By Leigh Ewbank. Originally posted at Breakthrough Generation
A joint London School of Economics / University of Oxford report published today presents a new approach to post-Kyoto climate change policy. The report, How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course, coincides with this week’s G8 summit and Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate, and calls on policy makers to abandon the failed Kyoto-style framework and instead focus directly on decarbonizing global energy systems.
The new report builds on Professor Gwyn Prins' and Professor Steve Rayner’s influential critique of the Kyoto Protocol, The Wrong Trousers: Radically Rethinking Climate Policy, and adds further weight to calls to scrap Kyoto.
How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course explains that the rise in the carbon intensity of the global economy since 2001 has occurred alongside efforts to limit carbon emissions—most notably the Kyoto Protocol and the EU emissions trading scheme. This correlation highlights the failure of emissions-centric policy. The report’s coordinating author Professor Gwyn Prins warns adherents of the Kyoto-style approach:‘In the real world, indicators are moving stubbornly in the wrong direction. The world has been re-carbonising, not de-carbonising. The evidence is that the Kyoto Protocol and its underlying approach have had and are having no meaningful effect whatsoever.’
To overcome ineffective climate policy, Prins and his coauthors recommend policy makers adopt the ‘Direct Kaya Approach’. This approach would aim to reduce the carbon intensity of an economy through increasing energy efficiency and deploying low-carbon technologies. According to co-author, Professor Steve Rayner of Oxford University, this approach has the advantage of historical precedent:‘The world has centuries of experience in decarbonising its energy supply and Japan has led the world in policy-driven improvements in energy efficiency. These are the models to which we ought to be looking.’
The report cites Japan’s recently approved ‘Mamizu’ climate strategy as the world’s first based on the Direct Kaya Approach. Japan’s emissions reduction target of 15% below 2005 levels by 2020 represents a 33% reduction in the carbon intensity of Japan’s economy—quite a target considering that Japan is already one of the most efficient economies. In sharp contrast to the Waxman-Markey bill, Japan’s target will be met through increased energy efficiency and deployment of clean technology, not through the use of dubious ‘offsets’.
Overall, the report underscores the need to adopt a new framework for an international agreement on climate change. The Breakthrough Institute’s Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus have called for massive global investment in new clean energy technology to replace the deeply flawed Kyoto-style framework. Targets for investment in renewable energy research, development and deployment, and a multilateral agreement for technology transfer and cooperation among the world’s largest emitters could form the basis of a new framework. Such policies can enhance the decarbonization model proposed in the Prins report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
‘How to Get Climate Policy Back on Course’ was coordinated by Professor Gwyn Prins and drew on the expertise of leading research institutes in Europe, North America and Asia.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
New Report Calls for a Fresh Approach to Climate Policy
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
House Committee Cuts Funding for Obama's Energy Education Initiative
By Devon Swezey, Breakthrough Fellow
Cross-posted from Breakthrough Institute
President Obama's national energy education program designed to create a generation of clean energy innovators has been cut from $115 to $7 million by a House subcommittee. The cuts could mean that fewer than 100 scholarships, not 1,500 scholarships, will be available annually.
Energy analysts say that one of the key barriers to developing clean energy technologies that can compete with fossil fuels is the lack of scholarships both for young scientists to do basic research and for engineers seeking to apply discoveries in the real world.
The Administration's energy education program, called RE-ENERGYSE (REgaining our ENERGY Science and Engineering Edge), would have resulted in "the development of leading edge undergraduate and graduate programs and between 5,000 and 8,500 highly educated scientists, engineers, and other professionals to enter the clean energy field by 2015; and approximately 10,000 to 17,000 professionals by 2020," according to the Department of Energy (DOE). The initiative, which would be jointly supported by DOE and the National Science Foundation, was modeled after the Breakthrough Institute's National Energy Education Act proposal and would have been the largest federal initiative to focus exclusively on clean energy education.
President Obama announced the initiative as a way to "inspire the next generation of clean energy innovators", similar to the way that the launch of Sputnik and the space race inspired young people to pursue careers in science and engineering in the 1950s and 60s. In 1958, the government passed the National Defense Education Act (NDEA), which provided billions of dollars over 4 years to train a new generation of scientists to help America compete with the Soviet Union in scientific and technical fields. But in recent years, the number of science and technology professionals has been declining as a share of the labor force, a development that has education experts worried.
