PRESS CONFERENCE ON UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME REPORT

‘FIGHTING CLIMATE CHANGE:  HUMAN SOLIDARITY IN A DIVIDED WORLD’

 

The world’s poor are the most vulnerable to climate change, and unless their needs are taken into account, success in addressing the phenomenon will remain elusive, Claes Johansson, a statistician at the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), told correspondents at a United Nations Headquarters press conference today.

Mr. Johansson, presenting the UNDP’s 2007-2008 Human Development Report, Fighting Climate Change:  Human Solidarity in a Divided World, stressed that one in 19 people in developing countries were vulnerable to climate shocks, compared to one in 1,500 in the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries.

“The most vulnerable people contribute the least to global emissions and are paying a high price for the actions of others,” he asserted.  Developed nations had a historic responsibility to cut emissions -- to “climate proof their growth” -- and invest in efforts that would help prevent catastrophic reversals in human development.  Further, to avoid dangerous climate change, it was imperative to reach a binding and comprehensive agreement at next week’s Bali Conference.

The impacts of climate change on human development were severely underestimated, he continued, highlighting five ways that climate is linked to human development:  reduced agricultural productivity; increased water insecurity; increased exposure to extreme weather events; collapsed ecosystems; and increased health risks.  A more than 2 degree average global temperature rise could result in 600 million people in sub-Saharan Africa suffering from starvation.

As for what to do, he said mitigation and adaptation strategies were vital.  Developed countries must cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, and developing countries by 20 per cent.  That would achieve an overall 50 per cent emissions reduction, the absolute minimum required to avoid dangerous climate change.

To achieve that goal, the UNDP proposed creating a Climate Change Mitigation Facility, which would reduce the risks of introducing low-carbon technology; fund new technology development; provide intellectual property for that purpose; and expand access to modern energy.

Moreover, “a proper price on carbon” must be determined, he said, stressing that a cap-and-trade system could be put in place without increasing the overall tax burden to society.  Other proposals included strengthening efficiency standards for cars and power plants; investing in technologies, such as “carbon capture and storage”; reducing deforestation; and examining carbon sequestration.

Financing adaptation measures was essential, he said.  Developing countries needed $80 billion annually by 2015 to cope with climate change impacts; current multilateral spending on adaptation measures was $26 million annually -- or the equivalent of one week of flood defence spending in the United Kingdom.  Incentives to transfer technologies were also needed.

Taking a question about why the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea had been left off the human development index, he said the UNDP did not have reliable data -– including per capita gross domestic product data -- for that country.

Asked if the report was a UNDP or a Secretariat recommendation, he said the Human Development Report was an independent report commissioned by UNDP.  UNDP’s role was to present new ideas which were, at times, provocative.  He understood there had been debate around its emissions reductions numbers, and he welcomed that debate.  He stressed that UNDP was not prescribing what Governments should do at the Bali Conference.

Asked about the difference between climate change and global warming, and whether the ozone hole was considered a global warming issue, he said the term “climate change” was used to stress the fact that the process witnessed today had impacts other than rising temperatures.  Those impacts were not captured by the term “global warming”.  The ozone hole was only a small part of the global warming problem, he added.

To a question on positive contributions made by wealthy countries to human development in developing countries, and any restitution developing countries might make for a “drain” on the world order, he said there were many theories on why developing countries were at lower levels of development.  He had not heard the argument that that fact would somehow impose an opportunity cost on rich countries, and would not agree with the question’s premise.  Implicit in it was an idea that rich countries deserved to be richer than poor countries.  In other reports, the UNDP had explored the causes of poverty.  This year’s report focused on climate, and argued there was a moral responsibility to help those that were worse off, whether by their own making or other reasons.

In pure economic terms, he said the costs of climate change with mitigation constituted 1.6 per cent of global gross domestic product, whereas the costs without it were estimated at over 5 per cent.  “It’s an extremely worthwhile investment,” he said.

Asked about the report’s forceful wording and precautions taken to avoid the negative effects of strong predictions, he said all available science had pointed to the likelihood of the climate change impacts outlined in the report, adding that “nobody would be happier than us if we were wrong about all this”.  If climate science was accepted, so too must be the severe impacts on human development.

Asked about whether climate change distracted UNDP from its focus on development, he said development could not be addressed without a focus on climate change.  If the topic were left to drift, all other development efforts would be moot.  As to whether development issues could focus on science, he said the report strongly advocated that new funding be used for creating technology, particularly in areas of flood defence, alternative energy sources and drought resistance rice crops.

On whether countries such as China or India would realistically accept a carbon tax, he said it was not UNDP’s role to speak to any political developments; the carbon tax was offered as a proposal, and the call for developing countries to cut emissions by 20 per cent represented an average.  It stood to reason that India, whose per capita emissions were lower than the average, would face a lesser cut.

Taking a question on why the UNDP report called on developing countries to create national reports, he said current approaches to adaptation were piecemeal.  Developing countries needed to massively “scale up” approaches and projects.  To do that, each needed a strategy, and from there solutions could be developed.

On the protectionist policies of the United States and the European Union against Brazilian ethanol, he said the report was clear that sugar-based ethanol was more efficient and cost effective than other biofuels.  It called on countries to reduce their tariffs on such fuels.

As to why the urgency of climate change had been underestimated, he said carbon emissions cuts would become more drastic with time.  At some point, the costs of those cuts would become prohibitive.  Today, it was still affordable to do what had been proposed.  The numbers of people killed and impacted by natural disasters have increased dramatically over the last 30 years, and assuming that trend continued, there would be devastating consequences in 5 to 10 years.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record