*{The Economic Costs of Climate Change [http://www.weforum.org/site/knowledgenavigator.nsf/Content/The%20Economic%20Costs%20of%20Climate%20Change?open&topic_id=300600000&theme_id=300] 04.02.2002 Annual Meeting 2002} One of the most debated books on the environment for several years, The Skeptical Environmentalist, was produced last year by a young Danish statistician (and former Greenpeace supporter) Bjorn Lomborg, Associate Professor, University of Aarhus, Denmark and Global Leader for Tomorrow 2002. His message: reducing greenhouse gas emissions as proposed will have so little impact on global warming that we would do best to put our scarce finances into projects with immediate human benefits such as providing clean water and research on fuel resources that do not create carbon dioxide. Lomborg documents the controversy on his website (www.lomborg.com). Meanwhile, he came face to face with his critics and questioners among established environmentalists at a session on the economic cost of climate change. Robert T. Watson, Chairman, Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change ESSD, USA, argued that the brake on economic growth required to reduce global warming over the next 100 years is a very small part of GDP, about 0.01%, but that waiting would increase the cost later. Lomborg responded that even a small amount reduces the resources available for other spending, whereas effective development spending could lift threatened countries to the level where adaptation will be within their economic reach. Watson countered that countries could more than cut the cost in half of complying with the Kyoto agreement to curb carbon emissions if they make full use of its provisions to trade permits between CO2-emitting rich countries and poor countries that have an allowance they do not fully use. One participant suggested the importance of the Kyoto Protocol is in enabling countries to put a trading value on emissions, and thus enabling trades to take place. He declared that for decision-makers the key is to decide on the concentration of greenhouse gases the world is prepared to live with (depending on the amount of global warming it produces). "I disagree," said Lomborg. "It is how you are going to spend your resources." Pascoal Mocumbi, Prime Minister of Mozambique, said that for his country the main question is how to avert natural disasters, which means ensuring Mozambique preserves its water resources and protects its forests. Shigeru Ban, Architect, Shigeru Ban Architects, Japan, said that in earthquakes most people die in collapsing buildings rather than in the tremors themselves, and building styles lead people to cut down trees -- so architects have a double responsibility for the impacts of natural disasters. As a result, he has developed water pipes made from locally-sourced recycled paper. Peter Wadhams, Professor of Ocean Sciences, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, pointed out that it takes two centuries for CO2 to work its way through the environmental system, which means that the impact of global warming on agricultural systems is long term by the standards of human life. Eileen Claussen, President, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, USA, reported that companies working with Pew have discovered they can make considerable savings in emissions through more efficient production controls -- in at least one case by up to 50% over 1990 levels. An electronics company CEO suggested governments should focus on ways to "incentivize" the switch to reduced-emission products rather than imposing more and more regulations. Moderator Frederick Kempe, Associate Publisher and Editor, The Wall Street Journal Europe, Belgium, noted that one effect of 11 September had been that CEOs have become intensely concerned with development and environmental issues because poverty questions are now seen as relating to their bottom line. *{Contributors: Ban Shigeru Claussen Eileen Gagosian Robert B. Kempe Frederick Lomborg Bjorn Mocumbi Pascoal Wadhams Peter Watson Robert T.}