‘Nothing Is Insurmountable’

Delegates from 120 countries have approved the first road map for combating climate change.
Karel Navarro / APMessage of Hope:

The U.N. report makes clear that nations have the technology and financial means to combat global warming. Pictured here is Peru’s White Mountain range, where ice is melting fa
Web ExclusiveBy Jessica BennettNewsweekUpdated: 2:08 p.m. ET May 4, 2007May 4, 2007 - By now, most of us have heard that global warming is a threat. What’s harder to grasp, for governments and individuals alike, is whether it’s possible to do anything about it. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a U.N. network of more than 2,000 scientists from 120 countries, says it is—but that we have to act fast. On Friday, at the close of a weeklong meeting in Bangkok, the group approved the world’s first road map for stemming greenhouse-gas emissions, laying out an arsenal of measures they say are both technologically and financially feasible. The measures include producing more biofuels, increasing fuel efficiency and expanding nuclear energy—all of which, scientists say, debunk arguments that combating global warming is too costly. “The overall feel of the meeting was that nothing is insurmountable,” says Ralph Sims, a contributing author and professor of sustainable energy at New Zealand’s Massey University. He spoke by phone from Bangkok with NEWSWEEK’s Jessica Bennett. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: How bad could things get if we don’t act fast?Ralph Sims: We’re running out of time. Greenhouse gases have continued to increase and accelerate since our last report in 2001, in spite of the fact that we’ve got policies in place in some countries, in spite of the fact that we’ve got technologies available to reduce them and in spite of the fact that we’ve had high oil, electricity and gas prices over the last years. So that’s the problem. But you believe there is a solution?We have options to change this around. We’ve got technologies and energy supply to reduce greenhouse gases, which includes renewable energy. We’ve got technologies in the industry building and transport sector that use less energy to provide the same amount of services. And we’ve got agricultural forestry opportunities. And those solutions are cost effective—you save money and greenhouse gases.
Still, it takes money to jump-start all of that. Is there an estimate of how much this will cost?There is, and it depends on how quickly we think we need to stabilize greenhouse-gas concentrations. We know it may cost more [than what we spend now], but we know that doing nothing will probably cost even more than that. So if we’re building more sea-level walls and expecting more Hurricane Katrinas and floods and droughts or whatever, there’s a huge cost to that. But we know that if we start now and we consider every single investment from now on with this in mind, the cost, on a global basis, could be less than 1 percent of GDP. If we delayed, it could be 3 percent of GDP. But it’s not going to bring the whole economy to a standstill, and that’s a key message coming out of this. We have to start now, and starting now is the cheapest way to do this.
Did the IPCC assessment set any specific goal or deadline for what and when we need to accomplish?The report showed very clearly that if we start to make some serious policy changes and reduce emissions, tomorrow, let’s say, then it’ll be far cheaper and far easier to stabilize the climate. Greenhouse gases will continue to increase over the next 20 or 30 years regardless of what we decide tomorrow because people are going to drive the same cars and live in the same buildings. But the sooner we start, the quicker we can stabilize the levels of greenhouse gases and the less the impact from climate change will be. If we delay it, the cost will be much, much more.
Where do developing countries play into all of this?There’s the complication that the Chinese and Africans and South Americans want the same lifestyle that we’ve got in the United States and Europe and wherever else. Their argument, which is rather hard to refute, is that “You’ve done it, you’ve cut your forests down and dug up all this coal and turned it into energy, you’ve built up your economy with that while we’re still starving. So how can you tell us not to do it?” So we have to provide alternative technologies and renewable energy for developing countries so they don’t go down the same path. And we have to show that we are using that same technology.
Were there specific points of contention as your initial report was reviewed in Bangkok?There were, most significantly with nuclear [power], which was the chapter I worked on. There are many countries that want to see nuclear increased because it’s a low-greenhouse-gas option, and it’s reasonably cheap. But on the other hand, it’s got all these issues of waste and the fear of creating nuclear weapons. And how quickly we can build these things is another issue. But in spite of that, there are many countries that have increased their nuclear [energy]—in France, [more than] 70 percent of energy comes from nuclear. In the end, the wording that’s been accepted is that nuclear can make a contribution to economic potential and it could increase to up to 18 percent of electricity by 2030.
If the solutions are so clear, why haven’t we taken action?We’re not doing it because people aren’t worried enough about climate change to turn their lights off at night in their house, or walk half a mile around a block to go get a newspaper rather than drive. Where I come from, New Zealand, we know that 30 percent of our car journeys are less than a kilometer. Why don’t people get a bicycle or go out and get some exercise?
So you think we should be taking more responsibility for ourselves.It’s us as individuals who’ve created this problem. So maybe it should be us as individuals who try to solve it, and not just hope that politicians or industry comes up with a solution. It’s a combination of technology and behavioral change.
Let’s say we decide we’re really going to take this on. To what extent do we need to change our lifestyle patterns?We’re not asking anybody to sit in a cold house huddled in a dark corner with a blanket wrapped around them. It’s none of that. The question we have to ask is what energy services we really need. I’ll give you an example: I was in Orlando [Fla.] a while ago and I saw this electric pavement in a downtown area, like you have in an airport, that moves people as they stand on this moving platform. And there was a perfectly ordinary concrete platform on either side. So I watched for a while, and there were hundreds of people, most of whom were overweight, who would just stand on this electric platform to take them from one food outlet to another shop or wherever they were going. And I said, “Why do they need an electric platform? Wouldn’t they actually be healthier and better off walking?” Everybody can do something toward decreasing their carbon footprint, and they can do it now by not wasting energy, and they can do it a few months from now next time they buy a refrigerator or think about upgrading on a car.
What are other easy ways to prevent waste?Well, here we are in Bangkok, and everybody’s complaining about how cold they are. It’s a common thing that you see all over—in the winter the buildings are so hot, and in the summer the buildings are so cold that you have to put your sweater on and wear a jacket. And why? Why can’t we just have a comfortable temperature wearing an extra layer of clothes and save all that energy? There are simple solutions to climate change, but somehow we’ve got to bind to those solutions—and not wasting energy is the first thing we can do.
But we can’t do this alone. Where do governments come in?Governments have to educate and set policies to educate. Our report lays out the economic potential and what’s technically possible for them, but it’s now up to the governments to actually read our report and make changes. But then it comes down to individuals. You can use governments to educate people about the problems, but you can’t just say it’s a political problem and leave it up to President Bush or Mr. Blair or whoever. The only way we’re going to solve this is with a partnership between policymakers, businesses and individuals.
How optimistic are you that the global community wants to and can make these changes?I think there’s certainly a greater awareness now that we’ve got a problem and a growing realization that we can make a difference. You wouldn’t have gotten that five years ago. So I’m optimistic that people are understanding it better, but I still worry that people aren’t willing to make significant lifestyle changes.