Todd Stern and a US climate cooperation delegation made an appearance at a roundtable discussion at Tsinghua University today, which CGS weaseled itself into. It was "off the record," so to to maintain whatever journalistic integrity it has, CGS will only refer to general comments and threads of discussion (Chatham House rules).
With one exception, a really good, but unattributable quote: "We are mindful of the unforgiving imperative of the atmosphere." Well, CGS for one will sleep a little better knowing that.
Unfortunately, the rules of the game haven't changed: China still emphasizes the need for growth and development, while the US side slowly chips away at China's protests that it is a developing country, noting that China cannot claim to be as helpless in the face of climate change as, say, Haiti.
However, the roundtable did come closer to identifying a key negotiating front than previous sessions: technology cooperation. The Chinese side, possibly because it was dominated by representatives of the energy and engineering bureaucracy, constantly called for technology transfer. The US side forthrightly said that the United States has neither the monetary resources nor the political will to finance China's clean energy transformation: it can purchase the technology on the open market. What's needed, they said, is closer to an equitable (presumably meaning the US won't pay) "technology cooperation" arrangement.
A possible foundation for compromise emerged when Chinese representatives responded by saying that the US can do more to promote development of technologies that meet China's needs as a developing country, something most feasibly done through private-sector partnerships. Governments, meanwhile, can collaborate on enhancing China's capacity for clean technology deployment and implementation, especially in the area of measuring, verifying, and reporting emissions.
That might be something Congress can live with. But one big hurdle remains, and one recognized by both sides: intellectual property (IP). Both sides noted that there's a lot of misunderstanding on this issue, that China is actually better on some IP issues than it's given credit for, and that there's a whole range of technologies, mostly in energy efficiency, where IP issues are not a significant impediment.
So long and short, a focus of continued negotiations should be on capacity building in technology transfer, not simply discussion of the transfer and financing itself. To offer some CGS commentary, the Chinese side didn't seem to be budging much, but that's understandable: at a minimum, the US has to pass domestic cap and trade legislation before China can be expected to make any concessions. But you do have to take a step back and think: a bunch of earnest, capable people all speaking frankly about the importance of US-China climate cooperation for the future of the world. That would have been almost unimaginable a year ago.
Showing posts with label clean energy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clean energy. Show all posts
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Clinton's Visit
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gets two thumbs up for her handling of the climate issue in Beijing. It's worth taking a little step back to think how far we've come in recent months. Just two months ago, the United States demonstrated its familiar reticence to take a leading role of climate at talks in Poznan (see previous post). But when she arrived in Beijing, Clinton placed the climate issue front and center, telling China "we hope you don't make the same mistakes we made" on climate. She also made a smart move in framing the climate issue as one that threatens the security of both nations, saying "This not a matter of politics or morality or right or wrong,” he said. “It is simply the unforgiving math of accumulating emissions” (see New York Times). Indeed, Clinton even went so far as to participate on a webchat, asking China's 300 million Internet users to "work together for a clean energy future" (see China Daily).
China's response to this welcome overture has been one of cautious optimism. China's Foreign Minister pledged that the economic crisis would not derail the country's greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts, a welcome sign of confidence in the seriousness of the issue. ""The government's resolve to tackle climate change has not changed, and our actions have not weakened," the Minister said, before pledging that "We are willing to work together with the international community to push the Copenhagen talks forward and make sure they yield a positive result" (see China Daily). Elsewhere, however, China's government sought to emphasize the necessity of technology transfer if climate cooperation is to be enhanced. An official at the Ministry of Science and Technology was quoted as saying "China is glad to see that the US has started to take concrete action [on US-China climate cooperation]. But without funding and technology, cooperation would end up as empty talk" (see China Daily). The official went on to reference Beijing's familiar developing-country argument that it is unable to take on concrete GHG reduction targets (see previous post).
