Climate Change, Oil and Security: Connecting the Dots

Related Links

• Online Feature: Global Security
• State of the World 2005

Worldwatch Live Online Discussion

Janet Sawin: Senior Researcher

April 21, 2005 - 2:00pm EDT

The U.K. Chief Scientific Advisor David King and a growing number of leading scientists agree that climate change is ìthe most severe problem that we are facing todayómore serious even than the threat of terrorism.î Climate change, whether gradual or immediate, is likely to worsen droughts and famines, and contribute to weather-related disasters around the world. What are the dangers of climate change, and what is being done to address it?

Please join contributing author of State of the World 2005 Janet Sawin, Senior Researcher at Worldwatch, for an in-depth discussion on the links between climate change and security,†and the potential role of renewable energy†in reducing the warming threat and creating a more secure world.

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Welcome to Worldwatch Live. Our guest this week is Worldwatch Senior Researcher, Janet Sawin. Janet will be answering your questions related to her State of the World 2005 chapter, "Changing the Oil Economy." Trends, facts, and other resources related to State of the World 2005 can be found in our Global Security online feature. Welcome, Janet!

Janet Sawin: Thanks, Steve. It's good to be here. I look forward to "chatting" with people about these important issues.

Santa Barbara, Ca.: Has there been any consideration given to a massive food storage program as a tactic to prepare for extended droughts? The concept is to manage farm products as if they are the water that is inherent in their production. I have heard the approach refered to as "virtual water storage."

Janet Sawin: This is a good question. I am not aware of any such considerations or efforts (though I'm afraid that agriculture is not my area of expertise). I do know, however, that global grain stocks have actually fallen over the past several years. And, unfortunately, even massive food storage programs would offer only short-term solutions if we experience periods of extensive and widespread drought. But the "virtual water storage" approach that you mention is an interesting one. Brian Halweil of our staff might have more information on this topic.

Grand Valley: Are we all going to drown if the polar ice caps melt?

Janet Sawin:
Itís not likely that many people will drown as melting and the resultant sea level rise will occur fairly gradually. I suspect that most people will find a way to move elsewhere, to higher ground. However, the worldís coastlines and many of the worldís major cities will become uninhabitable if sea level rises significantly. And we will see an enormous number of environmental refugees.

According to Daniel Schrag, of Harvard University, a 1.5 meter (nearly 5 feet) rise in sea level would affect at least 17 million people and 22,000 square miles of land in Bangladesh alone. Since these people must all go someplace else, the crisis would actually affect millions of others as well, and possibly resulting in political disruption, disease and famine.

Scientists donít expect that sea level will rise so dramatically over the next century or so. But much of the worldís population, as well as very valuable coastal properties, is highly vulnerable to sea level rise, nonetheless. As of the late 1990s, more than 2 billion people lived within 60 miles (100 km) of a coastline. Rising waters have already begun to inundate some areas of the globe, threatening the very survival of low-lying island nations.

According to the EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency), global average sea level has risen 15-20 centimeters (6-8 inches) over the past century - due to a combination of thermal expansion (most significant to date) and glacial and snow melt. Much of this rise occurred over the past decade. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has projected that average sea level will rise another 10 centimeters (~4 in) to 90 cm (~35 in) by 2100, with the rate of increase accelerating as the century progresses. However, more recent studies suggestion that, due in part to accelerated glacial melting, sea level could rise another 1 meter (just over 3 feet) by the end of this century.

Los Angeles, California: In regards to climate change, do you feel that there is any basis in reality that the government is promoting climate change via manipulating climate testing?

Janet Sawin: Iím not sure that I understand your question, but if youíre asking if I believe that the U.S. government is manipulating scientific evidence to raise concerns about climate change, my answer is no. If anything, the Bush Administration has overlooked or ignored evidence that climate change is already occurring, that human activity (primarily the burning of fossil fuels) is the main cause, and that we need to begin taking serious steps now to reduce emissions in order to avoid dangerous climate change.

