The Stern Review also suggests that per capita GDP losses due to climate change could total 35.2 percent in 2200 if one accounts for the risk of catastrophe, and market and non-market losses (SR, pp. 156 and 158). I will, for the sake of calculating a lower bound for the GDP per capita under climate change in 2100, assume that the losses would equal 40 percent in that year, that is, double the losses shown in Table 1. Even under this extreme assumption, the net GDP per capita for developing countries in 2100, ranging from $8,015 under the A2 (poorest) scenario to $39,900 under the A1FI (warmest) scenario, would substantially exceed the 1990 level of $875. Notably, under the A1FI scenario, the average inhabitant of the developing world would be better off in 2100 than the average person in the industrialized world was in 1990 even if climate change losses amount to 78 percent of GDP.

Thus, by using low or declining discount rates, the Stern Review would have today’s poorer generations subsidize tomorrow’s much wealthier generations to make them even richer. In addition, because of the combination of greater wealth and secular advances in technology, future generations would have greater access to more sophisticated technologies to improve their health and otherwise advance their well-being, which, moreover, would enhance their capacity to cope not only with climate change but all other forms of adversity, despite a 20 percent (or greater) loss in GDP due to climate change. Accordingly, a wealth transfer from current to future generations (and a low discount rate) does not serve intergenerational equity. One must question the ethics of using low discount rates that would encourage withholding resources from today’s poorer and less technologically advanced societies who suffer from numerous real poverty-related problems such as hunger, disease, unsafe water and poor sanitation in order to solve the less certain problems that may — or may not be — faced by tomorrow’s richer and more technologically advanced societies.

Table 1 also illustrates a second point, namely, even with climate change, human well-being would be higher in the richest-but-warmest world characterized by the A1FI scenario than it would be under other scenarios (see also Goklany, 2005a). Moreover, for three of the four scenarios, on average the developing world will be better off in 2100 than the industrialized world is today, even after accounting for climate change. The A2 world — the scenario with the slowest growth — is the exception. Accordingly, results of the Stern Review suggest that at this time greater priority should be placed on sustainable economic growth for present generations, rather than reducing greenhouse gas emissions to benefit future, wealthier generations.

As shown elsewhere, in a piece titled “Living with global warming”, this doesn’t mean that nothing need be done about climate change now. That paper notes that climate change doesn’t create new problems as much as it exacerbates existing ones, e.g., malaria, water shortage, hunger and flooding (see, also, Lawson 2006). Moreover, the results of the FTA and its precursors reveal that through the foreseeable future the contribution of climate change to these problems is generally small compared to other non-climate-change-related factors (Goklany 2005b). These two features suggest that over the next few decades the focus of climate policy should be to: (a) broadly advance sustainable development, (b) reduce vulnerabilities to climate-sensitive problems that are urgent today and might be exacerbated by future climate change, and (c) implement “no-regret” policies, such as eliminating subsidies for energy consumption, land conversion and agricultural overproduction in developed countries, while (d) striving to expand the universe of such measures through research and development of cleaner and more affordable technologies, and (e) closely monitoring climate change and its impacts so that rational mid-course corrections can be devised, but without the hysteria accompanying the Stern Review.

Such a policy would help solve urgent problems facing humanity today while increasing its ability to address future problems that might be caused or heightened by climate change. As shown explicitly in the references furnished above, over the foreseeable future such an approach would provide greater benefits more rapidly than even eliminating further climate change. The bonus is that it would cost far less than the 1 percent of global GDP that the Stern Review estimates would be the cost of stabilization at 550 ppm.

A full PDF version of this comment is available online here.

End Notes
EN1. The 20 percent estimate considers both market and non-market impacts of climate change. It also assumes that climate sensitivity to greenhouse gases is high, and it weighs climate change consequences for the poor more heavily.
EN2. I use market exchange rates (MXR) only because the data are readily available in terms of the MXR rather than purchasing power parity (PPP). The differences between current and future GDP per capita might have been lower had PPP-based rates been used, although given the wide gaps in GDP per capita projected between 2100 and 1990, the basic results of this analysis are unlikely to change. The GDP per capita figures for 1990 are taken from the World Resources Institute’s EarthTrends, online at http://earthtrends.wri.org/.

Delaying technology can be deadly

Activist opposition to bio-pharmaceuticals perpetuates disease risks

Paul Driessen

In sub-Saharan Africa and poor areas of Asia and Latin America, diarrhea isn't just a source of mild discomfort and juvenile bathroom humor. Because of unsanitary conditions, contaminated water and food infected by bacteria in feces used for fertilizer, people in those regions endure 4 billion episodes of severe diarrhea a year. Up to 2 million die annually.

