A

s set out recently by Nicholas Stern, in order to have a reasonable chance of avoiding an increase in the average global temperature of more than 2 degrees Celsius, we need to reduce annual worldwide carbon-dioxide-equivalent (CO2) emissions from the present level of about 50 gigatons, to no more than 20 gigatons by 2050.

The way to get there is to reduce total CO2 emissions to 35 gigatons of by 2030 and 20 gigatons by 2050.

Indonesia, like other developing countries wishing to rise economically, is on the way to significantly increasing its carbon emissions, as the OECD countries have done in previous years.

A low-carbon economy projection, which the country fully underwrites, will go under a business-as-usual scenario. This will require not only that we basically halt our development, but also that we reverse our current energy use, both for transportation and electricity production, to realize Stern's projection.

A question that really puzzles us then is can we, as a developing country, commit to a reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions as set out by Stern, and if so by how much?

This is probably a question that must be addressed to Stern himself, a question that every leader of a developing country will definitely ask.

Further, assuming that we can and are willing to do this, the most fundamental question is what are the anticipated economic costs and benefits to our people to transform the current economy into a low-carbon economy?

Of course all these questions can hardly be answered instantly. In his intervention during a working lunch at the G20 leaders meeting in Pittsburgh last week, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono endorsed his commitment to reducing the country's greenhouse-gas emissions by 26 percent within 10 years, benchmarked to the emission level from business as usual.

This target can be achieved without financial support from developed countries, but the reduction can be enhanced to 41 percent with the support. This is really a challenge - a real challenge to us - as Yudhoyono pointed out that the country has to be part of the solution for global climate change.

Let see what economic sectors are really polluting. The top two sectors that contribute to the country's emissions are deforestation and the energy sector, mainly emissions from power plants, due in part to the fuel used, i.e. diesel and coal, and also to our high energy intensity - nearly twice as high as Japan for the same increase in GDP.

As we all know, the forestry sector is at the same time complex and simple. As shown by several successful programs to change the cultivation of coca, if the offered alternative brings higher gains than the existing situation, adaptation will take place. Sustainable forestry has successfully been implemented during the last 25 years in, for example, Costa Rica.

The success of the program is a combination of community development, incentives (and penalties) and close monitoring. The current slash-and-burn practice, together with the planting of fast-growing oil palms, provides a direct cash flow for the community. Planting and maintaining teak and mahogany trees, on the other hand, deprives communities from much-needed day-to-day cash.

However, scientific research, also quoted by Stern, shows that in the long term, hardwoods, if harvested sustainably, bring in cash and other economic benefits, as the forest will attract rain and provide water for other high-value cash crops.

But has anyone done the economic model for that long-term approach, at least to project whether the net present value (NPV) of a long-term fund, which would meet the communities' cash-flow needs - equal to the current cash flow - and be positive if the fund is repaid with the income from carbon storage?

What are Stern's views on our growth path, in light of Indonesia's commitment to contributing to reaching the required emissions reduction - particularly in light of the current situation, where we have been providing fossil fuel subsidies for both transportation fuel and electricity?

The government, as part of its commitment to prevent climate change, has given a crystal-clear signal. Again, at the G20 lunch meeting, Yudhoyono clearly laid out that these subsidies have been reduced - a policy that was recognized to be very shocking politically and socially, but was very necessary - and will be eventually removed.

Reduction of domestic use of fossil fuels might bring benefits to our economy, but how? In a low-carbon economy, can we utilize our fossil fuel assets in an efficient and effective manner for rapid economic growth? Is adding value helping, through processing, for example transforming coal into gas, which in many cases is interchangeable with LNG?

Yet this process would have a very significant impact in the reduction of carbon dioxide. However, this requires advanced technology, and particularly if applied in a large-scale investment that goes beyond the traditional foreign direct investment that we have been able to attract. A breakthrough is needed - not business as usual.

A final question to Stern would be what is the trajectory we should follow as our economy has high energy intensity? By reducing the intensity, we can make a significant contribution toward achieving a low-carbon economy.

However, not only are significant investments in assets required, but investments in human capacity to design less energy-intensive production systems with growing economy are needed.

If we can get to grips with all these issues, then we might achieve a target that has been set by our leader. And what is more, as pointed out by Stern, a low-carbon world would be quieter, cleaner, more energy-secure and more biologically diverse - for us, our children and future generations.