The scientific evidence is increasingly clear: global warming and the resulting changes to our climate present serious risks to the future of the planet. Because climate change is global in its causes and consequences, international collective action will be critical to address its causes, to mitigate its effects, and to learn more how to adapt to the impact brought about by the phenomenon.
With the United Nations Climate Change Conference underway and a recent stark warning from a British government report that climate change is fast proving to be one of the greatest challenges in the history of humankind, people are asking questions of their leaders: What needs to be done about climate change, and what can be reasonably expected? What are the UN and the World Bank doing to foster global solutions, reduce emissions, and help countries adapt to increased droughts and flooding? What can the private sector or international markets do to help meet these demands? What happens after the Kyoto Protocol expires in 2012?
With this discussion, we’re trying out something new, adding a video webcast with Bob Watson, Chief Scientist at the World Bank
sailesh2000_2000@yahoo.co.uk
Speaking Out on Climate Change: An Interview with World Bank Chief Scientist Bob Watson
Interviewer: Well, Bob Watson, you were the World Bank’s Chief Scientist. The United Nation’s Climate Change Conference has just finished in Nairobi. There were 6,000 participants there, 100 ministers onsite to negotiate. This was a Conference of the Parties, what they call the COP, of the United Nation’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, what’s called the UNFCCC. Part of the negotiations were about the Kyoto Protocol. Do you think large international conferences like this serve any real purpose?
Dr. Watson: Climate change is a very serious environmental issue. The only way that we are going to deal with it is to get all the governments of the world on board to move in the same direction. Therefore, these meetings of the governments are absolutely critical to decide how are we going to try and limit climate change, and how are we going to adapt to climate change.
So whether or not one needs 6,000 people is a real question, but one does need regular meetings of governments to try and decide what actions can be taken in the near future.
Interviewer: Some of the discussions in Nairobi were about the Kyoto Protocol and adaptation funding for countries that are affected by climate change. Some of the talks were about mitigation of global warming. What exactly do we mean when we talk about mitigation, and what do we mean when we talk about adaptation to climate change?
Dr. Watson: When we talk about mitigation, the question is, “To what degree can we limit the human influence on the climate system?” So we talk about mitigating, or limiting, the emissions of greenhouse gases that go into the atmosphere, primarily from the combustion of fossil fuels and land use change.
Adaptation means, “How can we adapt to a change in climate?” How can we make our agricultural systems, coastal zones, and human health less vulnerable to climate variability and the projected changes in climate? So how can we adapt our activities to be less vulnerable to a changing climate?
Interviewer: So mitigation, in some sense, is a function of reducing the impact on the environment, and adaptation sort of assumes that we will have to live with this forever?
Dr. Watson: Correct. We are already seeing a change in the Earth’s climate, and additional change is absolutely inevitable. The key question to us is, “To what degree can we limit future changes in the Earth’s climate?” We can’t eliminate future changes, but we can limit them. To what degree can we modify our agricultural practices, et cetera, so that effectively they are less adversely affected by those projected changes in climate?
Interviewer: When it comes to the Kyoto Protocol and the climate change discussions, 189 countries are members of the UNFCCC, and 168 of them have ratified the Kyoto Protocol. What is the position of the developing countries on this?
Dr. Watson: At the moment, under the Kyoto Protocol, only industrialized countries have obligations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Developing countries to date have no obligations to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. But if we truly want to protect the Earth’s climate over the next 20, 50, 100 years, we need to have a framework convention that has obligations for all large emitters. That would be all large countries, whether they be European, the United States, but we also need to bring into the accord countries such as India, China, Brazil, South Africa. However, given that most of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are from the activities of industrialized countries, and developing countries such as India and China need energy for economic growth, there has to be differentiated responsibilities. In other words, the developing need to work with the industrialized countries to get clean technologies, but also, industrialized countries will have to find mechanisms to help them–more affordable for countries such as India and China.
Interviewer: In Nairobi, the people who were negotiating set up an agenda so that they would start negotiating on a post-Kyoto Protocol. The negotiations would begin in 2008 and would hopefully conclude in 2009, and this would cover the period of 2013 to 2017. Do you think starting negotiations in 2008 and finishing in 2009 is a reasonable timeframe to accomplish all that they need to accomplish?