Beijing's hesitancy points towards the next step for a promising re-invigoration of US-China climate cooperation. The US and China must come to an agreement about technology transfer and financing the deployment of GHG mitigation technology. Chinese academic Zhang Haibin writes that "Hostility toward Communism excludes China from receiving official development aid from the United States, which could significantly hasten climate-change-related projects" (see New York Times), while a recent essay by Chinese environmental experts notes that international transfer of clean technologies remains underdeveloped (see China Dialogue).
In sum, then, Clinton's push on climate can be considered a success. The real work, though, lies ahead. As Zhang's statement indicates, Washington must build on its climate overture with a series of confidence-building measures to indicate its seriousness, including adopting binding emissions restrictions itself. It must also put its money where its mouth is on technology transfer- something that, particularly in the midst of economic crisis, is an unmistakable sign of conviction to tackle climate change through Sino-American partnership. Two smaller steps will be crucial to achieving these larger goals. First, China and the US need to reaffirm and expand the dialogue on climate and energy established under the Strategic Economic Dialogue (see previous post). Second, a joint task force should be formed at once to overcome the technical obstacles to technology transfer, most crucially intellectual property rights (see previous post).
As these steps are taken, Washington should also make clear to China that it expects reciprocation. The climate and energy dialogue should state at the outset that the ultimate outcome of US-China climate cooperation must be for China to reduce its GHG emissions by a set amount, within the framework of an equitable global agreement that promotes sustainable economic development. All this lies ahead. But it's nonetheless a huge achievement to be underway on the road towards a genuinely sustainable future.
China's response to this welcome overture has been one of cautious optimism. China's Foreign Minister pledged that the economic crisis would not derail the country's greenhouse gas emissions reduction efforts, a welcome sign of confidence in the seriousness of the issue. ""The government's resolve to tackle climate change has not changed, and our actions have not weakened," the Minister said, before pledging that "We are willing to work together with the international community to push the Copenhagen talks forward and make sure they yield a positive result" (see China Daily). Elsewhere, however, China's government sought to emphasize the necessity of technology transfer if climate cooperation is to be enhanced. An official at the Ministry of Science and Technology was quoted as saying "China is glad to see that the US has started to take concrete action [on US-China climate cooperation]. But without funding and technology, cooperation would end up as empty talk" (see China Daily). The official went on to reference Beijing's familiar developing-country argument that it is unable to take on concrete GHG reduction targets (see previous post).
Beijing's hesitancy points towards the next step for a promising re-invigoration of US-China climate cooperation. The US and China must come to an agreement about technology transfer and financing the deployment of GHG mitigation technology. Chinese academic Zhang Haibin writes that "Hostility toward Communism excludes China from receiving official development aid from the United States, which could significantly hasten climate-change-related projects" (see New York Times), while a recent essay by Chinese environmental experts notes that international transfer of clean technologies remains underdeveloped (see China Dialogue).
In sum, then, Clinton's push on climate can be considered a success. The real work, though, lies ahead. As Zhang's statement indicates, Washington must build on its climate overture with a series of confidence-building measures to indicate its seriousness, including adopting binding emissions restrictions itself. It must also put its money where its mouth is on technology transfer- something that, particularly in the midst of economic crisis, is an unmistakable sign of conviction to tackle climate change through Sino-American partnership. Two smaller steps will be crucial to achieving these larger goals. First, China and the US need to reaffirm and expand the dialogue on climate and energy established under the Strategic Economic Dialogue (see previous post). Second, a joint task force should be formed at once to overcome the technical obstacles to technology transfer, most crucially intellectual property rights (see previous post).
As these steps are taken, Washington should also make clear to China that it expects reciprocation. The climate and energy dialogue should state at the outset that the ultimate outcome of US-China climate cooperation must be for China to reduce its GHG emissions by a set amount, within the framework of an equitable global agreement that promotes sustainable economic development. All this lies ahead. But it's nonetheless a huge achievement to be underway on the road towards a genuinely sustainable future.