Lund University, Sweden: The Worldbank claims to be committed to adressing climate change issues. However it has little loans for renewable energy and other alternatives but more on oil extraction. Such loans have have only helped oil companies get richer and most country citizens poorer, with environmnetal problems. Activities in the Nigerian niger delta depicts such 'natural eresource curse'. The World Bank should know better. Is this not enough for an intervention of the international community on the activities of such oil companies and Worldbank.Such activites limit any progress towards reducing climate change effects, moreover they are related to Poverty, enivironmnetal degradation: Sustaninable Development in the long run of the areas involved and the globe at large

Janet Sawin: According to the Institute for Policy Studies, based in Washington, World Bank funding for fossil fuel projects over the past decade has exceeded that for renewable energy and energy efficiency by a factor of 18. Last June in Bonn, Germany at a major intergovernmental conference on renewable energy (see www.renewables2004.de for more information), World Bank leadership pledged to gradually increase the share of Bank funds going to renewable energy projects. Hopefully they will follow through on this pledge, but youíre correct in that they have a long way to go.

A number of studies have been done on this subject, including a recent report available at this site: http://www.seen.org/PDFs/Wrong_turn_Rio.pdf. The World Bankís perspective on its work and climate change is available at: www.worldbank.org/climatechange.

During the above-mentioned conference in Bonn last summer, government representatives from numerous developing countries explicitly said that without the use of their indigenous renewable energy resources, they simply will be unable to develop. Further investments in conventional energy projects and fossil fuel extractionóparticularly those at the expense of renewable energy investmentsósimply lock such countries into dependence on polluting, non-renewable energy sources, often lining the pockets of wealthy elite and supporting corruption and conflict rather than growth and development.

Worldwatch is currently working on a report on the links between renewable energy and development, and how the use of renewables can help to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals (goals adopted by all UN member countries - to dramatically reduce by 2015 the number of people who suffer from hunger, poverty, disease, etc.). This is part of our work to follow up on last year's renewable energy conference in Bonn - the final report should be available this fall.

Seattle WA: I believe environmentalists can join with oil companies and exporting companies to support higher gas prices. This is the only reliable way to interest folks in more efficient cars. Some of the higher price should be in taxes to support governemnt services such as transportation alternatives and infrastructure. Some should be invested by oil companies and exporting companies in cleaner manufacturing extraction and transportation processes for fuel. Higher gasoline prices would make ethanol, compressed natrual gas and hybrid cars more competitive as well. Do you agree that higher prices will be necessarry to encourage conservation? How can this be politically sold to the Congress and world players? Europe seems to have already done it.

Janet Sawin: Higher prices might not be enough for the short term ñ demand for oil continued to increase in the US last year, despite record high oil prices, and in recent years SUVs have represented a growing share of vehicle fleets in Europe, despite far higher prices there. At the same time, however, sales of large SUVs have begun to decline in the US due to high oil prices. And if prices continue to go up and people realize that these increases are long-term or even permanent, hopefully the majority will think more about what and how much they drive.

I agree that we need higher fuel taxes in countries like the US, where they are currently too low. Higher gas taxes would promote conservation while also helping to smooth out the roller coaster in fuel prices we will likely see in the years ahead. Further, taxes can help to internalize the external costs (security, health, environmental, etc.) of oil consumption while also providing more revenue to invest in public transportation, better urban design, and other alternatives. And as you suggest, such a step would make alternative fuels and more-efficient vehicles more competitive, encouraging automakers to increase their efforts to develop such vehicles.

Selling higher oil taxes to Congress (and most Americans) is another story, though. President Clinton couldnít get even a small gas tax increase through the US Congress in the early 1990s, and the House has just rejected a call for increased CAF… (vehicle fuel-efficiency) standards.

But, itís highly likely that prices will continue to rise even without government intervention. Demand for oil is rising rapidly around the world. In fact, the dramatic rise in oil prices from $24/barrel in 2002 to the $50+/barrel prices weíve seen in recent months is due in great part to increased consumption in China and the US. Itís also due to the fact that thereís virtually no spare capacity left for further increasing production. And this situation is not likely to change. Oil production is now in decline in 33 of the worldís 48 largest producing countries, including 6 of the 11 members of OPEC. And for the past three decades, oil companies have been extracting more oil than they have been finding. This gap has widened over the past 10 years, and a growing number of geologists and other experts believe that global oil production will peak within the next decade or so, after which global supplies will actually decline.

