OPINION: CONGRESS NEEDS A MARSHALL PLAN IN CLIMATE-CHANGE DEBATE

The Hill, 28 February 2007

 HYPERLINK "javascript:ol('http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/OpEd/022807_marsha');" http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/OpEd/022807_marsha

ll.html

By Margo Thorning, Ph.D.

The recent report released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change on the consequences of increasing greenhouse gases (GHG) is a

valuable contribution to the ongoing debate in understanding climate

science. However, policymakers need to have a clear understanding of the

likely economic impacts of alternative approaches to slowing the growth

or reducing the level of greenhouse gas emissions.

While President Bush outlined bold steps in his State of the Union

address to slow the growth of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, Democratic

leaders on Capitol Hill appear aggressively set on their own track to

tackle the issue. Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has appointed a

controversial special committee to study climate change. And, at the

helm of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, Sen. Barbara

Boxer (D-Calif.) is poised to push for emissions caps on greenhouse

gases.

Al Gore's Oscar win for "An Inconvenient Truth" will no doubt become a

centerpiece of the debate and generate even more demand for immediate

action.

But before the nation is led down the path of the Kyoto protocol or the

dramatic carbon dioxide emission reductions adopted in California, the

home state of Pelosi and Boxer, a close look should be given to the high

price tag of such "solutions."

The European Union's attempt to meet its Kyoto Protocol target is

failing. The European Environmental Agency projects that the EU 15 will

be 4 percent over its Kyoto target by 2010 without strong new measures

to curb energy use. The EU's emission trading system is not working

because only 40 percent of emissions are covered, and raising all energy

prices enough to meet Kyoto targets would be political suicide.

Research with a variety of economic models show that the Kyoto Protocol

targets would reduce U.S. GDP by 1 to 4 percent by 2010 and cost almost

2 million jobs. Less-stringent targets such as those in the

McCain-Lieberman bill could reduce GDP by 1 percent by 2010 and cost

almost 1 million jobs.

The real economic costs to the U.S. of mandatory carbon emission targets

must be weighed against the environmental benefits. U.S. emissions are a

falling share of global emissions; in fact, China's are now expected to

exceed those of the U.S. by about 2009.

Unless the new majority in Congress looks at GHG reductions on a global

scale, mandatory emission reductions in the U.S. would be all pain and

little or no gain for the environment.

A good first step for Congress would be to approve the $52 million in

seed money for the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and

Climate (AP6) as prescribed by the 2005 energy bill. The goals of the

AP6 agreement are to promote both global economic development and the

use of cleaner, less-emitting energy technologies. The AP6 countries -

China, India, Japan, Korea, the U.S. and Australia - have half of the

world's population, use about half of the world's energy and emit about

half of all global greenhouse gas emissions.

Unlike the Kyoto Protocol's mandatory GHG reduction, the AP6 partnership

focuses on practical steps to promote cleaner, less-emitting technology

for electricity generation from coal-fired plants, capturing and storing

carbon dioxide as well as reducing emissions from steel, aluminum

production, and coal mining in both developing as well as developed

countries. Increasing energy efficiency for buildings and renewable

energy supplies are also part of the AP6 agenda to promote economic

growth and reductions in all types of emissions, including GHGs.

The partnership relies on sharing technology with developing countries,

which is exactly what Sens. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.)

advocated in the Hagel-Pryor amendment. This piece of bi-partisan

legislation promoted the adoption of technologies that reduce GHG

intensity (amount of GHGs emitted per dollar of output) in the United

States and in developing countries. It was a critical piece of the 2005

energy bill, which President Bush signed. The partnership also owes a

great debt to Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) for his leadership in the 2000

Clean Energy Technology Export Initiative, which focused on the

commercial development and deployment of clean energy.

In practical terms, transferring the cleanest, most energy-efficient

technologies to countries like China, India and other emerging economies

whose emissions are growing rapidly will yield significant benefits.

According to analysis conducted for ICCF, lowering the emissions

intensity of developing countries to that currently associated with new

investment in the U.S. would be roughly equal to what would be

accomplished under the Kyoto Protocol by 2012 (assuming all 39 counties

with targets met their goals).

Facilitating the adoption of the newest technologies will require

initiative and vision from government officials. Promoting a favorable

investment climate is a key requirement. The Chinese and Indian

governments have already taken farsighted steps to do that, but more

could be done to minimize corruption and regulatory burdens, establish

effective rule of law, recognize intellectual property rights and permit

capital to flow freely in to and out of countries. Progress in these

areas will bolster the climate for critical foreign direct investment.

But AP6 and other efforts like it cannot succeed without sustained

cooperation between business and government. Only when governments are

confident that foreign direct investment is likely to take place in the

wake of politically risky reforms are they likely to act. As such,

businesses and firms from the U.S., Europe, Japan, Korea and Australia

that are already present in China and India and are familiar with the

legal, political, cultural and economic terrain have a significant role

to play.

Remembering the success of the Marshall Plan is helpful here. After

World War II, European governments pledged various actions with the

money provided by the U.S. government, working in concert with business

interests. When Europeans made good on those pledges the plan was

extended and broadened. AP6 could operate similarly. Future actions by

Australia, Japan, Korea and the United States desired by China and India

would be contingent on success in implementing near term reforms agreed

to in the process.

Dr. Margo Thorning is managing director of the International Center for

Capital Formation (www.ICCFglobal.org), a European think tank focused on

public policies to promote savings and investment in the private sector.

ICCF advocates the reductions of tax, regulatory, anti-trust, and trade

barriers to promote business investment, strong job growth and

competitiveness.

Copyright 2007, The Hill