I just joined the BBC World Service for a live, hour-long program called "Copenhagen: Who is to Blame?" reflecting on the outcomes of the negotiations, including BBC's environmental analyst, a Chinese policy specialist, WWF's Campaign Director, India's Vandana Shiva, and other experts (the podcast is available here, and for a cliffnotes version, start at 39 minutes).
One of the central points I make is that we need to understand what happened at Copenhagen in order to move forward successfully. As I wrote on Saturday in an open letter to Bill McKibben, founder of 350, the failure to achieve "legally-binding" emissions targets is not the Obama administration's fault, but rather the result of a flawed UNFCCC framework. If anything, President Obama should be applauded for bringing together the major emerging economies and hitting the "reset button" on the mitigation negotiation framework.
As the dust settles from the remarkable Copenhagen meeting observers are presenting vastly different messages about what has happened and what it means, raising many questions and few answers...
As the dust settles from the remarkable Copenhagen meeting observers are presenting vastly different messages about what has happened and what it means. Germany's Chancellor, Angela Merkel, warns that anyone who criticizes Copenhagen is simply trying to stop action from moving forward: "anyone who just badmouths Copenhagen now is engaging in the business of those who are applying the brakes rather than moving forward." However, efforts to shut down debate are not going to work, as people are engaged in the very useful exercise of sorting out the meaning of Copenhagen.
Here are a few examples from the United States on the left side of the political spectrum:
Declaring "Good Riddance to Copenhagen," Newsweek's Sharon Begley writes: "The best chance of reining in emissions of greenhouse gases and avoiding dangerous climate change is to stamp a big green R.I.P. over the sprawling United Nations process that the Copenhagen talks were part of." Is this another cogent call for a new Climate Realpolitik?
That sound you'll hear in 2010 is a can being kicked down the road. Again. In the wake of the failure of the international negotiations in Copenhagen to reach a legally binding treaty to reduce greenhouse gases, you'll hear a lot of talk about how the world has two good chances in the new year to achieve what it failed to do at Copenhagen. Don't believe it. ...
The best chance of reining in emissions of greenhouse gases and avoiding dangerous climate change is to stamp a big green R.I.P. over the sprawling United Nations process that the Copenhagen talks were part of.
That's because developed countries are no more likely to work out their differences with developing countries before those 2010 meetings than they did before Copenhagen. Must China, India, and Brazil agree to legally binding, verifiable cuts in their carbon-dioxide emissions? How much will rich countries ante up to help poorer ones segue to noncarbon renewable-energy sources and adapt to rising seas, droughts, dwindling water supplies, and crop failures? Will countries have to accept international monitoring of their emissions, which drives China crazy? Rather than repeating the Copenhagen charade in 2010, then, it's time for creative destruction.
Accept that the 192 nations roped together by the U.N. will not agree on a meaningful climate treaty next year either. Drop the pretense that every country matters equally. Instead, set up bilateral talks and a "club" of the countries that do matter: a mere dozen account for almost all greenhouse emissions.
Sounds like another cogent call for a new Climate Realpolitik actually capable of bending the course of global emissions downwards and putting the world on a clean development path.
Thomas Friedman makes a major departure from conventional climate wisdom by declaring the end of the UNFCCC and the beginning of the "Earth Race." But will he step up and embrace a policy agenda capable of securing U.S. competitiveness?
In a major departure from conventional climate wisdom, Thomas Friedman argues in today's New York Times that the UNFCCC framework is broken and should be replaced by a global competition in the clean-tech industry, which he says the United States can and should lead. "Let the Earth Race begin," he declares, contrasting this with the long-dominant "Earth Day" strategy:
"This Copenhagen climate summit was based on the Earth Day strategy. It was not very impressive. This conference produced a series of limited, conditional, messy compromises, which it is not at all clear will get us any closer to mitigating climate change at the speed and scale we need...
Today, we need the Earth Race: who can be the first to invent the most clean technologies so men and women can live safely here on Earth... An Earth Race led by America -- built on markets, economic competition, national self-interest and strategic advantage -- is a much more self-sustaining way to reduce carbon emissions than a festival of voluntary, nonbinding commitments at a U.N. conference."
Friedman is right. The race to develop competitive clean-tech industries is the critical element with the potential to motivate enough development and deployment of clean technologies - far more than any potential "legally-binding" global emissions treaty, as we've seen with the failure of the Kyoto Protocol and the inability of the UNFCCC framework to produce a meaningful treaty at Copenhagen. The International Energy Agency estimates that $10.5 trillion of global investment in clean technology and energy efficiency is necessary over the next 20 years to stay below 450ppm - an unimaginable sum under any UNFCCC treaty.
Yesterday, in response to the end of the Copenhagen negotiations, you issued a press release with 350.org titled "The President has wrecked the UN (and the planet)," in which you wrote: "The president has wrecked the U.N. and he's wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it's at the expense of everything progressives have held dear."
Afterward, you published an article on the Grist homepage titled "With climate agreement, Obama guts progressive values," in which you wrote: "He blew up the United Nations. The idea that there's a world community that means something has disappeared tonight. The clear point is... when you sink beneath the waves we don't want to hear much about it." This followed a recent post by your organization accusing Obama of "corruption" and "conspiracy" for his climate negotiations with Ethiopia.
I'm writing you today because, as a young clean energy and climate advocate, I believe these words are wrong and irresponsible, and I would like to respectfully request that you issue a public apology to President Obama and young climate leaders across the country.
In a late night press conference at the close of the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, President Obama declared that a "meaningful deal" had been reached with major emitting nations moments before boarding Air Force One and returning to the United States. While the final structure of "the Copenhagen Accord" is still in question, the content and reverberations of President Obama's speech today leave little doubt that the UNFCCC process, for all intents and purposes, is dead. Whether it continues to shamble on like a zombie through sheer force of inertia is yet to be determined.
In a late night press conference at the close of the international climate negotiations in Copenhagen, President Obama declared that a "meaningful deal" had been reached with major emitting nations moments before boarding Air Force One and returning to the United States. While the final structure of "the Copenhagen Accord" is still in question, the content and reverberations of President Obama's speech today leave little doubt that the UNFCCC process, for all intents and purposes, is dead. Whether it continues to shamble on like a zombie through sheer force of inertia is yet to be determined...
Breaking free from the auspices of the UN's 190+ nation negotiating framework, major emitters, including the U.S., China, India, Brazil, and South Africa, appear poised to move forward with or without the rest of the UNFCCC nations.
According to a flurry of tweets and reports from observers on the ground in Copenhagen, Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping, the Sudanese chairman of the "G77," a large group of developing nations, is crying bloody murder, declaring that the deal "locks countries into a cycle of poverty forever" and saying "Obama has eliminated any difference between him and Bush." The EU is grudgingly signing on to the accord "as better than no accord." And protestors, led by increasingly radical activist Bill McKibben, are gathering outside the Bella Center hoisting images of President Obama and crying "shame on you."
"The President has wrecked the UN (and the planet)," declared a press release from McKibben's 350.org.