The cut to the President's energy education initiative comes as recent reports have expressed concern about the state of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) education in the United States. A number of recent studies show that the United States lags behind many of its economic competitors, particularly in higher education. According to a report by the National Academy of Sciences, in 2004 only 15% of American undergraduates received their degrees in natural science or engineering, while in China a full 50% of students received their undergraduate degrees in those subjects. American students are trailing their foreign counterparts in post-graduate STEM education as well; in 2004, 56% of engineering PhDs in the United States were awarded to foreign-born students.
Experts also worry that the lack of investment in STEM education will hamper America's ability to be a leader in an increasingly competitive global economy, particularly in the development of clean energy technologies. In recent weeks, a number of Asian countries have announced massive increases in clean energy investment. China recently announced it would invest $440-$660 billion over 10 years in renewable energy. South Korea has also committed $85 billion over five years--a full 2 percent of its GDP--for "green" investment. In August, China, Japan, and South Korea will meet to discuss ways they can work together on clean energy technology, according to Time Magazine.
By comparison, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES), which recently passed in the House, provides $6-12 billion in annual investments in clean energy. A recent EPA analysis projects that the bill would actually result in less renewable energy deployment in 2020 than would exist without the bill.
In a letter urging a Senate appropriations subcommittee to restore funding for the RE-ENERGYSE program, Debra Stewart, the President of the Council of Graduate Schools, wrote that investing in human capital today was necessary for the U.S. to succeed in creating the clean and renewable energy resources of tomorrow.
"These investments in graduate education would invigorate research in "green" technologies and prepare the workforce necessary for the 21st century global economy", she wrote.
The full Senate Appropriations Committee will take up the DOE 2010 budget request tomorrow, when they will decide how much funding will be allocated to the RE-ENERGYSE program. Any differences will then be resolved in conference between the two chambers and approved before being sent to the President for his signature. Read more!
China's Big Plan to Win the Clean Energy Race
By Johanna Peace with Leigh Ewbank and Devon Swezey. Originally posted at Breakthrough Generation
Historically, the United States has been the nation with the capacity and determination for large-scale investments in promising new technologies--but not this time. Now it’s China’s turn. In the coming weeks, China will unveil an unprecedented multi-billion dollar investment in renewable energy.
The details are sketchy, but China is reportedly developing a massive renewable energy investment plan. While little is known about the precise level of expenditure the Chinese will commit to research, development and deployment (RD&D), if it’s anywhere between the US $440-660 billion over ten years reported by AFP and the Center for American Progress then it’ll be an unprecedented investment in the new energy economy.
What Do We Know About China's Investment Plan?
A Chinese Energy Administration official has confirmed that the investments will number at least $440 billion over 10 years. However, there is still uncertainty about the range of investments and the date when the Chinese Government’s renewable energy plan will be revealed. A report by the state-run news service Xinhua identified China's top economic planning body, the National Development and Reform Commission, as responsible for drafting and implementing the plan. According to Shi Dinghuan of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, NDRC has already produced a draft of the renewable energy stimulus, though Breakthrough research has turned up no publicly available copy.
Meeting Ambitious Targets for Renewables
The money from this new renewable stimulus package will undoubtedly help China meet its ambitious goals for the deployment of clean energy technologies. Last month, NDRC vice-chairman Zhang Xiaoqiang said that China would easily meet its renewable energy standard (RES) of 15% by 2020, a target set by the Renewable Energy law of 2006. He predicted that China's renewable capacity could reach as high as 20% by that time.
On technology-specific targets, too, China is plowing ahead of schedule. Estimates say that China's installed capacity of wind power by 2020 could easily triple the previous target of 30 GW. Meanwhile, a recent Chinese announcement said the nation would surpass its previous 2020 goal of 1.8 GW solar PV power as early as 2011, on the way to a dramatically higher new target of 20 GW by 2020.
Investments Currently Underway
When details are released, the massive $440-660 billion spending package will come in addition to substantial existing investment in renewables by the Chinese government. According to The Climate Group, China invested $12 billion in renewable energy in 2007--second only to Germany.
