Expert Meeting on Climate Change and
Sustainable Development
- Summary -
November 19 ～ 20, 2002 Seoul, Korea
Organized by
Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI), Korea
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan Supported by
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Korea
Summary of the
“Expert Meeting on Climate Change and Sustainable Development”
19-20, November 2002, Seoul, Korea
Contents
Introduction
Session I: Climate Change: Scientific Assessment and Future Prospects...2 Session II: Climate Change and Equity: Country Mitigation Measures and
Equity Perspectives...5 Session III: Global Participation and Sustainable Development ...8 Session IV: Roundtable Discussion...11
INTRODUCTION
The Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI, Korea) and the Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES, Japan) jointly hosted the Expert Meeting on Climate Change and Sustainable Development from November 19-20, 2002, in Seoul, Korea. The Expert Meeting 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 the current state of climate science and international efforts to mitigate climate change, and to explore the prospects for possible global participation and its implications for sustainable development.
The Expert Meeting was opened by Prof. Sang-Gon Lee (President, KEEI). Dr. Nishioka made welcoming remarks on behalf of Prof. Akio Morishima (President, IGES). A welcoming speech was given by Hon. Mr. Bu-Young Lee, who is the chairman of special committee for the UNFCCC of the National Assembly of Korea.
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. Energy scenarios provide a framework for exploring future perspectives in general as well as a framework for assessing the suitability of the transitions, including various combinations of technology options and their implications. Many scenarios in the literature illustrate how energy system developments may affect global change. Examples are the new emissions scenarios by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the energy scenarios by the World Energy Assessment (WEA). Some of these scenarios describe energy futures that are compatible with sustainable development goals, such as improved energy efficiencies and the adoption of advanced energy supply technologies. Sustainable development scenarios are also characterized by low environmental impacts (at local, regional and global scales) and equitable allocation of resources and wealth.
The scenarios of alternative global developments explored by the IPCC and the WEA suggest how the future could unfold in terms of economic growth, population trends and energy use. 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 this through different energy system developments, but with varying degrees of sustainability.
The considerable differences in expected total energy consumption among the scenarios reflect the varying approaches used to address the need for energy services in the future and demonstrate that policy matters. Increases in research, development and deployment efforts for new energy technologies are a prerequisite for the achievement of the three scenarios that have characteristics of sustainable development. Significant technological advances will be required, as well as incremental improvements in conventional energy technologies. In general, significant policy and behavioral changes will be needed during the next few decades to achieve more sustainable development paths.
Taken together, changes assumed in sustainable development scenarios represent a clear departure from a business-as-usual approach and current energy trends. Another crucial prerequisite for achieving sustainability in the scenarios is near-universal access to adequate and affordable energy services and a more equitable allocation of resources. Finally, environmental protection—from indoor pollution to climate change—is an essential characteristic of sustainable development in the scenarios. The resolution of these future challenges offers a window of opportunity 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 be sufficient turnover of such facilities to reveal large differences among the alternative scenarios presented 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 will narrow by 2020, and development opportunities, such as achieving sustainability, might not be achievable later if forgone today.
Adaptation to Climate Change: Strengthening Local Capacity toward Sustainable Development Dr. Shuzo Nishioka (National Institute for Environmental Studies, Japan)
Dr. Nishoka presented on the importance of adaptation to climate change in relation to sustainability. Adaptation to climate change emerges as one of the most urgent and critical issues that contemporary society needs to prepare for. The IPCC reported a 0.6 degree temperature rise and indicated stronger evidence of the need for human intervention. It also projected a 1.4-5.8 degree temperature increase with high uncertainty, showed clear evidence of impacts already affecting ecological system, and concluded there will be no winner when climate change is accelerated. Those findings suggest the necessity of dealing with climate change from risk management point of view. Steps should start to be taken now to not only mitigate climate change but also to become more adaptable to it. These steps, based on the precautionary approach, would at least serve as a safety net. And the adaptation strategy should be integrated into sustainable development 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 of the 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 are made under scientific and societal uncertainty. (5) A wide scope of insight is needed in terms of exposure units and associated stakeholders. (6) Actors of adaptation are diversified. (7) Impacts of climate change may be non-linear, and are often accompanied by thresholds (showing large changes) and delays (inertia). (8) The impacts of climate change, and adaptation thereto, are of a long-lived nature. (9) Adaptation must be economically efficient and contribute to the advancement of social and environmental objectives.
