Approach to climate needs crisp change

Comment on this story


IOL elonmuskla

Bloomberg

Elon Musk, the chief executive and chief technology officer of SpaceX and chief executive and chief product architect of Tesla Motors. Photo: Bloomberg.

If the world is to solve the climate-change crisis, we will need a new approach.

Currently, the major powers view climate change as a negotiation over who will reduce their CO2 emissions (mainly from the use of coal, oil, and gas).

Each agrees to small “contributions” of emission reduction, trying to nudge the other countries to do more.

The US, for example, will “concede” a little bit of CO2 reduction if China will do the same.

For two decades, we have been trapped in this minimalist and incremental mindset, which is wrong in two key ways.

First, it is not working: CO2 emissions are rising, not falling.

The global oil industry is having a field day – fracking, drilling, exploring in the Arctic, gasifying coal, and building new liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities.

The world is wrecking the climate and food-supply systems at a breakneck pace.

Second, “de-carbonising” the energy system is technologically complicated.

America’s real problem is not competition from China; it’s the complexity of shifting a $17.5 trillion (R186 trillion) economy from fossil fuels to low-carbon alternatives.

China’s problem is not the US, but how to wean the world’s largest, or second-largest economy (depending on which data are used) off its deeply-entrenched dependence on coal.

These are mainly engineering problems, not negotiating problems.

To be sure, both economies could de-carbonise if they cut output sharply.

But neither the US nor China is ready to sacrifice millions of jobs and trillions of dollars to do so.

Indeed, the question is how to de-carbonise while remaining economically strong.

Climate negotiators cannot answer that question, but innovators like Elon Musk of Tesla, and scientists like Klaus Lackner of Columbia University, can.

De-carbonising the world’s energy system requires preventing our production of vast and growing amounts of electricity from boosting atmospheric CO2 emissions.

It also pre-supposes a switchover to a zero-carbon transport fleet and a lot more production per kilowatt-hour of energy.

Zero-carbon electricity is within reach.

Solar and wind power can deliver that already, but not necessarily when and where needed.

We need storage breakthroughs for these intermittent clean-energy sources.

Nuclear power, another important source of zero-carbon energy, will also need to play a big role in the future, implying the need to bolster public confidence in its safety.

Even fossil fuels can produce zero-carbon electricity if carbon capture and storage is used.

Lackner is a world leader in new CCS strategies.

Electrification of transport is already with us, and Tesla, with its sophisticated electric vehicles, is capturing the public’s imagination and interest.

Yet further technological advances are needed in order to reduce electric vehicles’ costs, increase their reliability, and extend their range.

Musk, eager to spur rapid development of the vehicles, made history last week by opening Tesla’s patents for use by competitors.

Technology offers new breakthroughs in energy efficiency as well.

New building designs have slashed heating and cooling costs by relying much more on insulation, natural ventilation, and solar power.

Advances in nanotechnology offer the prospect of lighter construction materials that require much less energy to produce, making both buildings and vehicles far more energy-efficient.

The world needs a concerted push to adopt low-carbon electricity, not another “us-versus-them” negotiation.

All countries need new, low-carbon technologies, many of which are still out of commercial reach.

Climate negotiators should therefore be focusing on how to co-operate to ensure that technology breakthroughs are achieved and benefit all countries.

They should take their cue from other cases in which government, scientists, and industry teamed up to produce major changes.

For example, in carrying out the Manhattan Project (to produce the atomic bomb during World War II) and the first Moon landing, the US government set a remarkable technological goal, established a bold timetable, and committed the financial resources needed to get the job done.

In both cases, the scientists and engineers delivered on time.

The example of atomic bombs might seem an unpleasant one, yet it raises an important question: if we ask governments and scientists to co-operate on war technology, shouldn’t we do at least the same to save the planet from carbon pollution?

In fact, the process of “directed technological change”, in which bold objectives are set, milestones are identified, and timelines are put into place, is much more common than many realise.

The information-technology revolution that has brought us computers, smart phones, GPS, and much more, was built on a series of industry and government road maps.

The human genome was mapped through such a government-led effort – one that ultimately brought in the private sector as well.

More recently, government and industry got together to cut the costs of sequencing an individual genome from around $100 million in 2001 to just $1 000 today.

A dramatic cost-cutting goal was set, scientists went to work, and the targeted breakthrough was achieved on time.

Fighting climate change depends on all countries having confidence that their competitors will follow suit.

So, yes, let the upcoming climate talks spell out shared actions by the US, China, Europe, and others.

But let’s stop pretending that this is a poker game, rather than a scientific and technological puzzle of the highest order.

We need the likes of Musk, Lackner, General Electric, Siemens, Ericsson, Intel, Electricité de France, Huawei, Google, Baidu, Samsung, Apple, and others in laboratories, power plants, and cities around the world to forge the technological breakthroughs that will reduce global CO2 emissions.

There is even a place at the table for ExxonMobil, Chevron, BP, Peabody, Koch Industries, and other oil and coal giants.

If they expect their products to be used in the future, they had better make them safe through the deployment of advanced CCS technologies.

The point is that targeted and deep de-carbonisation is a job for all stakeholders, including the fossil-fuel industry, and one in which we must all be on the side of human survival and well-being.

 

Jeffrey D Sachs is a professor of sustainable development, health policy and management, and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University. He is a special adviser to the UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals.

This article was provided by Project Syndicate.


sign up
 
 

Comment Guidelines



  1. Please read our comment guidelines.
  2. Login and register, if you haven’ t already.
  3. Write your comment in the block below and click (Post As)
  4. Has a comment offended you? Hover your mouse over the comment and wait until a small triangle appears on the right-hand side. Click triangle () and select "Flag as inappropriate". Our moderators will take action if need be.

     

Join us on

IOL-Social networks IOL-Social networks IOL-Social networks IOL-Social networks

Business Directory