Feature: Nine Visions of the Future
Climate change, excessive emissions of greenhouse gases, the need to find alternative sources of energy: we face many challenges in the coming century. For the past year Comment Visions has sought the views of scientists and industrialists on how we may find solutions. Euronews travelled to Norway, Sweden, France, Turkey, Spain, Britain, Switzerland and the Netherlands, seeking out those who were working at the frontiers of knowledge. At the same time, European Voice held regular debates inviting delegates from politics, industry, government and science to take part in finding answers to the burning questions that confront us. Nine Views of the Future is a selection of the opinions expressed in the television programme.
Discussion - December 2008
Energy and environment: what more can we do to meet the challenges of the future?
17 Comments from our contributors
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Owner
Beacon Energy Ltd
said: On 01/12/2008
Beacon Energy Ltd investigates petrol from air and water. We need to Copy Nature in the way she made oil.
The World is facing an energy crisis in a few years time as Oil supplies dry and demand soars, our society is ** DEPENDANT on oil, China , has just gone up to 5 barrels per head per year, against “ developed” countries at 15 barrels per head per year, and there is India, and Africa to come, we need an inexhaustible supply of Synthetic Oil, which is carbon neutral.
Prof Tony Marmont, owner of Beacon Energy Ltd and a long-term proponent of Renewable Energy, has been exploring the concept of manufacturing liquid fuels from carbon dioxide and hydrogen via a Fischer-Tropsch (FT) reaction route. The key steps are ideas being developed by Dr David Benton and Richard Monkhouse, to extract carbon dioxide from the air to produce a feedgas for the FT process. The production route should be a near-term solution to carbon neutral synthetic fuels.
If CO2 extraction from the air can be developed economically, then combined with unlimited amounts of hydrogen from water electrolysis and with the two processes driven by renewable electricity, the result would be carbon neutral fuels available in unlimited amounts. This process has now been defined and costed and tested by the group .This would give every nation the opportunity to manufacture its own fuel, thereby removing the geo-political problems of oil supply. We intend to have an open technology, i.e. no patent to facilitate free access and production. The production scale of a manufacturing plant could be large or small to suite any country’s needs. For the future, additional hydrogen might be generated from a thermo-chemical cycle driven by a nuclear reactor. The process is particularly attractive to produce aviation fuel as carbon neutral alternatives to Jet-A remain problematical.
The “team” are anxious to build a 10 ton a day plant producing petrol from air and water as soon as possible, so that can be ramped up commercially to a 140,000 tons a day plant for producing all UK Oil needs from within the UK.( i.e. no foreign exchange drain)
Conversion of CO2 with hydrogen to CO via the Reverse Water Gas Shift reaction is well known and the further conversion of CO and hydrogen to hydrocarbons is practiced in ‘Gas to Liquids’ and ‘coal to liquids’ technology being demonstrated by Shell, Sasol and others. We now have to prove the viable separation of CO2 from air, using absorbtion using Sodium Hydroxide and then stripping using Sodium Carbonate , or even direct with gas centrifuges. Our initial work is showing great promise, with low energy inputs.
Professor of Public Health and Microbiology
Columbia University
said: On 01/01/2009
The rich countries must invest heavily over the next 5-10 years in alternative energy sources, particularly hydrogen fuel cell technologies. The world must become more proactive regarding the development of non-polluting energy sources.
Commercial Counsellor
Embassy of Hungary/ Office of Economic Affairs
said: On 01/01/2009
We shall have to gradually switch over to new energy sources (solar, wind, geothermal, hidrogen etc.) from the “archaic” ones (coal, oil, gas) otherwise we are courting disaster to the planet – in order to render it also economically viable in the first phases governments should introduce temporary incentive schemes partly financed from tax increases levied on “dirty” energy sources alongside with massive support on R|ANAMP|D and Innovation in this sector.
Environmental projects: over the course of the past years we have organised several workshops on geothermal, bio and renewable energy as well as on innovative green technologies in Brussels and held Presentation on the new environmental challenges of the automotive industry at ACEA 2008.
Deputy Representative
VEOLIA Environnement Europe Services
said: On 01/01/2009
The battle will be won on the field! Europe must therefore encourage a “bottom-up” approach that responds to Europe’s “top-down” decision-making process. This will help to develop territorial governance based on consultation and cooperation between stakeholders and a systemic decision-making processes at the relevant territorial level – one that will optimise the trade-offs between prosperity, economy and environment.
