Global climate change debate hinges on alternate energy resource use
Surya B. Prasai
May 03, 2008
During the Third Major Economies Meeting on Energy Security and Climate Change (MEM) which concluded on April 18 in Paris, French President Nicolas Sarkozy had pleaded for stronger global focus and resurgent dialogue to accommodate the developed and developing countries differing positions and adopt fresh thinking on the issues.
Although the Paris Meeting displayed different emission views between the European Union (EU) and the United States, as was also evident between the developed and developing world, the G-8 lobbied for stringent time frames without sacrificing climate change goals to promote safer global economic sustenance. The US has cited in Bali, Honolulu and Bangkok that it along with G-8 countries had already been working on devising specific target reductions to curb the carbon-dioxide emissions that scientists have linked to global warming. Before the Paris meeting, President Bush had announced a new national goal to stop the growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 which the US has considered a major step forward in ongoing efforts to address climate change. The goal outlined how the growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance. Taken together, the landmark actions would help prevent billions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere and urge decisions on regulating greenhouse gases to be debated openly and made by the elected representatives of the people they affect, rather than unelected regulators and judges.
In the past three Major Economies Meeting, the US has constantly advocated that progress cannot be made without concerted action by all the major economies. The US urged in Paris that each country develop its own national goals and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In America´s case, as President Bush had mentioned earlier, the national plan will be a comprehensive blend of market incentives and regulations to reduce emissions by encouraging clean and efficient energy technologies. The US has even stated that it is willing to include this plan in an international agreement, so long as all major economies are prepared to include their plans in such an agreement. This can be achieved by propelling greater incentives for alternate energy efficiency and a switch to low-carbon technology.
However, developing countries seemed to have reservation on various industrialized countries´ position, in particular, US proposals, whereby they have been expressing their disappointment and criticism of what they call ´disproportionate´ dialogue and insufficient transfer of appropriate technology to help in their own fight against global climate change. However, the US had kept its dialogue open with the developing countries on these issues. One should remember, in the Bali meeting, UN member states had set out in agreement on four main conclusions related to global climate change: namely its mitigation, adaptation, financing and technology adoption. The US had gone along with the other member countries in agreeing to work in a mutual manner to safeguard the global environment.
One should note President Bush´s statement given from the White House on April 17, where he stated, "I have put our nation on a path to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, I announced our first step: to reduce America's greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012. I'm pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent." It appears that while the US President has shown enthusiasm to promote clean and alternate energy use by investing in universally replicable alternate technology and recyclable bio-fuels, he has shown some reservations on the Kyoto Protocol. The US perspective outlines a need to work on a rational path to address global climate change, where rhetoric must be cast aside and concrete actions ushered in. President Bush mentioned recently in a speech before the Paris meeting, that the US had already pondered the differentiated approach of the Kyoto Protocol which was opposed 95 to nothing by the US Senate in 1997 in support of more concrete action such as pushing forward the clean energy alternative based on technology advances and new policy directions that go beyond 2012 to take the next step.
This American approach emphasizes slowing emissions growth by working on a national goal to eventually stop its growth by 2025. Since President Bush took office, the US Federal Government has spent more than $12 billion to research, develop, and promote alternative energy sources which will benefit the entire world. In December 2007, President Bush signed into law new loan guarantee authorities to support alternative energy sources. The new authority would allow additional loan guarantees of up to $38.5 billion, of which $18.5 billion in loan guarantees will support construction of new plants and enable nuclear plant owners to reduce their interest costs; $10 billion of loan guarantees will go towards renewable and/or energy efficient systems and manufacturing, and distributed energy generation, transmission, and distribution. This loan guarantee authority also includes $6 billion for coal-based power generation and industrial gasification activities at retrofitted and new facilities that incorporate carbon capture and sequestration or other beneficial uses of carbon; $2 billion for advanced coal gasification; and $2 billion for advanced nuclear facilities for the "front-end" of the nuclear fuel cycle. There are many other innovative research projects underway in the US which includes close G-8 collaboration.
The Paris Meeting ended with no substantive agreement on how to reduce greenhouse gases. Like on two earlier occasions, representatives from the 16 major industrial economies, the UN and other international organizations agreed to lay out mid-to-long-term goals for global greenhouse gas reductions, but the past differences once again overshadowed the concrete steps taken. The French State Secretary for European Affairs Jean-Pierre Jouyet mentioned in a press conference at the meeting´s end that the 16 industrialized countries representatives had decided to convene two more rounds of meetings in May and June of 2008. The major achievement seemed to be an exchange of views on how to reduce long-term greenhouse gas emissions, enhance technological cooperation and proceed on financing clean and alternate technology particularly in assisting the G-77 that had launched most of the protests in Bali.
Some of the West´s leading environmental advocates were also of the view that the Paris Meeting was not properly timed since it was held when the developing countries led by China and the G-77 lobby, which includes India and Brazil, had been advocating for stronger action among the industrialized countries led by the US to come up with specific goals to reduce global greenhouse emission abiding by the Kyoto Protocol, which is based on the reports of various UN agencies involved in the climate change debate.
The Paris Meeting of the Major Economies on Energy and Climate was organized at the initiative of the United States, which saw active participation by Germany, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, South Korea, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Britain, Russia and South Africa, as well as the UN, the European Union (EU) and the IEA. The US, in short, is working toward a climate agreement that includes the meaningful participation of every major economy without giving anyone a free ride. After all, there is need for global responsibility among those who advocate the Kyoto Protocol, and those who seek to display responsibility beyond it. There is little doubt in 2008 that the global environment debate now hinges on alternate energy resource use.
