Analysis: IPCC may not have much effect

WASHINGTON, May 10 (UPI) -- While checking climate change may be economically feasible, according to a recent U.N. report, the document holds no formal political clout and policy changes may not necessarily result from its findings, some experts say.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released the mitigation report summary at a conference last week in Bangkok, Thailand. Approved by 105 countries, the report discusses the economic effects of curbing climate change and follows two others released earlier this year exploring the science behind climate change and its future impact.

The report projects that the cost to implement climate-control measures is small and might even benefit the economy, but whether these efforts will significantly help stabilize the climate depends largely on which recommendations are actualized and to what degree.

At a time when global carbon dioxide emissions have reached unprecedented levels, the report suggests solutions can be cost-effective. However, the report is non-binding and looks at ideal situations where customers always make rational choices and countries are bound by laws that prevent one country from taking advantage of another's climate-control efforts, experts told United Press International.

"Really all this report does is put some bounds on what the costs (of climate control) might be and lets people know what they're committing themselves to," said John Coequyt, Greenpeace energy policy analyst. "This is going to be a long process of decoupling our economy from carbon emissions and that's not going to happen overnight."

While it's generally accepted that global temperatures should be lowered, or at least kept from rising, there's some controversy over how to reach projected targets and what those targets should be. The European Union has aimed at capping the global temperature increase at 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit; the United States has separated its goals from specific temperature goals.

"What the U.S. tends to do is focus on more practical goals -- amounts of emissions, or, for example, amounts of renewable fuel over a period of time that we'd like to see," Jim Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said at a news conference last week.

U.S. policymakers backed certain aspects of the report, though, emphasizing the compliance of current U.S. policies with those outlined in the document.

"The summary report supports the U.S. approach of reducing emissions through accelerated research investments that lead to wider use of clean energy technologies like wind, solar and clean coal," Karl Duckworth, spokesman for the State Department, told United Press International.

Climate-control policy varies within U.S. borders as well as on the international stage. More than half of the 50 states have implemented legislation that addresses the issue, and regional agreements, such as the Western Regional Climate Action Initiative, have banded states together in the effort.

The disparity between national and international goals and policies may lead to difficulties in implementing common guidelines. For instance, the IPCC's report looks at climate control in relation to atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in parts per million. In order to stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations at a level between 445 and 535 CO2-equivalent by 2030 -- a level believed by many scientists to be necessary if the global temperature rise is kept below 3.6 F -- the report forecasts only a 3-percent maximum reduction in global gross domestic product.

But some U.S. policymakers don't sound keen about aiming for that mark.

"You see ... GDP ranges as high as 3 percent to achieve certain scenarios," Connaughton said. "Well, that would, of course, cause a global recession, so that's something we probably want to avoid."

In addition, though the report projects an overall reduction of no more than 3 percent, the IPCC acknowledges "regional costs may differ significantly from global averages."

Those taking the brunt of the burden may not be willing to buy into energy-saving policies.

"If you have poor consumers in urban environments who see 20 or 30 percent increases in their electricity bills, that has significant social consequences," Connaughton said. "Certainly there is no leader in the world that is going to be pursuing a strategy that would drive their economies into deep recession."

While the report has yet to be released in its entirety, there is some doubt as to whether significant steps toward halting climate change can be accomplished under the projected global GDP reduction of less than 3 percent.

"The academic literature on this suggests that reducing greenhouse gas emissions would not be ruinous to the economy," Jerry Taylor, senior fellow at the Cato Institute, told UPI. "But reducing greenhouse gas emissions so much that global warming was virtually stopped in its tracks would be very detrimental to the economy."

--

(e-mail: energy@upi.com)