• Introduction
• Lord Browne's Keynote
• Heads of State Session
• Bringing About Change
• Worksessions
• Economy/Emissions
• Worksessions
• Infrastructure
• Worksessions
• Conclusions
• Al Gore (timesonline.co.uk)

Conclusions plenary session

Professor Sir David King opened the concluding plenary session by returning to the encouraging speeches made by the presidents of Rwanda and the Maldives. Their voices are crucial not only because of the size of the challenges they face but because their impressive achievements constitute inspiring examples of leadership on low-carbon growth.

Far from turning a blind eye to economic growth, Rwanda embodies the understanding that the maintenance of ecosystem services through reforestation and restoration is crucial to enabling economic development. Often overshadowed by the rapid economic growth of China, Rwanda is turning into a green, low-carbon country while maintaining an impressive GDP growth rate of 10 percent per annum.

Sir David repeated the poignant testimony of the president of the Maldives: “My people will die” if we, the global civilisation, fail to act decisively on the climate crisis. Rising sea levels could mean the end of a civilisation with a long history and common culture spread across islands where the highest elevation is just 2.4 metres above sea level. Faced with this serious risk, the Maldives, through its commitment to being the world’s first carbon-neutral country, represents a clear exemplar of the direction the global community needs to take.

These examples beg the question: Should there be a new group of countries, the “G1,” comprised of those who, in striving to meet their development goals, commit never to exceed 1 tonne of CO2 emissions per capita per annum?

Sir David underscored that we need to ensure low-emitting countries are not perversely encouraged to increase their emissions up to a carbon cap but instead are incentivised to participate in low-carbon growth. By having access to carbon cash flows that reward their current low emissions, such countries can leapfrog yesterday’s technologies to the best low-carbon technologies.

Bringing About Change

Professor Woods underscored the importance and urgency of getting a comprehensive global agreement at Copenhagen because of the normative force of countries agreeing collectively for the largest emitters. But although the Doha Round of WTO negotiations has demonstrated that it is vital that there be agreement amongst the largest countries, the focus should be reversed from the “defection price” of China, India, and Brazil (that is, what these countries must be “paid” to negotiate) to instead press the US and EU to take bold action. Furthermore, negotiations amongst all parties need to bring the issue of justice to the fore while also ensuring that other countries do not do not rush to become the next largest emitters on the podium.

To stimulate industrialised nations to engage effectively in financing mitigation and adaptation, funding institutions such as the World Bank must be reformed. The Bank and its members must address the inherent tensions between energy and infrastructure projects and climate change projects, as well as conflicts between donor and borrower priorities, which currently leads the right hand to fund a coal power station and the left hand to affix low-wattage light bulbs to it. Equally, we need to learn lessons from development assistance and resist the temptation to rely on conditionality and performance-based measures. Instead, we need to recognise that however time-consuming and difficult, ensuring and testing ownership of projects and prioritisation by local communities and countries is a prerequisite for success.

Professor Woods pointed to information and new communications technologies as key drivers of change within and across countries but reminded the audience that too much focus on information supply can lead to failures where insufficient thought is given to creating a robust demand for the information. Other key drivers of change include the role of insurers, shareholders, and corporate boards in dealing with corporate risk associated with climate change; the role of newcomers as a force to overcome inertia; the role of corporate consumption and government procurement in demonstrating leadership; and the role of corporations in highly-regulated markets acting as levellers of the global playing field by pushing for similar regulations in other countries.

Professor Woods concluded by highlighting points for further discussion at future World Forums. The majority of delegates agreed that nuclear power is part of the solution mix for low-carbon growth, for example, but much more attention will need to be paid to robust global regulation of safety in the nuclear industry. Similarly in need of attention are models of enforcement mechanisms in global governance and the question of whether positive linkages can be made between climate change governance and trade enforcement.

Economic Activities reducing greenhouse emissions

Dr Hepburn addressed the complex issue of economic activities reducing emissions by returning to the exam question at the heart of this year’s World Forum: Is there a model (or models) for low-carbon growth? The answer, Dr Hepburn said, must address the tension between economic growth and emissions reductions. The strength of this link has been demonstrated by the reduction in emissions associated with the current global economic downturn. Decoupling economic growth and emissions is therefore crucial. John Stuart Mill wrote over 150 years ago that “a stationary condition of capital and population implies no stationary state of human improvement” – but with the global population expected to reach 9 billion by 2050, arguments for halting economic growth are unrealistic.

