Feature: After Copenhagen
The issue: The COP15 conference was widely seen as a setback for the EU. The agreement that was reached fell short of the global deal to replace the Kyoto protocol that the EU had sought.
The summit also revealed the limits of EU influence. The EU, which had been instrumental in getting the Kyoto protocol agreed, was unable to shape a deal in Copenhagen, outmanoeuvred by the US and China.
What lessons should the EU draw from Copenhagen? Can the EU still be a driving force in global climate politics? Should the EU continue to push for a global agreement, or should it consider other options, such as bilateral agreements? Should it even take unilateral action, as advocated by some European stakeholders, and increase its emissions reduction target from 20% to 30% without waiting for the US and China to follow? Is a global deal still possible, and when might it be reached?
These are just some of the questions that Comment:Visions invites you to debate with a panel of senior EU decision-makers and stakeholders.
Discussion - February 2010
After COP 15, who or what will drive the push towards developing clean energy?
17 Comments from our contributors
Loading ...
Twitter
RSS
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
Twitter
LinkedIn
Youtube
Flickr
RSS
Professor
National Defense University/ Georgetown
said: On 01/02/2010
Congress is helping solar, wind, oil, gas, natural gas, geothermal, tidal, ocean energy, biofuels, coal, the electricity industry, and many other parts of the energy industry. It surely makes sense also to help out the nuclear industry given the logic of helping out other parts of the energy industry in so many ways. One of my biggest problems with the way this is being done is that our energy policies often seem more like a Jackson Pollack painting than a logical and strategic construct focused in the long run toward improving our energy, economic, environmental and national security.
Giving loan guarantees may help jump start the industry, but these loan guarantees may not be enough to make the jump start sustainable.
The nuclear industry needs to have a sense of some policy certainty on many levels. The environmental and energy legislation being debated has lots of uncertainties. These uncertainties have numerous and possibly quite important financial and other implications. There may be also other bills, regulations, laws, and more that could have some hidden surprises for the energy industry in them. The writing of late night addenda is hardly an unusual event in legislative circles.
The cap-and-trade policies that are being developed still seem a bit foggy in their definition as well as in their possible applications. Carbon markets developments seem to be quite variable. There seems to be brittleness in the trading of carbon. This has been shown in the EU and in the post-Copenhagen era. This brittleness can be mostly found in policy uncertainty, both domestically and internationally.
Carbon markets, financial markets and other markets associated with the development of the nuclear industry are often international markets. What we do here and what other countries may do to help their nuclear industries develop could both be very important for what happens here. Money, ideas, and the best managers and engineers are also quite movable.
The nuclear waste policy of the US also needs to be rationalized and clarified. One of the biggest question marks about the future of the nuclear industry is what to do with the waste. Nuclear waste can be turned into a quasi renewable resource with the application of certain basic and already developed technologies and with a much wider use of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership.
Storing the waste in the backyards of the nuclear plants is not the answer. Finding a long term and sustainable solution to this that is credible to investors, leadership and the public will be needed to really jumpstart the industry.
The potential costs for dealing with nuclear waste could far outstrip many other costs of developing a long term and sustainable nuclear industry as the decades pass by. We need to settle this soon for the sake of our energy security and national security.
Liability issues and other nuclear related issues need to also be clarified to the best extent possible. All of these rules, regulations and laws also need to take into account the environmental and other benefits and costs associated with nuclear plants compared to other sources of electricity. But that is probably asking too much.
As I have said in many places: the nuclear industry is the only energy industry that has been required to manage, control and contain its waste from start to finish. If oil and coal were required to do this they would likely be much less important in our energy portfolios. The nuclear industry is quite smart in dealing with its waste. Nuclear power has also proven to be a lot less dangerous than coal and oil if we are to consider how many people have died or have had health problems from the exploration, extraction, and use of coal and oil worldwide. The diplomatic and military costs of oil and natural gas have also been considerable.