Fellow
Heartland Institute
said: On 01/01/2009
Despite the cries of the environmental left, the history of the last 50 years in the Western hemisphere is generally one of cleaner air, cleaner water, and a better overall environment, and not simply because of government regulation.
As Stephen Moore and the late Julian Simon wrote earlier this decade, “it’s getting better all the time” and, even if cult leader Algore and friends want us to believe otherwise, that statement remains true.
There are two main factors in this remarkable and steady improvement: The creation of wealth and the creation of new technology which that wealth allows, especially technology related to energy.
In the short term, i.e. the next ten to twenty years, “renewable” non-nuclear energy will not be an important replacement for fossil fuels. Both oil and coal will remain responsible for the majority of the western world’s power generation. But that is nothing to fear, even for those who claim a primary concern for the environment. (I say “claim” because I am extremely skeptical about such people. I believe many of them simply sow fear as a fund-raising tool and that many others use the environment as a hammer with which to smash economic liberty. As George Will so aptly put it, “today’s ‘green left’ is the old ‘red left’ revised.”)
What we can do to meet the challenges of the future at the intersection of the environment and energy needs is to let the free market work. We don’t need government subsidies, choosing winners and losers among their favored industries (more likely their biggest donors). The western world and increasingly other parts of the world are reaching levels of affluence where paying for a cleaner environment is no longer an unaffordable luxury. There is more than enough money to be made by developing efficient and clean energy that it can and will be done quickly and well if the government just gets out the way. (And if there isn’t a lot of money to be made by developing new energy sources, that would mean that oil and coal have become remarkably, wonderfully, inexpensive.)
Specifically on the environmental front, the solution is to respect and enforce property rights, including rights “of the commons”. There is measurable damage to someone who renders a river unsuitable for drinking. On the other hand, we must not let the environmental left cause any use of one’s private property that annoys a mouse or a fish to be considered environmental damage.
And, more than anything, we must fund and encourage scientists and organizations who are willing and able to challenge the hoax of man-made “global warming”, whose proponents have now switched to calling “climate change” since the planet has been cooling for the better part of a decade. There is no greater risk to national economies and the overall world economy than governments caving in to pressure from radical environmentalist groups who use junk science and the fear it creates in a scientifically ignorant public to enact laws specifically intended to make energy unaffordable.
When people argue that a particular American administration has failed in its energy policy, my retort is that the real problem is government having an energy policy. It leaves those who are or would be in the energy business always wondering how the rules of the game will next be changed, and whether they’re spending enough money on lobbyists to ensure that they’re not the next ones left without a seat in a game of political musical chairs.
Deep government involvement in energy policy must mean the death of creative development of new, clean, efficient energy sources in just the same way that government management of education leads to ignorant teenagers and government management of health care leads to rationing, long waits, and death.
In short, what we can do to meet the challenges of the future is to let the free market work, let entrepreneurs succeed and fail based on their ability not simply to solve challenges but to figure out which ones are real and which ones are the pet projects of people who use such issues either to attack capitalism or to feather their own nests.
Legal Advisor
European Landowners’ Organization
said: On 01/01/2009
The objective in the next decades is that these two terms do not come into opposition any longer but that they are considered as the two facets of the same coin. And this should be reflected in policy design. Energy is the blood of the economy and finding sustainable and cost – effective ways to both consume it and produce it is crucial for our future, much beyond the current context of crisis and high oil prices.
The countryside stakeholders and rural businesses have a key role to play as we move towards a low-carbon economy. Private land managers can help deliver sustainable energy targets directly and indirectly, both from the supply side and the demand side.
They provide the necessary raw materials to produce bioenergy for heat, transport fuels and electricity – e.g. biogas, energy from crops and biofuels – as an alternative to fossil fuels. These sources have a great potential provided the respective markets are developed enough. The controversy around biofuels does not teach us that we should abandon the idea but that we should assess the life cycle impact of each type of biofuel production, i.e. that we make sure they are actually sustainable and that they do not compete with food. In this respect, working with science and technological innovation is a highly desirable option. Other renewable energies from biomass sources are very promising in tomorrow’s energy mix: energy from wood for renewable heat or biogas which can help deal with waste, reduce pollution and recycle nutrients. Thanks to technology, second generation biomass processes will allow better performances. However the strategic importance of biomass is currently undervalued. The countryside can also provide timber to replace materials such as concrete, brick and steel which are energy intensive thus carbon emitting industrial processes.