Monday, February 16, 2009
US-China Environmental Cooperation as a Security Issue
Last week, CGS was summoned to coffee by a friend who works within China's environmental protection bureaucracy. The government, said friend confessed, is very worried about the intersection of the economic crisis, political discontent, and its environmental policy goals. Officials, according to this source, are increasingly concerned both that economic considerations might imperil China's transition to a low-carbon economy (低碳经济), and that public discontent over pollution and other environmental issues may translate into protests or worse.
They should be, and said friend's warning provides an impetus to explain why US-China environmental cooperation should be seen not only as an ecological, energy, or economic issue, but also as one bearing on the most hard-core realist conceptions of security. (Full disclosure: CGS has often described the field of environmental security as a little dubious).
The most obvious segue from China's environmental situation to security is via energy. China is the world's third-largest oil importer (see US Department of Energy Country Brief), with much of it passing along vulnerable sea routes through the Indian Ocean and the Straits of Malacca. China presently lacks the capacity to protect these crucial sea lanes, and thus is vulnerable to disruptions in oil production and transport in South, Southwest, and Southeast Asia. The Brookings Report, referenced in yesterday's post, notes that if China were to expand deployment of renewable and low-carbon energy sources, its energy security would be enhanced, probably also lowering tensions with other major oil consumers such as the United States and India in areas like Africa and Central Asia.
But the most serious security threat to arise from China's environmental situation comes from water scarcity. Most of the major river systems that feed and water China, India, and Southeast Asia depend on meltwater from the Himalayan region. Climate change is endangering this vital source of water for 60% of the human population. Himalayan glaciers, which provide some 70% of the flow of major Asian rivers, are melting at an extremely rapid rate; one study predicts that the Himalayan-Hindu Kush region will "run out of water" during the dry season (Barnett, T.P., et al. “Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions.” Nature. 438 (2005): 303-308).
Recent news reports from the present drought in northern China provide some indication of what might occur should this nightmare scenario transpire: "Highest Level of Emergency for Drought Declared" (see China Daily) and "2/3 of China's cities short of water" (see Renminribao, in Chinese only). The present dought, of course, cannot be conclusively tied to climate change, and is exacerbated by wasteful water use in China's northern regions. But as climate change accelerate, we can expect things to get worse.
The security implications for a China, India, and Southeast Asia short of water are obvious. Besides destabilizing massive and volatile populations, such a situation would interrupt economic growth in the very regions economists agree are central to global recovery. In a time when the head of America's Central Intelligence Agency identified unemployment as the primary threat to American security (see New York Times), it's frightening to contemplate a similar situation compounded by thirst for the majority of the human population.
US-China environmental cooperation, then, isn't just an ecological concern. It's not only good for economic growth or mutual understanding. It's also essential for the security of both nations. Combined, these rationales amount not only to a compelling case for investing heavily in US-China environmental cooperation, but a clear imperative. The world must figure out how to grow sustainably without poisioning its environmental commons, and especially its atmosphere. The United States and China must lead the way, otherwise we will all soon be living nastier, more brutal, and shorter lives- a Hobbesian security threat if ever there were one.
They should be, and said friend's warning provides an impetus to explain why US-China environmental cooperation should be seen not only as an ecological, energy, or economic issue, but also as one bearing on the most hard-core realist conceptions of security. (Full disclosure: CGS has often described the field of environmental security as a little dubious).
The most obvious segue from China's environmental situation to security is via energy. China is the world's third-largest oil importer (see US Department of Energy Country Brief), with much of it passing along vulnerable sea routes through the Indian Ocean and the Straits of Malacca. China presently lacks the capacity to protect these crucial sea lanes, and thus is vulnerable to disruptions in oil production and transport in South, Southwest, and Southeast Asia. The Brookings Report, referenced in yesterday's post, notes that if China were to expand deployment of renewable and low-carbon energy sources, its energy security would be enhanced, probably also lowering tensions with other major oil consumers such as the United States and India in areas like Africa and Central Asia.