Part of the problem of having a logical discussion about the relative costs and benefits of various energy forms and uses is that few people know the numbers, or care to know the numbers, that can help develop the comparisons across alternative forms of energy production. Passions normally overtake logic fairly quickly in many “debates”.
I am not against the use of oil, gas, coal or any other form of fuel for energy production. I see them as part of the very big, flexible, logical, rational, and sustainable portfolio of energy options that we can use over the coming decades. However, the portfolio we have now will likely be very different from the one we will have in 40 to 100 years. It would be best to start thinking about what we need to do in the future now before we are forced to make very costly decisions on the fly as the many time clocks of the environment and fuel sources supplies start to ring their alarm bells much louder. Many energy decisions need to be made with long lead times.
Speaking of time, we will need to streamline and rationalize our permitting, application and siting policies at not just the federal, but also at the state and local levels. The longer the time to build a nuclear plant the more costly it will become. Nuclear plants are not cheap. But the electricity they produce can be.
Laws and regulations associated with nuclear plant construction, operation, decommission, security and more need to be far better clarified and solidified at all levels to really get the industry moving forward. Some states might be big winners if they out compete others in their more accommodating policies towards nuclear plants. But the highly regulated nuclear industry has many constraints put on it by many levels of authority, including public opinion.
Policy uncertainty in one part of the energy industry can spread to other parts of the industry given that many different forms of energy production are substitutable to some extent. Solar, wind, coal, natural gas, geothermal, nuclear and more are far more connected in policy implications than many would like to think. Policy uncertainties are also connected internationally as well as locally. There are many recursive and wide spread policy implications to many of the policies now being considered. Giving loan guarantees seems like a very simple solution to a very complex problem, and likely will have less of an impact than many may think.
Until overall energy policy is clarified many of the major investors in the nuclear industry may still be sitting on the fence. These are smart people. Many of them also face other investment opportunities outside of the nuclear industry. The smart money goes with the best investments. Investments that have lots of uncertainty, particularly multibillion dollar ones like a nuclear plant, make many investors skittish. Also, these investors could send their funds to invest in nuclear plants or other energy or non-energy developments in another country rather easily.
We should expect, given the huge costs involved in developing a nuclear power plant, that many of the future plants will have investors that will be part of large international coalitions. So far this seems to be a building trend. If this will help start a safer, more effective, efficient and environmentally friendly nuclear industry then so be it. However, we also need to be aware of the concerns of the public, our national security institutions and others about foreign investments in nuclear technologies. However, we should not sacrifice our energy, environment and national securities to the false altar of xenophobia.
Given the potentially huge increases in the demand for electricity that may occur, especially if electric cars begin to really take off, there will be enough of a market for just about everyone. Given the potentially massive environmental, health, economic, political and other costs that may result from global warming there will surely be enough open space for many different technologies to begin to replace hydrocarbons in a hopefully smooth manner over the coming decades. Given the possibly hugely increasing demand for desalinated water in the US there could be a lot of strategic and tactical space for nuclear, solar, wind, and other forms of energy to get involved. Given peak oil is coming around the bend in the next few decades there will be a very large need for many alternatives to this most important of energy sources.
Many of our nuclear plants are getting old and will likely need to be shut down and decommissioned. What will replace the 20 percent of electricity they now produce? Even more important: what will be the energy source that will be as reliable and as efficient as nuclear to take the place of these 800,000 million kilowatt hours in the next, let’s say, two to three decades?
Believe it or not we are the lead producer of nuclear electric power and have the most nuclear plants of any country. Are we ready to hand over the leadership of yet another high tech industry to another country?
We can revitalize this industry and we can build and development many other energy sources at the same time. Frankly, we will need to do all of that. Our energy future without nuclear in the mix could prove to be a lot more costly than any of us could imagine right now.
No energy source is perfectly clean, reliable, safe, or the perfect economically viable solution to our present and future energy security problems. They key is to think portfolio, think systems within systems and to think of interconnected systems. We need to build a more secure energy, economic, and environmental future for our children, their children and beyond. Are we willing to give up the huge opportunities of nuclear as part of the mix? I for one am not.