On its way to blowing past previous wind energy targets, China will begin construction this month on its biggest wind power station yet. The "Three Gorges of Wind Power" development, valued at US $17.6 billion, will generate 20 GW of power by 2020. The government is also considering enhancing deployment incentives already in place to encourage the growth of the Chinese domestic solar market.
Looking Ahead
The US is yet to respond to China’s expanding lead in renewable energy investment.
While climate change advocates like Al Gore hail the Waxman-Markey bill as a display of leadership, the bill fails to provide sufficient investments in renewable R&D and increase deployment above business-as-usual scenarios. Breakthrough Institute analysis shows that "the House climate legislation would invest just $800 million to 1.4 billion in R&D" with "total investments in clean energy… likely to be just $6-9 billion annually between 2012-2025."
Not only does the scale of US investment pale in comparison to China’s proposed US $44-66 billion per year, it also falls short of the investments that energy experts recommend to spur innovation to meet the climate and energy challenge. It's time for America to join the race.
Tuesday, July 07, 2009
China and India Launch New Solar Energy Projects
By Johanna Peace. Originally posted at Breakthrough Generation
While the US mires itself in controversy over the weakened cap-and-trade bill working its way through Congress, China and India have begun to look ahead with new government investment policies that rapidly expand solar power capacity in each country.
China recently announced a dramatic increase in its expected solar capacity target for 2011, planning to reach 2 GW within the next two years. Already, China's new renewable energy stimulus plan has expanded the nation's 2020 target from 1.8 GW to 20 GW--that's more than triple the amount of PV solar power installed in the entire world during 2008, the industry's best year ever.
The higher targets will be met by enhancing government subsidies and other deployment incentives, which currently stand at US $2.93/watt capacity for roof-mounted systems greater than 50 kW. Government officials have suggested that the current US $.16 per kWH feed-in tariff for ground-mounted PV systems may be adjusted in order to make solar power production profitable.
Last month, India also signaled that it sees solar as a crucial component of a future clean energy economy, when its New and Renewable Energy Committee announced a massive National Solar Mission. In what one Greenpeace India representative called "the most ambitious solar plan that any country has laid out so far," the National Solar Mission matches China by setting a new target of 20 GW solar capacity by 2020. What's more, India estimates that the plan could bring the now-prohibitive cost of solar down to US $.08-.10 per kWh by 2017-2020, making it cost-competitive with fossil fuels.
The cost of building rooftop systems and increasing local manufacturing capacity on the scale India has proposed would run about $20 billion over 30 years, economists say. India's solar plan will meet this cost by levying taxes on gasoline and diesel, as well as implementing other measures like a feed-in tariff, solar power purchase obligations, tax breaks for manufacturers, exemptions on tariffs for imported equipment, and a national renewable energy standard that mandates a certain percentage of India's power be generated from solar.
One part of the plan in particular has been making headlines: the provision that the Indian government will provide $100 billion in subsidies over 20 years to utilities for buying solar-generated power.
There are two lessons for the US as developing Asian economies continue to expand solar capacity. First, it's a clear opportunity for American investment. The Indian government will likely need help from developed countries to finance its huge subsidies plan; through US government investment and foreign direct investment in solar power plants, the US stands to profit while also contributing to India's clean development and the reduction of global GHG emissions. Such a mutually beneficial arrangement could be a focal point for a productive treaty between developed and developing nations in Copenhagen.
Second, in addition to facilitating international cooperation, the solar push by Asian nations should spark a sense of competitiveness for US domestic energy policy. Direct government investment in solar R&D, as well as subsidies and incentives for deployment of solar energy, could put the US in step with India and China as leaders in the deployment of this vital renewable energy technology. Despite a steadily growing solar PV industry with a current capacity of about 9000 mW, the US needs more solar deployment, and we need it to happen fast. China and India have shown us a model of how to do it.
South Korea to Invest $85b in Green New Deal
By Johanna Peace. Originally posted at Breakthrough Generation
This week, South Korea has upped the ante for green public investment as it continues to make swift progress toward becoming a clean-tech economy. Already, a staggering 80% of South Korea's $38 billion stimulus package has been earmarked for green investments.