Among children in the United States, acute diarrhea accounts for more than1.5 million outpatient visits, 200,000 hospitalizations, and 300 deaths a year. It imposes a multi-billion dollar burden on the US healthcare system.

But miracles of modern medical and agricultural science offer hope.

For years, glucose-based rehydration solutions (similar to Pedialyte) were used to treat diarrhea. They saved countless lives, by replacing lost salts, sugars and bodily fluids. However, even with the successful health outcomes, these solutions did not reduce the incidence or severity of childhood diarrhea.

Now Ventria Bioscience has developed an advanced solution that augments standard rehydration solutions, by adding protective human proteins (lactoferrin and lysozyme) found in all human saliva and breast milk.

A recent child health study demonstrated that the proteins cut the average duration of children's diarrhea by 30 percent (1.5 days), and patients were half as likely to get diarrhea again during the next twelve months. Equally important, Ventria produces the proteins in a special variety of rice, which makes its rehydration solution affordable, even for people in poor countries.

Ventria achieved its remarkable breakthrough by altering rice DNA and using rice plants as factories that utilize the sun, soil and water as raw materials to produce the proteins. The company extracts the proteins and adds them to rehydration solutions. Its success could convert one of the world's most essential foods into a valuable life saver.

In another achievement, SemBioSys Genetics created genetically engineered safflowers that produce insulin at commercial levels: an acre of safflower can produce a kilogram of insulin, enough for 2,500 patients. Fewer than 16,000 acres - about 0.2% of what Iowa farmers devote to corn (maize) - would cover projected 2010 world demand for insulin. With diabetes on the rise in India and elsewhere, this advance could be vital.

Syngenta is working on plant-based antibodies that fight infections and skin disease. Other scientists are enhancing plants to produce vaccines, hormones and enzymes that can treat HIV, cancer, heart and kidney disease, spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis, cystic fibrosis, hepatitis, anthrax, West Nile virus and arthritis.

It costs around $1,000 to produce 1 gram (0.035 ounce) of protein from animal cells, making many such vaccines prohibitively costly for even the wealthiest countries, and completely out of reach for destitute countries. Producing the same amount from gene-altered plants would cost less than $20 - and that means pharmaceutical companies will be able to put a higher priority on finding cures for rare and “orphan” diseases across the globe.

But amazingly, instead of applauding these life-saving innovations, critics are attacking them. Luddite radicals like the Center for Food Safety, Union of Concerned Scientists and Greenpeace assert that this "Frankenstein" technology tampers with nature and could "contaminate" other crops. These groups are well funded by organic food interests and others who profit by attempting to scare the public. The European Union and organic food industries demand stringent, costly, unnecessary regulations that impose unconscionable delays and result in death for some of the world's most needy children.

Breeders have been improving plants for millennia, using a variety of genetic technologies. Plant biotechnology is simply a refinement of the earlier, cruder techniques. Today’s researchers employ genetic technologies that are far more careful and precise - and management practices that maintain closed production systems and virtually eliminate any risks of accidental cross-pollination and gene migration.

But none of these facts are persuasive to "anti-humanists who put unfounded fear-mongering ahead of the world’s children," says Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore. Healthy, well-fed, safe from diseases that kill millions in other countries, with access to abundant clean water and electricity - they obsess about purely speculative risks from technologies that could improve and save countless lives.

In so doing, they prolong disease risks for countless human beings. They throw roadblocks in the path of scientific and technological progress that so far has eluded the world’s poor, even as it improved our own health, nutrition, living standards and life spans.

My personal experience with polio (luckily after receiving two Salk inoculations) made me eternally grateful that these "ethicists" weren’t around 50 years ago to stymie research and field trials of that vaccine. My generation can also count its blessings for treatments, antibiotics and other vaccines that have saved many of us and our children.

It is now the responsibility of our generation to protect children, the poor and future generations from mean-spirited Luddite groups that are paid to undermine our technological progress and humanity. It is time for legislators, regulators, judges and people of conscience to say "enough."

The world needs these miraculous technologies - today. And those who support radical anti-biotech organizations need to understand that, by blocking healthcare innovations, they are perpetuating misery, disease and premature death in countries the world over. That is simply immoral.

___________

Paul Driessen is senior policy advisor for the Congress of Racial Equality and Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow, and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power ∙ Black death (www.Eco-Imperialism.com).

Instead EPA continues to publish reports on children's health and the environment. It almost doesn't matter what the reports say. The very fact that EPA publishes health reports at all creates the false appearance that the trace levels of air pollution in the environments of western countries are an important factor in children's health. After all, if air pollutants weren't a significant factor in people’s health, EPA certainly wouldn't publish reports about them, would it?