As a whirlwind of drama unfolded in the 11th hour of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen today, voices from across the climatesphere were quick to report on the outcome thus far, adding their own perspective (read: spin) on the events. Below are excerpts from some of the press releases issued to date, provided without comment:
League of Conservation Voters (press release):
"While there is still much work to be done, the deal reached is a breakthrough for international climate cooperation and provides a path forward towards a binding global treaty in 2010.
Significantly, the United States and China will - for the first time - both be at the table, working to tackle the historic challenge of global climate change. Additionally, the deal allows for more transparency, as developed and developing countries have now agreed to list their national actions and commitments regarding greenhouse gas reductions.
We applaud President Obama for his leadership in helping to reach this important step toward a meaningful agreement...
The Copenhagen climate talks bring to a close a year in which more has been done to curb global warming pollution - both at home and abroad - than ever before."
Sierra Club (press release, statement from Carl Pope, Executive Director):
"The world's nations have come together and concluded a historic--if incomplete--agreement to begin tackling global warming. Tonight's announcement is but a first step and much work remains to be done in the days and months ahead in order to seal a final international climate deal that is fair, binding, and ambitious. It is imperative that negotiations resume as soon as possible."
350.org (press release):
"The President has wrecked the UN (and the planet)"
Bill McKibben and 350.org Response to President Obama's Speech
COPENHAGEN -- Bill McKibben, American environmentalist and founder of 350.org, responds to Obama's press conference this evening:
"This is a declaration that small and poor countries don't matter, that international civil society doesn't matter, and that serious limits on carbon don't matter. The president has wrecked the UN and he's wrecked the possibility of a tough plan to control global warming. It may get Obama a reputation as a tough American leader, but it's at the expense of everything progressives have held dear. 189 countries have been left powerless, and the foxes now guard the carbon henhouse without any oversight."
Greenpeace (press release, statement from Greenpeace International Executive Director, Kumi Naidoo):
"Not fair, not ambitious and not legally binding. The job of world leaders
is not done. Today they failed to avert catastrophic climate change.
The city of Copenhagen is a climate crime scene tonight, with the guilty
men and women fleeing to the airport in shame. World leaders had a once in a generation chance to change the world for good, to avert catastrophic
climate change. In the end they produced a poor deal full of loopholes big
enough to fly Air Force One through.
"We have seen a year of crises, but today it is clear that the biggest one
facing humanity is a leadership crisis."
"Climate negotiations in Copenhagen have yielded a sham agreement with no real requirements for any countries. This is not a strong deal or a just one -- it isn't even a real one. It's just repackaging old positions and pretending they're new. The actions it suggests for the rich countries that caused the climate crisis are extraordinarily inadequate. This is a disastrous outcome for people around the world who face increasingly dire impacts from a destabilizing climate."
"Despite President Obama's assurances of progress today at the UN Climate Talks, the negotiations continue into the early morning as civil society leaders are left out of the sessions at the Bella Center and protesters gather outside.
For the U.S., which is the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, to come to Copenhagen and try to strong arm the world into accepting a phony accord that will do nothing to prevent climate catastrophe is beyond irresponsible; it is criminal." said John Peck, Executive Director of Family Farm Defenders and member of Via Campesina.
"At the present, before the end of the final plenary, the draft Copenhagen Accord sets dangerously low emissions targets and provides too few resources to stop the unfolding climate catastrophe gripping the planet," said Professor Michael Dorsey with the Climate Justice Now! Network. "The Accord is little more than rhetoric hiding a failure to actually address the climate crisis. This destructive Accord represents a death sentence for Africa, the Amazon, Indigenous Peoples, and small island nations."
How could tiny Tuvalu monkey-wrench global climate talks? By operating in a highly undemocratic institution, one that has re-created the most dysfunctional and outmoded aspects of the United Nations General Assembly. When climate change emerged as an issue in the late 1980s, greens logically looked to an institution equally disconnected from national political economies, which they viewed as part of the problem. But lacking any ability to alter energy trajectories, the UNFCCC became an agency with the effectiveness of UNESCO. The rise of Climate Realpolitik -- confronting global warming in more appropriate institutions under a more appropriate framework -- gives hope that, one day soon, climate policy will be treated as a question of technology and economics, not religious mania, nostalgia, and ideological posturing.
If you were looking for a fitting illustration of why the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was doomed to fail you could have hardly asked for a better demonstration than the show put on by Tuvalu in Copenhagen last week.
For two days the tiny island nation of 12,000 successfully halted negotiations and demanded atmospheric carbon levels be kept to lower levels (350 parts per million) than what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has recommended (450 ppm).
"Tuvalu raises the bar," screamed the leading liberal climate blog, ClimateProgress.org. "Tuvalu Roars," said another. "The big takeaway from the day: it's clear that there are some countries here that will not be afraid to walk away from these talks," wrote Ben Jerveyof the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) at the Natural Resources Defense Council's (NRDC) OnEarth blog. Tuvalu wants 350 ppm and "they're not going to accept anything less," Jervey warned observed. (Correction: Jervey notes in the comments below that he did not actually endorse the Tuvalu resolution in his post)
It is hard to say what is more amazing, that Tuvalu -- a former British colonial possession whose economy is virtually entirely dependent upon foreign aid and whose constitutional monarch, the Queen of Tuvalu, is better known to the rest of us as Queen Elizabeth II -- could single-handedly disrupt global climate change treaty negotiations, that prominent greens could keep a straight face while hailing Tuvalu's parliamentary monkey-wrenching as an act of great political courage, or that conservatives could possibly fear that such a farce could ever conceivably result in one world global government.
The United States has fallen behind China, Japan and South Korea in the race to commercialize and produce clean energy products and systems, according to the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
"Asian nations are set to dominate the clean energy race by out-investing the United States," says a report from the two organizations entitled "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant." The three countries "have already passed the United States in the production of virtually all clean energy technologies and over the next five years, the governments of these nations will out-invest the United States three-to-one in these sectors."
By investing public funds into clean technologies, R&D and infrastructure, private-sector investment will quickly follow, totaling in the trillions of dollars over the coming decade. "While some U.S. firms will benefit from the establishment of joint ventures overseas, the jobs, tax revenues and other benefits of clean tech growth will overwhelmingly accrue to Asia's clean tech tigers," the report concludes. Asian nations will "capture economies of scale, learning by doing and innovation advantages before the United States, where public investments are smaller, less direct and less targeted. Should the investment gap persist, the United States will import the overwhelming majority of clean energy technologies it deploys."
If international climate change talks falter this week, chances for the United States approving its own carbon pollution-reduction plan will seriously erode, U.S. Senator John Kerry warned on Wednesday.
Everyone is waiting to see if President Obama will improve the offer from the US when he joins the conference on Friday. There is a widespread reluctance among other countries to make significant concessions until the country which has caused most of the problem takes more of its fair share of the burden of solving it.
. . . the United States poured cold water on the notion that it would deepen its offer of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions, as outlined by President Barack Obama in the run-up to the conference.
