, there is a tendency to say thatnations are undifferentiated and therefore equal. It is clear that in failing to deal with localcircumstances we are not on a path to equity. Alternatively, from the bottom-up each nation can beeasily blinded by brightness of all our differences and the path forward is similarly hidden.Therefore, another path forward needed is one that finds out where nations are equal and startsfrom that as a basis of discussion and funding the path forward.


SESSION III: Global Participation and Sustainable Development

Beyond (The First Commitment of Period) KyotoMr. Cedric Philibert (International Energy Agency)

Mr. Philibert presented the new IEA publication he wrote with Jonathan Pershing, Head ofthe Energy and Environment Division: “Beyond Kyoto – Energy Dynamics and ClimateStabilisation”.

He argued that mitigating climate change will require profound changes in world energyproduction and use. While the full effects of climate change are not likely to be felt for decades,the need for action is more immediate, for changes in greenhouse gas concentrations are almostirreversible. Solutions exist in the form of energy efficiency improvements, fuel switching to non-carbon sources, and carbon recovery and storage. But the long-term costs of mitigation and theprecise extent and pace of climate damage remain uncertain. So policy-makers face the task ofconceiving and implementing measures in a context of uncertainty – and global inequity - and runthe risk of taking either excessive or insufficient action.

He detailed the options available in the energy sector to reduce climate change. He exploresthe type of international agreement that could cope with the uncertainty inherent in implementing aclimate programme at the national and international level. He then identified mechanisms to dealwith both international equity and economic uncertainty, and addressed the fundamental question:how can we proceed beyond Kyoto? He discussed the three options that may be the most helpfulin broadening and deepening future commitments by all countries: the price cap, the non-bindingtargets and the dynamic targets.

Options for Protecting the Climate

Dr. Odile Blanchard (World Resources Institute)

Dr. Blanchard presented the book that WRI had just released, titled “Building on the KyotoProtocol : Options for Protecting the Climate”. The book explores various approaches that canpromote North-South cooperation on climate change for the future commitment periods. Theoptions examined range from well-known proposals to new ideas. They all depict one or a fewelements of a climate protection architecture. Dr. Blanchard presented each option, pointing to itsmajor strengths, weaknesses and challenges. She provided a good summary of the book as follows.

The design of the current climate change regime is highly adaptable. But political obstaclesconstitute the major barrier to a wide acceptability of the option. It also investigates the new ideaof starting from development to get ancillary benefits with respect to climate protection. In sodoing, the approach acknowledges each country’s situation. But it does not guarantee a globalreduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It explains that extending the boundaries of the CDMprojects to sectors, territories or a combination of both could entail deeper emission reductions inindustrialized countries and a higher contribution of developing countries to the climate protection.But it would require high institutional and technical capacity.


Regarding dual-intensity targets, it examines how dynamic and dual targets may reduce therisk of high economic burden or “hot air” in developing countries, relative to fixed targets. It istherefore a low-risk climate protection strategy for developing countries. But internationalnegotiations may be complex. Regarding “Equal Per Capita Entitlements”, it investigates the issueof sharing the limited assimilative capacity of the atmosphere equally to every human being. Ittackles the major debates pertaining to this approach : allocatability of the atmosphere, equity,flexibility, acceptability of the approach, benefits from emissions trading.

It provides the results that the three scenarios of differentiating commitments yield variousemission allowances and abatement costs for the countries. It concludes that no option can satisfythe interests and concerns of all countries. A two-track approach is proposed. In the near- term,countries could choose to participate in the climate protection within a menu of multiple options.In the longer term, a principle-based framework could be designed to achieve the UNFCCC’sultimate objective.

Climate Change and Sustainable Development: The Case of India

Prof. P.R. Shukla (Indian Institute of Management, India)

Dr. Shukla presented views from Indian perspectives. The primary focus of his presentationis on the policies and issues relating to linking climate change and sustainable development inIndia in particular and South Asia in general. He provided a brief overview of the status of policiesand programs that link climate change and development in India. An analysis of future emissionstrends for India for the next century was given together with the implications for Indian economyand energy system from the global greenhouse gas concentration stabilization regime such as the550 ppmv stabilization target. The importance of South Asia regional cooperation anddevelopment of regional energy, electricity and water markets was emphasized. The regionalassessment shows that cooperation and regional markets are effective strategies to mitigateemissions, impacts and promote sustainable development.