But the most serious security threat to arise from China's environmental situation comes from water scarcity. Most of the major river systems that feed and water China, India, and Southeast Asia depend on meltwater from the Himalayan region. Climate change is endangering this vital source of water for 60% of the human population. Himalayan glaciers, which provide some 70% of the flow of major Asian rivers, are melting at an extremely rapid rate; one study predicts that the Himalayan-Hindu Kush region will "run out of water" during the dry season (Barnett, T.P., et al. “Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions.” Nature. 438 (2005): 303-308).
Recent news reports from the present drought in northern China provide some indication of what might occur should this nightmare scenario transpire: "Highest Level of Emergency for Drought Declared" (see China Daily) and "2/3 of China's cities short of water" (see Renminribao, in Chinese only). The present dought, of course, cannot be conclusively tied to climate change, and is exacerbated by wasteful water use in China's northern regions. But as climate change accelerate, we can expect things to get worse.
The security implications for a China, India, and Southeast Asia short of water are obvious. Besides destabilizing massive and volatile populations, such a situation would interrupt economic growth in the very regions economists agree are central to global recovery. In a time when the head of America's Central Intelligence Agency identified unemployment as the primary threat to American security (see New York Times), it's frightening to contemplate a similar situation compounded by thirst for the majority of the human population.
US-China environmental cooperation, then, isn't just an ecological concern. It's not only good for economic growth or mutual understanding. It's also essential for the security of both nations. Combined, these rationales amount not only to a compelling case for investing heavily in US-China environmental cooperation, but a clear imperative. The world must figure out how to grow sustainably without poisioning its environmental commons, and especially its atmosphere. The United States and China must lead the way, otherwise we will all soon be living nastier, more brutal, and shorter lives- a Hobbesian security threat if ever there were one.
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Poznan: Just bubbling with enthusiasm...
Not really. CGS was just searching for a witty title for this post about the potential for geothermal energy. Just as the global climate negotiations at Poznan looked to a dreary rehash of climate cliches (think of your children, cruel world!), the UN Environment Program announced new findings that indicate a minimum of 7000 megawatts of energy could be produced by tapping geothermal sources in Africa's Great Rift Valley. That's almost as much geothermal energy as the entire globe produces at the moment, according to the US National Renewable Energy Laborotory. Call East Africa "the Saudi Arabia of geothermal."
This geothermal capacity represents exciting sustainable-development potential for East Africa. Geothermal electricity plants are typically zero- or ultra-low emission facilities, though the technologies employed are not as mature as those used in fossil-combustion plants. The US Government is aiding a number of countries in assessing and developing geothermal resources, but it's fair to say that the vast majority of the world's geothermal potential remains untapped. China, for instance, generates about the same amount as the United States- some 2500 MW annually, but newer technologies being developed by the US Department of Energy promise to tap far greater heat resources.
It's uncertain how cost-effective expanded geothermal projects will be, particularly given the recent collapse of oil prices. But regardless, the East African find gives the sustainable development community a rare opportunity to cheer the potential for linking economic development and climate sustainability. Let's hope the US government continues to build on its efforts to diffuse and deploy geothermal in promising areas of the world- which seem to be growing more numerous.
This geothermal capacity represents exciting sustainable-development potential for East Africa. Geothermal electricity plants are typically zero- or ultra-low emission facilities, though the technologies employed are not as mature as those used in fossil-combustion plants. The US Government is aiding a number of countries in assessing and developing geothermal resources, but it's fair to say that the vast majority of the world's geothermal potential remains untapped. China, for instance, generates about the same amount as the United States- some 2500 MW annually, but newer technologies being developed by the US Department of Energy promise to tap far greater heat resources.