In addition, countryside managers are committed to enhanced energy efficiency, a crucial policy to considerably reduce the ecological footprint of energy consumption, to improve competitiveness and to lessen dependence on fossil energy sources for businesses and citizens
Rural areas have the capacity to compensate for the carbon emitted by fossil fuels through, for example, forests, which are great carbon sinks. However this service, like many other ecosystem services supplied to society as a whole by private land, is not properly valued on the market. Private land managers should be rewarded for these environmental services in order for them to have a further incentive to invest in sustainable management of their land.
The environment is not only a State matter. The private sector has a lot to offer provided the market and innovation conditions are appropriate. Policies must be global but solutions are local. They must be ambitious but realistic. Excessive and burdensome regulatory instruments are not the most efficient fashion to reach sustainability goals. Market-based instruments should be privileged where possible as they offer the advantage of allowing businesses and private economic actors greater flexibility in meeting their objectives and thus lower compliance costs. They also give firms an incentive to invest in innovation to reduce their impact on the environment. Public authorities and decision-makers should therefore work in close partnership with land managers, business and other stakeholders to define the adequate policy framework and the market and tax conditions that will enable to achieve high environmental standards. In this policy-making process, an integrated and holistic approach is necessary in order to achieve more coherence and better efficiency to meet the multiple environmental obligations. At the same time, environmental performance should be an economically valuable asset.
Clearly, the environmental and energy challenge open a new era for business and market opportunities as well as for job creation and both economic actors and decision-makers should bear this in mind when making choices for the future. It is important to make sure that policy choices are based on science and that the objectives are realistic and above all sustainable. But most of all, policy must enable to integrate solutions proposed by private countryside managers and to release the significant innovation potential of the rural world.
Member
European Parliament
said: On 01/01/2009
Humanity is facing some challenging times ahead should we wish to at least preserve our standard of living without depleting all of our energy resources and without continuing to poison the Planet we live on, at the rate that we already do.
Fortunately, it seems to me, that we still have a bit of manoeuvring space. So far, the topic of energy saving has not received the attention it needs. This is perhaps because it is not a “sexy” topic, but it could be! Neither is it a financial motivation for the energy suppliers.
There is an untapped potential in the way we build our houses, apartments, schools, etc. and also how we dress!
So far, I have never understood why we have to wear black suits in summer?? Do we have to?? Where is it written that we have to?? And indeed, most shops all around the world also sell summer cloths – which are more sexy than wool! Except to a sheep of course.
Why, in some parts of the world, do people sleep under thick duvets in hot summers with air-conditioning on? Why, in other parts of the world, do people sleep without these duvets in winter with the heating on maximum (e.g. most hotels in Strasbourg)?
Why can we no longer build a house that isolates well? Why, for example, 500 years before Christ, did the Ancient Greeks manage to build houses that were cool in hot summers and warm in winter? As far as I know, they had no air-conditioning to make them sneeze either.
These are more questions than comments, but I am not sure that we can design any useful portfolio of strategies before we answer our own very basic questions.
Although I work for STOA (Science and Technology Options Assessment – A European Parliament Service), my comments are purely personal and do not relate to any position that may or may not be taken by STOA.
Associate Editor
Global Politician
said: On 01/01/2009
The concept of “nature” is a romantic invention. It was spun by the likes of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the 18th century as a confabulated utopian contrast to the dystopia of urbanization and materialism. The traces of this dewy-eyed conception of the “savage” and his unmolested, unadulterated surroundings can be found in the more malignant forms of fundamentalist environmentalism.
At the other extreme are religious literalists who regard Man as the crown of creation with complete dominion over nature and the right to exploit its resources unreservedly. Similar, veiled, sentiments can be found among scientists. The Anthropic Principle, for instance, promoted by many outstanding physicists, claims that the nature of the Universe is preordained to accommodate sentient beings – namely, us humans.
Industrialists, politicians and economists have only recently begun paying lip service to sustainable development and to the environmental costs of their policies. Thus, in a way, they bridge the abyss – at least verbally – between these two diametrically opposed forms of fundamentalism. Still, essential dissimilarities between the schools notwithstanding, the dualism of Man vs. Nature is universally acknowledged.