Parsis, France: How to reduce the threats induced by a nearly exclusive oil use (according to the different economical fields) without creating new dependences or revealing hidden risks upon other ressources uses ? For instance there might be an intensive competition between land use for food supply and land use for alternative ethanol automotive fuel.

Janet Sawin: Good question. We will need to tackle this challenge from a number of angles, including encouraging conservation and the production and use of more-efficient vehicles, greater investments in public transportation, improvements in urban design and reduction of sprawl (to make it easier for people to commute to work, shopping and elsewhere by foot or bicycle), and the promotion of alternative fuels. And somewhere down the road is the potential to tap energy from the sun, wind and other renewable sources to produce hydrogen to fuel our vehicles.

There is some concern, as you mention, that a significant increase in the use of alternatives such as ethanol and biodiesel could lead to competition over land and water resources, thereby threatening global food security, for example. There are a number of promising technologies on the horizon, and cellulosic ethanol (produced with agricultural waste), feedstock grown on marginal lands, etc. could reduce such risks. But questions remain regarding how much of the rapidly rising global demand for oil can be met with such fuels.

You might be interested to know that Worldwatch is just now beginning a year-long study, in collaboration with the German government, to look at the global potential of biofuels for transportation and the potential impacts on sustainable agriculture and energy. We hope to answer some of these pressing questions, and expect to release the report in May of next year. You might check back with us then for more information!

Washington, DC: I understand that the spread of West Nile Virus has been linked to global warming. Could you explain why this is and if we need to worry about the spread of other diseases such as malaria?

Janet Sawin: Vector borne diseases ñ such as West Nile Virus, malaria, dengue fever, cholera and typhoid ñ are expected to spread as the planet warms because the insects that carry them thrive in warmer climates. Rates of reproduction, growth and biting all go up with increases in temperature and moisture. As temperatures rise, mosquitoes, ticks and other such insects are moving to higher latitudes and altitudes, bringing with them diseases that are new to such areas, affecting both human and animal populations. An increase in rainfall ñ expected to occur in many regions as a result of climate change ñ can also lead to more standing pools of water, and thus more breeding grounds for mosquitoes, for example. And as summers grow longer and warmer, the period of time for transmission of diseases grows longer as well; as winters grow milder, thereís a greater chance that insect populations will not die off from year to year.

If youíre interested in learning more about this topic, Paul Epstein at Harvard University has written a helpful article called ìClimate Change and Public Health: Emerging Infectious Diseases,î available online at: http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/Encyclopedia.pdf. For more general information on links between climate change and health, see: http://www.med.harvard.edu/chge/resources.html (this is the link to Harvard Universityís Center for Health and the Global Environment).

Amsterdam, Netherlands: One of the frequent justifications for doing little or nothing in the present about climate change is that technology will progress to the point where we will be able to resolve many of the factors causing climate change. Could you please speak about how realistic this assumption of "technological salvation" actually is? In particular - based on current technology, financing and support of new technologies, and the rate of technological innovation - is this justification even remotely reasonable? Moreover, what should we be focusing on in terms of technology - GHG mitigation or GHG reduction?

Janet Sawin: Technologies can and will play a role in addressing climate change. However, continuing with business-as-usual is not an option. First, due to the time lag between when emissions are released and when their impacts are felt, we have already set in motion climate impacts that cannot be undone. In fact, around the world we are already seeing the impacts of human-induced climate change, from species migration (to higher altitudes, for example) and extinction to increased intensity and frequency of droughts, floods and severe storms. Second, the longer we wait to reduce global emissions, the more costly it will be ñ the impacts associated with climate change will likely be more dramatic and destructive, while global emissions will need to be reduced by an even greater amount, requiring rapid and enormous investments in new technologies and infrastructures, and even more significant changes in lifestyle. Scientists are already calling for reductions of 50% or more in global emissions over the next several decades in order to avoid catastrophic change.

So, I think the questions we face are: Will technology be enough? Will we pursue the ìrightî technologies? And will we pursue them with the required urgency?

Technology wonít be enough to avoid climate change. We will still need to adapt, to some extent, no matter what - which will be far easier for wealthy, industrial societies than for developing nations. But technology can take us a long way toward reducing the threat, and we need to begin now to bring these technologies on line, so to speak, as we need big solutions and it will take time to put them in place. Efforts and investments being made today are a mere fraction of what we need to be doing to address the serious threat of climate change. We need the political will, on a massive scale, and strong, consistent government policies to drive markets for clean and more efficient energy technologies. I hope that we will pursue them with the required urgency, but we have a very long way to go.