It's uncertain how cost-effective expanded geothermal projects will be, particularly given the recent collapse of oil prices. But regardless, the East African find gives the sustainable development community a rare opportunity to cheer the potential for linking economic development and climate sustainability. Let's hope the US government continues to build on its efforts to diffuse and deploy geothermal in promising areas of the world- which seem to be growing more numerous.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Beijing High-Level Conference on Climate Change, Technology Development, and Technology Transfer
Sponsored by both the Chinese Government and the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, the High-Level Conference was held this past week in Beijing to "promote international technology development and transfer, as well as the international negotiation process on climate change." Underscoring the importance Beijing attached to the event, the conference opened with remarks from senior Chinese officials, including Premier Wen Jiabao and Zhang Ping, Director of the National Development and Reform Commission. According to Zhang, some 600 delegates (including China Greenspace, which weaseled itself in) from 70 countries attended the conference.
Despite all the hoopla, the conference appeared mostly to buttress Beijing's determination to place technology transfer at the heart of its climate negotiating stance (see previous post). The conference comes at a crucial time, following hard on the heels of China's recent white paper on climate change, and little more than a month before the annual UN Framework Convention on Climate Change- Conference of the Parties. With this timing in mind, the conference positioned Beijing as a leading voice calling for developed nations to take greater responsibility for reducing global emissions, and for accelerating green technology transfer and development in the developing world.
Premier Wen's opening statement set just such a tone: "Climate change is a global issue, and concerns the prosperity and development of all countries. China's government takes climate change seriously, and always asks responsibly. It has made serious efforts to combat climate change, assigned tasks to all levels of government, and changed patterns of production and consumption towards a more sustainable level." Wen cited a number of statistics regarding China's efforts to green its infrastructure, before emphasizing China's status as a developing country. Noting that China's per-capita greenhouse gas emissions are about 1/3 that of developed nations, Wen then alleged that a large proportion of its emissions come from "subsistence" activities necessary to eliminate poverty, as well as from industrial enterprises transplanted from the West. In a further knock at developed nations, the Premier noted that developed nations established environmental regulations in fits and starts over time, while China faces a "compressed timeline" to do so. Wen did, however, pledge that China would strive to create a "low input, high output" economy.
From the outset, then, the conference made clear that it is up to the West to pay for its past climatological sins by financing technology transfer. NDRC Director Zhang proposed a new framework to do so, based on four parameters:
1) A new, specialized agency, set up under the UN Framework Convention, to speed technology transfer. The agency would work with designated technology development agencies in each country to coordinate technology transfer.
2) A new, specialized financing mechanism through which developed nations would provide "stable and predictable" funding for technology transfer and development.
3) A provision in a new climate agreement to review the implementation of parties on technology transfer and development [CGS: essentially an enforcement/compliance provision]
4) Use of private sector to mobilize and leverage resources for technology transfer.
Belief in the need for such a framework is not limited only to Chinese government officials. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN's Climate Change Secretariat, stated that a "global green economic transformation is inconceivable without green technology at its heart"; Ricardo Lagos, the UN's current Special Envoy on Climate Change, similarly cited the need to ensure that clean energy technology should be available to all countries.
In the conference itself, a number of crucial issues for clean technology transfer and development emerged. Many developing nations stressed the need for greater government involvement, even as developed nations stressed that private-sector capital has to be used to leverage technology gains. There was consensus that while the diffusion of advanced, clean technologies is an urgent priority for the international community, the ultimate objective must be to strengthen green technology development capacity around the world. Some experts, including Cath Bremner of the UK's Carbon Trust, emphasized that this capacity includes strengthening regulations, business environments, academic research bases, and "cultures" that encourage innovation.