A report by E&E; News (subscription required) makes it clear that what’s in EPA health reports doesn't actually matter. The story opens with "While the number of children living in areas violating ozone and particulate matter (PM) standards has declined in recent years, adolescent asthma that results from exposure to such pollutants continues to rise, according to new U.S. EPA statistics." The journalistic goal is to raise health alarms, whether warranted or not. Thus, the news story itself says air pollution, the presumptive cause of asthma, went down and yet asthma prevalence went up. However, the reporter claims air pollution is responsible for rising asthma just the same.

The story then goes on to say that "the agency recently thwarted recommendations from a science advisory panel that called for the health standard to be strengthened." This creates the appearance that EPA didn't tighten the PM2.5 standard. In reality, EPA tightened the standard enough to increase the number of metropolitan areas violating the standard by 80% (from 15% of metro areas up to 27%).

Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch is quoted as calling the EPA report "breathtaking hypocrisy." Presumably he objects to EPA pointing out that air pollution has declined while asthma has gone up. You see, we all know air pollution causes asthma, so any evidence that it doesn't is hypocrisy. And we all know George Bush has rolled back the Clean Air Act, so any evidence that air pollution has declined must be hypocrisy also.

The news story closes by saying "While the [EPA] report notes the pollution can be a contributing factor to asthma and other health conditions in children, 'other factors may be more important, such as family history, nutrition, and socioeconomic factors.'" Why would the reporter quote EPA for the statement that "other factors may be more important" in causing asthma, rather than merely stating it as a fact. It is a fact. Actually, the real fact is that "other factors" not only "may" but actually do account for almost all asthma incidence and exacerbations, while air pollution accounts for virtually none. But by quoting EPA for the statement about non-pollution causes of asthma, the reporter creates the impression that this is just what EPA says in order to deflect attention from the real cause of asthma, which we all know is air pollution.

Do I sound dejected? Where's that bottle of bourbon...

There are obvious political and technical problems with bringing such an agreement on line, but nothing that the Kyotophiles won't hook-or-crook their way thru, rules be damned, if not loudly called on it. So it is our duty in advance to ensure that at least the flaws, downsides (upsides) and motivations be in the public domain ab initio. This is particularly true now that the UNFCCC has floated the outrageous idea of postponing "post-2012" decisions until a more suitable US president is installed...blaming Bush's reluctance to join the sinking ship for their own inability to reduce emissions and to attract new members (Parties), which they absolutely must have, as a source of credits to buy, in order to have a Round II.

Structural and Political Problems

A glaring problem is that California is not an Annex I Party to the treaty, as is required by any of the relevant provisions for such transfer of emission reduction units (esp. Article 6). That is not a technicality; a series of requirements of Parties dictates their eligibility for various schemes, including the Art. 6 emissions trading provision. So, the frontal approach to setting up a scheme with California requires that the treaty be amended, with such amendment ratified by the requisite number of Parties pursuant to Kyoto's established procedures. We know this won't happen, as was clear at the Montreal COP when the Saudis proposed the (required, under Article 18) amendment to make Kyoto's penalties binding and enforceable. Canada and Europe objected by acknowledging that that is a difficult row to hoe as evidenced by the treaty's tortured path to effectiveness. As a dodge, they adopted a non-binding "Decision" claiming that Kyoto has binding penalties. So, as would be established at the first confrontation, Kyoto does not have binding penalties. This does not mean they could not try the same approach to somehow allow CA to accede to the Treaty in some capacity.

Or, CA should become a Party to Kyoto -- and we should ask Arnie, "hey, why not?". One reason is found in the Constitution and, who knows, they might obtain congressional approval. However, Congress has yet to step up and assert its constitutional role on any of these climate non-aggression pacts to date as required, so why should we assume they would here? (Of course, being a Party also requires CA to pour aid into various rat holes around the world. This is a good opportunity to point out this additional appeal of Kyoto.) The next problem to CA simply becoming an Annex I Party is that, despite the hype, CA's scheme promises such a radically different metric: 1990 levels by 2025 is certainly not the same as 8% (or choose your #, 7%) below 1990 by 2010. Simply incomparable. So, if this would make CA the Silicon Valley of windmills, why imagine what actually joining the first of 30 steps, not of 60, would do! I think we can rule out CA acceding to Kyoto, which would require it to immediately in essence double and fast-track its (supposedly) Kyoto-like promise. Or, it would require the rest of Kyoto's Parties to let in a slacker on easier terms. Sure! But I would beg the question.