Modern physics – notably the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics – has abandoned the classic split between (typically human) observer and (usually inanimate) observed. Environmentalists, in contrast, have embraced this discarded worldview wholeheartedly. To them, Man is the active agent operating upon a distinct reactive or passive substrate – i.e., Nature. But, though intuitively compelling, it is a false dichotomy.
Man is, by definition, a part of Nature. His tools are natural. He interacts with the other elements of Nature and modifies it – but so do all other species. Arguably, bacteria and insects exert on Nature far more influence with farther reaching consequences than Man has ever done.
Still, the “Law of the Minimum” – that there is a limit to human population growth and that this barrier is related to the biotic and abiotic variables of the environment – is undisputed. Whatever debate there is veers between two strands of this Malthusian Weltanschauung: the utilitarian (a.k.a. anthropocentric, shallow, or technocentric) and the ethical (alternatively termed biocentric, deep, or ecocentric).
First, the Utilitarians.
Economists, for instance, tend to discuss the costs and benefits of environmental policies. Activists, on the other hand, demand that Mankind consider the “rights” of other beings and of nature as a whole in determining a least harmful course of action.
Utilitarians regard nature as a set of exhaustible and scarce resources and deal with their optimal allocation from a human point of view. Yet, they usually fail to incorporate intangibles such as the beauty of a sunset or the liberating sensation of open spaces. “Green” accounting – adjusting the national accounts to reflect environmental data – is still in its unpromising infancy. It is complicated by the fact that ecosystems do not respect man-made borders and by the stubborn refusal of many ecological variables to succumb to numbers. To complicate things further, different nations weigh environmental problems disparately.
Despite recent attempts, such as the Environmental Sustainability Index (ESI) produced by the World Economic Forum (WEF), no one knows how to define and quantify elusive concepts such as “sustainable development”. Even the costs of replacing or repairing depleted resources and natural assets are difficult to determine.
Efforts to capture “quality of life” considerations in the straitjacket of the formalism of distributive justice – known as human-welfare ecology or emancipatory environmentalism – backfired. These led to derisory attempts to reverse the inexorable processes of urbanization and industrialization by introducing localized, small-scale production.
Social ecologists proffer the same prescriptions but with an anarchistic twist. The hierarchical view of nature – with Man at the pinnacle – is a reflection of social relations, they suggest. Dismantle the latter – and you get rid of the former.
The Ethicists appear to be as confounded and ludicrous as their “feet on the ground” opponents.
Biocentrists view nature as possessed of an intrinsic value, regardless of its actual or potential utility. They fail to specify, however, how this, even if true, gives rise to rights and commensurate obligations. Nor was their case aided by their association with the apocalyptic or survivalist school of environmentalism which has developed proto-fascist tendencies and is gradually being scientifically debunked.
The proponents of deep ecology radicalize the ideas of social ecology ad absurdum and postulate a transcendentalist spiritual connection with the inanimate (whatever that may be). In consequence, they refuse to intervene to counter or contain natural processes, including diseases and famine.
The politicization of environmental concerns runs the gamut from political activism to eco-terrorism. The environmental movement – whether in academe, in the media, in non-governmental organizations, or in legislature – is now comprised of a web of bureaucratic interest groups.
Like all bureaucracies, environmental organizations are out to perpetuate themselves, fight heresy and accumulate political clout and the money and perks that come with it. They are no longer a disinterested and objective party. They have a stake in apocalypse. That makes them automatically suspect.
Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”, was at the receiving end of such self-serving sanctimony. A statistician, he demonstrated that the doom and gloom tendered by environmental campaigners, scholars and militants are, at best, dubious and, at worst, the outcomes of deliberate manipulation.
The situation is actually improving on many fronts, showed Lomborg: known reserves of fossil fuels and most metals are rising, agricultural production per head is surging, the number of the famished is declining, biodiversity loss is slowing as do pollution and tropical deforestation. In the long run, even in pockets of environmental degradation, in the poor and developing countries, rising incomes and the attendant drop in birth rates will likely ameliorate the situation in the long run.