Dr. Shukla focused on some critical areas and sectors vulnerable to the impacts of climatechange. The assessment suggests significant and varied threats from climate change on diverseeconomic activities, ecology and people. The climate change impacts, however, would be felt bythe generations that would be more affluent compared to the present generation. This raisesinteresting issues of intergenerational equity and assessment of vulnerability and adaptability ofthe future generations. The linking of climate policies with national development goals was thendiscussed. It was articulated that institutions and capacity building in developing countries areimportant to link climate change with sustainable development.

After a summary of the exhortations made in the "COP 8 - The Delhi MinisterialDeclaration on Climate Change and Sustainable Development", He discussed the strategies forimplementation of Kyoto regime and the steps beyond Kyoto. The following conclusions wasdrawn:

i. Development of regional energy, electricity and water markets wouldreduce electricity costs, lower emissions and promote sustainabledevelopment;

ii. Early signal about post-Kyoto mitigation regime is critical for strategic shift in future emissions;


iii. Concentrations stabilization regime shall significantly impact sub-continent’senergy system;

iv. Beyond national sustainable development policies, the emissions mitigationand adaptation policies will have to be crafted for own sake.

FURTHER PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION

Presenting on ‘Reducing U.S. GHG emissions’, Dr. Richels (Electric Power ResearchInstitute, U.S.) addressed three issues: 1) the components of an economically efficient climatepolicy 2) proposals currently under consideration in the US and 3) the implications of USrejection of the Kyoto Protocol for other Annex B countries. His presentation draws uponeconomic analyses conducted over the past several years and highlights insights consistent withthe results from a number of top-down models.

Dr. Lim (KEEI, Korea) presented on the Korea's perspectives on the global participationand sustainable development. Presenting the results of top-down modeling analysis, heemphasized that the mitigation of climate change should be pursued in a way to facilitatedeveloping countries’ participation. For effective and cost-saving reduction of GHG emissions,however, the participation of developing countries must be accompanied by the participation ofUS in the Kyoto Protocol.

Dr. Kejun Jiang (ERI, China) presented carbon intensity trend and policyimplementation for climate change in China. He illustrated the high potential for reduction ofenergy and carbon intensities in China, but this is dependent on technology innovations andtransfer.

Dr. Blanchard underscored that none of the options presented could be pointed out as the“winner”. She added that, considering the various national circumstances of the countries, nooption could serve the interests of all the countries of the world. Every option may be appealingfor some countries and may encounter firm opposition from others.

Dr. Morita (NIES, Japan) discussed the importance of a regional historical context by

reviewing some lessons learnt in Japan about the success of different instruments and policies.In Japan, it was found that both technological and social innovations were essential to reducethe costs of pollution abatement. Also, a competitive market gave companies the incentive toinvest in technology development. New investment on environmental protection created newJapanese businesses, so increasing Japan's GDP. He emphasized that the key to stabilizingclimate change is to encourage technological and social innovations with a mix of appropriatepolicies and use our intellectual strengths to find ways to reduce the economic and social costsof mitigation.


SESSION IV: Roundtable Discussion

Participants from developing countries argued that an attempt to involving developingcountries for the 2nd commitment periods is not equitable at this stage when implementation ofdeveloped country’s obligation remains to be seen. They also emphasized that developingcountries are implementing a variety of measures following UNFCCC, including demand sidemanagement, integrated resource planning, energy conservation, and so on. Thus, US withdrawalis not based on sound ground when US argued that major developing countries are exempted fromobligation. It also undermines the credibility of international negotiation process.

Science suggests that we need global reductions in emissions preferably sooner rather thanlater. To do that, we need to cover much larger share of global emissions through various sorts ofactions. We need to extend policy reach over beyond what we have covered today.

There is need to develop new technology and improve existing technology in order toachieve these emissions reductions. We need to go well beyond the levels of technologies built inbase case. Technological development needs some policy direction because it’s path dependentand we need to start choosing some path that will lower costs and possibly easier to achieve thanother path. We need policy guidance on technology and stimulus to develop policies.

We may already be locked into some unknown amount of climate change that will havedifferential impacts in various areas. That requires adaptation by various groups. Some more thanothers, some better able to adapt than others. That suggests that we need some set of negotiationsthat allows us to put all of this together, sharing of burden of adaptation, agreement on how tostimulate technological progress, how to distribute burden of reducing emissions. The longer wedelay the negotiation, the more difficult and the more costly to everybody. There is desperate needto break deadlock on the willingness to negotiate. We need to stop increase in costs caused by thefailure to negotiate. We need to build framework where trust and confidence can be built.

