sectoral economic costs and benefits of ghg mitigation - IPCC

Terry Barker, Lenny Bernstein, Ken Gregory, Steve Lennon and Julio Torres Martinez
concerning weather related coverage in the Caribbean, because the risk will become too high.
If every 5 years a hurricane will run over the islands, then there will be no storm coverage
available or it will be extremely expensive. At the river Rhine in Germany for example
nobody can get a flood coverage, because the risk is too high.
• Michael Grubb asked Gina Roos about obtaining external funds for supporting energy
efficiency in buildings. Steve Lennon answered that the National Energy Policy in South
Africa pays a lot of attention to energy efficiency in the country and funds are obtained from
electric tariffs, small projects supported by the World Bank and other international agencies,
and other sources. The Clean Development Mechanism was a potential future source of
funding.
• Mike Whinihan asked about using biomass in order to avoid pollution, since the environment
is polluted and health is attacked when timber or animal dung are burned. Gina Roos and
Steve Lennon answered that they agree that biomass employment could be unsustainable, but
in those cases its use is discouraged. Oliver Headley commented about stoves and kitchens,
illustrating how in Barbados 20% of them function with LPG or natural gas.
• Ogun Davidson said that the crucial point is not the energy source, but the efficiency level
with which it is employed; if biomass is employed efficiently it could be a solution, but if it
is not, then its employment would be unsustainable. Overall, if people could use high quality
fuels and technologies, they would not employ timber inefficiently.
7 Panel Discussion
Five panellists were invited during the session, including Paul Cicio of IFIEC, USA, Seth Dunn
of Worldwatch Institute, USA, Michael Grubb from Imperial College, UK, José Moreira of
Biomass Users Network, Brazil and Jonathan Pershing of IEA. The panel, moderated by
Ogunlade Davidson, Co-chair of IPCC WG III, was asked to address four questions that emerged
from the first day's discussion. The questions were discussed separately, first by the panel, then
in general discussion 1 .
Q1. Given the variety and uncertainty of model results, how should policy makers interpret
the wide variances in energy market effects (in particular with respect to the effects on
coal, oil, and gas production, use, and export revenues)?
The panel agreed that markets forces were driving the changes in fossil fuel demand, and that in
the short term, these forces were likely to be larger than any climate change policy impacts.
Several panellists pointed out that we are currently on a business-as-usual course and likely to
remain on it through 2010. There was also agreement that models aggregate impacts beyond the
level that is of interest to policymakers. Exactly who were the winners and losers was critical and
these could be affected by policy choices.
Views from the Panellists
• Michael Grubb pointed out that there was general agreement on the impact of GHG
mitigation on the coal industry, but disagreements on the impact of these policies on oil and
natural gas. The effect on natural gas depended on the what happened to oil, and the impact
on oil will be policy-driven.
1
Additional comments on the issues in this session received after the meeting were attached to the end of
these session proceedings.
27