Klimaveränderung; Umweltabkommen; Emissionshandel; Außenpolitik; EU-Staaten; OPEC-Staaten

Christian Ude

English

Research Papers in Economics

CESifo Forum 3/2009 3
Welcome
Welcome Speech by
CHRISTIAN UDE
Lord Mayor of the City of Munich
Ladies and Gentlemen,as Mayor of Munich,it is my
pleasure to greet and welcome the participants of
the 8th Munich Economic Summit to the Bavarian
capital city! I am pleased that you selected the sub-
ject ‘Climate and Energy: Right Goals, Wrong
Approach?’ for this year’s meeting.
Although the global finance and economic crisis is in
focus these days, we should not forget that the cli-
mate change is here to stay, at best with a lower im-
pact perhaps. Due to a lower demand for products
and services there is also less demand for energy.
However, the solution for a favorable development
of the world climate cannot be that the economy is
going down the drain. Because this would lead to
very critical social problems, in particular for poorer
countries and countries like Brazil, China and India
which cannot be denied to be looking for a similar
level as the industrialized countries.
The subject of climate change is a global problem as
we know, but even the German cities can make a
contribution, no doubt. I am Mayor of a city, which
has committed itself to promote environmental and
climate protection a long time ago and which is
proud of its leading position in Germany. Being a
board member of the German Association of Cities,
the umbrella organization of German cities, I plead
to anchor the subject of climate protection in the
work of the cities even more.
As in previous years, the Munich Economic Summit
has featured top-level scientists and experts from
industry and politics.Climate and energy are in focus
this time. Nevertheless, I would like to share with
you some thoughts and expectations along these
lines before the forum starts.
Meanwhile, there is no controversy in scientific
and public circles that the climate change caused
by humanity is well in process. And the develop-
ment is more dynamic than originally predicted.
The major concern of the man-made climate
change is the climate-relevant gas: carbon dioxide,
in short CO2, which is released due to the combus-
tion of fossil energies. The next climate-killer is
methane, which is largely released in agriculture
and cattle breeding.
We, that means all mankind, have to take action to
prevent it from getting worse! The certainly provok-
ing theme ‘Adapt, Mitigate or Die!’ of the initial
debates is only showing alternatives at first glance,
however.As we do not want to die as a result of cli-
mate change,we cannot continue as before.Avoiding
or adapting are no alternatives but must be done in
addition. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change is showing us the way. All of the world’s
countries have to make their contribution to limit
the ongoing climate change to a maximum of two
degrees Celsius. A higher warming of average tem-
peratures of the earth would bring about incalcula-
ble risks. In addition, measures will have to be taken
to adapt to the already unavoidable consequences of
climate change.
Furthermore, many scientists are pointing out that
the financial means to limit climate change are at
hand and that it is even more economical than tak-
ing adaptive measures to buffer the growing conse-
quences. I am thinking of the expert opinion by Sir
Nicholas Stern or even the calculations of the
German Institute of Economic Research, which will
be presented to you by Professor Claudia Kemfert.
Among many climate researchers and politicians
there is a consensus about the goals and partly even
about the instruments to be applied in climate poli-
cy. For once, the developed countries in particular
are under the obligation to strongly reduce their
consumption and emissions of fossil resources. This
would even have to be done in the developing or
threshold countries.There is a certain consensus that
these countries are entitled to a ‘belated develop-
ment’ in the reduction of their emissions and to a
lower level than the industrialized countries. To
make sure that the threshold or developing countriesare not forced to follow the same path as that of the
industrialized countries,which would cause unneces-
sary emissions on the basis of out-dated technology,
the industrialized countries should supply to the
threshold and developing countries the latest tech-
nologies available; whether free of charge, against
loans or in cash – the opinions are bound to differ
here.Countries like China have considerable foreign
exchange reserves and could thus be paying the bill
even for the advanced technologies. At the same
time, a further deforestation of the rain forest or
other forests must be stopped to preserve the bene-
fits in CO2 reductions. There is no alternative here
for two reasons at least.According to calculations by
Professor Hans-Werner Sinn, for example, even
under the aspect of climate protection it does not
make sense to cut down jungle forests just to gain
raw materials for the production of biofuels.The sec-
ond reason is that the ongoing deforestation would
considerably lessen the diversity of species – with
enormous damage to the environment.
And, there is certainly a consensus about the fact
that the Kyoto process was a step in the right direc-
tion.However,the goals were not ambitious enough,
the instruments were insufficient and, above all,
important carbon-emitting nations did not joined the