Perhaps the most important technical issue with respect to clean technology transfer and development concerns intellectual property rights (IPR). Strict IPR regulations and concerns in the West present a significant barrier to the diffusion of clean technology One German government official involved in technology transfer noted that German wind power companies do not seven want to sell their latest turbine models in China, for fear that they will be reverse-engineered and copied by Chinese producers. A number of experts proposed that IPR regulations, such as compulsory licensing, be loosened with respect to clean energy technology. A South Korean official, for example, noted that the United States provides IPR exemptions for technologies that contribute substantially to public welfare or national security, and proposed that clean energy be added as a third such category. In the humble opinion of CGS, unresolved IPR considerations will nonetheless continue to discourage companies from innovation and diffusion in the green tech arena.
Technical issues aside, the crucial implications of the conference were with respect to developing country commitments to reduce emissions. The conference's closing statement, which affirmed commitment to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility," appeared to place the onus on the West to both develop and finance the technology to reduce emissions throughout the world. As CGS has argued previously, this stance imperils a global deal on climate change. A promising, if incomplete, way forward was offered by Harvard's Kelly Gallagher, who proposed a global bargain on technology transfer. Developed nations, Gallagher proposed, would created a Carbon Mitigation Fund to pay for all incremental (marginal) costs of implementing low-carbon technology. In exchange, developing countries who wish to access the fund would adopt "concrete, enforceable" emissions reductions plans.
This is just the kind of bargain that might underpin a global climate deal. It addresses developed countries' responsibility to finance adoption of the newest, greenest technology, while also acknowledging that developing countries will soon account for the majority of the world's emissions. Yet this kind of deal also involves much harsher terms than China, on the basis of this conference, appears prepared to accept. We can only hope that the passage of the next few months, and the appearance of new leaders like Barack Obama, will help to change minds.
In the meantime, the conference suggested some new ways that technology transfer can be enhanced without addressing the big, thorny questions. The final conference report claimed that a 70% reduction in global emissions can be accomplished without IPR issues, primarily by financing adoption of energy efficiency technology in developing nations. Richard Bradley of the International Energy Agency had particularly innovative ideas, for example, for improving the performance of consumer electronics. Additionally, many experts highlighted the importance of human capital in transferring technology. New academic and fellowship exchange programs between developed and developing nations could prove a profitable investment in enhancing this kind of social capital.
As the High-Level Conference concluded, CGS was left with the impression that the upcoming UNFCCC negotiations might be rocky indeed. Here's to hoping that China, and the world, looks beyond technology to the great and overarching challenge we all face to live sustainably and responsibly.
Despite all the hoopla, the conference appeared mostly to buttress Beijing's determination to place technology transfer at the heart of its climate negotiating stance (see previous post). The conference comes at a crucial time, following hard on the heels of China's recent white paper on climate change, and little more than a month before the annual UN Framework Convention on Climate Change- Conference of the Parties. With this timing in mind, the conference positioned Beijing as a leading voice calling for developed nations to take greater responsibility for reducing global emissions, and for accelerating green technology transfer and development in the developing world.
Premier Wen's opening statement set just such a tone: "Climate change is a global issue, and concerns the prosperity and development of all countries. China's government takes climate change seriously, and always asks responsibly. It has made serious efforts to combat climate change, assigned tasks to all levels of government, and changed patterns of production and consumption towards a more sustainable level." Wen cited a number of statistics regarding China's efforts to green its infrastructure, before emphasizing China's status as a developing country. Noting that China's per-capita greenhouse gas emissions are about 1/3 that of developed nations, Wen then alleged that a large proportion of its emissions come from "subsistence" activities necessary to eliminate poverty, as well as from industrial enterprises transplanted from the West. In a further knock at developed nations, the Premier noted that developed nations established environmental regulations in fits and starts over time, while China faces a "compressed timeline" to do so. Wen did, however, pledge that China would strive to create a "low input, high output" economy.
From the outset, then, the conference made clear that it is up to the West to pay for its past climatological sins by financing technology transfer. NDRC Director Zhang proposed a new framework to do so, based on four parameters:
1) A new, specialized agency, set up under the UN Framework Convention, to speed technology transfer. The agency would work with designated technology development agencies in each country to coordinate technology transfer.