It was noted that there may be four possible options to deal with climate change, that is,mitigation, adaptation, technological development, and reducing scientific uncertainty. What isrequired is not one single options but a right mix of options. The mix of options is changing notonly over time but also over space. Each country could have its own mix of portfolio.

To build carbon free technologies is not going to be enough. The price of carbon freetechnologies is dropping but so is the price of fossil fuel for long time. There have to be someprice mechanism to make carbon free technologies competitive with the more carbon intensivetechnologies. It suggests that price of carbon should start low and rise gradually over time. Thismay give some opportunity to build institution.

Risk management approach requires us to know what’s at stake both from economic andenvironmental perspective, what the likelihood is, how risk-averse our society is. Scientificcommunity can contribute to the knowledge of the first two issues.

Some discussant argued that issue of risk aversion is not a scientific issue and but a politicalissue. How risk- adverse society should be in relation to climate change is a political decision. So,when economics and science are brought into issue of equity, economics and science would not


answer the question of what’s there. Only political debate could contribute to the issue of equity.Many talk about uncertainty. Clearly, uncertainty does not mean inaction. What is important is todecide what to do not over the next hundred years but over the next five to ten years in the face oflong term uncertainties. The system should be designed to allow us to make correction during thecourse of action if and when necessary.

There was some discussion on the role of dynamic target. Instead of linking ‘fixed andlegally binding’ dynamic target with emissions trading, there was some suggestion of linking‘voluntary and non-binding’ dynamic target with CDM. It may encourage developing country’searly action.


Expert Meeting on Climate Change andSustainable Development

November 19-20, 2002Seoul, Korea

Organizer: Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI), Korea Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan

Opening Remark by Prof. Sang-Gon Lee, President, KEEI, KoreaWelcoming Remark by Prof. Akio Morishima, President, IGES, JapanWelcoming speech by Hon. Bu-Young Lee, Chairman of Special Committee for UNFCCC,

National Assembly of Korea

Session I: Climate Change: Scientific Assessment and Future Prospects

Presentation:○ Dr. N. Nakicenovis, IIASA, Austria ○ Dr. S. Nishioka, NIES, Japan ○ Dr. J. Edmonds, PNNL, U.S.A.

Session II: Climate Change and Equity: Country Mitigation Measures and Equity Perspectives

Presentation:○ Dr. E. Haites, MCI, Canada ○ Dr. J. Byrne. CEEP, U.S.A. ○ Dr. N. Matsuo, IGES, Japan ○ Dr. Kim, KEI, Korea ○ J. Martinez, INE, Mexico

Discussion:○ Dr. Z. Dadi, ERI, China ○ Dr. N. Nakicenovis, IIASA, Austria ○ Mr. C. Kim, MOFAT, Korea

Session III: Global Participation and Sustainable Development

Presentation:○ Mr. C. Philibert, IEA, France ○ Dr. O. Blanchard, WRI, U.S.A. ○ Dr. R. Richels, EPRI, U.S.A. ○ Dr. K. Jiang, ERI, China ○ Dr. J. Lim, KEEI, Korea ○ Prof. P. Shukla, IIM, India

Discussion○ Prof. K. Lee, Chungnam Univ, Korea ○ Dr. J. Edmonds, PNNL, U.S.A. ○ Dr. T. Morita, IGES, Japan ○ Dr. M. Lee, UNEP/RISOE, Denmark

Session IV: Roundtable Discussion

Panelists: Three Session Chairs: Dr. S. Lee, Dr. D. Zhou, Dr. G. Stokes○ Dr. H. Lee, CEEK, Korea ○ Dr. E. Haites, Canada ○ Dr. R. Richels, EPRI, U.S.A. ○ Mr. R. Chung, Korea


Mr. Shinicni Arai Secretary General Institute for global Environmental Strategies(IGES) 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kanagawa240-0115 Japan Tel: +81-468-55-3700 Fax: +81-468-55-3709 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Odile Blanchard Visiting Fellow Climate, Energy and pollution Program World Resources Institute 10 G Street, NE Washington, DC 20002U.S.A. Tel: +1-202-729-7838 Fax: +1-202-729-7798 E-mail: [email protected]