Yet, both camps, the optimists and the pessimists, rely on partial, irrelevant, or, worse, manipulated data. The multiple authors of “People and Ecosystems”, published by the World Resources Institute, the World Bank and the United Nations conclude: “Our knowledge of ecosystems has increased dramatically, but it simply has not kept pace with our ability to alter them.”
Quoted by The Economist, Daniel Esty of Yale, the leader of an environmental project sponsored by World Economic Forum, exclaimed: “Why hasn’t anyone done careful environmental measurement before? Businessmen always say, ‘what matters gets measured’. Social scientists started quantitative measurement 30 years ago, and even political science turned to hard numbers 15 years ago. Yet look at environmental policy, and the data are lousy.”
Nor is this dearth of reliable and unequivocal information likely to end soon. Even the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, supported by numerous development agencies and environmental groups, is seriously under-financed. The conspiracy-minded attribute this curious void to the self-serving designs of the apocalyptic school of environmentalism. Ignorance and fear, they point out, are among the fanatic’s most useful allies. They also make for good copy.
General Manager, Future Fuels & CO2
Shell
said: On 01/01/2009
In my view the two biggest challenges are firstly the absence of a global CO2 reduction agreement in which CO2 will have a cost and secondly a credible plan for the world’s biggest economies to deliver on the CO2 reduction targets. It would be helpful if Cap and Trade regimes would be set up in these economies and that clear financial incentive mechanisms are put in place for technologies that have a large carbondioxide reduction potential like CCS, biofuels, wind, solar, but also batteries and fuel cells as the latter technology will enable to even further use the potential of CCS, Wind and Solar because CO2 emissions from thousands of households and cars can be removed and can be dealt with at the energy generating source. Further, it would help if credible targets are put in place for a share of renewable sources in the energy supply and that special measures are taken for the transport sector to improve vehicle efficiency. Lastly, a series of robust energy standards for buildings an appliances with incentives to retrofit existing ones should be put in place.
Policy Officer
EUREC Agency
said: On 01/01/2009
Is there a more devilish political challenge than climate change?
The climate change problem is such that the parties involved – governments and citizens – can freeload on the efforts taken by others to address it. The effects of climate change will be felt least by the group best able to deal with it – the rich – and by the time the rich do feel their quality of life beginning to deteriorate, the damage will be irreversible. It will take decades for this to happen, making climate change a problem that builds up very slowly in comparison with other political problems. Not only that, but it appears to not be amenable to a single, rapidly-executable solution. Finally, perhaps most cruelly of all, because human lifetimes are also measured in decades, once temperatures have risen, few will have any direct experience of life before global warming. Unwittingly, we will reconcile ourselves to our new, unhappier, warmer world.
This month’s question, “Energy and environment: what more can we do to meet the challenges of the future?”, asks whether our politics is up to the task. My answer reflects the inadequacy of the political response so far: “Everything”.
Consultant
BioRegional MiniMills
said: On 01/01/2009
The EU has strict targets for CO2 emissions between now and 2050, but without a clear plan of how it’s going to reach them. The EU and the rest of the developed world really have to be successful in this, set the example and test the technologies out, so that the developing world can follow as soon as possible. In the UK where I live ordinary people have very little awareness of the urgency of the issue, don’t appreciate the big changes that everyone is going to need to make, and personally are doing very little about it. The way energy is used in buildings and in transport (which together accounts for 60% of UK emissions) needs to be tackled, just as much as how energy and fuel is generated in the future. There needs to be much greater government incentives than currently exists, for instance, for people to drive lower CO2 emissions cars, to replace pre-2001 central-heating boilers, for developers to adopt district heating systems, and to reduce the overall number of car-miles and lorry-miles made each year.
Director in DG Environment
European Commission
said: On 01/01/2009
When trying to solve problems of energy, people used to rely broadly on technology and innovation. No wonder – it helped already so many times. Certainly, it may contribute significantly to solution also this time. Still, I do believe that humans have to put same more emphasis also on the other side of equation – not only where to get energy, but also where to spare. This seems to be a banal statement. Nevertheless, it is broader than it seems to be. It is much easier to negotiate new tools, if they bring new opportunities, investments, or jobs. Energy efficiency comes with technological progress, but rarely is taken as a primary goal per se – it is rather a result of more complex technology development, often linked to need to decrease costs and increase a benefit margin. I believe we need to put much more efforts here, perhaps to find new incentives, or set up direct policy goals.