2) A new, specialized financing mechanism through which developed nations would provide "stable and predictable" funding for technology transfer and development.
3) A provision in a new climate agreement to review the implementation of parties on technology transfer and development [CGS: essentially an enforcement/compliance provision]
4) Use of private sector to mobilize and leverage resources for technology transfer.
Belief in the need for such a framework is not limited only to Chinese government officials. Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the UN's Climate Change Secretariat, stated that a "global green economic transformation is inconceivable without green technology at its heart"; Ricardo Lagos, the UN's current Special Envoy on Climate Change, similarly cited the need to ensure that clean energy technology should be available to all countries.
In the conference itself, a number of crucial issues for clean technology transfer and development emerged. Many developing nations stressed the need for greater government involvement, even as developed nations stressed that private-sector capital has to be used to leverage technology gains. There was consensus that while the diffusion of advanced, clean technologies is an urgent priority for the international community, the ultimate objective must be to strengthen green technology development capacity around the world. Some experts, including Cath Bremner of the UK's Carbon Trust, emphasized that this capacity includes strengthening regulations, business environments, academic research bases, and "cultures" that encourage innovation.
Perhaps the most important technical issue with respect to clean technology transfer and development concerns intellectual property rights (IPR). Strict IPR regulations and concerns in the West present a significant barrier to the diffusion of clean technology One German government official involved in technology transfer noted that German wind power companies do not seven want to sell their latest turbine models in China, for fear that they will be reverse-engineered and copied by Chinese producers. A number of experts proposed that IPR regulations, such as compulsory licensing, be loosened with respect to clean energy technology. A South Korean official, for example, noted that the United States provides IPR exemptions for technologies that contribute substantially to public welfare or national security, and proposed that clean energy be added as a third such category. In the humble opinion of CGS, unresolved IPR considerations will nonetheless continue to discourage companies from innovation and diffusion in the green tech arena.
Technical issues aside, the crucial implications of the conference were with respect to developing country commitments to reduce emissions. The conference's closing statement, which affirmed commitment to the principle of "common but differentiated responsibility," appeared to place the onus on the West to both develop and finance the technology to reduce emissions throughout the world. As CGS has argued previously, this stance imperils a global deal on climate change. A promising, if incomplete, way forward was offered by Harvard's Kelly Gallagher, who proposed a global bargain on technology transfer. Developed nations, Gallagher proposed, would created a Carbon Mitigation Fund to pay for all incremental (marginal) costs of implementing low-carbon technology. In exchange, developing countries who wish to access the fund would adopt "concrete, enforceable" emissions reductions plans.
This is just the kind of bargain that might underpin a global climate deal. It addresses developed countries' responsibility to finance adoption of the newest, greenest technology, while also acknowledging that developing countries will soon account for the majority of the world's emissions. Yet this kind of deal also involves much harsher terms than China, on the basis of this conference, appears prepared to accept. We can only hope that the passage of the next few months, and the appearance of new leaders like Barack Obama, will help to change minds.
In the meantime, the conference suggested some new ways that technology transfer can be enhanced without addressing the big, thorny questions. The final conference report claimed that a 70% reduction in global emissions can be accomplished without IPR issues, primarily by financing adoption of energy efficiency technology in developing nations. Richard Bradley of the International Energy Agency had particularly innovative ideas, for example, for improving the performance of consumer electronics. Additionally, many experts highlighted the importance of human capital in transferring technology. New academic and fellowship exchange programs between developed and developing nations could prove a profitable investment in enhancing this kind of social capital.
As the High-Level Conference concluded, CGS was left with the impression that the upcoming UNFCCC negotiations might be rocky indeed. Here's to hoping that China, and the world, looks beyond technology to the great and overarching challenge we all face to live sustainably and responsibly.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