Prof. John ByrneDirector Center for Energy & Environmental Policy University of Delaware Newark, Delaware 19716-7381 USA Tel: +1-302-831-8405 Fax: +1-302-831-3098 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Rae-Kwon Chung Minister & Consul General Embassy of the Republic of Korea Jalan Gatot Subroto 57 Jakarta, Indonesia Tel: +62-21-520-1915 Fax: +62-21-525-4159 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Jae Edmonds Senior Staff Scientist Pacific Northwest NationalLaboratory(PNNL) Joint Global Change Research Institute at theUniversity of Maryland 8400 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201 CollegePark, Maryland 20740-2496 U.S.A. Tel: +1-301-314-6749 Fax: +1-301-314-6760 Email: [email protected]

Dr. Erik Haites President Margaree Consultants Inc. 145 King Street West, Suite 1000 Toronto,Ontario M5H 3X6 Canada Tel: +1-416-369-0900 Fax: +1-416-369-0922 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Kejun Jiang Center for Energy, Environment and ClimateChange Energy Research Institute State Development Planning Commission B-1407 Guohong Mansion, Muxidi-Beili jiaNO.11, Xicheng district, Beijing 100038,P.R.China Tel: +86-10-6390-8476 Fax: +86-10-6390-8457 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Tae Yong Jung Senior Research Fellow/Project Manager Climate Policy Project Institute for global Environmental Strategies(IGES) 1560-39, Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama, Kangawa240-0198, Japan Tel: +81-468-55-3819 Fax: +81-468-55-3809 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Yoon-Young KangResearch FellowKorea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) 665-1 Naeson-dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do,

Korea, 437-713 Tel: +82-31-420-2254 Fax: +82-31-420-2162 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Chong-Yong KimResearcherKorea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) 665-1 Naeson-dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do,


List of Participants

mailto:[email protected]




Mr. Chan-Woo Kim Director Environmental Cooperation Division, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 95-1 Doryeom-dong Jongno-gu Seoul, Korea,110-051 Tel: +82-2-2100-7743Fax: +82-2-2100-7991 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Yong-Gun Kim Research Fellow Korea Environment Institute (KEI) 613-2 Bulkwang-Dong Eunpyung-Gu, Seoul,122-040, Korea Tel: +82-2-380-7777Fax: +82-2-380-7722 E-mail: [email protected]

Hon. Bu-Young Lee Member of the National Assembly Chairman of Special Committee for UNFCCC

National Assembly of Korea #RM, 718 National Assembly Bldg. 1, Yoido-Dong, Youngdungpo-Gu,Seoul,Korea Tel: +82-2-784-5025 Fax: +82-2-788-3718 Web-site: http://www.bylee.co.kr

Dr. Hoesung Lee President Council on Energy & EnvironmentKorea(CEEK) 14 F1, Byuksan Bldg, 12 Dongza-dong,Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Korea 140-709 Tel: +82-2-727-5370 Fax: +82-2-727-5373

Prof. Ki-Hoon Lee Depart of Economics Chungnam National University 220 Gung-dong, Yuseong-gu, Daejeon 305-764, Korea Tel: +82-42-821-5527 Fax: +81-42-823-5359 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Myung-Kyoon Lee Senior Economist UNEP Collaborating Centre on Energy andEnvironment Riso National Laboratory, P.O.Box 49, DK-4000 Oskilde, Denmark Tel: +45-4-632-2288Fax: +45-4-632-1999

E-mail: [email protected] Prof. Sang-Gon Lee President Korea Energy Economics Institute(KEEI) 665-1 Naeson-dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do,


Dr. Jae-Kyu Lim Research Fellow Korea Energy Economics Institute(KEEI) 665-1 Naeson-dong, Euiwang-Si,Kyunggi-Do,Korea, 437-713 Tel: +82-31-420-2157 Fax: +82-31-420-2162 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Julia Martinez Directora de Investigaciones Sobre CambioClimatico Instituto Nacionall De Ecologia Periferico Sur No. 5000-4to.piso Col.Insurgentes Cuicuiko,C.P.04530Del.Coyoacan, Mexico D.F. Tel: +55-5490-0900 Fax: +55-5424-5404 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Naoki Matsuo Senior Research Fellow Climate Experts Institute for global EnvironmentalStrategies(IGES) Isshiki 1433-3, Hayama, Kanagawa 240-0111,Japan Tel: +81-70-5598-2236 Fax: +81-468-77-1734 E-mail: [email protected]