The capacity of “biological energy turbine” – the sum of all photosynthetic organisms of the Earth, able to transform solar energy into other forms captured by carbon bounds, is of some height – but not unlimited. Using the fossil fuels, we were just consuming vast reserves from past. Starting to use biofuels, we change for immediate use of bio-captured solar energy “on line”. With energy need rising all the time, carbon based energy will reach its limit one day – unfortunately we can see some signs of it already. It is therefore our duty to start seriously dealing with non-carbon energy sources now for all energy uses which are not directly dependent on carbon like our bodies are. We will need bio-captured energy for running ecosystems – for our food, our survival, and for other ecosystems services.
This brings me to the third general thought. As I said, organisms are parts of our energy generator, capable of transforming solar energy into reserves which we can – and in terms of humans’ food we need – to use. The trick is in the fact that organisms are capturing energy also for their own need to sustain living and being able to capture energy again and again. In other words, the more humankind limits the capacity of natural ecosystems to deliver ecosystem services (including capturing energy by photosynthesis) and the higher proportion of captured energy uses for its own use, the lower amount of energy remains for self-sustaining the ecosystems and, consequently, the less is captured by organisms for future use. This so called positive feedback (but with negative consequences) must be stopped. We are successful still in increasing the production of food, but on the account of overall production which we probably undermine and at many places clearly diminish. So, while capturing larger proportion of energy for our food, we are capturing probably less in total – because of deforestation, soil degradation, desertification. Energy remaining available for ecosystems is lower, and we are endangering the very base of functioning of our bio-turbine. And, unlike in human technologies, we should take into account, that there is very little, or better no chance, that technology here – photosynthesis – will be principally enhanced in visible time! It is time to start with really horizontal, in-depth going acceptance of the holistic character of natural forces which are at base of our existence on the Earth. At the end, we need to protect functional and resilient ecosystems – which means nature, biodiversity – not just for ethical or cultural reasons, economic opportunities, intrinsic values etc., but above all because it is our major source of energy (together with many other vital and principally important services), which needs to be sustained and supported. Therefore I believe that protection and restoration of ecosystems and nature is underestimated in relation to solving energy problem and not yet fully and seriously taken as our very powerful tool to be exploited.
Principal Adviser to the Bureau of European Policy Advisers
European Commission
said: On 01/01/2009
The European Council adopted the energy and climate change package on December 12, 2008. Europe has passed its credibility test and has equipped itself with unique legal guarantees. It is a very important step towards a decarbonised society and also sets an example for other developed economies and the rest of the world in the context of the international climate change negotiations. The package sets ambitious targets for 2020, but we also need to think in a longer time perspective, up to an almost fully decarbonised society, which should be the case for developed economies by the middle of this century.
Success in fighting climate change will only be achieved if the problem is simultaneously addressed in all the different timeframes. The most immediate and most economic solution is to increase energy efficiency wherever possible. This even sometimes comes with net economic gains. Take for instance the replacement of incandescent light bulbs with high efficiency ones, which will pay back in electricity cost several times their price over their lifetime.
Simultaneously, in a longer time perspective, we must support research, demonstration and deployment of new technologies into the markets to achieve real breakthroughs, because efficiency is needed, but will not be enough in the long run.
These technological ruptures must take us step by step towards a decarbonised society, going away from our dependence on fossil fuels, towards renewables, without neglecting the transitional role of nuclear, and of CO2 capture and storage.
All this should happen in the framework of a global agreement between the world economies, developing, emerging and developed, which should recognise to all the right to growth, in the spirit of the common but differentiated responsibilities put forward by the Bali roadmap.
Policy Officer
European Commission
said: On 01/01/2009
My dream is to see an energy revolution in the coming years. I dream of innovative companies that will understand that a change of paradigm is inevitable if we are to break with clearly unsustainable patterns. Companies that will seek business opportunities in that new paradigm. I am not thinking only of break-through sectors, but of companies in every sector of the economy. I believe the markets of the future are theirs.
I also dream of technological progress that will go as fast in the energy sector as we have seen in the last few years in other sectors, like telecommunications. Sectors that could improve their products at incredible speed because demand was there to make it possible. Now it is time for the market to believe in renewable energy and in energy efficiency. And the matter is urgent. From a policy point of view, the message from European leaders has been clear: they are taking climate change seriously and committing to a drastic reduction in emissions.