Regarding the technologies required, we need a combination of dramatic improvements in efficiency (many great technologies are already available today, and just not in extensive use), renewable energy, and conservation. The use of renewable energy technologies is increasing rapidly around the world, with solar and wind power the fastest growing energy technologies over the past decade or so. Renewables still represent only a fraction of global energy use. But itís encouraging to note that this growth, and significant advances in technologies and cost reductions seen to date, are due to strong and consistent policies enacted in just a handful of countries. Imagine what can happen as more and more countries join the renewable energy bandwagon ñ including China, which just enacted a landmark law to significantly advance the development and use of renewables for electricity generation, transport fuels, and for water and space heating.

Carbon capture and sequestration have also been raised as possible technical solutions to climate change. Itís important to point out that this option is both uncertain (there are serious concerns about possible leakage, and potential impacts of storing large amounts of CO2 in the oceans, etc) and likely very costly. My view is that, to the extent that such technologies are used, they should be to reduce the threat of catastrophic change rather than to enable us to continue with business-as-usual (continuing to rely primarily on carbon-based fuels). Investment in these options should not be done at the expense of moving us rapidly toward a renewable energy future.

Tauberbischofsheim/Germany: The best way to go on Renewable Energies ist the full-cost-rate system. We can do this in Germany with the law "EEG" (Renewable-Energies-Law") and have doubled the part of renewable energies in 5 years. Following this is the best way to introduce solar energies. This is agreeing with market by internalizing of external costs. This is no subsidy, but an levy contribution. Why you cannot follow this successful way?

Janet Sawin: Youíre right. Germany has seen impressive advances in renewable energy over the past several years, with a significant increase in renewable energy capacity. In less than a decade, Germany went from being a laggard in renewable technologies to a world leader.

I am well aware of the success of feed-in (or pricing) laws for renewable energy, in Germany and elsewhere, and have written extensively on this topic. (For links to some of these, see www.worldwatch.org/features/renewables; see also http://www.renewables2004.de/pdf/tbp/TBP03-policies.pdf) While not all countries with feed-in systems have seen the same success, these policies have consistently proved to be the most successful to date for promoting renewable electricity generation. (Other policy mechanisms are required to promote renewable fuels, and the use of renewable technologies for heating and cooling, for example.)

Such laws have provided renewable generators with fair access to the electric grid, a guaranteed market, and long-term price guarantees that ensure that producers will recover their costs (while, in Germany and elsewhere, encouraging cost reductions over time through declining payments). The combination of a guaranteed market and long-term minimum payments has reduced investment risks, making it profitable to invest in renewable technologies and easier to obtain financing. By driving demand for renewable energy, such laws have attracted private investment for research and development, have spread the cost of technology advancement and diffusion relatively evenly across populations, and have enabled the scale economies in production and the experience in installation, operation and maintenance required to dramatically reduce costs of renewable technologies and generation.

China is now heading in this direction thanks to the new national renewable energy law mentioned above. It was adopted in the end of February and aims to promote the development and use of renewable energy technologies and fuels. Worldwatch played a role in the drafting of this law and strongly encouraged the Chinese government to adopt the feed-in type policy.

In the United States and some other countries, this type of system is considered to be less "market friendly" than quota systems ñ such as the Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS), which has been enacted in about one third of US states to date. In my view, however, feed-in/pricing systems are actually more market friendly as they open the market to all, and set specific prices for renewable electricity generation, allowing anyone to participate; under quota systems, by contrast, governments mandate specific levels of generation or capacity and require companies (generally electric utilities) to meet them. I think this false perception about what is more market-oriented, and perhaps a lack of awareness of the great success experienced in Germany and elsewhere, are major reasons for why this policy has not been adopted even more widely. Youíll be interested to know, however, that even in the US some states are beginning to look seriously at this option ñ for example, Washington State is close to passing a statewide feed-in system (if it hasnít already done so!).

Steve Conklin, Worldwatch Institute: Thanks for joining us today, Janet!

Janet Sawin: Thank you, Steve. And thanks to everyone who participated and sent such great and challenging questions!