Researchers Find Cost of Combating Climate Change Surges as World Delays

By Alister Doyle | January 3, 2013

An agreement by almost 200 nations to curb rising greenhouse gas emissions from 2020 will be far more costly than taking action now to tackle climate change, according to research published on Wednesday.

Quick measures to cut emissions would give a far better chance of keeping global warming within an agreed upon U.N. limit of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6°F) above pre-industrial times to avert more floods, heat waves, droughts and rising sea levels.

“If you delay action by 10, 20 years you significantly reduce the chances of meeting the 2 degree target,” said Keywan Riahi, one of the authors of the report at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria.

“It was generally known that costs increase when you delay action. It was not clear how quickly they change,” he told Reuters of the findings in the science journal Nature based on 500 computer-generated scenarios.

It said the timing of cuts in greenhouse gases was more important than other uncertainties – about things like how the climate system works, future energy demand, carbon prices or new energy technologies.

The study indicated that an immediate global price of $20 a ton on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, would give a roughly 60 percent chance of limiting warming to below 2°C.

Wait until 2020 and the carbon price would have to be around $100 a ton to retain that 60 percent chance, Riahi told Reuters of the study made with other experts in Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia and Germany.

And a delay of action until 2030 might put the 2°C limit – which some of the more pessimistic scientists say is already unattainable – completely out of reach, whatever the carbon price.

“The window for effective action on climate change is closing quickly,” Steve Hatfield-Dodds of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia wrote in a separate commentary in Nature.

Governments agreed to the 2°C limit in 2010, viewing it as a threshold to avert dangerous climate change. Temperatures have already risen by 0.8 degree C (1.4°F) since wide use of fossil fuels began 200 years ago.

ECONOMIC SLOWDOWN
After the failure of a 2009 summit in Copenhagen to agree to a worldwide accord, almost 200 nations have given themselves until 2015 to work out a global deal to cut greenhouse gas emissions that will enter into force in 2020.

Amid an economic slowdown, many countries at the last U.N. meeting on climate change in Qatar in December expressed reluctance to make quick shifts away from fossil fuels toward cleaner energies such as wind or solar power.

Each U.S. citizen, for instance, emits about 20 tons of carbon dioxide a year. There is no global price on carbon, only regional markets – in a European Union trading system, for instance, where industrial emitters must pay if they exceed their CO2 quotas, 2013 prices are about €6.70 ($8.78) a ton.

The report also showed that greener policies, such as more efficient public transport or better-insulated buildings, would raise the chances of meeting the 2°C goal.

And fighting climate change would be easier with certain new technologies, such as capturing and burying carbon emissions from power plants and factories. In some scenarios, the 2°C goal could not be met unless carbon capture was adopted.

Subscribe Like this article?
Subscribe to our free email newsletter.

Latest Comments

  • January 7, 2013 at 1:10 pm
    Nick says:
    @ Walter Bug: If you are indeed a "trained and educated scientist" then you would know that referring to this "leftist Reuters leftist crap" just undermines your credentials. ... read more
  • January 4, 2013 at 11:09 am
    Water Bug says:
    Pay attention Natural-Climate change is far beyond the influence of human activity. Taxing energy producers/users is just a leftist tool to control your life.
  • January 3, 2013 at 6:14 pm
    Natural Selection Is Not Enough says:
    Sure we can tax people for going over the emission. But that still doesn't solve the problem of the extra emissions. There must be alternatives in order for this to work. Anot... read more
See all comments

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features