Global participation and Technology Strategies
Dr. 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 atmosphere for long periods of time has resulted in a rising concentration in the atmosphere of CO2, which is an important greenhouse gas and regulator of the Earth’s climate system. The 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, signed by all major countries, has as its goal the stabilization of the concentration of greenhouse gases, which means that emissions of carbon dioxide should eventually peak and decline.
Technology is one of the most important determinants of the cost of stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The character of its role is both complex and evolving. Dr. Edmonds examined the potential role of a suite of technologies that could have a profound impact on the cost of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations. These technologies include those which capture and dispose of carbon in reservoirs permanently isolated from the atmosphere (CC&D), technologies that make and use hydrogen (H2), advanced transportation technologies, and biotechnology.
The focus on CC&D, H2 and biotechnology should not be taken to imply that research should focus on the development and improvement of these technologies instead of core energy technologies such as energy intensity improvements, including energy efficiency in both the consumption 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 greenhouse gas emission regimes assume very substantial progress in the development and deployment of these core technologies.
Several results emerge from this analysis. The first clear implication of the exercise is that technology plays a major role in shaping the structure of the global energy system and exerts a powerful influence on the cost of responding to climate change. It is worth noting, however, that the development of advanced technologies in the absence of limitations on the concentration of carbon dioxide may not lead to reductions in emissions, depending on the nature of the technological 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, hydrogen energy systems, and modern commercial biomass. Furthermore, technologies interact in important ways. In some instances, they compete for the same market, e.g. conservation and renewable energy, and in other instances technologies complement each other, e.g. carbon capture and disposal can complement fossil fuel use. Much research will be needed to determine whether these 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 contribution especially 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 control uncertainty related to emissions path. Uncertainly argument related to emissions path should not be used as an excuse for no action. Rather, we need to take precautionary approach, aiming for lower range of emissions path.
It was noted that food insecurity is an important element of impacts aspects in developing countries. When we consider sustainability in energy side, what to do with the abundant coal reserves should be seriously examined.
SESSION II: Climate Change and Equity: Country Mitigation Measures and Equity Perspectives
Negotiating Commitments for Further Emission Reductions Dr. 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 feature commitments that differ by type, stringency and timing.
Future agreements should also incorporate other strategies for increasing the share of global greenhouse gas emissions subject to emissions limitation or reduction actions. These strategies include separate strategies for some gases (e.g., HFCs and PFCs), global agreements with specific industries to limit emissions, and the option to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with a non-Party to implement emission reduction actions.
Future agreements should also have features to reduce the economic risk associated with emissions limitation or reduction commitments. Such features include commitments that vary with economic growth, safety valve price caps, retention of the Kyoto mechanisms (improved as necessary), 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 and developing countries to negotiate. When the Kyoto Protocol comes into force, negotiations could focus on reducing the economic risk and other options for expanding coverage and then turn to future commitments by countries.
An Equity and Sustainability-Based Assessment of the Kyoto Protocol Prof. John Byrne (Univ. of Delaware, U.S.)
Prof. Byrne noted that to date, climate change policy has largely focused on the problem of designing market-based tools to encourage efficient adjustments in the carbon intensity of the global economy. He offered a method for evaluating the equity and sustainability implications of current 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 of a 60% emissions reduction requirement and a democratic commitment of per capita emissions equality converging in 2050.
He contended that the Kyoto flexibility mechanisms, including ‘hot air,’ sink allotments and CDM and other trading mechanism – made even more flexible at Marrakech – have introduced the possibility of worsening inequality between Annex B and non-Annex B countries and slower progress toward sustainability. If Annex B, including the U.S. and Australia, takes advantage of the low-cost options of the flexibility mechanisms, per capita CO2-e emissions is estimated to escalate to 12.67 tons per year above the equitable and sustainable CO2 rate by 2010. He argued that there is a reasonable basis for concern that the treaty may shift the burden of action for greenhouse 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 or sustainability.
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 flexible mechanism. He advocated contraction of GHG emissions and global convergence upon a sustainable per capita basis. He concluded that participation of developing countries in future stages of the treaty process are likely to hinge on demonstrable equity and sustainability commitments. Global political supports will be strong if treaties are firmly based on equity and the needs of sustainable development.
The Process for Equitable Burden Sharing - Perspectives from Japan Dr. 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 on how to incorporate the “past efforts/current performance” into the target, both internationally (Kyoto Protocol’s QERLC negotiations) and domestically (cap-and-trade emissions trading discussions). He noted differences in intensity target and rate of change in intensity. In addition to this aspect, Japan may claim for standardized criteria, global participation and facilitative approach with long-sighted views to promote technologies along with the coming 2nd period’s commitments negotiations.
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 beginning with the preparation of most possible options. Many options not only for target setting but also for supportive legal instruments etc. may provide possible solutions for each party concerned and are to be integrated into a standardized formula by using a menu approach which enables parties to select 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’ was made by Dr. Julia Martinez Fernandez (Instituto Nacional de Ecologia, Mexico).
There was question on issue of making shorter commitment periods with less negotiating time involving less risks, particullary for industries with capital stocks with long lifetime. It may be useful to distinguish long term context based on equity principle and targets and short term negotiation 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 and south. He discussed driving forces such as GDP, and population, energy use, and emissions. The 80 percent of GDP is from north, 20 percent lives in the north, 30 percent of cumulative population from 1800 in the north. Cumulative emisssions about 80 percent of carbon dioxides are due to north. But, accounting for all the greenhouse gases, he argued, it becomes very close to the parity between north and south. He provided counter argument to the Brazilian proposal, which requests for country’s reduction responsibility to be proportional to the contribution to the climate change. The current emissions in the year 1990, he argued, in fact represent proxy for the historical responsibility.
There was some concern on the role of the market mechanism. One discussant noted that there are many countries in transition to the market economy. The world seems to welcome these countries to be fully involved in the free competitive market economy. However, the free competitive market system itself, he argued, creates climate problem rather than solves the problem. So there is conflicting signals for the transition to the market economy. There may be need for government intervention in the market economy to address climate issues, as a country transits itself to the free market system.
In looking at measures to achieve mitigation on a country by country basis, several key points emerged from the discussions. First, it is at the country level where the detailed issues of implementation make an impact. These details are where the real difficulties of implementation arise. Second, the mitigation agenda of a country is based on its own local circumstances. For the most part mitigation measures are place-based, energy supply strategies are place-based and adaptation needs and strategies will also place-based. Therefore, the question of equity among country strategies must be place-based as well. The principle that each nation has a common but differentiated responsibility for mitigation is appropriate, but at the same time complicates the negotiations 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 the asymmetry of impact and mitigation. Dr. John Byrne argued that the issue of differential impact be the starting point for any considerations of equity. This argument is similarly place-based. As the discussion 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 question of differentiated impact, but differentiated local resources and the state and robustness of national strategies for local development. The discussion highlighted the fact that the conversation about responsibility is usually shaped by one nation articulating the 'obligation' of another nation, and the second nation attempting to get others to recognize their special circumstances, the differentiating characteristics of their place.
The discussion was framed by the broad concepts of equity and the plans of nations such as Japan, Mexico, and Korea for mitigation, but the discussion really emphasized the nature of the challenge facing developing nations. Here the differentiation among developing nations was also recognized. Dr. Shukla pointed out that all developing countries are not equal. But the heart of the discussion was the question of what should be the primary focus of the developing nations. The emphasis of the discussion highlighted the primacy of development. Specifically, it was argued from several perspectives that for a developing nation development is the essential task. From development 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 credit was forthcoming, simply because emissions were still rising.
The discourse highlighted the fact that while the UNFCCC allows for differential responsibility, we do not yet have a method for agreeing to those differential obligations. Various analyses highlight the dilemma. From a top down perspective, there is a tendency to say that nations are undifferentiated and therefore equal. It is clear that in failing to deal with local circumstances we are not on a path to equity. Alternatively, from the bottom-up each nation can be easily 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 starts from that as a basis of discussion and funding the path forward.
SESSION III: Global Participation and Sustainable Development
Beyond (The First Commitment of Period) Kyoto Mr. Cedric Philibert (International Energy Agency)
Mr. Philibert presented the new IEA publication he wrote with Jonathan Pershing, Head of the Energy and Environment Division: “Beyond Kyoto – Energy Dynamics and Climate Stabilisation”.
He argued that mitigating climate change will require profound changes in world energy production 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 almost irreversible. 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 the precise extent and pace of climate damage remain uncertain. So policy-makers face the task of conceiving and implementing measures in a context of uncertainty – and global inequity - and run the risk of taking either excessive or insufficient action.
He detailed the options available in the energy sector to reduce climate change. He explores the type of international agreement that could cope with the uncertainty inherent in implementing a climate programme at the national and international level. He then identified mechanisms to deal with 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 helpful in broadening and deepening future commitments by all countries: the price cap, the non-binding targets 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 Kyoto Protocol : Options for Protecting the Climate”. The book explores various approaches that can promote North-South cooperation on climate change for the future commitment periods. The options examined range from well-known proposals to new ideas. They all depict one or a few elements of a climate protection architecture. Dr. Blanchard presented each option, pointing to its major 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 obstacles constitute the major barrier to a wide acceptability of the option. It also investigates the new idea of starting from development to get ancillary benefits with respect to climate protection. In so doing, the approach acknowledges each country’s situation. But it does not guarantee a global reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. It explains that extending the boundaries of the CDM projects to sectors, territories or a combination of both could entail deeper emission reductions in industrialized 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 the risk of high economic burden or “hot air” in developing countries, relative to fixed targets. It is therefore a low-risk climate protection strategy for developing countries. But international negotiations may be complex. Regarding “Equal Per Capita Entitlements”, it investigates the issue of sharing the limited assimilative capacity of the atmosphere equally to every human being. It tackles 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 various emission allowances and abatement costs for the countries. It concludes that no option can satisfy the 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’s ultimate 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 presentation is on the policies and issues relating to linking climate change and sustainable development in India in particular and South Asia in general. He provided a brief overview of the status of policies and programs that link climate change and development in India. An analysis of future emissions trends for India for the next century was given together with the implications for Indian economy and energy system from the global greenhouse gas concentration stabilization regime such as the 550 ppmv stabilization target. The importance of South Asia regional cooperation and development of regional energy, electricity and water markets was emphasized. The regional assessment shows that cooperation and regional markets are effective strategies to mitigate emissions, impacts and promote sustainable development.
Dr. Shukla focused on some critical areas and sectors vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. The assessment suggests significant and varied threats from climate change on diverse economic activities, ecology and people. The climate change impacts, however, would be felt by the generations that would be more affluent compared to the present generation. This raises interesting issues of intergenerational equity and assessment of vulnerability and adaptability of the future generations. The linking of climate policies with national development goals was then discussed. It was articulated that institutions and capacity building in developing countries are important to link climate change with sustainable development.
After a summary of the exhortations made in the "COP 8 - The Delhi Ministerial Declaration on Climate Change and Sustainable Development", He discussed the strategies for implementation of Kyoto regime and the steps beyond Kyoto. The following conclusions was drawn:
i. Development of regional energy, electricity and water markets would reduce electricity costs, lower emissions and promote sustainable development;
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’s energy system;
iv. Beyond national sustainable development policies, the emissions mitigation and 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 Research Institute, U.S.) addressed three issues: 1) the components of an economically efficient climate policy 2) proposals currently under consideration in the US and 3) the implications of US rejection of the Kyoto Protocol for other Annex B countries. His presentation draws upon economic analyses conducted over the past several years and highlights insights consistent with the results from a number of top-down models.