So, CA cannot engage or be engaged under the trading scheme. How about JI (splitting credits for investments in other Annex I Parties, designed for Central and Eastern Europe)? Well, again, that's for Annex I Parties. CDM? CA is obviously not "a Party not included in Annex I", as required in Article 12, which is how the Treaty throughout refers to the 100+ free-riding, ratified Parties...again because they are not a Party. So, an option is for CA to accede to Kyoto but as a Party not included in Annex I, though this would serve them only to receive development projects, not "trade emissions." It is the latter the EU wants, and, again, we would see a green revolt if CA were treated like China and India under Kyoto.

How to get around these problems

So, the question remains: how in the world can Kyoto grant credit for buying credits from outside the system?

Here's how, and it's pretty cynical and worthy of mockery. Europe would seek to include CA as a "legal entity" authorized under Article 6.3, allowing "A Party included in Annex I [to] authorize legal entities to participate, under its responsibility, in actions leading to the generation, transfer or acquisition under this Article of emission reduction units".

So, California would join the EU or, officially for these purposes, become what I call it: Western Europe.

Why, Chris, those of you with intact memories are doubtless saying, isn't this precisely what you've suggested for years that California and any other state so pressed by its rent-seekers should just do to stop agitating for US involvement in Kyoto, and move on, show some initiative, self-sufficiency, and so on? Why, yes. Shut up about Washington holding you back from energy rationing and work it out yourselves. If you've got credits to sell, Europe needs you. You don't join the EU or Kyoto, and burden yourself with all of its baggage. You would instead be granted a "privileged partnership." You would become Turkey, with better plumbing.

There's more to the story: "supplementarity" rears its head

Please ponder the opportunities here: the greens and Europe see this as offering a way to slap Bush: The one sane State has effectively joined Europe for treaty purposes (again, for those who have read the Constitution...). In the meantime, this raises the issue we have given them all a free pass on, while they fight amongst themselves and the greens: "supplementarity," or the Article 6.1(d) requirement (repeated with some squishiness about what it means, in umpteen provisions and subsequent formal docs) that "The acquisition of emission reduction units shall be supplemental to domestic actions for the purposes of meeting commitments under Article 3."

On its face, the supplementarity requirement indicates that a Party must actually reduce at least half of its "reduction" requirement, and only buy the other half. The EU has weakened this to actual reductions must constitute a "significant" portion of the promise, and buy the rest. So be it.

But, what happens when you aren't reducing emissions at all, like nearly every EU country? Well, the EU then falls back on its Article 4 "bubble", under which the EU is now the Party to Kyoto, unless and until it fails to meet its 2008-2012 promise. At which point, per Article 4.5, each Member state is stuck with its individual promise made under the Burden Sharing Agreement (not their original promise of 8% below 1990, but what they superseded it with, which will really hurt in some cases (DK, DE), and be a lessening of the pain in others (ES, PT, GR, SW, FR).

What if, in fact, you intend to buy the entirety of your promise, as is the case in Europe given that all non-EU projections have them not just insufficiently reducing emissions, but increasing emissions Cf. 1990 by 2010? Further, what about those many EU states actually permitted to increase emissions? How do the particulars of the "supplementarity" requirement apply to them?

As usual, the answer is: with fudging. It seems apparent that the EU is moving toward claiming that "but for" whatever they've done domestically, emissions would have been...whatever is necessary to claim that they are significantly "reducing" (avoiding) emissions so as to remain eligible to trade (among themselves, w/CA, etc.), participate in CDM, and so on. That is how they will get around the "supplementarity" requirement.

In this context, outsourcing your reductions to a non-Party seems small beer. But supplementarity is a hook for us to point out how, yet again, there are no such things as rules for Europe when it comes to Kyoto. They've bent every single one presented, and broken a few more, on their inevitable march to climate victory.

This doesn't solve everything...yet

Yet, "supplementarity" fudging remains the biggest point of contention between the greens and the Kyoto establishment (not dissimilar to that in CA, where the greens are furious at Arnie for seeking to write emissions trading in as part of the law thru exec order). Supplementarity has not been resolved; the bad news is the greens know that unless they cave to ensure that whatever must be allowed to claim compliance will be allowed, then their pact is a dead letter. It ain't over, but we should make the point in the meantime that this is one more way Europe is cheating its way around the fairly plain requirement of "supplementarity": by outsourcing its emission "reductions" to the US! The US saves Europe on Kyoto, as they always knew it would...if not precisely how they expected. [actually, the more one can outsource cuts the better of course from most of our perspectives, were we to find ourselves caught in such a boondoggle; but that's neither here nor there].

I admit being puzzled by this: Does CA really think it has credits to sell?

This is being driven so far as I can tell by two camps: 1) Europe, which desperately needs a) credits and b) to save face and even crow about some quasi-anti-Bush victory; and 2) those putative credit-selling CA businesses angry over not having won the bet on "early action" credits, who can now institute a program that, if they pull it off, seems designed to raise the cost of their credits.

-- Chris Horner