The ball is now in the camp of companies, and even more of citizens, who often behave like this is not their call, like someone else will solve this problem for them and for the coming generations.
But it is for policy makers to facilitate this change, by making sure that the right information and the right incentives are in place. We will certainly not save the planet by simply making energy intensive companies move to less regulated parts of the globe… there is only one earth.
Anna Sole-Mena is talking in a personal capacity and her comment do not relate to any position of the European Commission.
Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs
Climate Institute Washington DC
said: On 02/01/2009
Although vital as fuels to power the start of the Industrial Revolution and world economic development, the accelerating release of carbon dioxide from continued reliance on coal, petroleum, and natural gas for most of the world’s energy has set the Earth on an unacceptable path of global warming and sea level rise, Changes to date are already endangering some regions and will, if strong constraints are not quickly imposed, cause catastrophic impacts for many nations during the course of the 21st century. Each of the four successive assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has characterized the ongoing and projected changes as more imminent and harmful than the previous assessment. That this trend will continue is made clear over the past few years by larger than anticipated increases in emissions and faster than expected onset of loss of mass from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets that leading scientists are now saying are very likely to lead to sea level rise of a meter or more during the 21st century.
Much like a seemingly intractable labor negotiation, the international negotiations make progress on necessary details, but, on important issues, have not been able to bridge the conflicting interests and demands separating the already prosperous nations with their high per capita emissions and the economically aspiring nations that need to raise their low per capita emissions to help their citizens rise out of poverty. With the exception of a few nations, neither side seems willing to commit to the virtual elimination of greenhouse gas emissions that scientists have found will be needed to meet the objective of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change to avoid “dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” If only the developed or only the aspiring nations commit to eliminating all carbon dioxide emissions without the other doing so, there will only be a few-decade delay in the global average temperature rising to exceed the level that the EU has suggested is “dangerous,” and there is growing evidence that if concentrations reach a level this high will actually do little to stem rising sea level and the increasing damage that will result. Clearly, an agreement must be worked out.
Fortunately, there is a practical and equitable path forward, but it is narrow and not easy. It will require the very efficient use of the remaining petroleum and natural gas and, if carbon dioxide is not being captured, the virtual ending of all use of coal, tar sands, and oil shale for energy generation no later than the latter half of the 21st century. To follow this path, the prosperous nations must reduce their total greenhouse gas emissions by roughly 80% by 2050 and then make further cuts over the ensuing decades, demonstrating that a modern society can prosper with an energy system that will not destroy the climate and environment on which all people depend. In addition to committing to aggressive near-term targets for improving their carbon efficiency and halting deforestation, the developing nations can demonstrate their willingness to take on long-term commitments to begin drastically cutting their carbon dioxide emissions in a few decades by moving very aggressively over the next several decades to cut their emissions of methane, soot, and the gases that lead to smog and the generally poor air quality. Because these gases and aerosols have atmospheric lifetimes of only days to decades, reducing their emissions will make a very important near-term contribution to limiting climate change and help to offset the warming influence of the increasing carbon dioxide emissions they need to be allowed in order to cost effectively generate the energy needed to raise their living standards. At the same time, cuts in emissions of these gases would significantly improve air and water quality and help to meet the Millennium Development Goals to which they are committed through the United Nations.
Reducing emissions of these pollutants will also improve energy efficiency, reduce health impacts, and enhance a nation’s attractiveness to tourists and business investment. As already demonstrated by the industrialized nations, capturing methane from garbage, sewage, coal mines, leaky natural gas pipelines, and agricultural waste are cost-effective. One way of especially encouraging aggressive and wide-ranging cutbacks would be to switch from using methane’s 100-year global warming potential (GWP) of ~22 in most regulatory calculations of CO2-equivalence to using methane’s 20-year GWP of ~75.
Calculations indicate that reductions in emissions of short-lived species, combined with developed nation cutbacks, could limit peak global warming to about 2-2.5ºC above preindustrial levels, with a slow temperature decline beginning in the latter half of the century.