Dr. Lim (KEEI, Korea) presented on the Korea's perspectives on the global participation and sustainable development. Presenting the results of top-down modeling analysis, he emphasized that the mitigation of climate change should be pursued in a way to facilitate developing countries’ participation. For effective and cost-saving reduction of GHG emissions, however, the participation of developing countries must be accompanied by the participation of US in the Kyoto Protocol.
Dr. Kejun Jiang (ERI, China) presented carbon intensity trend and policy implementation for climate change in China. He illustrated the high potential for reduction of energy and carbon intensities in China, but this is dependent on technology innovations and transfer.
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, no option could serve the interests of all the countries of the world. Every option may be appealing for 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 reduce the costs of pollution abatement. Also, a competitive market gave companies the incentive to invest in technology development. New investment on environmental protection created new Japanese businesses, so increasing Japan's GDP. He emphasized that the key to stabilizing climate change is to encourage technological and social innovations with a mix of appropriate policies and use our intellectual strengths to find ways to reduce the economic and social costs of mitigation.
SESSION IV: Roundtable Discussion
Participants from developing countries argued that an attempt to involving developing countries for the 2nd commitment periods is not equitable at this stage when implementation of developed country’s obligation remains to be seen. They also emphasized that developing countries are implementing a variety of measures following UNFCCC, including demand side management, integrated resource planning, energy conservation, and so on. Thus, US withdrawal is not based on sound ground when US argued that major developing countries are exempted from obligation. It also undermines the credibility of international negotiation process.
Science suggests that we need global reductions in emissions preferably sooner rather than later. To do that, we need to cover much larger share of global emissions through various sorts of actions. 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 to achieve these emissions reductions. We need to go well beyond the levels of technologies built in base case. Technological development needs some policy direction because it’s path dependent and we need to start choosing some path that will lower costs and possibly easier to achieve than other 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 have differential impacts in various areas. That requires adaptation by various groups. Some more than others, some better able to adapt than others. That suggests that we need some set of negotiations that allows us to put all of this together, sharing of burden of adaptation, agreement on how to stimulate technological progress, how to distribute burden of reducing emissions. The longer we delay the negotiation, the more difficult and the more costly to everybody. There is desperate need to break deadlock on the willingness to negotiate. We need to stop increase in costs caused by the failure 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 is required is not one single options but a right mix of options. The mix of options is changing not only 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 free technologies is dropping but so is the price of fossil fuel for long time. There have to be some price mechanism to make carbon free technologies competitive with the more carbon intensive technologies. It suggests that price of carbon should start low and rise gradually over time. This may give some opportunity to build institution.
Risk management approach requires us to know what’s at stake both from economic and environmental perspective, what the likelihood is, how risk-averse our society is. Scientific community 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 political issue. 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 to decide what to do not over the next hundred years but over the next five to ten years in the face of long term uncertainties. The system should be designed to allow us to make correction during the course of action if and when necessary.
There was some discussion on the role of dynamic target. Instead of linking ‘fixed and legally 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’s early action.
Expert Meeting on Climate Change and Sustainable Development
November 19-20, 2002 Seoul, Korea Organizer: Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI), Korea
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES), Japan Opening Remark by Prof. Sang-Gon Lee, President, KEEI, Korea Welcoming Remark by Prof. Akio Morishima, President, IGES, Japan
Welcoming 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, Kanagawa 240-0115 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 20002 U.S.A.
Tel: +1-202-729-7838 Fax: +1-202-729-7798
E-mail: [email protected] Prof. John Byrne
Director
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 National Laboratory(PNNL)
Joint Global Change Research Institute at the University of Maryland
8400 Baltimore Avenue, Suite 201 College Park, 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 Climate Change Energy Research Institute
State Development Planning Commission B-1407 Guohong Mansion, Muxidi-Beili jia NO.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, Kangawa 240-0198, Japan
Tel: +81-468-55-3819 Fax: +81-468-55-3809 E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Yoon-Young Kang Research Fellow
Korea 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 Kim Researcher
Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) 665-1 Naeson-dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do, Korea, 437-713
Tel: +82-31-420-2126 Fax: +82-31-420-2266 E-mail: [email protected]
List of Participants
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: +82-2-2100-7743 Fax: +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: +82-2-380-7777 Fax: +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 & Environment Korea(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 and Environment
Riso National Laboratory, P.O.Box 49, DK- 4000 Oskilde, Denmark
Tel: +45-4-632-2288 Fax: +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, Korea, 437-713
Tel: +82-31-421-0681 Fax: +82-31-423-8984 E-mail: [email protected] 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 Cambio Climatico
Instituto Nacionall De Ecologia Periferico Sur No. 5000-4to.piso Col.