Dr. Watson: It took much longer to negotiate the Kyoto Protocol. I think those that think you can start negotiations in 2008 and finish in 2009 are probably somewhat optimistic. In reality, it would nice to start those negotiations now so that it could be finished in 2009-2010. The other key question is, “Should we only be trying to negotiate what the greenhouse gas emission should be between 2013 and 2017, or should we be taking a much longer-term perspective?”
In the recent World Bank report on “The Investment Framework for Clean Energy,” we suggested that a long-term framework was needed, possibly going all the way out to 2050, a long-term target, with some intermediate targets with different obligations on developed and developing countries.
Interviewer: You talked about mitigation and you talked about adaptation. Those are two key elements in the World Bank’s program in respect to climate change. In general, what is the World Bank’s approach to global warming and to climate change?
Dr. Watson: Well, first, we recognize that energy is absolutely essential for poverty alleviation and economic growth. Therefore, the first part of our clean investment framework is, “How do we get more energy to developing countries to meet their basic energy needs?”
The second part is, “How do we work with developing countries to get them clean technologies, low-carbon technologies?”
So the first part of our strategy on climate change is how to get low-carbon technologies to developing countries. We recognize that many of them are more expensive, so we are going to use grant resources under the Global Environmental Facility. We will use carbon finances to help buy down those additional costs. But the first priority, probably, is to stimulate energy efficiency.
Second, re-power inefficient power plants, which there are many, in countries such as India and China, and then try and move forward on new technologies, which really are very, very low-emitting carbon technologies.
The third pillar of our strategy is to help countries adapt to climate change. We want to work with developing countries, understand how vulnerable they are to climate change, and then think through, “How can they adapt their various practices so they are far less vulnerable in the long term to climate change?” In other words, we want to integrate climate change considerations in both energy and in all other sectors, such as agriculture, human health, coastal zones.
Interviewer: Well, let’s go to the questions that have been sent in by people around the world who have been following this debate.
Here is a question from Anya Kareena Capoor from the United States, who talks about the World Bank’s portfolio, in terms of the work we do, and what we are doing about mitigation and adaptation. She asks, “What, if anything, is the World Bank doing across its entire lending portfolio to manage the risk of global warming?”
Dr. Watson: Well, first, in our energy portfolio, we are analyzing all of the various projects to see whether or not we can move those projects to lower carbon. So the first thing is to have cleaner projects in our energy sector.
We are starting to look at what are the opportunities in transportation, also, to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Then what we have done is we have done a complete analysis of the portfolio of all of our current and projected projects over the next few years and asked ourselves the question, “Are they vulnerable to climate variability and climate change? And if they are, how can we redesign those projects so that they are less vulnerable to current climate variability and projected changes in climate?”
Interviewer: Now, these are projects not just in energy?
Dr. Watson: No, this is everything: agricultural projects, health projects, coastal zone projects, even biodiversity projects. Are we designing our protected areas taking climate change into consideration?
Interviewer: Here is a question from Bruno Cassiers in Belgium. He asks, “What can the World Bank do to help people get cheap loans to buy electrical appliances that conserve electricity?”
Dr. Watson: The Bank can’t directly address that particular issue; however, we can work with energy conservation companies in developing countries and utilities, and, quite often, utilities might well give energy-saving devices to a customer at no cost initially, and the customer pays for those devices over a period of time as they are actually saving energy. That has been done by many utilities in the United States, where they have given light bulbs away that save energy, free of charge, and then you pay back over a period of one or two years.
Interviewer: Now, when you say, “We can work with utilities in these countries,” do you mean that we can give them money or we can give them advice. What do we do, actually?
Dr. Watson: We can actually both give advice, our advisory services, and there can be loans through a government to a utility.
Interviewer: Chinedu Emenike from Nigeria sends in this question, “How does heat generated through the use of electrical energy contribute to global warming, or is it only heat from fossil fuels that we have to worry about?”
Dr. Watson: It is not the heat, directly, whether it is the burning of fossil fuels or the electricity. What happens is, when we produce the electricity, we normally produce it from coal-fired power plants or gas-fired power plants. When we use the gas or the coal to produce the electricity, it is the greenhouse gases, in this case, carbon dioxide, that, when the carbon dioxide is liberated and emitted into the atmosphere, it leaves greenhouse gases that change what we call “the thermal balance of the atmosphere” that leads to global warming.
Interviewer: Bruce Jenkins from the United States writes in to ask, “Do you think the World Bank should continue to subsidize oil extraction projects or fossil fuel projects?”
Dr. Watson: We don’t actually subsidize them. The World Bank lends money for projects and the money is repaid. The real question is, “Should the Bank be involved in a fossil fuel project?” And the answer is, “It depends.”
If, indeed, you have got a country and the only way to get out of poverty and have economic growth is, indeed, to be involved in a coal-fired power plant, or a gas-fired power plant, or an oil pipeline, then the answer is “Yes, we should be involved.” But we should make sure that technology they use is the best possible technology to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
Our major role is poverty alleviation and sustainable economic growth. So we have to look at every project one at a time. Now, we would also look and see, “Are there alternative projects that aren’t based on fossil fuels?” Could a wind power project be equally successful? So there is no simple cut-and-dry answer. Every project we would have to analyze independently.
Interviewer: Here is a question from G. Hariharan of India who says, “The last century-and-a-half has seen some real progress and inventions in technology. Some of them, such as the automobile, have had negative consequences in terms of climate change. Do you think that when people invent new technologies that there should be a process to examine the risk or the health of each of those new inventions?”
Dr. Watson: My personal view would probably be “No.” But it is a long way from taking out a patent to having a product that’s marketed, either in the U.S. or any other country in the world. By the time you take that patent to a marketable commodity, I would argue then you should try and analyze, “What are the positive benefits to society as a whole, and what are the negative?”
Interviewer: This, of course, raises the issue of our work and the work of other international organizations in terms of responding to global warming and climate change. This is the IPPC. The World Bank does a certain amount of work. The United Nations Development Program does a certain amount of work; environmental agencies, as well. How would you describe the relationship amongst all of these international agencies?
Dr. Watson: They have all got a different role. First, we’ll actually start with the scientific community. Their role is to try and understand how we humans are affecting the Earth’s climate and what are the implications of those changes in climate on various sectors, such as agriculture, human health, and coastal zone.
Then we have the UNFCCC, which should negotiate through all the governments in the world, “To what degree do we want to limit the emissions of greenhouse gases, and therefore limit the amount of climate change that is meant to occur?”
Then we have organizations such as the World Bank, which is to work with developing countries to try and make that transition to a low-carbon economy, and to adapt to the changing climate, but climate change is now a very pervasive issue. It affects, as I have already said several times, most sectors. Therefore, the World Health Organization has a role in the relationship for climate change and health. The Food and Agricultural Organization in climate change and agriculture. The Bank, of course, being the developing agency, covers health issues, agricultural issues, et cetera. So all of these agencies can work very well together.
It is quite clear now that the very, very large majority of the scientific community, and a large part of the private sector, and governments view the science of climate change is now well established. Now, the challenge is how to deal with it, how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions cost effectively, and how to adapt to climate variability and projected changes.
Interviewer: Here is a question from Andrew Scrivener of Australia, who raises the issue of new technologies. He talks about a new technology, for instance, that can cut CO2 emissions by 99.5 percent by converting the gas into carbon and oxygen before, then releasing them into the environment. And the question is, “What is the World Bank’s position on such new technology, such new innovations?”
Dr. Watson: First, I am highly skeptical about any technology as is mentioned. I would need to go to the literature and read about it.
The Bank’s position is very straightforward, and that is, there are many technologies on the shelf today that can reduce greenhouse gas emissions cost effectively that have not been adopted in developing countries. So our first role is to try and get uptake of existing, well-tried technologies.
The second is, we need to work with both developed and developing countries on new technologies.
There is one technology that could well be a major way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while producing electricity from coal, and that is–it’s called “integrated gasification combined cycle with carbon capture and storage.” So we would still use coal to produce the electricity, but we would not allow the carbon dioxide to be emitted into the atmosphere. It would be captured, and it would be subducted, either in depleted oil wells or possibly in saline aquifers. So the Bank has a very open mind. Rarely, however, do we fund a brand new technology in a developing country unless we also use grant resources or carbon finance to buy down some of those additional risks.
Interviewer: Here’s a question from David Obura of Kenya who asks in particular about coral reefs. He says that, “The inability of coral reefs, like other ecosystems that are very sensitive, to adapt to climate change is quite limited, and that, in many cases, almost nothing will be done, or will be able to be done, to minimize the impacts of climate change. What can the World Bank do to foster research, in particular for those particularly sensitive ecosystems that have to adapt to climate change?”
Dr. Watson: Coral reefs are, indeed, the most sensitive ecosystem to climate change. Even a small change in temperature can destroy coral reefs forever, with major economic implications for small islands that depend on the coral reefs for both tourism and for fisheries.
The World Bank, however, does have a very large research project funded by the Global Environmental Facility and the Development Grant Facility to try and understand exactly how vulnerable these coral reef systems are to both climate change and to other diseases. We are trying to find out, “Are there any approaches that could reduce the vulnerability of these incredible systems to climate change?”
Interviewer: Pronia Saxena writes in from India, and she asks, “How does the World Bank plan or encourage alternative energy investments in Africa?” And she says, “In particular, Africa is a promising area for solar technology. What are we doing to promote that on that continent?”
Dr. Watson: The first challenge in Africa is to get access to energy. Only 25 percent of households in Africa have access to any forms of modern energy. So one of the high priorities in the Bank is to try and at least double access to energy to 50 percent of households by 2030. We are looking at all possible approaches, that’s large, grid-scale energy as well as off-scale distributed energy. And, indeed, solar energy is one of the most viable approaches that we can think of in Africa. We are also looking at wind energy and other forms of renewable energy.
Interviewer: Bruce Jenkins in the United States, again, says that, “Do you think that the World Bank’s target, in terms of renewable energy, 20 percent annual increase, do you think that is adequate given the nature of the climate change situation?”
Dr. Watson: Twenty percent growth per year is a realistic target. Unfortunately, not many of our clients are asking to borrow money from the World Bank for renewable energy projects, primarily because renewable energy projects are typically more expensive per unit of energy produced than classical fossil fuel. Off-grid, especially in small, developing countries, they can actually be cost effective. So we are trying to develop our renewable energy portfolio and our energy efficiency portfolio as fast as possible, and in most cases we do have to subsidize, to some degree, these projects with grant resources, either through the Global Environmental Facility or through carbon finance. We would like to do more, but to be quite honest, there is a lack of requests from many of our client countries for such technologies.
Interviewer: But if the key issue, then, is that the alternate energy technologies, renewable energy, are too expensive, I suppose a breakthrough, then, will come when they are equally attractive in terms of cost with conventional fossil fuels.
Dr. Watson: The first thing we have to do is get what I call “the correct pricing for fossil fuels,” and what I mean by that is we should internalize the so-called “externalities.” Often, when we burn fossil fuels to produce electricity or heat, we emit gases into the atmosphere that cause local, regional air pollution and climate change. That has a social cost, so the first thing is to price fossil fuels correctly by internalizing those prices, and that effect will be more a level playing field between the cost of renewable energy and the cost of fossil fuel energy.
Secondly, the more renewable energy we can actually put into the marketplace, the more we scale up the markets. And as you go to a larger and larger scale, the costs tend to come down. So there is no question, the cost of renewable energy is coming down, and if we could price the fossil fuels correctly, I think we would see far more penetration of renewable energy technologies into the marketplace.
Interviewer: Final question, Bob Watson. You are the Chief Scientist of the World Bank. When you look at the state of global warming and climate change, the situation today, the forecast for the future, the actions that are being taken to mitigate and to adapt to that possible future, would you describe yourself as an optimist, as a pessimist, as a realist?
Dr. Watson: I am an optimist that we will get to grips with this very, very serious environmental issue. It is also a very serious development issue. While industrialized countries have largely caused the problem today, it is developing countries, and poor people in developing countries, that are the most vulnerable to human-induced climate change.
I would have hoped we would have moved more aggressively to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. We have good technologies that I believe we could get into the marketplace today, but, overall, I am an optimist that we will resolve this issue. I would have just hoped we would be doing it a little faster.
Interviewer: Bob Watson, Chief Scientist of the World Bank, thank you for taking the time to do this today.
Dr. Watson: Thank you.