"I am not anticipating any change in the mitigation commitment," US chief delegate Todd Stern told a press conference.
"Our commitment is tied to our anticipated legislation and there are elements in that legislation that could result in an overall target or an overall reduction amount that could actually be a fair amount higher.
"But we're not making a commitment to that right now because it's just uncertain and we don't want to promise something that we don't have."
Unless President Obama can spring a substantive surprise this week in Copenhagen, guess who is going to once again be the bad guy in the negotiations?
In an earlier post I made the case that one needs to know only two things about the science of climate change to begin asking whether accelerating decarbonization of the economy might be worth doing:
Carbon dioxide has an influence on the climate system.
This influence might well be negative for things many people care about.
That is it. An actual decision to accelerate decarbonization and at what rate will depend on many other things, like costs and benefits of particular actions unrelated to climate and technological alternatives. In this post I am going to further explain my views, based on an interesting question posed in that earlier thread. What would my position be if it were to be shown, hypothetically, that the global average surface temperature was not warming at all, or in fact even cooling (over any relevant time period)? Would I then change my views on the importance of decarbonizing the global energy system?
And the answer is ... no!
My concern about the potential effects of human influences on the climate system are not a function of global average warming over a long-period of time or of predictions of continued warming into the future. A point that my father often makes, and I think that he is absolutely right, is that what matters are the effects of human influences on the climate system on human and ecological scales, not at the global scale. No one experiences global average temperature and it is very poorly correlated with things that we do care about in specific places at specific times.
Consider the following thought experiment. Divide the world up into 1,000 grid boxes of equal area. Now imagine that the temperature in each of 500 of those boxes goes up by 20 degrees while the temperature in the other 500 goes down by 20 degrees. The net global change is exactly zero (because I made it so). However, the impacts would be enormous. Let's further say that the changes prescribed in my thought experiment are the direct consequence of human activity. Would we want to address those changes? Or would we say, ho hum, it all averages out globally, so no problem? The answer is obvious and is not a function of what happens at some global average scale, but what happens at human and ecological scales.
In the real world, the effects of increasing carbon dioxide on human and ecological scales are well established, and they include a biogechemical effect on land ecosystems with subsequent effects on water and climate, as well as changes to the chemistry of the oceans. Is it possible that these effects are benign? Sure. Is it also possible that these effects have some negatives? Sure. These two factors alone would be sufficient for one to begin to ask questions about the worth of decarbonizing the global energy system. But greenhouse gas emissions also have a radiative effect that, in the real world, is thought to be a net warming, all else equal and over a global scale. However, if this effect were to be a net cooling, or even, no net effect at the global scale, it would not change my views about a need to consider decarbonizing the energy system one bit. There is an effect -- or effects to be more accurate -- and these effects could be negative.
Of course, not mentioned yet is that action to improve adaptation to climate doesn't depend at all on a human influence on the climate system, warming or cooling or whatever. Adaptation makes good sense regardless. So clearly my policy views on adaptation are largely insensitive to any issues related to global average temperature change.
The debate over climate change has many people on both sides of the issue wrapped up in discussing global average temperature trends. I understand this as it is an icon with great political symbolism. It has proved a convenient political battleground, but the reality is that it should matter little to the policy case for decarbonization. What matters is that there is a human effect on the climate system and it could be negative with respect to things people care about. That is enough to begin asking whether we want to think about accelerating decarbonization of the global economy.
To fully assess whether accelerated decarbonization makes sense would require us to ask, are there any other good reasons why accelerated decarbonization might make sense? And it turns out, there are many. And that discussion will have to await a further post.
This post makes the case for why the science is settled on climate change. Of course, interpreting this statement, which once had its own Wikipedia page, depends entirely upon what one means by "the science." Here I am going to define "the science" as that science of the global earth system which is necessary to open up the possibility that decision makers may wish to consider action on greenhouse gas emissions. Any decision on what action (if any), when, at what costs will result from many factors beyond climate science and different people who decide to act together will necessarily have vastly different views about the state of the science and its importance.
This is not complicated. We know that our planet is enveloped in a blanket of greenhouse gases that keep the Earth at a comfortable temperature. As we pump more carbon-dioxide and other greenhouse gases into that blanket from cars, buildings, agriculture, forests and industry, more heat gets trapped.
What we don't know, because the climate system is so complex, is what other factors might over time compensate for that man-driven warming, or how rapidly temperatures might rise, melt more ice and raise sea levels. It's all a game of odds. We've never been here before. We just know two things: one, the CO2 we put into the atmosphere stays there for many years, so it is "irreversible" in real-time (barring some feat of geo-engineering); and two, that CO2 buildup has the potential to unleash "catastrophic" warming.
When I see a problem that has even a 1 percent probability of occurring and is "irreversible" and potentially "catastrophic," I buy insurance. That is what taking climate change seriously is all about.
Friedman is absolutely right about what we know and what we don't know. Debates over action get wrapped up around debates what we know and what we don't know, and these debates are unlikely to be settled any time soon, whether within the scientific community or among the broader public.
A new climate bill, introduced Friday by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), would invest only a tiny fraction of the bill's revenues to catalyze clean energy technology innovation while implementing an emissions cap that requires CO2 emissions to fall roughly 5% below 2012 levels.
A new climate bill, introduced Friday by Senators Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and Susan Collins (R-ME), would invest only a tiny fraction of the bill's revenues to catalyze clean energy technology innovation while implementing an emissions cap that requires CO2 emissions to fall roughly 5% below 2012 levels.
[Note: post updated 12/17/09 with a correction and additional information]
At least $15 billion must be invested annually to boost federal R&D budgets and jumpstart clean energy innovation to improve the price and performance of clean technologies, according to a wide consensus of energy experts, along with additional investments in clean energy demonstration, deployment, manufacturing and infrastructure.
In contrast, the Cantwell-Collins bill would initially direct just $2.5-8 billion annually to support U.S. clean energy technologies and industries, the Breakthrough Institute estimates based on the bill's supporting documents.
The Carbon Limits and Energy for America's Renewal, or CLEAR Act proposes to limit U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases through a simplified cap and trade system that auctions permits to polluters and rebates the majority of revenues directly to households through monthly, per capita dividend checks.
The legislation targets a 20 percent, economy-wide cut in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2020, relative to a 2005 benchmark.
To achieve this target, the bill sets an upstream cap on importers and producers of fossil fuels that would require CO2 emissions to fall just over 5 percent relative to 2012 levels. If the most recent EIA projections of depressed emissions levels due to the economic recession prove accurate, those cuts could be in the range of 9% below the 2005 benchmark. [Note: post updated with correction on 12/17/09; rate at which emissions cap declines was misreported in prior version.]
That falls short of the bill's 20% by 2020 target and the CLEAR Act's emissions cap covers CO2 only, which is responsible for roughly 85 percent of U.S. greenhouse gases when each gas is weighted by their impact on global warming.
To fill this gap, the legislation directs the President to achieve additional emissions reductions in non-capped sectors of the U.S. economy by directly funding programs to encourage land-use changes that sequester carbon in forestry and agriculture or reduce emissions of non-CO2 greenhouse gases such as methane. The bill sets aside a portion of the cap and auction revenues in a trust fund that prioritizes spending on these additional reductions, but precise uses of that fund is subject to Congressional appropriations.
While it offers several structural advantages over competingcap and trade proposals (discussed in Part 2, forthcoming), CLEAR is principally focused on pollution reduction and does not implement a clean economy strategy sufficient to keep the U.S. competitive in the global clean energy race (see forthcoming Part 3).
"The longer we in the United States wait, the farther ahead China will be, and it will be harder for us to catch up. If we don't get our act together, we're going to be watching the capital, the businesses and the good-paying jobs end up someplace else. And 10 to 15 years from now, we're going to be saying, 'How did Shanghai become the Silicon Valley of clean energy?'"
-Commerce Secretary Gary Locke warns about the perils of losing the global clean energy race, quoted on NPR
Climate change e-mail scandal underscores myth of pure science. Breakthrough Senior Fellow Dan Sarewitz and co-author Samuel Thernstrom in an LA Times op-ed.
The necessary boundary between climate science and politics has become indiscernible as politicians on both sides of the political spectrum invoke "pure" science as the justification for climate policy, said Breakthrough Senior Fellow Dan Sarewitz and co-author Samuel Thernstrom in an Los Angeles Times commentary on the lesson learned from ClimateGate.
"As two scholars with different political orientations but common concerns, we have each worked to challenge conventional wisdom that has undermined public understanding of the climate change problem. Many Republicans have been too reluctant to acknowledge strong evidence of human-caused warming and the need for prudent policies that could reduce its harmful effects. Democrats have let their own political judgments and values infect climate science and its interpretation, often understating the uncertainties about the timing and scale of future risks, and the tremendous costs and difficulties of effective action.
Yet both parties have agreed, although tacitly, on one thing: Science is the appropriate arbiter of the political debate, and policy decisions should be determined by objective scientific assessments of future risks. This seductive idea gives politicians something to hide behind when faced with divisive decisions. If "pure" science dictates our actions, then there is no need to acknowledge the role that political interests and social values play in deciding how society should address climate change."
Sarewitz and Thernstrom go on to explain that even though the East Anglia e-mails do not discredit the significant body of evidence pointing to anthropogenic global warming, scientists who claim they are "unsullied providers of truth in an otherwise corrupt and indecipherable world," are misrepresenting the nature of the scientific inquiry and perpetrating a "myth of pure, disinterested science."
TIME Magazine recently came out with their Top 10 Green Ideas of 2009. Number 9, "China's green stimulus," cites Breakthrough Institute and ITIF's new report "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a survey of the state of the clean energy race between the U.S. and Asia.
Here is TIME's Bryan Walsh:
It's the quietest story in environmentalism. In less than a year, China went from a polluting megapower to an up-and-coming clean-tech contender that promises to outpace America. Both countries responded to the recession by authorizing big stimulus plans with significant green components: 34% of China's stimulus money was green, compared with just 12% of funds in the U.S. That's good for the world -- as the low-cost-manufacturing champion, China might be able to churn out enough solar panels and wind turbines at a price the rest of us will happily pay. And the green stimulus is a sign that China, after staying mostly silent on global warming for years, realizes that its old model of pollute then clean up simply isn't sustainable. For the U.S., however, China's gains may mean losses at home. A recent report by the Breakthrough Institute warned that the U.S. could be lapped by Asia in the clean-tech race.
The "Rising Tigers" report can be downloaded here.
Today, the notion that there are just two types of countries - developed and developing - is falling apart. As large "developing" nations like China rapidly increase their emissions and grow their economies, we are seeing the old UNFCCC assumptions about who should bear the responsibility of mitigating climate change crumble and the concept of "developing countries" come to an end.
By Yael Borofsky, Ted Nordhaus, and Michael Shellenberger
In 1992, at the United Nations Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, the nations of the world agreed that only developed "Annex I" countries -- the U.S., Europe, Japan, etc -- would have to reduce their emissions. Developing countries were too poor and weren't polluting enough to cause much warming anyway.
But fast forward to 2009 and the very idea of "developing countries" is falling apart.
In next week's New Yorker magazine, journalist Evan Osnos describes the critical role that the Chinese government has played in energy research and innovation. The government's "crash program for clean energy," in part modeled on earlier U.S. government research programs, has helped it catch up to the rest of the world in clean energy technology, and has even enabled it to exert technological leadership in some clean tech industries.
In a forthcoming edition of the New Yorker, journalist Evan Osnos has written a great long essay on the role of the Chinese government in clean energy innovation in China.
Osnos documents how, beginning with the 863 program in 1986, Chinese government officials made a conscious effort to "join the new technological revolution" and make investments in science and technology a priority. Nowhere is this decision more evident today than in the rapid development of clean energy technology in China. In 2001, driven by increasing pollution and concerns over energy security, the Chinese government expanded their investment in energy technology. In 2006, the government expanded their commitment even further, and announced targets for the development of a suite of clean energy technologies:
"In 2006, Chinese leaders redoubled their commitment to new energy technology; they boosted funding for research and set targets for installing wind turbines, solar panels, hydroelectric dams, and other renewable sources of energy that were higher than goals in the United States. China doubled its wind-power capacity that year, then doubled it again the next year, and the year after. The country had virtually no solar industry in 2003; five years later, it was manufacturing more solar cells than any other country, winning customers from foreign companies that had invented the technology in the first place. As President Hu Jintao, a political heir of Deng Xiaoping, put it in October of this year, China must "seize preëmptive opportunities in the new round of the global energy revolution."
China's 863 program was modeled in part after the American research system used by NIH and the Department of Defense, the latter of which was instrumental in making early investments in technology that enabled the personal computing and information technology revolutions. And Chinese government investments in research and development (R&D) have been rising dramatically each year:
"R. & D. expenditures have grown faster in China than in any other big country--climbing about twenty per cent each year for two decades, to seventy billion dollars last year. Investment in energy research under the 863 Program has grown far faster: between 1991 and 2005, the most recent year on record, the amount increased nearly fifty-fold."
This post documents Breakthrough's coverage of the climate negotiations in Copenhagen for those looking to understand the significance of this international event.
Anticipated as an opportunity to take unified action against climate change, the climate negotiations in Copenhagen have amounted to nothing more than a postmodern, self-congratulatory global event in which much is promised, but nothing meaningful is accomplished. With an apocalyptic narrative serving as the motivational undercurrent, delegates are focused on empty emissions reductions targets they have no strategy to meet and are distracted from the most important challenge in the effort to mitigate climate change: sustainable global development.
Meeting the global energy challenge does not require empty promises, but instead massive government investment in the clean energy technologies that will transform our global energy system by making clean energy cheap and abundant for developed and developing nations, alike.
What follows is the Breakthrough Institute's coverage of the climate talks in Copenhagen. Understanding why this world effort failed will be the first step in fomenting an internationally tenable plan to put the world on a low-carbon path and ensure clean, cheap, accessible energy on a global scale.
U.S. Senators have introduced legislation aimed at accelerating the growth of clean technology manufacturing industries here in the United States. The American Clean Technology Manufacturing Leadership Act, which would extend a 30 percent tax credit for creating, expanding re-tooling clean tech manufacturing facilities, is a commendable step forward to boost U.S. competitiveness in the global clean tech industry. But the United States sorely lacks a clean energy economy strategy capable of achieving economic leadership in the clean energy race. This legislation is one step in what must be a comprehensive and robust strategy that prioritizes large public investments in clean energy innovation, manufacturing, deployment, and infrastructure.
Yesterday, U.S. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Orrin Hatch (R-UT), Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), and Richard Lugar (R-IN) introduced bipartisan legislation aimed at accelerating the growth of clean technology manufacturing industries in the United States.
The American Clean Technology Manufacturing Leadership Act would extend a tax credit first introduced in the short-term American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) to allow companies to write-off 30 percent of the cost of creating, expanding or re-tooling domestic clean tech manufacturing facilities.
The ARRA program--called the Advanced Energy Manufacturing Tax Credit--provides $2.3 billion in tax credits and has spurred new investments in U.S. clean tech manufacturing facilities. Funding for the popular program is expected to dry up in mid-January but the new legislation would provide an additional $2.5 billion to extend the life of the program.
In a statement on the release of the bill, Senator Stabenow proclaimed that the legislation is critical to boost economic growth, job creation, and U.S. competitiveness in the global clean energy race:
"In order to turn our economy around and create jobs, we need to build the clean energy technology of the future here in America. Otherwise, we will lose the race with other countries and see those jobs go overseas."
One might argue that global treaty negotiations should be explicitly focused on shared support for sustainable global development, rather than on emissions cuts. Developing and deploying the technologies and tools needed to fuel sustainable development at a global scale is the task of the 21st century. It's time the international community focused squarely on that task, for without solutions to this key challenge, no effort to stabilize the climate will succeed.
Some food for thought here: Nathan Wyeth pens a very thoughtful column on the Copenhagen climate summit focused on the key challenges of fueling sustainable global development and expanded energy-access to the billions of energy poor worldwide, via the new WRI-affiliated blog, NextBillion.net:
Promising "we can and will pass climate change and energy independence legislation this Congress," Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) unveiled a new framework intended to form the core of a "compromise" climate and energy bill capable of clearing the 60-vote hurdle needed to secure passage. Details are still vague, but here's a run-down of where that framework is headed...
Promising "we can and will pass climate change and energy independence legislation this Congress," Senators John Kerry (D-MA), Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) unveiled a new framework intended to form the core of a "compromise" climate and energy bill capable of clearing the 60-vote hurdle needed to secure passage.
The framework aims to cut U.S. emissions of greenhouse gases by 17% below 2005 levels in the "near-term," by which the senators apparently mean the year 2020. The three senators brand such a target "achievable and reasonable" and also declare their support for "a long term target of approximately 80 percent below 2005 levels," presumably by 2050.
Details of the new proposal are still scant, in an apparent nod to several Senate committee chairs -- and the numerous swing votes -- who will no doubt shape the final legislation.
Sen. Liberman told reporters today "there are well over 60 votes in play in the Senate, not that we have 60 votes yet." He'll have a steep hill to climb by all accounts.
Will details still vague, we can only get a sense of where the new Kerry-Graham-Lieberman framework is headed, but here's a run-down of notable passages...
From the opening ceremony's video of a little girl running from an earthquake to the promises of emissions reductions, everything taking place in Copenhagen is contrived. The outcome of climate talks -- no treaty, no emissions reductions -- was known in advance. And yet participants pretend there is an unfolding drama. As such, Copenhagen is history's first completely postmodern global event. It's a festival of phoniness. With the ambitions of Versailles but the power of Davos, Copenhagen creates a cognitive dissonance for its creators, which results in ever-more manic displays of apocalypse anxiety and false hope. In the end, Copenhagen tells us more about ourselves -- our post-American world, our fragmented media environment, and our hyper-partisanship -- than about any attempt to slow global warming.
For a brief moment in Copenhagen, the effort to address climate change spoke with a single voice. It was the voice of a middle-class Danish girl, the protagonist of a four-minute film called "Please Help the World," produced for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark to show at the opening ceremonies.
The film begins with the girl watching television news of climate disasters. That night, clutching her polar bear stuffed animal, she dreams a terrifying nightmare: climate apocalypse. She is hit by a flood. She runs from tornadoes. An earthquake, apparently the result of some as yet unknown climate change impact, tears the earth asunder.
John Cowgill, an AP Environmental Science student in Lexington, Kentucky writes that the solution to global warming ultimately lies in creating a viable solution to fossil fuels.
"I am somewhat of a cornucopianist. Although I don't think ALL of the world's ecological problems can be solved with technology, I do believe that the solution to global warming ultimately lies in creating a viable solution to fossil fuels and not waiting on people to stop driving cars. As the [TIME] article itself explicitly states "...while global politics may shape how quickly and appropriately we structure our response to climate change, the actual work of reducing carbon emissions will ultimately be a technological problem." Thus, I am amazed that countries are not doing more to invest in green technology research. No nation is anywhere close to putting adequate funds into green technology research, and I believe the first nation to start research will put itself in a fantastic position economically, socially, and, of course, technologically."
-John Cowgill, AP Environmental Science student at Henry Clay High School, Lexington, KY.
Addressing the global clean technology challenge is the crux of the matter in Copenhagen, despite continued international focus on targets and timetables, according to a new article by TIME's Bryan Walsh. Citing recent Breakthrough coverage of climate negotiations in Copenhagen and the energy challenge, Walsh explains why an international treaty should center on technology and include the investments in innovation that will make clean energy cheap.
Addressing the global clean technology challenge should be the focus of climate negotiations in Copenhagen, not carbon emissions reduction targets, writes TIME's Bryan Walsh.
TIME's Bryan Walsh emphasizes the need for the additional investments in clean energy technology highlighting the International Energy Agency's call for $10.5 trillion between now and 2030 and citing a recent blog post by the Breakthrough Institute's Jesse Jenkins and Devon Swezey:
But there is one number that may not get discussed much at Copenhagen, even though it is as important as all the others: $10.5 trillion. That is the additional investment needed between now and 2030 to set the world on the path to low-carbon development, according to the International Energy Agency -- a number that is far above the pittance the world currently spends on clean energy research and development (R&D). As Jesse Jenkins and Devon Swezey of the think tank Breakthrough Institute wrote on Dec. 7: "Without measurable progress that dramatically increases global investments in clean energy, we can forget stabilizing global temperatures or atmospheric carbon dioxide at any level."
It is up to the international representatives attending climate negotiations in Copenhagen to save the world from utter destruction -- at least that is the message of the film (embedded below) used to open the much anticipated event earlier this week. The short film focuses on a little girl who, after having an apocalyptic dream in which she experiences climate Armageddon, learns of the Copenhagen climate talks and video tapes herself pleading with the delegates to "Please save the world."
Although clearly intended to be inspirational to the attendees, the tiresome apocalyptic footage of earth's demise combined with the notion that negotiators have the power to alter the course of climate destruction in two weeks is self-congratulatory at best. More accurately, it's strikingly narcissistic (read: delusions of grandeur) given that the premise of these talks, agreeing to internationally binding carbon emissions reduction targets, continues to fixate on empty promises that include no developed, strategic plan to transform the way the world makes and uses energy.
As insidious abstractions, the focus on targets and timetables leaves delegates and world leaders free to give short-shrift to the technology innovation strategies and major clean energy investments required to decarbonize the global energy sector. Wrangling over emissions targets thus paves the way for "bold commitments" that lack the integrity of actions required to truly build a low-carbon global energy system and mitigate climate change.
A cynic might consider this insistence on abstraction intentional; a way for politicians and world leaders to "come together" to demonstrate their "shared commitment" to "climate action" without actually having to wrestle with the difficult task of transforming the world's energy system.
Here's a brief look at the targets outlined by some of the key international players in the Copenhagen negotiations.
Forget 80% by 2050 and 450ppm. Stop fixating on emissions reduction targets and timetables. As UN climate negotiations begin today in Copenhagen, there is only one number that deserves the world's attention: $10.5 trillion. That is the scale of shared investment that the International Energy Agency says is necessary over the next two decades to bring about a clean energy revolution and enable the global community to meet its climate goals. For years, climate activists and government leaders have continued to obsess about emissions reduction targets, while paying short shrift to the critical clean technology investments that we will need to get us there. If Copenhagen doesn't get us closer to closing the massive clean technology investment gap, it will have failed the global community.
Forget 80% by 2050 and 450ppm. Stop fixating on emissions reduction targets and timetables. As UN climate talks kick off in Copenhagen, Denmark, if you want a number to focus the world's attention on, try this one: $10.5 trillion.
That's the scale of additional investment required between now and 2030 to put the world's energy system on a lower-carbon path, according to the world energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency.
Without measurable progress that dramatically increases global investments in clean energy, we can forget stabilizing global temperatures or atmospheric carbon dioxide at any level. And as the IEA makes clear, the world's governments must lead the way in making massive public investments to rapidly develop and deploy an array of clean energy technologies capable of sustainably and affordably powering the planet.
So for those following the progress in Copenhagen, keep that sense of scale -- $10.5 trillion -- and just one phrase on your mind: Show me the money!
Enough With the Targets and Timetables
In the days leading up to the UN climate summit beginning today in Copenhagen, the focus has been on pronouncements from world leaders establishing various national targets to reduce or curb the growth of the carbon dioxide emissions principally driving global warming.
In July of this year, the world's 17 largest economies declared support for "an aspirational global goal" to reduce emissions by 50% by 2050. Then, the world watched in recent weeks as first the United States, then China and most recently Brazil and India put their emissions pledges on the table. Each would cut their emissions some amount by some date, with the developed countries outlining targets for absolute cuts to CO2 emissions and most developing countries, including China and India, announcing reductions in the carbon intensity of their economies (aka CO2 per GDP).
As the Times info-graphic clearly illustrates, the "Lessons from Kyoto" are clear: economic trajectories, and little else, determined emissions outcomes under the targets and timetables focused Kyoto Protocol. Without a proactive and massive shared global effort to sever economic growth from emissions by accelerating clean technology innovation and deployment, the Copenhagen summit now underway shouldn't be expected to produce a dramatically different outcome than it's Kyoto predecessor, despite likely "participation" from the U.S. and big developing nations like China this time around.
A new info-graphic from the New York Times, released today as UN climate talks begin in Copenhagen, looks at the "Lessons from Kyoto," the global treaty that's ongoing fate will be the focus of UN climate negotiations beginning today in Copenhagen, Denmark.
The graphic gets the lessons pretty much dead-on, including how little actual progress any nations have made towards meeting their Kyoto "obligations." As the Times notes, "The legacy of the Kyoto Protocol is mixed." Of the 36 wealthy nations who agreed under the 1997 treaty to cut their emissions by an average of 5% below historic 1990 levels, just 18 are on track to meet their targets, almost all of them in Europe.
As the graphic illustrates, the bulk of these "successful" nations are former members of the Soviet bloc, and almost all saw deep economic declines after the fall of the Soviet Union, which conveniently occurred after the 1990 emissions baseline year used in the Kyoto treaty. Deindustrializing Eastern bloc nations, including East Germany, saw big cuts in their emissions and made compliance with the Kyoto protocol easy. Better yet, for these nations, exceeding their Kyoto "obligations" left them with excess credits under the treaty framework that they could sell to other nations struggling to cut their own emissions.
Emphasizing the need for government investment in clean energy technology to boost U.S. economic competitiveness with Asian nations like China, Japan, and South Korea, CNBC cites "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," and has Breakthrough's Jesse Jenkins weigh in on what the U.S. must to do lead the clean energy race and mitigate climate change.
The developing global clean energy race has serious implications for pending U.S. climate and energy legislation, CNBC reported today. The article, which summarizes how the focus of the bill is being repackaged as a jobs bill, emphasizes that the U.S. is already well behind in the clean energy race, which could cost it thousands if not millions of clean energy jobs, not to mention the economic benefits of its position as a world leader in technology innovation.
The article cites "Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant," a recent report released by the Breakthrough Institute and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and quotes Breakthrough's Director of Climate and Energy Policy, Jesse Jenkins.
A recent Nature article by Breakthrough Senior Fellow Christopher Green and co-author Isabel Galiana explains why a technology-led policy is the best way to achieve climate stabilization and transition to a future fueled by clean energy technology.
"The fixation on near-term targets for reducing greenhouse-gas emissions at the climate meeting in Copenhagen has resulted in insufficient attention towards the technological means of achieving them."
So begins "Let the Global Technology Race Begin," an article in Nature by Breakthrough Senior Fellow Christopher Green and co-author Isabel Galiana explaining the need for a technology-led approach to mitigating climate change instead of the emissions reductions target approach that is the hallmark of conventional climate policy.
The authors' focus on a technology builds on the findings of a 2008 Nature article entitled, "Dangerous Assumptions," co-authored by Green, Breakthrough Senior Fellow Roger Pielke, Jr., and Tom Wigley. They found that the IPCC had significantly underestimated the emissions reductions necessary to achieve climate stabilization and thus, had seriously underestimated the scale of the technology challenge, concluding:
"enormous advances in energy technology will be needed to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at levels that are currently considered acceptable... In the end, there is no question whether technological innovation is necessary -- it is. The question is, to what degree should policy focus explicitly on motivating such innovation?"
Here, Green and Galiana answer this question. Their analysis shows:
"cumulative emissions consistent with minimizing the rise in global temperature (climate stabilization) can be achieved by investing US$100 billion a year for the rest of the century in global energy R&D, testing, demonstration, and infrastructure."
The two experts offer three suggestions for how a technology-led approach to policy would work to catalyze the research, development, and deployment of a steady stream of clean energy technologies:
1) Instead of emissions targets, governments would agree to "credible long-term global commitments to invest in energy R&D," technology and infrastructure financed by "a low carbon price of $5 per tonne of emitted carbon dioxide, which would raise almost $150 billion per year globally and $30 billion in the United States alone."
2) The carbon price would "send a forward pricing signal to deploy new or improved low-carbon technologies" by rising gradually over time "doubling, say, every 10 years."
"These would span the technology spectrum: basic R&D in breakthrough technologies, 'enabling' R&D that allows scale-up of existing technologies (such as utility-scale storage for intermittent solar and wind energy); testing and demonstration projects; end energy-related infrastructure, such as 'smart grid' that help to manage intermittent energy sources."
3) Dedicated trust funds should be created to isolate R&D monies from "political interference." These funds would be overseen "by independent committees drawn from the public and private sectors." Countries that do not engage in R&D could use their portion of the funds "to purchase successfully developed technologies from those that do participate [in R&D]."
Galiana and Green explain how a technology-led policy "inverts the usual relationship between carbon pricing and technology, whereby carbon pricing is naively expected to induce fundamental technological innovation."
Climategate and Climate McCarthyism are both symptomatic of efforts to narrow the public debate. Now that such heavy-handed efforts have narrowed the scientific debate and may have seriously damaged the credibility of climate science, prominent climate scientists and others are beginning to speak out against the politicization of climate science and Climate McCarthyism.
Climategate and Climate McCarthyism are both symptomatic of efforts to narrow the public debate. For twenty years these efforts have backfired. Narrowing the policy debate has fed political polarization, making political action increasingly difficult.
Now, heavy-handed efforts to narrow the scientific debate have seriously damaged the credibility of climate science. In simplistically imagining, first, that climate science could speak with a single voice and, second, trump all other considerations about how to deal with a complicated technological, economic, environmental and social problem, hyper-partisan environmental advocates and sympathetic scientists have set back efforts to address global warming.
Happily, other prominent climate scientists and researchers are beginning to speak out against the bad behavior by other climate scientists in ClimateGate.
Global trade issues continue to put the U.S. in a climate conundrum, presenting perhaps the thorniest negotiating point as world leaders prepare to meet for international climate talks in Copenhagen next week. Indeed, on the eve of the global climate talks, the negotiating positions of the United States and major developing economies, including China and India, appear to remain at loggerheads. Here's why...
The United States may be stuck in the middle of a climate conundrum. A proposal to establish border tariffs to account for the carbon associated with the imported manufactured products, like steel, looks critical to securing the support of key swing Senators interested in protecting the competitive position of American manufacturing. ... Yet ... those same tariff provisions that could win passage of a U.S. climate bill are firmly opposed by China and other developing nations and could both damage Sino-American trade relations and fissure international climate negotiations.
Breakthrough's Yael Borofsky wrote that back in October, and this climate conundrum continues to present perhaps the thorniest negotiating point as world leaders prepare to meet for international climate talks in Copenhagen next week. Indeed, on the eve of the global climate talks, the negotiating positions of the United States and major developing economies, including China and India, appear to remain at loggerheads.
In a letter to President Obama today, nine moderate Democratic Senators, all key swings for climate legislation or ratification of any international climate treaty, reiterated their demands that any international climate framework U.S. negotiators sign in Copenhagen must include comparable action from all major economies and allow tariffs to adjust prices on imports from any nation that does not agree to bindings agreements to reduce emissions "in specific trade- and energy-intensive economic sectors."
"Climate change is a serious and growing threat to the United States and the world," the Senators wrote. "Smart climate change policies would guard against these risks while also spurring clean energy investments that promote economic growth and create good domestic jobs."
"Importantly, however, poorly designed climate policies could also jeopardize U.S. national interest," the Senators warned, "by imposing burdens on U.S. consumers, companies and workers without solving the climate challenge."
To address these challenges, the U.S. should seek to negotiate a new international climate agreement under which, "All major economies should adopt ambitious, quantifiable, measurable, reportable and verifiable national actions" to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Furthermore, U.S. climate policy, the Senators wrote, should include provisions to implement border adjustment tariffs if necessary to help shield domestic industries facing international competition from countries that have not implemented carbon reduction requirements for their industrial sectors.
Here's the key excerpt from the letter, signed by Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow of Michigan, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Claire McCaskill of Missouri, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Mark Begich of Alaska:
European and Asian high-speed rail manufacturers are courting U.S. government officials in hopes of securing contracts for some of the $8 billion dollars of federal stimulus funds ear-marked for domestic high-speed rail (HSR) projects. Notably absent from the list of companies vying for the cash are American companies. Without the development of a domestic high-speed rail manufacturing base, much of the HSR technology and expertise will continue to come from overseas, with many of the new jobs being created overseas as well.
European and Asian high-speed rail manufacturers are courting U.S. government officials in hopes of securing contracts for some of the $8 billion dollars of federal stimulus funds ear-marked for domestic high-speed rail (HSR) projects.
According to Greenwire, foreign manufacturers are hosting country visits for federal and state government officials to see their high-speed train technologies, as well as dropping not-so-subtle hints that they will build new domestic manufacturing facilities, or expand existing ones, if they are awarded contracts.
States are also feverishly competing for federal funds. According to NPR, forty states and the District of Columbia have already filed applications requesting more than $100 billion for high-speed rail projects. The most ambitious project is a proposed $40 billion, 800-mile HSR network in California spanning from Sacramento to San Diego. Although the Federal Railroad Administration has yet to award any of the $8 billion in government funds to any state or project, companies from Germany, France, Canada, Japan, and China are hoping that early efforts to charm government officials will pay off down the road.
Notably absent from those promoting their HSR technologies are American companies. That's because the United States ceded international leadership in the transportation technology in the 1960s, when Japan became the first nation to construct a national high-speed rail network.
The United Nations body in charge of managing carbon trading has suspended approvals for dozens of Chinese wind farms amid questions over the country's use of industrial policy to obtain money under the scheme.
China has earned 153m carbon credits, worth more than $1bn and making up almost half of the total issued under the UN-run programme in the past five years, according to a Financial Times analysis. The credits are currently trading at about $10-$15 each.
Industrial countries can meet part of their commitments under the 1997 Kyoto protocol to battle global warming by financing projects that mitigate emissions in developing nations. Projects only qualify for credits if the applicants prove they would not have been built anyway, a condition known as "additionality".
The controversy over Chinese wind farms and other CDM projects will intensify calls for the system to be overhauled at the UN's Copenhagen conference, which opens on Monday.
China-based consultants said the CDM's board in Bonn began refusing approval for Chinese wind power projects in the middle of 2009, over concerns Beijing had deliberately lowered subsidies to make them eligible for funding.
"The board now suddenly says the projects are not additional, whereas in the past they found no fault with additionality," said Yang Zhiliang, general manager of Accord Global Environment Technology, one of China's leading CDM consultants. "They are blaming the Chinese government and its decision to lower subsidies."
Ms Yang said Beijing had other aims, such as limiting overcapacity in the wind turbine sector, in setting subsidies. "The Chinese government wouldn't adjust subsidies just to bag CDM money," she said.
Industry officials said the CDM board had refused approval for about 50 wind power projects. Doubts over whether CDM funding will be available in the future has also prompted power companies to stall new wind power investments.
Lex de Jonge, head of the UN board, confirmed that "a handful of [Chinese] projects" had been suspended but declined to give reasons. Michael Wara, of Stanford University, said there were considerable problems in China with the CDM's rules.
With the emphasis that Beijing is now placing on both smaller hydro-electric projects and wind power, the government would have supported at least some of the projects receiving money under the CDM scheme anyway.
"It is hard to believe that there is additionality in many of the energy projects in China right now," he said.
"Attaining the 2 degree goal in the United States with existing technology will likely be very expensive. Doing so in the developing world with existing expensive technology is likely to be impossible. ...
While an emissions price is an absolute requirement for an efficient regulatory framework, it is likely not the sole requirement. Due to some imperfections in any market economy, price signals may be dampened or be short circuited. This is particularly true in the market for research and development, where it is well known that firms have incentives to under-invest in research and development (R&D) due to the fact they cannot capture all the returns to R&D--some of those returns spill over to others in the market that did not invest as much. In this case, the emissions price cannot fully motivate the R&D market and therefore a well-designed regulatory program will contain a role for government funding of R&D. ...
In addition to the economic rational for government support of R&D, there is a political case to be made. Spurring R&D and demonstration and deployment of financially risky technology investments may require an emissions price that is not politically viable (that is, it is too high to be politically acceptable). In this case, absent the market imperfections above, the price is simply too low to generate the needed investments and government must step in to support the required levels of from R&D and demonstration and deployment."
-Ray Kopp, Senior Fellow at Resources for the Future, in testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Dec. 2, 2009.
Three U.S. Senators and a U.S. Congressman have unveiled new bi-partisan legislation intended to boost the international competitiveness of the United States' ailing solar technology manufacturing industry. The legislation is a commendable first step forward as components of a broader clean energy economy strategy. A full suite of long-term and targeted clean energy technology policies will be necessary for the United States to remain competitive in the global clean energy race.
Last month, U.S. Senators Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Robert Menendez (D-NJ), as well as Congressman Dave Camp (R-MI) introduced the Solar Manufacturing Jobs Creation Act, intended to boost the international competitiveness the U.S. solar manufacturing industry. After introducing the legislation, Senator Stabenow said it was necessary to "help us win the global race against China and other countries to produce solar technology in the clean energy economy."
The bi-partisan legislation would extend the existing solar Investment Tax Credit (ITC), which offers a 30 percent tax credit for solar energy investment and deployment, to cover the construction of new solar manufacturing facilities as well. The ITC was recently given an eight-year extension in the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act (EESA) of 2008.
The new legislation would also give solar manufacturers access to the temporary cash grant program created by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), which has successfully boosted the deployment of renewable technologies, primarily wind power.
The new U.S. legislation is the second in as many months that aims to support the domestic solar industry. In late October, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Solar Technology Roadmap Act, which would require the U.S. Department of Energy to appoint a group of experts to create a long-term plan to guide solar energy R&D and the commercialization of next-generation solar technologies. While the bill only authorizes $2.25 billion for solar R&D over the next five years, it represents a sizable increase in funding and a move toward a more strategic and targeted approach to clean energy development.
If the U.S. is to regain its position as a global leader in clean energy technology, and solar in particular, much more targeted policy support is needed. Both the Solar Technology Roadmap Act and the Solar Manufacturing Jobs Creation Act are important first steps forward in developing a comprehensive clean energy economy strategy capable of revitalizing the U.S. economy and making the United States a world leader in clean energy technology once again.
A friend of mine attending the Youth Clean Energy Forum tomorrow asked me to suggest some talking points (for the administration and fellow youth leaders) and pre-readings. Here's what I wrote (cross-posted from LeadEnergy):
I. Any successful global climate treaty has to go beyond the traditional framework of binding emissions targets. Kyoto failed. China, India, and the rest of the developing world have made it unequivocal that they will not adopt meaningful targets. The right model is shared government investments in technology development and economic development -- as per the creation of the EU and the Marshall Plan -- not bindings emissions targets, which allow politicians to commit to distant targets they ultimately have little or no responsibility for achieving. The International Energy Agency says $10 trillion in global clean energy investment is necessary over the next two decades. The UN recently called for $500-600 billion annually in developing countries alone, including adaptation efforts. One alternative that could accommodate a technology and investment-centered strategy is a "carbon cap equivalency" framework, explained here by Julian Wong et al. Another has been dubbed the "Direct Kaya Approach," a targeted, sectoral-based strategy to directly reduce the carbon intensity of economies. Another is a "national schedules" approach. Regardless, what is demanded now is massive and immediate investment to develop and deploy low-carbon energy technology across the world, without which the next global climate treaty will surely fail.
China has put some numbers on its carbon intensity pledge -- that is, its aim to reduce carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP. China has promised to reduced its carbon intensity of GDP by 40-45% by 2020. While a few folks have been fooled (or are trying to fool you) into thinking that it is meaningful, others including the Obama Administration are not fooled. The reality is a bit more subtle and complex than either of these perspectives.
"The US commitment to specific, mid-term emission cut targets and China's commitment to specific action on energy efficiency can unlock two of the last doors to a comprehensive agreement. Let there be no doubt that we need continued strong ambition and leadership,"
A senior Obama administration official said that the United States had pressed hard for a public commitment from China and was relieved that it had delivered. But the official, who spoke anonymously because of the delicacy of the matter, called the carbon intensity figure "disappointing," and said that the administration hoped it represented a gambit that would be negotiated upward at Copenhagen or in subsequent talks.
Understanding the various receptions of the proposed target from China requires understanding a bit of the geopolitical context. Europeans simply want the US and China to come to the table talking about numbers, so any proposal is a step forward. Meantime, the US wants to avoid being cast as the international climate bad guy so will do whatever it can to portray its own proposed 17% cut from 2005 levels as more ambitious that China's intensity target.
Hotel guests should have their electricity monitored; hefty aviation taxes should be introduced to deter people from flying; and iced water in restaurants should be curtailed, the world's leading climate scientist has told the Observer.
Rajendra Pachauri, the chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), warned that western society must undergo a radical value shift if the worst effects of climate change were to be avoided. A new value system of "sustainable consumption" was now urgently required, he said.
"Today we have reached the point where consumption and people's desire to consume has grown out of proportion," said Pachauri. "The reality is that our lifestyles are unsustainable."
With the head of the IPCC saying that you can't have ice water in restaurants, the opponents to action on climate change can probably go on vacation. They just can't buy advocacy of this quality.
If the climate science community is going to reverse the perception that it is a highly politicized clique, then it will at some point be necessary to reign in the IPCC leadership from being overt political advocates.