And today, the South Korean government announced that it will invest $85 billion more over 5 years to encourage the growth of green industries and technologies. That's more than doubling South Korea's recent promise to invest $40 billion over five years in a "Green New Deal," and the equivalent of 2% of the East Asian nation's total GDP. If the United States were to invest a comparable share of it's national wealth in clean energy technology, the sum would total over $275 billion annually.
As part of the investment plan, South Korea will raise $1.6 billion from the private sector to help green industry, using a suite of financial supports and incentives. According to Reuters:"From the public sector, the state-run Korea Development Bank (KDB) and state-run pension funds plan to set up a 500 billion won ($395 million) private equity fund in the second half of the year, officials said.
The KDB also aims to set up a 300 billion won ($237 million) fund for research and development (R&D) for the industries. The government will increase a fund for smaller firms in the industries to 1.1 trillion won ($868 million) by 2013 from a 60 billion won ($47 million) this year.
South Korea plans to raise fiscal support for R&D in the industries to 2.8 trillion won ($2.2 billion) by 2013 from 2.0 trillion won ($1.57 billion) this year.
The government will increase credit guarantee support for such companies and projects to 7.0 trillion won ($5.52 billion) by 2013 from 2.8 trillion won ($2.2 billion) this year and triple export financing.
On Thursday, the government said it would help launch a 5 trillion won ($3.95 billion) fund aimed at providing financial support for investments by companies as part of plans to encourage corporate spending."
By expanding R&D funding for technologies such as LEDs, solar batteries, and hybrid cars, South Korea aims to raise its international market share of clean tech products to 8%.
South Korea knows that investing in clean tech industries creates an unstoppable growth engine for broader economic prosperity. Yet the US, a self-proclaimed leader in the drive toward a carbon-free global economy, has invested a paltry 12% of its own stimulus package in creating a clean energy economy at home. Not to mention the feeble climate bill that just passed the House, which totally misses the opportunity to harness revenues from the sale of emission allowances and direct them toward green industry stimulus measures like South Korea's.
Until the US government makes clean energy investment a national priority, America will have no answer to the clean tech challenges coming from Asia's emerging green economies.
Monday, July 06, 2009
With $17.6b Project, China Surges Forward on Wind
By Johanna Peace. Originally posted at Breakthrough Generation
China's massive public investments in wind and other renewable energy technologies are edging the rapidly developing nation into the lead in the global clean energy race.
By mid-July, China will begin construction of a massive wind farm project in the northwestern Gansu province, at a total cost of US $17.6 billion. It will be China's biggest wind power station yet; according to local Development and Reform Commission official Wu Shengxue, it will reach an installed capacity of 20 GW by 2020. Eventually, the wind power capacity of the area is projected to reach 40 GW.
This development is the latest in what has recently been a major push by the Chinese to expand renewable energy use. Soon, Chinese officials are expected to reveal a new renewable energy stimulus plan of US $44-$66 billion per year over ten years, which will focus much of its resources on wind power. Under the plan, China will be on track to reach 100 GW of wind power capacity by 2020--more than eight times its current level.
By contrast, the American Clean Energy and Security Act invests only $6-12 billion per year in clean energy. As for the US "green stimulus," it includes a one-time clean energy spending boost of $112 billion--just half of China's $221 billion stimulus investment in green initiatives. Here's a sense of scale: If US investments in clean energy were on par with the Chinese in terms of percent GDP, we'd be spending $140-210 billion per year.
Right now, the US maintains an edge in wind power, with about 25 GW of installed capacity to China's 12 GW. But China has been at least doubling its wind power capacity each year for four years, and last year, China was second only to the US in added capacity.
Clearly, China is positioning itself to pull ahead as a leader in wind power and other renewable energy technologies. The major reason is a government commitment to substantial and sustained clean energy investment. The US needs to take note of this model, or watch its already razor-thin edge in clean energy tech getting thinner every day.
Road to Copenhagen: The Need for a New Framework
By Johanna Peace with Devon Swezey and Leigh Ewbank. Originally posted at Breakthrough Generation
It's official: India won't accept binding caps on its emissions of greenhouse gases. Indian Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh made the case clear last Thursday:
“India will not accept any emission-reduction target--period,” Ramesh said. “This is a non-negotiable stand.”