Insurgentes Cuicuiko,C.P.04530 Del.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 Environmental Strategies(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 Morishima
Chair of the Board of Directors Institute for Global Environmental Strategies(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 Systems Division
National Institute for Environmental Studies(NIES)
(Professor, Tokyo Institute of Technology) 16-2 Onogawa, Tsukuba, Ibaraki, 305-8506 Japan
Tel: +81-298-50-2541
Fax: +81-298-50-2572 E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Nebojsa Nakicenovic
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Schlossplatz 1 A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria Tel: +43-2236-807-411
Fax: +43-2236-807-488 E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Shuzo Nishioka Executive Director
National Institute for Environmental Studies(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, Korea, 437-713
Tel: +82-31-420-2271 Fax: +82-31-420-2162 E-mail: [email protected] 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 Richels
Director
Global Climate Change Research Environment Division
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 3412 Hillview Ave. Palo Alto CA 94304-1395 U.S.A.
Tel: +1-650-855-2602
Fax: +1-650-855-2950 E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Ji-Chul Ryu
Senior Research Fellow
Korea Energy Economics Institute (KEEI) 665-1 Naeson-dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyunggi-Do, Korea, 437-713
Tel: +82-31-420-2120 Fax: +82-31-420-2164 E-mail: [email protected] Prof. P. R. Shukla Professor
Indian Institute of Management Vastrapur, Ahmedabad-380 015 India Tel: +91-79-630-7241
Fax: +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 College Park, 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, Korea, 437-713
Tel: +82-31-420-2226 Fax: +82-31-420-2162 E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Dadi Zhou
Director General
Energy Research Institute
State Development Planning Commission B-1515 Guohong Dasha Jia(A)11, Muxidi Beili, 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 a government-affiliated research institute and has since contributed to the national energy policy-making by collecting, analyzing, and disseminating energy information and issues in Korea. The major research topics of the KEEI include energy demand/supply, coal, petroleum, natural gas, electricity, and renewable energy, energy conservation, energy industry reform, climate change, and Northeast Asia energy cooperation. The KEEI will continue 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, Korea Tel: +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 an independent, not for profit think tank, based in Japan, that goes beyond research to provide practical ways to protect the earth's environment and to realize greater sustainability 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 area which is experiencing rapid economic development and which will affect the global environment through its population growth, urban environmental problems and other environmental issues.
Address: 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama-machi, Miura-gun, Kanagawa, 240-0115, Japan Tel: +81-468-55-3700 Fax: +81-468-55-3709
URL: http://www.iges.or.jp
Contact Persons
Dr. Jin-Gyu Oh Senior Researcher
Korea Energy Economics Institute
Address: 665-1 Naeson 2-Dong, Euiwang-Si, Kyonggi-Do, 437-713, Korea Tel. +82-31-420-2271 Fax: +82-31-420-2162
E-mail: [email protected] Dr. Tae Yong Jung Senior Research Fellow
Institute for Global Environmental Strategies
Address: 2108-11 Kamiyamaguchi, Hayama-machi, Miura-gun, Kanagawa, 240-0115, Japan Tel: +81-468-55-3817 Fax: +81-468-55-3809
E-mail: [email protected]
[Note] This summary was prepared by Korea Energy Economics Institute and does not represent official views of the participants or those of the Government of Korea. The presentation materials and background papers can be downloaded from KEEI News banner (more) of
http://www.keei.re.kr/keei/main_eng.html.
