1. Cost Effectiveness

2. Kansliet Reflexions after Bangkok ! • The lack of trust between the ind. and developing countries is increasing ! • The discussion about a single agreement approache - risk that the concept from the Kyoto protocol will die • No substantiell step forward about the financing key issue • No concrete discussion about emissions targets to 2020 • We need to solve the economic, climate and powerty crisis at the some time - with investments in a global ”Marshall plan” • So what are we wating for….?

3. Kansliet We will all be losers if….

4. Kansliet Cost effectivness – Yes ? … but which one ? • 1. Cost effectivness in a short perspectiv : • How can we reduce the Swedish emissions by 40 % to 2020 in the most costeffectiv way? • If we take this concept seriously we need to make Swedish climat policy less ambitious and decrease our carbon tax !!

5. Kansliet Cost effectivness – Yes ? … but which one ? • 2. Cost effectivness in a long perspectiv : • How can we reduce the emissions by 90 % in Sweden to 2050 which means less than 1 ton per capita ? • That´s un totaly different quastion ! • The ansewer in this perspectiv is to reduce the emissions step by step in a steady rate even if it´s more costly than investments in developing countries just now

6. Kansliet Sweden a winner so far…

7. Kansliet The double challenge ? We need to solve the climate and poverty at the some time What’s left “Gore’s trajectory” for North

8. How to manage the threshold of costs The distributional effect is the key issue 8

9. How much is needed? • UN said that we about 500 billion USD a year for mitigation, adaptation and protection of forest in the developing countries. • EU said that we need about 100 billions of euro a year but only 2-15 billions a year from public founds !! 2 9

10. What are ways to raise public money? • Global carbon taxes – e.g. on shipping and flights = double divident • Global “national income taxes” (among Annex 1 countries to begin with) or introduction of national carbon taxes… • Auctioning of national emmissions permits (“Norwegian proposal”) • Market-based, e.g levvy on CDM for adaptation 2 10

11. How can private resources be triggered and directed in the right wayA global Marshall plan for climate is necessary. • The bulk of investments are private, but the public resources are crucial to steer in the right direction. • Emmissions markets and CDM can only be a marginal part of the solution – in best case. • A global investment plan for fossile-free energy — a global feed-in tariff system — is a very interesting proposal. Higher price for the producer and un other lower price for the consumer… . 2 11

12. Kansliet Decreasing costs

13. Kansliet Area needed for 100% solar global energy use

14. Kansliet New electricity production

15. Mitigation in developing countries Kasper Lennquist Low hanging fruits – autonomous action

16. Mitigation in developing countries Offsetting CDM Actions requiring support Low hanging fruits – autonomous action