http://www.komotv.com/news/business/17264314.html
By JOSEPH COLEMAN, Associated Press Writer
BANGKOK, Thailand (AP) - With global markets in turmoil and the U.S. threatened by recession, negotiators at a climate change conference are asking: can nations afford to make rapid cuts in emissions to fight global warming without going into an economic tailspin?
The price of slashing the carbon dioxide emissions blamed for global warming is expected to be high, but proponents of firm action argue that delay will cost more in the long run.
“If you start having water supply problems in Peru, Chile and, a little further down the road, India and China, what are the global economic implications of that?” said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
The argument for quick action is that a climate pact would actually spur economic growth through new industries such as clean technology.
U.N. climate chief Yvo de Boer said businesses are eager for clear environmental guidelines so they can plan their investments accordingly.
“The current economic uncertainly makes it all the more important for governments to provide clarity on where they intend to go on this issue,” he said.
The United Nations launched talks this week in Thailand aimed at forging a new global warming pact by the end of 2009. It is hoped a new pact will help control greenhouse gas emissions and prevent rising temperatures from triggering an environmental disaster.
Rising sea levels, droughts and crop damage - already linked to global warming - can severely strain entire economies.
But the costs of reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere will be great.
Japan, for instance, recently issued a report estimating it would cost $500 billion just to cut domestic emissions 11 percent from 2005 levels by 2020. A separate estimate says cutting greenhouse gases would cost about 1 percent of global GDP annually.
U.S. climate negotiator Harlan Watson said such costs need to be factored in when deciding how deep the world ought to require industrialized nations to reduce emissions.
“If you push the globe into recession, it certainly isn’t going to help the developing world either,” he said. “Exports go down, and many of the developing countries of course are heavily dependent on exports. So there’s a lot of issues which need to be fleshed out … so people understand the real world.”
World Growth, a pro-business group, argues that quick action on climate change would do more harm than good.
“Immediate and substantial cuts in emissions will rapidly translate into reduced access to energy, lower economic growth and a reduced capacity to roll back poverty,” the group said in a report in December.
The current economic turmoil could draw more attention to the costs of combatting global warming, potentially complicating negotiations to put in place an international agreement to take the place of the Kyoto Protocol when it expires in 2012.
The current round of talks coincides with dire financial times in the United States.
Orders to U.S. factories fell for a second straight month, the government reported this week, reinforcing the fears of economists that believe a prolonged housing slowdown and credit crisis have already pushed the country into recession.
Economic concerns have damaged global warming agreements in the past. The United States, the only industrialized country not to ratify Kyoto, argued in recent years that the greenhouse gas reductions required by the pact would hurt its economy.
The economy hasn’t yet become a major topic in the Bangkok discussions, but it could be a concern in affected countries down the road, said Andrej Kranjc, secretary of Slovenia’s Environment Ministry, speaking for the European Commission in Bangkok.
“It could divert policy makers’ attention from climate change to these problems, of course, and it would be a problem,” he said.