Prof. Akio MorishimaChair of the Board of Directors Institute for Global EnvironmentalStrategies(IGES) 1560-39 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama Kanagawa,240-0198 Japan Tel: +81-468-55-3700 Fax: +81-468-55-3709 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Tsuneyuki Morita Director, Social & Environmental SystemsDivision National Institute for EnvironmentalStudies(NIES) (Professor, Tokyo Institute of Technology) 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8506Japan Tel: +81-298-50-2541

http://www.keei.re.kr/keei/main_eng.html


Fax: +81-298-50-2572 E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic International Institute for Applied SystemsAnalysis Schlossplatz 1 A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria Tel: +43-2236-807-411 Fax: +43-2236-807-488 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Shuzo NishiokaExecutive Director National Institute for EnvironmentalStudies(NIES) 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, 305-8506 Japan Tel: +81-298-50-2301 Fax: +81-298-51-2854 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Jin-Gyu Oh Senior Research Fellow Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) 665-1 Naeson-dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do,


Mr. Heung-Kyeong Park Deputy director Environmental Cooperation Division Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade 95-1 Doryeom-dong Jongno-gu Seoul, Korea,110-051 Tel: +82-2-2100-7743 Fax: +82-2-2100-7991 E-mail: [email protected]

Mr. Cedric Philibert Administrator Energy and Environment Division International Energy Agency(IEA) 9 rue de la Federation 75739 Paris Cedex 15,France Tel: +33-1-4057-6747 Fax: +33-1-4057-6739 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Richard RichelsDirector Global Climate Change ResearchEnvironment Division Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)3412 Hillview Ave. Palo Alto CA 94304-1395U.S.A. Tel: +1-650-855-2602

Fax: +1-650-855-2950 E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Ji-Chul RyuSenior Research Fellow Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) 665-1 Naeson-dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do,


Prof. P. R. Shukla Professor Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380 015 India Tel: +91-79-630-7241Fax: +91-79-630-6896 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Gerald M. Stokes Director Joint Global Change Research Institute PNNL & University of Maryland Suite 201 8400 Baltimore Avenue CollegePark, MD 20740 U.S.A. Tel: +1-301-314-6704 Fax: +1-301-314-6760 E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Seung-Jick Yoo Research Fellow Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) 665-1 Naeson-dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do,


Dr. Dadi Zhou Director General Energy Research Institute State Development Planning Commission B-1515 Guohong Dasha Jia(A)11, MuxidiBeili, Xicheng District, Beijing 100038, P.R.China Tel: +86-10-6390-8575 Fax: +86-10-6390-8568 E-mail: [email protected]


The Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) was established in 1986 as agovernment-affiliated research institute and has since contributed to the national energypolicy-making by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating energy information and issuesin Korea. The major research topics of the KEEI include energy demand/supply, coal,petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and renewable energy, energy conservation, energyindustry reform, climate change, and Northeast Asia energy cooperation. The KEEI willcontinue to provide analytic information to the Korean government, industries,academics in Korea and strengthen international information network abroad.

Address: 665-1 Naeson 2-Dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyonggi-Do, 437-713, KoreaTel: +82-31-420-2114 Fax: +82-31-422-4958 URL: http://www.keei.re.kr

Established in 1998, the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) is anindependent, not for profit think tank, based in Japan, that goes beyond research toprovide practical ways to protect the earth's environment and to realize greatersustainability and equity in the global community. While the outlook of IGES is global,the principal geographical scope of its activities is Asia and the Pacific region, an areawhich is experiencing rapid economic development and which will affect the globalenvironment through its population growth, urban environmental problems and otherenvironmental issues.

Address: 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama-machi, Miura-gun, Kanagawa, 240-0115, JapanTel: +81-468-55-3700 Fax: +81-468-55-3709 URL: http://www.iges.or.jp

Contact PersonsDr. Jin-Gyu Oh Senior ResearcherKorea Energy Economics InstituteAddress: 665-1 Naeson 2-Dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyonggi-Do, 437-713, KoreaTel. +82-31-420-2271 Fax: +82-31-420-2162E-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Tae Yong JungSenior Research FellowInstitute for Global Environmental Strategies Address: 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama-machi, Miura-gun, Kanagawa, 240-0115, JapanTel: +81-468-55-3817 Fax: +81-468-55-3809E-mail: [email protected]

[Note] This summary was prepared by Korea Energy Economics Institute and does not representofficial views of the participants or those of the Government of Korea. The presentation materialsand background papers can be downloaded from KEEI News banner (more) ofhttp://www.keei.re.kr/keei/main_eng.html.

Korea Energy Economics Institute, Korea

Institute for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan

expert meeting on climate change and sustainable development€¦ · sufficient turnover of such...

Documents