India's announcement is the latest frustrating news for those following the efforts of climate negotiators as they struggle to eke out an international agreement by this December's UN summit in Copenhagen. It's frustrating because the fundamental dissonance between what developed countries demand and what developing countries are willing to give appears to be the single most intractable roadblock standing in the way of a successful treaty. In fact, this very problem has impeded progress on international climate negotiations for decades.
China is also predictably inflexible when it comes to emissions reduction targets. Its May 20 position paper on the Copenhagen conference makes no mention of reduction targets, and instead demands that industrialized nations cut their emissions 40% below 1990 levels by 2020. Chinese officials have repeatedly stated that China will not adopt binding targets because it does not bear the same responsibility as the developed world for historic greenhouse gas emissions.
The EU and the US favor domestic cap and trade systems and seek to expand them into a global carbon market. But in the developed world, this model hasn't worked. Under Kyoto, participating nations promised to reduce emissions below 1990 levels by 2012--instead, their emissions have been rising steadily. From 1990-2006, emissions increased in Japan by over 5 percent; in the US by 14 percent; in Canada by 20 percent; and in Australia by 30 percent.
The cap and trade model isn't likely to start working, either. Though supporters of ACES (the latest attempt to establish a domestic cap-and-trade system in the US) claim it will reduce emissions by 17% below 2005 levels by 2020, analyses by the EPA and the Breakthrough Institute reveal that the bill will not require any emissions reductions below projected business-as-usual growth for at least another decade.
Meanwhile, the developing world is looking on, and not surprisingly, they're opting out of the failed cap-and-trade model. China, for instance, has consistently argued that such a system would be incompatible with its institutions.
They might not be jumping on the emissions reduction bandwagon, but major developing countries are not dragging their feet either. Recent weeks have seen China and India sharpen their focus on another approach to addressing climate change: investment. The Indian government plans to invest $100 billion in solar energy production over the next decade, with a target of 20 GW by 2020. In China, officials will soon unveil a massive ten-year renewable energy investment plan on the order of $440-660 billion. This new stimulus spending will dramatically expand China's renewable energy capacity, and could triple the nation's 2020 targets for wind and solar power.
China is pulling ahead as the world's first renewable energy superpower, and India is poised to join it. This means they'll come to Copenhagen with major leverage over finger-wagging Western countries that press for emission cuts from developing nations but do little to invest in renewable energy at home. If China and India can point to substantial domestic renewable energy investment, they'll bolster their case for continuing to reject emissions reduction targets.
So surely it's time to stop fighting a battle we're not going to win. Instead, hope for achieving a successful agreement in Copenhagen lies in adopting an alternative framework that eschews emissions targets in favor of something more workable.
Fortunately, there are already indications that the outlines of such a framework may be emerging, at least for developing countries. China appears open to the idea of carbon intensity targets--essentially slowing the growth of emissions--and India has proposed creating global innovation centers for the rapid development and diffusion of zero-carbon technologies. Both nations have called on developed countries to share clean technologies to foster low-carbon development.
This alternative framework could focus on targets for clean energy investment and deployment. The greenhouse gas emissions displaced by new energy technologies could be calculated relative to a projected business-as-usual trend. By pushing for emissions reduction through targets for clean technology investment, such an approach would mollify developing country leaders wary of setting binding emissions targets, and also result in real emissions reductions in the short term.
Senior U.S. climate negotiator Jonathan Pershing hinted that negotiations could move in that direction when he proposed that, instead of emissions targets, developing countries like China could be asked to commit to actions such as energy efficiency and renewable energy deployment:
"We're saying that the actions of developing countries should be binding, not the outcomes of those actions."
This week in L'Aquila, Italy, the Major Economies Forum on Climate Change will bring together the world's largest emitters to continue climate policy negotiations. The meeting will foreshadow the likelihood of achieving a global agreement in December. If US negotiators put forth an alternative framework based on investment rather than emissions targets, there's still hope of aligning the interests of developed and developing nations in a binding agreement in Copenhagen. But if they stick to the failed framework of the past 20 years, prospects for achieving a global treaty will remain exceedingly grim.