With impacts already evident from the present warming of 0.8ºC, there is an emerging, but still limited, sense that specifically directed geoengineering efforts may need to be an additional step that will be required to moderate the most adverse impacts, particularly to put off or limit the effects on weather and ecosystems of the loss of Arctic sea ice, the effects on sea level rise of loss of ice from the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets, and the effects on marine life and coral reef systems of ocean acidification. The likely adverse impacts of accelerating emissions of carbon dioxide have been recognized now for several decades – so little has been done to date to limit emissions, however, that the world community must now act both comprehensively and aggressively if we are going to be able to come into a sustainable balance with the environment we all share, and that we have an obligation to pass along to future generations. Delay has been the approach for far too long – it will suffice no longer.
Freelance Consultant
European Partners for the Environment, EPE
said: On 06/01/2009
If one goes around Brussels climate change related events, reads analysis and participates in debates, he/she can clearly notice everyone seems to agree on WHAT should be done. Scientists, business and policy makers even manage to set common agendas and global vision to cope with energy efficiency improvements and wider deployment of renewable energy. No one though seems to agree HOW to do this, how to achieve the ambitious goals formulated (e.g. achieving the 1,5 / 2 percent annual greenhouse gasses reductions to reach the 20/20/20 targets), and above all WHO is going to pay for the improvements needed. As a consequence, we are in need of real practical solutions.
This is where innovative financial mechanisms such as those developed by some green banks might come handy and should be exported at a pan-European level. Green funds schemes for instance have the potential to create a market for social responsible investments through a tax deduction for investors that allows banks to finance certified sustainable projects with an environmental benefit at a lower interest rate. This is precisely what Europe needs!
News Editor
SustainableBusiness.com
said: On 27/01/2009
Sustainability Comes to the White House
Let it be clear, when Barack Obama said in his inauguration speech: “We will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age,” he was talking about sustainability.
When he pledged to work with poor nations “to make your farms flourish and let clean waters flow; to nourish starved bodies and feed hungry minds,’ he was talking about sustainability.
When he said, “Our economy is badly weakened” and “Our health care is too costly,” he was talking about a lack of sustainability. And of course, when he said, “We will harness the sun and the wind and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories,” that too, is sustainability.
The Internet is littered with critical commentary claiming that sustainability is some vague term on equally poor footing as buzzwords like “green.” Yet, it is clearly definable as an attribute of human actions that promote economic, social and environmental health in the near and long terms. It requires the understanding that these three elements are interconnected and cannot be successfully manipulated as independent entities.
The concept was born during the economic growth following World War II and developed in step with the civil rights and environmental movements of the 1960s. Its academic and popular acceptance grew in the 1970’s and 1980’s, and thus it comes as no surprise that our first post-boomer president embraces the principle as a recipe for “remaking America.” Nonetheless it is a radical break from traditional political approaches in the United States, which have broadly favored either the economy or social programs.
The measures of sustainability do not belong to a single political party or ideology: Are there fewer or more good-paying jobs? Is there more or less crime? Has the air and water quality gotten better or worse? Is industry becoming more or less efficient? Is it easier or harder to find affordable housing?
And these are not just American issues. When he acknowledged the “suffering outside our borders,” stating that we can no longer “consume the world’s resources without regard to effect,” Obama cut to the heart of the matter. Whether by overpopulation, globalization or karma, the slack has been taken out of the system. We as a nation—and a species—are beginning to reap the consequences of our actions and, therefore, must consider carefully our individual, government and corporate actions in a broader context.
I’m heartened by the depictions of Obama as a thinker, because the equations of sustainability are not simple. They are circular and multi-variable, requiring a methodical and balanced approach. If he ushers in “a new era of responsibility” and we truly lead the world on a sustainable course, the long-term security of our nation will take care of itself.
There are those who claim sustainability is an impossible, utopian dream, and they may be right. But we won’t know if we don’t try. And if we are going to fall short of a goal, let it be the most lofty goal we can set—one that highlights the equal and overlapping importance of the concerns that previously have been divisive.
The term “green” was rightly included this month in the 2009 List of Words to Be Banished from the Queen’s English for Mis-use, Over-use and General Uselessness. We must be careful that “sustainable” does not become similarly wasted, because sustainability is the next evolutionary step for humanity. It should be clearly defined for every schoolchild and adult, because—while it is critical to our survival—it takes us beyond survival of the fittest. Or, as Obama put it: “a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.”
Bart King is an Athens-based freelance writer and weekly columnist on SustainableBusiness.com. He is curator of the upcoming ATHICA exhibit, “Running on Empty: the fossil fuel addiction,” which opens January 31.