Superintendant of Utilities
University of Cincinnati
said: On 01/02/2010
Nothing will be more effective at driving for clean energy than expensive fuel costs. Oil has been drifting back up to about $80 BBL currently. When it hit $140 it creative massive interest and demand. When it drifted below $60 people lost interest again. Now back at $80 and likely to hit $100 or more again it will spark interest again.
The only thing that will sustain a push is viable competitive technologies and complete transparency on climate data. The “climategate” debacle really did have people question the validity of the IPCC reports.
Many scientists who were keeping their heads down to avoud being crucified for being deniers are now voicing their papers.
Regrettably it will take time. If ten years from now predictions start coming true there will be a real fire built under new technology implementation.
Time will tell.
Head of Business Analytics
News International
said: On 01/02/2010
COP15 has highlighted the issues around galvanising disparate groups into action on an issue that is surrounded by potential ambiguity. Stakeholder groups including nations, regional communities, corporations, political groups and activists all have and are entitled to have their own perspectives on the situation. Likewise, the situation itself is far from clear to many people with uncertainty about cause, effect and best options for resolution if indeed such options exist.
In the meantime, the majority of us simply get on with dealing with the day to day pressures of our existence under whatever circumstances we find ourselves in.
Oddly, I think that many of the activitists who target these types of event also seem to target the economic ‘power’ that they regard as driving globalisation and so adversely affecting our world. I say oddly because I believe that creeping globalisation of the commercial opportunities that surround clean energy could be a more effective driver for adoption of these methods (technologies, systems and behaviours).
Rather than simply proscribing policies and penalties that are either watered down through negotiation and hesitancy or maverick and isolationist so avoidable by many, I believe broad policy frameworks backed up with economic encouragement will allow individuals, communities and organisations to find their own ‘best’ solutions and where these are appropriate these will spread rapidly to others. An example of effective market led globalisation is mobile telephony which has spread at an increasing rate to the most remote corners of the world through a variety of interesting models.
A key element to this spread is finding an effective way of accounting for the real costs of non-renewable energy sources which in my opinion are not reflected in the current unit cost of energy. Until energy markets accept that the supply is finite we will not see price rises that reflect the limited supply and so renewable sources will not compete on an even playing field.
Expanding on my comment about the financial aspects to these issues, I believe that current accounting methods for significant new developments are flawed in that they compare costs and benefits of the proposed development in terms of the costs and benefits of existing alternatives alongside a forecast of future scenarios e.g. cost of money, future fossil fuel costs. Human nature is such that we tend to focus on what we know i.e. current interest rates (cost of money), current and recent fuel costs, current environmental impact costs (insurance claims etc) and discount anything we can’t know or don’t want to think about (Black Swans, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, 2007). On that basis we struggle to get approval from financial gatekeepers on anything that has a long payback period and uncertain payback levels.
Historically, the only way we have broken this fiscal stranglehold has been through the actions of far-sighted mavericks or as a result of speculative manias. Development of much of the UK (canals, railways, water supply etc), some US infrastructure (railways) and a lot of developing world infrastructure (railways etc) has been due to market speculation. In some countries the infrastructure was built by empire builders who have taken their return on investment and retired home e.g. the UK in India. Many of the speculators lost their shirts but we are left with valuable legacy systems however, we have little memory of who paid for them.
To make the next infrastructure leap we need accounting methods that recognise the holistic economics, potential to allow everyone to participate (speculate), and regulatory frameworks that allow disruptive mavericks to take leaps of faith and develop new paradigms.
Director of the Advanced Energy and Materials Systems Lab
University of Canterbury
said: On 01/02/2010
Shouldn’t the question be: “What will drive the push to reduce coal, oil and gas production?” By prefacing the question with “After COP15” the implicit assumption is that there must be a drive or a push to reduce carbon emissions – it’s not going to come from global leaders, so where will it come from? There are a range of actions that might reduce CO2 and green house gas emissions, and a rather ineffectual one is a focus on policy or pricing to drive development of “clean” energy.