Thursday, July 02, 2009
Listen to the Discussion: What Will ACES (Waxman-Markey) Achieve?
The Energy Collective conducted a live, interactive webcast in which energy experts and TEC blogger board members Jesse Jenkins of the Breakthrough Institute and WattHead blog and John C. Whitehead of Appalachian State University dug into the details of the American Clean Energy and Security Act, the ACES climate bill, and provided insight into its likely effectiveness in a number of key areas...
Join the Energy Collective and listen to an archive recording of the discussion here.
The Breakup
Join ACE this July 4 as we break up with oil!
Declare your independence from fossil fuels and sign The Declaration.
Wednesday, July 01, 2009
Kowalski: Relieved ACES Climate Bill Passed But It Doesn't Do Enough, Fast Enough,
This week, WattHead has featured a number of reactions to the passage of the American Clean Energy and Security Act last Friday, particularly from young climate leaders. 1Sky's policy expert Jason Kowalski appeared on Al Jazeera this week to discuss the bill's passage and the hard work ahead to enact U.S. climate policy that can truly solve the climate crisis. Check it out:
See also:
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Brookings Institution: Senate Must Strengthen Clean Energy Funding in ACES
By Johanna Peace, Breakthrough Fellow
The American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES) that passed by a margin of 219-212 in the House on Friday needs a major makeover in the Senate in order to redress its critically insufficient provisions for funding clean energy R&D, according to Mark Muro, policy director at the Brookings Institution's Metropolitan Policy Program.
In a Brookings article criticizing the climate bill, Muro argues:
"While a $20 to $30 billion a year R&D outlay would be optimal, Waxman-Markey would invest just 1.5 percent of the 40-year revenue stream of the cap-and-trade system in the R&D efforts of ARPA-E and the innovation hubs--which comes to just $1.4 billion a year or so at accepted permit price forecasts... The bottom line: Reps. Waxman and Markey did well to install several crucial innovation provisions in the House bill, but the political trades that were required to pass it have left far too little revenue behind for the most crucial use of cap-trade money--investments to catalyze a radically cleaner energy future."Muro's points reaffirm Breakthrough Institute's analysis, which has shown how ACES invests far more cap and trade revenue in polluting industries and foreign offsets than it does in building new clean energy industries in the U.S.
Muro mentions that some ACES provisions -- such as the funding it would direct toward ARPA-E and the eight regional "Energy Innovation Hubs" it would establish -- constitute a modest start toward the kind of public investment that will promote the development and commercialization of clean energy technologies. Breakthrough Institute, too, has pointed to some of the same provisions as promising -- but only if they are adequately funded.
But they're not. Important as their mere presence may be, these tiny "slivers of the 40-year revenue stream" of the ACES cap and trade system remain a "paltry" fraction of the public investment the United States will need to propel a transition to a prosperous, clean energy economy.
As Muro writes, all of this translates into a "major task" for the Senate as it begins to confront the woefully inadequate climate bill handed to it by the House:"By applying to the cause a long-term revenue stream, the Senate should significantly strengthen Waxman-Markey's clean energy R&D provisions, principally by investing significantly more in them. To be sure nothing will be easy here. Not only is the Senate far less "fired up" on balance to act aggressively on climate. Also, the Senate is addressing climate and energy in a more fragmented way, with Sen. Boxer's liberal-leaning Environment and Public Works Committee developing a greenhouse gas and cap-and-trade regime while Sen. Bingaman's more centrist Energy and Natural Resources Committee advances renewable energy, efficiency standards, and smart grid proposals in a regular bill.Read more!
In that splintered context, it's going to require difficult negotiations to get a Senate bill and then to reconcile it with ACES. And yet, it does not seem fanciful to suggest that heavy investment in energy innovation and economic transformation could offer the best route forward. Such investments need to emerge as the needed point of consensus between the greenest of the greens and stalwart defenders of the nation's economic competitiveness, first in the Senate and then in both Houses. Only through that convergence will the nation gain a truly transformative energy and climate bill that moves the nation soundly toward clean energy economy."
