TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE: THE WAY FORWARD TO COPENHAGEN The Center for American Studies The Embassy of the United Stat

1. TACKLING CLIMATE CHANGE: • THE WAY FORWARD TO COPENHAGEN • The Center for American Studies • The Embassy of the United States of America • Roma, February 17, 2009 Corrado Clini Director General Ministry for the Environment, Land and Seaof Italy

2. The IV ASSESSMENT REPORT ON CLIMATE CHANGE According to the 2007 Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), some extreme weather events will become more frequent, more widespread and/or more intense during the 21st century. Climate change presents a serious threat to security and prosperity because of the destabilizing effects of storms, drought, and floods. A global CO2 emissions reduction by 30%-50% should be reached in the timeframe 2030-2050 to drive the stabilization of CO2 concentration to a safe level ( 450-550 ppmv) by the end of the century and avoid irreversible changes in the climate system.

3. A Conflictof InterestEnergy security and Climate security According to the WEO 2008 Reference Scenario, global primary energy demand will grow by 1.6% per year on average in 2006-2030, from 11,730 Mtoe to just over 17,010 Mtoe, with fossil fuels accounting for 80% of the world’s primary energy mix in 2030. According to the IEA’s “Energy Technology Perspectives 2008 – ETP,” primary energy demand will continue to rise to 2050, reaching 23,268 Mtoe. Due to strong economic growth, slowed but not stopped by the current financial and economical crisis, China and India account for 51% of incremental world primary energy demand in 2006-2030, while non-OECD countries account for 87% of the increase in global energy demand, with their share of world primary energy demand rising from 51% to 62%.

4. World primary energy supply 2030 World primary energy demand – Source: IEA, WEO 2008

5. Energy-Related CO2 emissions by Region Non-OECD countries account for some 97% of CO2 emissions increase between now and 2030 - three-quarters from China, India & the Middle East alone. 15 Rest of non-OECD 12 2 China 9 Rest of OECD Gigatonnes of CO 6 United States 3 0 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Source: WEO 2006, International Energy Agency

6. CO2 per capita emissions 1980-2030

7. CO2 energy-related emissions will increase by 45% in 2030 and, according to IEA ETP 2008, by 130% in 2050 .

8. CUMULATIVE INVESTMENT, 2005-2030 $26 trillion Electricity 56% Oil 21% $11.3 trillion $4.3 trillion Biofuels 1% $0.6 trillion $3.9 trillion Gas 19% Coal 3% Investment needs exceed $20 trillion – $3 trillion more than previously projected, mainly because of higher unit costs

9. CUMULATIVE INVESTMENT, 2005-2050demand-side and supply-side: over USD 250 trillion

10. STABILIZING CO2 • TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, EQUITABLE GLOBAL BURDEN SHARING, • AND FAIR COMPETITION IN THE GLOBAL ENERGY MARKET • Stabilizing CO2 requires a global long term strategy (2050 at least) in: • research & innovation and energy policies to reduce the “carbon intensity” of the economy through the development and dissemination of new renewable and energy efficiency technologies, biofuels, hydrogen, carbon sequestration, and nuclear power • making the new clean and safe energy sources and technologies available and cost-effective in the emerging economies and in the developing world to address both energy security and emissions reduction • To be effective in approaching CO2 stabilization, the measures should be designed and implemented immediately. • Considering the lifetime of power plants and industrial processes (20 to 50 years), and taking into account the IEA-estimated dimension of the investments in the global energy system in the next 30-50 years ($26 to 250 trillion), the countries in the Climate Change Convention and in the World Trade Organization should consider: • an equitable global burden sharing of the reduction based on per capita emissions/GDP • the introduction of rules in the global energy market for the application of progressive • “carbon intensity standard” for the energy technologies • a progressive “carbon price” to be applied to fuels and technologies

11. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT IN BLUE MAP SCENARIOIEA ETP 2008 identifies the technology options to meet 50% emissions reduction in 2050, according to the 2008 G8 Summit Declaration, consistent with the 450 ppm CO2 stabilization stabilisation scenario.

12. ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IN BLUE MAP SCENARIO • An additional 45 trillion USD are required for meeting the BLUE Map scenario to cover: • additional R&D investments in new technologies not yet market-competitive • larger deployment and commercial investment in low-carbon options • global dissemination of cleaner and more energy efficient technologies • In BLUE Map, the marginal costs are negative for the end-use efficiency technologies, and up to 200 USDper ton of CO2 are saved (500 USD as pessimistic forecast) for the development and deployment of the new technologies in the power sector and transportation, including higher-cost options such as CCS in industry and alternative transport fuels.

13. MARGINAL COSTS IN BLUE MAP

14. THE CHALLENGE OF ADAPTATION Climate change can act as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile and poor regions of the world. Africa and parts of Asia are particularly vulnerable given their locations and their limited governmental capacities to respond to flooding, droughts, and declining food production. Like armed attacks, some of the effects of climate change could swiftly kill or endanger a large number of people and cause such large-scale disruption that local public health, law enforcement, and emergency response units would not be able to contain. The Stern Review estimated that it would cost developing countries between $4 billion and $37 billion/year to minimize the climate change damage. The Global Environment Facility (GEF) adaptation funds amount to about $215 million: their scale should be dramatically expanded. A modest investment in adaptation in poor countries will be much more effective than responding to state failure or humanitarian disasters through military and relief operations.

15. EU and USA A New Joint Commitment In 2000, the European Union and the USA failed to find an agreement for the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. The European Union supposed it could face the global climate change challenge through a unilateral approach, and the USA underestimated both the threat of climate change and the role of climate change in driving technological change in the energy system. The double mistake of the EU and the USA should be overcome before Copenhagen. The global climate change challenge calls for the joint involvement and commitment of the European Union and the USA to design and implement a way forward to change the global energy system and address adaptation to climate change .

16. EU and USA A New Joint Commitment • The negotiations for an agreement in Copenhagen are difficult because of the multiple issues involved and because of the different historical approaches between the Parties involved. • EU and USA could and should change the international context of the negotiations, building a bilateral concrete platform for the development of: • common standards in the energy and transportation technologies to move towards a low carbon economy • joint measures to incentivize clean energy and transportation technologies • joint partnerships with Brazil, China, India, Mexico, South Africa for the deployment and the dissemination of low carbon technologies in the emerging economies • joint projects to support the least developed countries with their adaptation to the effects of climate change • The joint initiative of the EU and the USA will be • more effective than years of negotiations.