Clean energy is expensive energy. The demand for expensive energy is lower than for cheap energy. The driver to leave coal, oil, and gas resources in the ground will be the high price of these fuels. High market price does look good to producers, but as we look into the future, their production costs are going to continue increasing, so higher prices don’t really bring them higher profits. As the price of fuel rises, the demand goes down, so less is produced, brought to market, and ultimately burned to generate CO2.
Does this scenario then push the demand for clean energy? Yes, if by clean energy you mean demand reduction. The cleanest energy in the world is energy end use efficiency. If I was going to go prospecting for cheap and abundant clean energy, I would look at the energy wasted in poorly managed air compressor systems, building HVAC fans, v-drive belts in factories, old refrigerators, vertical supermarket freezers… it is nearly limitless. The nice thing about energy efficiency is that a well-engineered solution usually provides much better performance than the old wasting system – as in home insulation.
Which is a better investment for your home – solar PV or remodeling to insulate and improve passive performance and get a nice new interior in the bargain? I know what my answer is. The consumer demand for reducing demand is already here. Do people buy a hybrid car because they want to drive more or because they want to use less fuel?
Senior Consultant
Asset Management & Sustainability Assessment
said: On 01/02/2010
“It will be the same people that have been doing so thus far. Copenhagen is just a stop on the journey. It will be the research community telling what they know and continuing to work together with other researchers in a cooperative way and to engage with other disciplines, governments, industry and the community. It will be the local, city level and national governments continuing to establish trend breaking futures with their communities, understanding the latest research, mentoring each other and providing a suitable investment climate for industry to respond. It will be industry responding to the opportunity to change in a proactive way to new directions instead of holding on too long to current practices that have had their time.”
Director
Sustainable Development at TECOM Investments & Enpark, Dubai Holding
said: On 01/02/2010
The push towards developing clean energy will not be driven by one factor only, no two people have the same reason for doing the same thing. A variety of factors will drive the shift to a clean fuel economy:-
1. “Sustainable development makes business sense” will be the predominant mantra. The Sustainable Energy and Environment Division (SEED) of TECOM Investments (in Dubai) is implementing a Sustainable Development Policy comprising of 5 pillars of activities, namely: development of certified green buildings, implementation of energy and water conservation programme, sustainable procurement, renewable energy and sustainability awareness. Through the implementation of these initiatives, TECOM has saved US$ 6 million in less than 3 years, with negligible investment. Visit wwwe.enpark.ae for case studies and sustainable development report.
2. A strong sense of responsibility towards the environment and fellow creatures of the planet, particularly emanating from children, who seem to be far more conscious and responsible compared to adults;
3. Profiteering through the renewable energy industry – strong start-up entities in solar, wind, bio-energy etc and their successful track records will energize other similar ventures.
4. Development programmes and regulations by local and federal governments in all countries.
Specialist
Sustainability Strategy & Innovation Interim
said: On 01/02/2010
The push towards clean solutions will be determined by the amount it is going to serve our own interest. If this “interest” can be translated and measured into monetary terms, people are going to feel a sense of urgency. In addition, this “interest” has to represent a certain rationale.
Sadly, “Green” & “Clean” has become a valuable marketing tool, which is rather used for nice appearances in making business look good, instead of making a true difference being truly good.
Sustainability is that other magic word which can be found on every website of any main company. Yet, when asking people what it means, why it is important, what it serves them, and how it should be implemented, they got stuck fairly quickly.
The latter is understandable. In our underbelly we all have a similar feeling what it is about. As long as it has not been made fundamentally concrete, we will stay moving in the dark. Finding the answers on these questions is what I am trying to do.
With Climate change and other environmental issues, society has ended in a reactive mode. First we abuse our environment until something goes wrong, followed by an attempt to repair the damage, which results in corrective measures. Even though some damages can be repaired, we can not ignore that we have turned our environment in a poor state of health. Consequently, one can wonder if “clean” is enough without a proper “cure”.