Dr Hepburn addressed the key economic activities for low-carbon growth that were the focus of the parallel work sessions – manufacturing, ecosystems, services, and agriculture – through the central themes of information and ideas, and norms and governance: broadly, how we think and how we relate to one another.

For thousands of years, the relation between people, land, and energy has been fairly static. Only with the advent of language has humanity been able to share ideas and technologies on a large scale and at little cost. The spread of ideas and technologies and the attendant increase in the ability of the land to support more people led to even more ideas and new technologies in a process of explosive combinatorial growth.

The critical questions concern how we decide to use ideas and which rules we choose to govern our relations with others – questions that are of vital importance in an age where our ability to destroy ourselves vastly exceeds our ability to govern ourselves. The advancement of technology depends both on open science, to enhance the spread of ideas, and on intellectual property, to allow the creators of ideas to benefit from them. The decarbonisation of energy will rest on such technological advancement and will require regulatory regimes that encourage and reward the emergence of “good surprises.” It is this crucial interrelation between ideas and rules that has allowed civilization to grow.

Sadly, despite recent upward trends, the levels of funding for research and development are stunningly low considering the scale and urgency of the challenges we face. Also requiring vision and commitment are carbon markets. These require the yin and yang of pricing and planning. While there are no more disputes on the necessity of a price on carbon, there is a dire need for planning for the market failures that will inevitably occur when tackling long-term problems. For example, the price of carbon dioxide in the EU Emission Trading System is currently at €13 per tonne and two years ago crashed to near zero – evidence of the problems inherent in a system with a short-term vision (ending in 2012). We are still very far from the oft-cited desired price of €100 per tonne, or any policy to ensure a credible long-term price that would give private enterprise the confidence to make more low-carbon investments. Further creative ideas should be encouraged around the concept of a floor price to address governments’ fears of liability in buying back credits and to create more political traction for carbon trading.

In thinking about planning and commitment and the current policy emphasis on flexibility, we should think of Odysseus and the Sirens: Sometimes it is only when one commits to being tied to the mast that one witnesses "pretty cool stuff."

Infrastructure

Mr Oppenheim stressed that infrastructure is at the heart of the transition to low-carbon growth. With up to a billion people likely to move to the world’s cities in the next 20 years, we face both great challenges and great opportunities. Today, 30 percent of the world’s population lives in a state of chronic water insecurity – a figure that could grow to 70 percent by 2030 at the current rate of underinvestment. The implications are enormous yet the solution is simple: If we were to double the current rate of upstream water investment we could virtually eliminate the problem. We have a similar opportunity in power generation infrastructure. The power plants that will produce 70 percent of the world’s electricity supply in 2030 have not yet been built and are therefore within our choice. In short, we have a massive one-time window of opportunities – opportunities we must seize by addressing both environment and development.

As we come to realise that we want less “stuff” and more meaning and authenticity in our societies and economies, we should not think that this systemic change will come without difficulty. Still, we can already identify actions we must take.

Mr Oppenheim pointed to the idea of “no-regrets” moves – actions that are unquestionably in the interest of all actors involved. Tremendous opportunities exist around energy efficiency, for example. The problems with energy efficiency are well-known and are addressable; we only need to discuss the “how.” Another no-regret move is improving irrigation and crop yields. The current use of land in much of the developing world is astonishingly poor in the face of known solutions for drastic improvement. The same can be said of investments in education of girls beyond the age of 14. We should do it not only for the well-being of women, but also for its known effect on the population dynamics that underlie all discussions of low-carbon growth.

With the great uncertainties we face, we need to build options around technologies and ideas. We need to use prices to send signals that encourage low-carbon growth. We need to focus on adapting to an uncertain future. And we need to question how the global economy should operate. What does comparative advantage look like in a low-carbon economy? In tackling these issues, the Smith School’s and the University of Oxford’s capacity for interdisciplinarity is deeply needed.