1.3 Integrating the Various Perspectives
Extending discussions of how nations might respond to the mitigation challenge
so that they include issues of cost-effectiveness and efficiency, distribution
narrowly defined, equity more broadly defined, and sustainability, adds enormous
complexity to the problem of uncovering how best to respond to the threat of
climate change. Indeed, recognizing that these multiple domains are relevant
complicates the task assigned to policymakers and international negotiators
by opening their deliberations to issues that lie beyond the boundaries of the
climate change problem, per se. Their recognition thereby underlines the importance
of integrating scientific thought across a wide range of new policy-relevant
contexts, but not simply because of some abstract academic or narrow parochial
interest advanced by a small set of researchers or nations. Cost-effectiveness,
equity, and sustainability have all been identified as critical issues by the
drafters of the UNFCCC, and they are an integral part of the charge given to
the drafters of the TAR. Integration across the domains of cost-effectiveness,
equity, and sustainability is therefore profoundly relevant to policy deliberations
according to the letter as well as the spirit of the UNFCCC itself.
The literature being brought to bear on climate change mitigation increasingly
shows that policies lying beyond simply reducing GHG emissions from a specified
baseline to minimize costs can be extremely effective in abating the emission
of GHGs. Therefore, a portfolio approach to policy and analysis would be more
effective than exclusive reliance on a narrow set of policy instruments or analytical
tools. Besides the flexibility that an expanded range of policy instruments
and analytical tools can provide to policymakers for achieving climate objectives,
the explicit inclusion of additional policy objectives also increases the likelihood
of "buy-in" to climate policies by more participants. In particular,
it will expand the range of no regrets2
options. Finally, it could assist in tailoring policies to short-, medium-,
and long-term goals.
In order to be effective, however, a portfolio approach requires weighing the
costs and impacts of the broader set of policies according to a longer list
of objectives. Climate deliberations need to consider the climate ramifications
of policies designed primarily to address a wide range of issues including DES,
as well as the likely impacts of climate policies on the achievement of these
objectives. As part of this process the opportunity costs and impacts of each
instrument are measured against the multiple criteria defined by these multiple
objectives. Furthermore, the number of decision makers or stakeholders to be
considered is increased beyond national policymakers and international negotiators
to include state, local, community, and household agents, as well as non-government
organizations (NGOs).
The term "ancillary benefits" is often used in the literature for
the ancillary, or secondary, effects of climate change mitigation policies on
problems other than GHG emissions, such as reductions in local and regional
air pollution, associated with the reduction of fossil fuels, and indirect effects
on issues such as transportation, agriculture, land use practices, biodiversity
preservation, employment, and fuel security. Sometimes these are referred to
as "ancillary impacts", to reflect the fact that in some cases the
benefits may be negative3.
The concept of "mitigative capacity" is also introduced as a possible
way to integrate results derived from the application of the three perspectives
in the future. The determinants of the capacity to mitigate climate change include
the availability of technological and policy options, and access to resources
to underwrite undertaking those options. These determinants are the focus of
much of the TAR. The list of determinants is, however, longer than this. Mitigative
capacity also depends upon nation-specific characteristics that facilitate the
pursuit of sustainable development - e.g., the distribution of resources,
the relative empowerment of various segments of the population, the credibility
of empowered decision makers, the degree to which climate objectives complement
other objectives, access to credible information and analyses, the will to act
on that information, the ability to spread risk intra- and inter-generationally,
and so on. Given that the determinants of mitigative capacity are essentially
the same as those of the analogous concept of adaptive capacity introduced in
the WGII Report, this approach may provide an integrated framework for assessing
both sets of options.
|