Secretary General
PANGEA
said: On 01/02/2010
The drive for clean energy will come from consumers themselves, at least in Africa. What is becoming abundantly clear is that Africa’s best chance for true, universal energy access is not through major grid systems like in Europe and North America but through small-scale, decentralised energy systems. These smaller systems are community-based, and it is that community-level ownership that will drive demand. And because dirty fuels aren’t easily accessible in rural areas, these energy systems will be based on what’s available locally—biogas and biomass.
Since time immemorial, families and households across the continent have been unable to access modern energy because it wasn’t available to them. Now, thanks to new and affordable technologies, small-scale biogas and modern biomass can provide heating and lighting on the village and community level. We say “modern biomass” because we must differentiate between inefficient use of firewood and dung and instead focus on briquettes, co-generation and biofuel. What’s missing is awareness by rural populations that these technologies exist and that they are accessible. People need to be trained how to use and adapt these technologies, which in turn can create employment in the rural areas and help to stabilise wealth creation. Microfinance and other lending facilities also need to understand these technologies so that they’re comfortable about adding renewable energy investments to their credit portfolios. And of course governments need to put policies in place that encourage investment, training and credit.
It’s all a system that feeds into each other—energy access leads to energy security, then to food security, education, health and wealth creation. Investments in these technologies are already taking place, and as more capacity becomes available on the ground, awareness around them will increase so that more communities can take advantage of them. Just as Africa leapfrogged telephone lines in favour of mobile phones, the chance exists for Africa too to leapfrog dirty energy sources and go straight to renewables without having to suffer environmentally and economically as the North has.
Leader of climate/carbon practice
The Brattle Group
said: On 01/02/2010
It is difficult not to call the outcome of the Copenhagen conference a failure from a political perspective. But it is unclear how much this has shifted the environment for investments in low carbon technologies. Copenhagen is not the first example of wavering and fragile legislative and regulatory commitments to climate change and clean energy.
While theoretical arguments clearly support government intervention in the climate change space through measures on both the supply and demand side, government intervention is rarely if ever the result of rational economic analysis and more likely driven by a messy political process with often very poor and uncertain outcomes.
As a result we generally see too little investment in low-carbon technologies relative to some contemplated optimal policy framework. After COP-15, this means that the push towards clean and low carbon technologies will take place in an environment with continued uncertainty regarding the ability of the political process to create stable price signals and related regulatory frameworks. I believe this suggests that the most promising areas for investments are those that don’t primarily (or exclusively) depend on fragile regulatory support, but rather are (also) driven by non-climate related opportunities.
Among the low-carbon technologies on their way, some will ultimately be successful whether or not we ever come up with meaningful climate treaties or even meaningful domestic climate legislation: The changing supply and demand balance for oil suggests that renewable substitutes for oil will be able to count on a huge market even without a carbon price, and the supply and demand dynamics may provide enough signs that oil prices will increase over time; some power generation technologies such as solar are on a path towards grid parity and will ultimately prove disruptive to the existing mix of power generation, again without carbon pricing or renewable portfolio standards; battery innovation will make electric cars possible, and electric cars have the potential to be much cheaper to drive than cars powered by internal combustion engines, even without any price on carbon.
I am hopeful that progress can be made in those areas that have the potential to solve our climate problem almost as a byproduct of solving other problems. Of course by dismissing the legal and regulatory support system as an effective means of supporting clean energy development, we find ourselves in a position of having to hope that the progress we will make in areas like biofuels, batteries, solar cells etc. in the absence of clear carbon prices will bring about the transition to a low carbon economy fast enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. We clearly will be taking a gamble with unknown odds.
President
Austrian Biomass Association
said: On 01/02/2010
After Copenhagen many individuals realize, that we cannot wait for a global agreement to start developing an energy system based on renewable energy and efficiency instead of fossil energy, because waiting for a global agreement would mean, that the slowest defines the speed of the progress.
Therefore individuals, municipalities, regions, nations but also NGO’s and companies are challenged to move rapidly towards a sustainable energy system. In Europe, also the new targets 20:20:20 will push the development towards more renewable energy. If the European Union achieves its targets and rapidly increases the share of renewable energy sources and thus reduces the emissions of greenhouse gases, the issue of introducing C0² taxes on imports coming from countries with further increasing emissions and no interest on a fair global agreement will gain importance, increasing the pressure on reluctant countries to join a global agreement.
It also has to be realized that CCS is no solution but only slows down the progress to a sustainable energy system based on high efficiency and renewable energy. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) means wasting huge amounts of public money for non sustainable concepts.
About 40% of the transition of the energy system has to be financed by private house owners and small companies changing their energy supply for space heating and warm water from electricity, oil or gas to renewable sources such as solar thermal, district heat, biomass and PV. These investments should be supported by public money instead of huge CCS projects, that finally further decrease the efficiency of our energy system, which is in plain contradiction to the efficiency targets.
Lecturer at Department of Energy Management
Dhurakij Pundit University
said: On 05/02/2010
One of our challenges in this century is how can we achieve a low-carbon society. It is acknowledged that moving towards a low-carbon society needs a clean energy system together with green lifestyle. Clean energy system will require deploying cleaner energy technologies at both supply and demand sides which emit zero or very low GHG emissions on an unprecedented scale. At the supply side, a number of known technological options have such characteristics. Some are already well established while others are at an earlier stage of development. At the demand side, improving energy efficiency, whether in the buildings, industry or transport sectors, is crucial for our environment and for energy security.
In fact, there has been a drive to push towards clean energy before COP 15, for example the oil crisis and rising energy price. But we need to put this attempt faster and faster. It does not have to wait for international agreements. Clean energy has some important advantages over fossil fuels. For example, renewable energy would reduce the risks of both high carbon intensive fuels and relying too much of potentially vulnerable oil and natural gas. We all recognise that the clean technologies are essential to support sustainable development. Thus, individuals, local communities, governmental authorities, businesses and universities are crucial drivers for the transition to clean energy system. This is a challenge for us to planning and implementing such cleaner technologies on local, national and international scales. In developing countries, for example, the rising demand for energy services and growing populations are driving the large portion demand for new installed electricity and supply of clean fuels.
By combining efforts, we need more than understanding of the problem, so we need immediately actions from all level of society and of course we cannot wait for the last minute. The literature always mentions about the constraints to implementation of an aggressive clean energy programme into three types: markets, institutions and lack of policy co-ordination. This is particular true for some countries but some are not. Thus, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities” might be applicable. The challenge of pushing towards developing clean energy is a long-term challenge and requiring immediate action. These actions have co-benefits with tackling climate change and clean air in some urban areas. Future energy system and its impacts depend on choices made today. The most effective and affordable strategy to drive clean energy is everyone because we are citizens of the world.
Founding Member | Energy Analyst
Market-Melange.com
said: On 09/02/2010
COP15 failing can ambiguously enough be regarded as a strong driver towards green growth. Exactly as in fashion, art or architecture, it is namely not only traditional fits that lead to success. The impact of contrast can be at least as promising. And has contrast ever been stronger than between COP15 and people’s expectations, or, now, the COP15 below zero level, and the drivers that are coming up?
COP15 can hardly be called a success. But was COP15 ever regarded – with unanimous consent – as the saving beacon towards the 2010 onwards paradise? If we are honest with ourselves: no. Governments had been put under pressure to do so, but even before the start of the post summer sprint, everyone knew that the outcome would be weak.
The outcome turned out to be – even for the most realistic observers – weaker than expected. This, however, highlighted even more the forces that emerged in the prelude. Public awareness has never been as strong as it is now. Societal reflection has been put to a new level. Not yet from Earth 2.0 to Earth 3.0., but at least to an Earth 2.6.
Public pressure will therefore become an increasing driver for in the process towards more clean energy. One can thus expect a continuation in the – national – subsidy policies, feed in tariffs or other intra-country focused tools, rather than the development of bold international measures.
The strongest driver of all, however, will be the industry.
Be it out of necessity due to a plummeting core business, out of strategic diversification, or out of a motivation to monetize as much as possible its first mover advantage, Oil, Energy & Technology players will never be faced with such a promising market as they do now. This is applicable for private companies, as well as for state owned companies.
Saudi Arabia is the best example. Despite their reluctant position in December, they are the first ones to hunt for diversification into green potential.
The market potential is present. Public awareness towards B2B, B2G or B2C customer only needs a tiny twist to join in. And with the economic reality, governments can only be pressured to support, or at least urged to join the negotiation table.
It is true, chances are limited that this driver will tackle international IP facilitation issues, or Kyoto like carbon goals, quite the contrary. The current carrot for green is not clean air and a tempered climate, but economic oxygen and a drive towards leading markets.
Whether international collaboration would be better, and synchronized goals more constructive? Sure they would. But let’s put hopes up that this will grow in the next rounds. The current driver will be money, jobs and exploiting market share. It’s different. But that’s part of what Green Fashion will be in Winter/Spring Season 2010.
Senior Analyst
BlindSpot global revival think-tank
said: On 09/02/2010
COP15 was the end of the road for conventional international policy-making. From the first global issues conference in 1972 to COP15 in 2009 decision-makers were effectively asking, “Can we resolve global challenges with the same compartmental thinking and planning that we’re accustomed to?” The answer: nice try but no way.
Non-compartmental thinking, or systems thinking, is already the basis for understanding more about climate buffers and positive feedbacks. A systems approach to climate policy is also achievable if we avoid just one big decoy. Accumulating waste gases are a symptom of huge systemic failures, so effective policy must grapple with whole ‘systems’ not just symptoms.
My research for the NATO Science Programme views all major global issues as indivisibly complex and proposes a set of ‘seven policy switches’ with which climate disruption and all related problems may be reversed. These switches all lie beyond the bounds of conventional climate policy yet they have the potential to remove the major obstacles to meaningful progress.
Here’s an example. The goal of ‘economic growth’ is taken for granted by governments and opposed by most environmentalists. Yet growth is just the speed of our economic ‘vehicle’. When our vehicle is rushing us all to the financial and ecological cliff edge it’s pointless shouting “slow down a bit”. We need to go fast in an entirely new direction.
Equally pointless are decision-makers sitting on their hands for fear that protecting the climate might harm growth. Instead of constraining the economy with complicated and unreliable climate instruments, a simple new instrument is available to grow the economy by discarding the silly habit of waste accumulation in the air or anywhere.
Director
Southern centre for Energy and Environment, Zimbabwe
said: On 09/02/2010
Science has shown that human activity is causing an imbalance in the atmosphere and life as we know it is under threat. The Private sector therefore has a basis to change technology development criteria in favour of lower carbon intensity. In a way failure of the COP15 negotiations is an indicator of failure of industry leaders in convincing policy makers that carbon emissions can be reduced without compromising national economies. Responsibility remains for industry and commerce leaders to press for global policy improvements that would support the market for cleaner technologies and also continue to create opportunities for win-win carbon emission reduction options. Science and industry leaders should continue to press for sustained market development for cleaner energy technologies as they stand to lose markets if the momentum for adoption of cleaner technologies should be reduced. This is not to say without pressure from politics energy users would go back to dirty technologies but a lower momentum in technology development would allow some dirty technologies to hang around a bit longer. The Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto Protocol has led to earlier introduction of cleaner technologies in areas that would otherwise have taken longer to be changed. New businesses have been formed in these areas with a potential to expand. The larger technology suppliers who have a big enough voice to support the smaller enterprises who help distribute these technologies should continue to press for a sustained global policy to reduce atmospheric carbon.
Senior Research Associate
Stockholm Environment Institute
said: On 19/02/2010
The Copenhagen Climate Talks (COP15) failed to “seal the deal” and produce a comprehensive, enforceable and legally binding action plan to address dangerous changes to our global climate system. For some countries, a legally binding climate agreement would have been a “kick-up the backside” – providing the impetus to move swiftly to a low carbon economy.
It is now left to those countries that have declared their commitment to tackling climate change to be the driving force towards developing clean energy. In particular, those nations that have adopted ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) targets such as the UK (e.g. 80% reduction by 2050) and Sweden (e.g. carbon neutral by 2050) will have a greater incentive to develop renewable and cleaner energy.
Future rises in the price of oil, which reached nearly $80 a barrel at the end of 2009, will require government, businesses and the public to reassess their energy use. Over the next five years, oil shortages, price volatility and fear of economic, political and social instability will be the main driving force that will push governments in the developed world to adopt clean energy.
It is developing nations which will struggle to address simultaneously the challenge of “energy poverty”, the impacts of a changing climate and as well as long-term socio-economic problems.
As an international community we all face the common threat of global climate change. It is therefore the duty of the developed world to provide the necessary financial assistance and technology transfer to poorer nations to develop clean energy. In doing so, we can ensure that they avoid the high polluting and carbon intensive pathway that we took to development and prevent dangerous disruption to our climate system.
Professor
Yildiz Technical University
said: On 28/02/2010
Why we are in stress about the energy, and the climate change? Is the only but big problem the usage of energy influencing the atmosphere? Of course, there is interaction between energy usages and climatic phenomena. However, this is bilateral interaction. I mean how the energy usages affect the climate (and also the matter) then climatic phenomena effect the energy what we have in our hands by an inverse but similar way, so the climatic variations are new energy sources and they are clean indeed.
I want to touch two points of view to bring the importance on the glance of both scientific community and governments beside societies.
First: does the only thing in atmosphere? No! There are more things under the Earth interacting the climatic, and even geological phenomena. What are they? I try saying a little bit about the usage of electromagnetic field in both under the ground and over the ground. Ground electromagnetic waves penetrating into the Earth have very (sometimes extremely) important side effects on the climatic and geological phenomena even if their magnitudes are very small. Let me give the magnets of the LHC experiments lying down underground as an example about this fact. Of course the collisions in the CERN equipments have no effect on the phenomena what I said. I am talking about the variations of electromagnetic wave emission from the huge magnets of the equipments of the biggest and important LHC experiment. The real reasons of the catastrophic weather phenomena and geological disasters are these variations said above within the last two years. The influence will continue after the work of magnets are finished for some years.
Second: Are the new energy sources clean and renewable, indeed? No! I don’t think so. Why is it? Let us focus on solar energy for an example. If we use all part of it falling on the Earth then what remains to the world? Will the trees and plants survive? Will the Earth’s ecological balance continue itself? Alternatively after some decades, where will we put the waste materials of solar energy converters when huge amount of solar devices are used?
Concluding point: what should we do? What the truth is: is it necessary to finish everything what we have in our hands? I think different scientific approaches should be provided and applied. This problem is solvable by using some new and artificial materials, say energetic mediums. So, the solution is simple and more realistic then some prevention processes, in fact.
Answer of the discussion topic: As it is obviously seen from above discussions, advance approaches of true scientists should drive the push toward developing clean (but indeed clean) energy.
Lead Author
KPMG Sustainability
said: On 28/02/2010
Since COP15 it is clear to see that businesses or national regulators are not waiting for a global agreement, they are pushing ahead with initiatives geared towards accelerating a low-carbon economy.
What gives us hope for the future is to see how far we have come in recent years. We have already seen the birth of the clean tech sector in major economies like US, China, Korea who have not necessarily been at the forefront of climate change. What takes us to the next level will be regulatory certainty, a price on carbon and, as result of that, full-scale, business adoption.
In addition to energy reduction and energy efficiency we will also see a greater use of clean technologies, which will in turn foster innovation and create economies of scale, thereby facilitating their uptake by the business community and SME´s.
To hear more about the business implications of COP15 – click here