Although the Paris Meeting displayed different emission views between the European Union (EU) and the United States, as was also evident between the developed and developing world, the G-8 lobbied for stringent time frames without sacrificing climate change goals to promote safer global economic sustenance. The US has cited in Bali, Honolulu and Bangkok that it along with G-8 countries had already been working on devising specific target reductions to curb the carbon-dioxide emissions that scientists have linked to global warming. Before the Paris meeting, President Bush had announced a new national goal to stop the growth in U.S. greenhouse gas emissions by 2025 which the US has considered a major step forward in ongoing efforts to address climate change. The goal outlined how the growth in emissions will slow over the next decade, stop by 2025, and begin to reverse thereafter, so long as technology continues to advance. Taken together, the landmark actions would help prevent billions of metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions from entering the atmosphere and urge decisions on regulating greenhouse gases to be debated openly and made by the elected representatives of the people they affect, rather than unelected regulators and judges.
In the past three Major Economies Meeting, the US has constantly advocated that progress cannot be made without concerted action by all the major economies. The US urged in Paris that each country develop its own national goals and plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In America´s case, as President Bush had mentioned earlier, the national plan will be a comprehensive blend of market incentives and regulations to reduce emissions by encouraging clean and efficient energy technologies. The US has even stated that it is willing to include this plan in an international agreement, so long as all major economies are prepared to include their plans in such an agreement. This can be achieved by propelling greater incentives for alternate energy efficiency and a switch to low-carbon technology.
However, developing countries seemed to have reservation on various industrialized countries´ position, in particular, US proposals, whereby they have been expressing their disappointment and criticism of what they call ´disproportionate´ dialogue and insufficient transfer of appropriate technology to help in their own fight against global climate change. However, the US had kept its dialogue open with the developing countries on these issues. One should remember, in the Bali meeting, UN member states had set out in agreement on four main conclusions related to global climate change: namely its mitigation, adaptation, financing and technology adoption. The US had gone along with the other member countries in agreeing to work in a mutual manner to safeguard the global environment.
One should note President Bush´s statement given from the White House on April 17, where he stated, "I have put our nation on a path to slow, stop, and eventually reverse the growth of our greenhouse gas emissions. In 2002, I announced our first step: to reduce America's greenhouse gas intensity by 18 percent through 2012. I'm pleased to say that we remain on track to meet this goal even as our economy has grown 17 percent." It appears that while the US President has shown enthusiasm to promote clean and alternate energy use by investing in universally replicable alternate technology and recyclable bio-fuels, he has shown some reservations on the Kyoto Protocol. The US perspective outlines a need to work on a rational path to address global climate change, where rhetoric must be cast aside and concrete actions ushered in. President Bush mentioned recently in a speech before the Paris meeting, that the US had already pondered the differentiated approach of the Kyoto Protocol which was opposed 95 to nothing by the US Senate in 1997 in support of more concrete action such as pushing forward the clean energy alternative based on technology advances and new policy directions that go beyond 2012 to take the next step.
This American approach emphasizes slowing emissions growth by working on a national goal to eventually stop its growth by 2025. Since President Bush took office, the US Federal Government has spent more than $12 billion to research, develop, and promote alternative energy sources which will benefit the entire world. In December 2007, President Bush signed into law new loan guarantee authorities to support alternative energy sources. The new authority would allow additional loan guarantees of up to $38.5 billion, of which $18.5 billion in loan guarantees will support construction of new plants and enable nuclear plant owners to reduce their interest costs; $10 billion of loan guarantees will go towards renewable and/or energy efficient systems and manufacturing, and distributed energy generation, transmission, and distribution. This loan guarantee authority also includes $6 billion for coal-based power generation and industrial gasification activities at retrofitted and new facilities that incorporate carbon capture and sequestration or other beneficial uses of carbon; $2 billion for advanced coal gasification; and $2 billion for advanced nuclear facilities for the "front-end" of the nuclear fuel cycle. There are many other innovative research projects underway in the US which includes close G-8 collaboration.
The Paris Meeting ended with no substantive agreement on how to reduce greenhouse gases. Like on two earlier occasions, representatives from the 16 major industrial economies, the UN and other international organizations agreed to lay out mid-to-long-term goals for global greenhouse gas reductions, but the past differences once again overshadowed the concrete steps taken. The French State Secretary for European Affairs Jean-Pierre Jouyet mentioned in a press conference at the meeting´s end that the 16 industrialized countries representatives had decided to convene two more rounds of meetings in May and June of 2008. The major achievement seemed to be an exchange of views on how to reduce long-term greenhouse gas emissions, enhance technological cooperation and proceed on financing clean and alternate technology particularly in assisting the G-77 that had launched most of the protests in Bali.
Some of the West´s leading environmental advocates were also of the view that the Paris Meeting was not properly timed since it was held when the developing countries led by China and the G-77 lobby, which includes India and Brazil, had been advocating for stronger action among the industrialized countries led by the US to come up with specific goals to reduce global greenhouse emission abiding by the Kyoto Protocol, which is based on the reports of various UN agencies involved in the climate change debate.
The Paris Meeting of the Major Economies on Energy and Climate was organized at the initiative of the United States, which saw active participation by Germany, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, South Korea, France, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Britain, Russia and South Africa, as well as the UN, the European Union (EU) and the IEA. The US, in short, is working toward a climate agreement that includes the meaningful participation of every major economy without giving anyone a free ride. After all, there is need for global responsibility among those who advocate the Kyoto Protocol, and those who seek to display responsibility beyond it. There is little doubt in 2008 that the global environment debate now hinges on alternate energy resource use.