agreement. An important cause was certainly the
fact that the United States has advanced the enact-
ing of the protocol under the former President
Clinton,it is true,but then failed to ratify it.The rea-
son was that the rising costs of the fossil energy con-
sumption would put the local industry at a disadvan-
tage, whereas other countries like China or India
were not willing to respect corresponding regula-
tions. These countries, however, pointed out that
their per capita CO2 emission was lower and,in addi-
tion,they claimed to be less wealthy than the United
States who thought it could not afford corresponding
measures. As already mentioned in the Program of
this Munich Economic Summit, OPEC countries are
showing only little interest to produce smaller quan-
tities of oil and risk lower incomes from oil sales. So,
it seems that we are in for a stalemate.
The situation is serious but not hopeless. For once,
the European Union with its climate protection
goals has taken a lead so to speak. Important instru-
ments of the European and national climate protec-
tion policy are the trading of emission certificates
and the promotion of measures to improve energy
efficiency as well as the share of renewable energies.
The German Act of Renewable Energies can be
assessed as a success in this respect, which can serve
as an example all over the world.
Furthermore, important arguments speak for the
reduction of consumption of fossil energies, the
increase in energy efficiency and promotion of
renewable energy quite apart from climate protec-
tion itself. Fossil energies are limited, no doubt.The
peak of oil and gas production has already been
reached, respectively round the corner.At the same
time, it is expected that the worldwide demand for
energy will go up after we will have overcome the
global economic crisis. And this will lead to rising
prices too, which means that the dependency of the
consumer countries on oil and gas is expected to
grow even further. Those countries which are the
first and foremost to become independent from oil
and gas will be better off. If these countries develop
technologies for better energy efficiency and the use
of more renewable energies, they and their citizens
and companies could save a lot of money. In addi-
tion,they could make a lot of money with the world-
wide sales of corresponding facilities. Environ-
mental technologies are considered to be a real
growth sector.
These two reasons have led to a reduction of the
dependency on fossil fuels from instable regions of
the world,or to put it differently,a higher security of
supply in combination with the profitability of ‘green
industries’ has brought about a change of thinking
since the change of the US Government.However,it
is far from certain, whether there will be a majority
for it in Congress or in the Senate in particular, as
the delegates from ‘old industrialized US States’
might oppose the agreement.
What would happen, if the Europeans and some
other countries set a good example and then the
United States, China, India and other countries
would not follow? There is also the thesis that such
an endeavor from Europe might not be successful at
all. If the Europeans start making the use of fossil
energies in Europe more expensive through a tighter
commercial system of emission trading and if they
improve their energy efficiency,overall consumption
in Europe would drop, no doubt. If the offer is con-
sidered as a permanent factor,other consumer coun-
tries like China could use more fossil energy at lower
prices – which means that the sum total on a global
level would not change at all. However, this may be
a schoolbook lesson. In reality, however, even coun-
tries like China are also improving their energy effi-
CESifo Forum 3/2009 4
WelcomeCESifo Forum 3/2009 5
Welcome
ciency,willing to conserve energy and be prepared to
buy the latest technology, because they can foresee
the end of the resources. Here substantial capital
investments are needed to be able to construct cor-
responding facilities and to export them at a later
stage, if possible.
And what is the position of OPEC now? Is it really
true that in the end OPEC will suffer, if Kyoto wins
– and Kyoto will suffer if OPEC wins? This may be
so in the short term,but in the long run it can only be
of OPEC’s interest that its members’ oil reserves will
continue to provide their income basis for a long
time: wealth of many of these countries is almost
exclusively based on oil.The similar logic applies to
the gas producing countries.
In my view there will be progress in Copenhagen
and the Kyoto climate protection agreement will be
followed by a further step in the right direction. It
is absolutely necessary to focus on binding targets
for the individual regions, to achieve a transfer of
technologies to poorer countries and to recognize
the needs of additional funds for these countries to
support adaptation. In this sense, please accept my
best wishes for stimulating discussions and great
success for your conference. I hope you will share
my optimism and identify instruments to demon-
strate and implement an effective climate protec-
tion policy.To be sure the results of this conference
will provide a further impetus to the delegates in
Copenhagen.

Welcome Speech by Christian Ude

http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/DocBase_Content/ZS/ZS-CESifo_Forum/zs-for-2009/zs-for-2009-3/forum3-09-intro1.pdf

Welcome Speech by Christian Ude

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics