CAN’T WAIT FOR MARKETS TO BUILD TOMORROW

In the most recent round of UN talks about a climate change agreement to replace the Kyoto Agreement when it expires in 2013, China and India once again reiterated their commitment to economic growth strategies ahead of greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategies. They made the familiar argument that western nations had a century and all the fossil fuels they wanted to grow and Asia should have the right to the same opportunities for its citizens.

Then, in a conciliatory gesture, China asked that industrialized nations dedicate 0.5% of their GDP toward establishing clean energy technologies in emerging economies. The U.S. rejected the offer.

Jeffrey D. Sachs, head, Earth Institute/Columbia University: “[Technologies like capturing and burying carbon dioxide, plug-in hybrid cars and solar-thermal electric plants] will require a combination of factors to succeed: more applied scientific research, important regulatory changes, appropriate infrastructure, public acceptance and early high-cost investments…A failure on one or more of these points could kill the technologies.”

Being UNwilling to make "early high-cost investments" in New Energy development for emerging economies is NOT on Sachs’ list. It was a mistake by the U.S. representatives. It was also short-sighted. Stimulating interest in New Energy in the burgeoning economies of the developing world is a huge economic opportunity. In retail, it’s called a loss leader – spending money to get customers interested in patented technologies so they will come calling later to buy.

Another missed opportunity. What were the U.S. representatives afraid of? That dissidents in India would learn to use solar panel technology for terrorist purposes? That China would use wind turbine technology to violate Tibetan rights?

The original IPCC hopes of spontaneous emissions reductions were based on assumptions about uptake of New Energy technologies that isn't happening. (from Dangerous Assumptions - click to enlarge)

A Shift in the Debate Over Global Warming
Andrew C. Revkin, April 6, 2008 (NY Times)

WHO
Jeffrey D. Sachs, head, Earth Institute/Columbia University; Roger Pielke Jr., University of Colorado, and Tom Wigley, National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), and Christopher Green, McGill University; Joseph Romm, climate change blogger, climateprogress.org /senior fellow, Center for American Progress; Adil Najam, professor/author of IPCC report, Boston University

Professor John Holdren of Woods Holes and Harvard stopped a recent UN conclave by asking this and then... (click to enlarge)

WHAT
- On the heels of the Pielke/Wigley/Green Dangerous Assumptions paper, other experts are weighing in with statements about the growing urgency of dealing with climate change and the best ways of doing so. Some are questioning the efficacy of the kind of cap-and-trade system the EU now has and the U.S. will probably soon institute.
- Sachs’ contribution to the debate was in Keys to Climate Protection

WHEN
The Dangerous Assumptions paper was published in the April 4 issue of the journal Nature.

...asking this. (click to enlarge)

WHERE
The point of the Dangerous Assumptions paper is that emerging economies, especially in Asia, Africa and Latin America are not adopting new technologies but remain dependent on fossil fuels and thereby worsening climate change-inducing greenhouse gas concentrations.

WHY
- Sachs leads other voices in calling for a Manhattan Project-like program of government leadership, government policy and government spending to implement advanced, low-carbon technologies.
- Many proponents of the cap-and-trade agree with the call for implementation of new technologies by government action. They simply see bringing market action to bear as a way to get governments involved, especially when dealing with conservatives disinclined toward big government programs.
- Example offered of Asian fossil fuel development: the World Bank’s International Finance Corporation is expected to finance India’s “Ultra Mega” complex of new coal-burning power plants.

There is no way to change the direction of this curve, only its steepness and the amount of emissions-free energy in it. (click to enlarge)


QUOTES
- Sachs: “Even with a cutback in wasteful energy spending, our current technologies cannot support both a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people.”
- Pielke/Wigley/Green, Dangerous Assumptions: “There is no question about whether technological innovation is necessary — it is…The question is, to what degree should policy focus directly on motivating such innovation?”
- Romm, climate change blogger/senior fellow, Center for American Progress: “Of course we need aggressive investments in R. and D. — I for one have been arguing that for two decades…But if we don’t start aggressively deploying the technologies we have now for the next quarter century, then all the new technologies in the world won’t avert catastrophe.”
- Najam, BU: “You can do a tremendous lot with available technology…It is true that this will not be enough to lick the problem, but it will be a very significant and probably necessary difference.”