The GCN's exclusive John Podesta-Rajendra Pachauri piece has kicked off a bit of a storm in the blogosphere. For starters, here's the Podesta-Pachauri piece...
http://www.globalclimatenetwork.info/articles/?id=3736
On motherjones, David Corn interprets this as Podesta trying to downplay expectations for Copenhagen on behalf of the White House...
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2009/09/copenhagen-dead
Podesta responds on thinkprogress...
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/26/corn-kyoto/
As does Joe Romm on climateprogress...
http://climateprogress.org/2009/09/27/no-copenhagen-is-not-dead-quite-the-reverse-prospects-for-a-global-deal-have-never-been-better/
Podesta and Romm are, of course, correct. While the negotiations are deadlocked, no-one in the Global Climate Network is declaring them dead yet. Indeed, our work is intended to open up more space for negotiators by building the positive case for action on climate change. See our latest report focussing on job creation.
http://www.globalclimatenetwork.info/publicationsandreports/publication.asp?id=701...
Monday 28 September 2009
Friday 25 September 2009
Governments must be bold to create low carbon jobs
The Global Climate Network is part way through a study reviewing and analysing the existing data on jobs creation in low carbon sectors. We're focussing in the main on electricity generation and we've just published an interim paper containing some early findings. You can read it on the GCN website using the following URL.
http://www.globalclimatenetwork.info/pressreleases/?id=3734
While there is still a shortage of reliable data on absolute numbers of jobs likely to be created in low carbon sectors, what's interesting about the results so far is that it appears there is a net jobs gain in switching from carbon intensive to low carbon energy. This is in part because construction jobs will be created, sometimes in places where jobs in general are scarce, but also because some of the key technologies require more intensive labour than their carbon intensive equivalents.
The most striking figures to date come from the GCN's Chinese member - Professor Jiahua Pan and his team at the Research Centre for Sustainable Development in Beijing. Early, and it should be emphasised tentative, calculations suggest that while the closure of carbon intensive factories with inefficient technology could reduce the growth in jobs by around 10 million, perhaps as many as 40 million additional jobs could be created in renewable energy, high-tech and service industries.
All predictions of this nature are necessarily only indicative. However, the lesson of the study - and one that I feel certain will be writ large across it when we come to present the final findings - is that governments need to commit themselves to bold policies in order to ensure opportunities of this magnitude come to pass. That means more ambitious renewable energy and energy efficiency targets, the investment of more government money, tougher product standards and intelligent policies surrounding the commercialisation of new technology.
http://www.globalclimatenetwork.info/pressreleases/?id=3734
While there is still a shortage of reliable data on absolute numbers of jobs likely to be created in low carbon sectors, what's interesting about the results so far is that it appears there is a net jobs gain in switching from carbon intensive to low carbon energy. This is in part because construction jobs will be created, sometimes in places where jobs in general are scarce, but also because some of the key technologies require more intensive labour than their carbon intensive equivalents.
The most striking figures to date come from the GCN's Chinese member - Professor Jiahua Pan and his team at the Research Centre for Sustainable Development in Beijing. Early, and it should be emphasised tentative, calculations suggest that while the closure of carbon intensive factories with inefficient technology could reduce the growth in jobs by around 10 million, perhaps as many as 40 million additional jobs could be created in renewable energy, high-tech and service industries.
All predictions of this nature are necessarily only indicative. However, the lesson of the study - and one that I feel certain will be writ large across it when we come to present the final findings - is that governments need to commit themselves to bold policies in order to ensure opportunities of this magnitude come to pass. That means more ambitious renewable energy and energy efficiency targets, the investment of more government money, tougher product standards and intelligent policies surrounding the commercialisation of new technology.
Thursday 17 September 2009
REMOVE SUBSIDY FROM FOSSIL FUELS, SAYS WHITE HOUSE
According to the New York Times, the White House is asking other G20 governments to discuss cuts in fossil fuel subsidies at their summit next week. See: http://bit.ly/BTqnH
In the GCN's technology research, the fruits of which are in the 'Breaking Through...' report linked on the right hand side here, fossil fuel subsidies came through strongly as a barrier to the deployment of low-carbon technology, as you might expect. Why charge people more through emissions trading schemes for something that you're subsidising to begin with?
Remove the subsidy, but take care to ensure people on low incomes are compensated, especially with ready access to cheap, clean energy.
In the GCN's technology research, the fruits of which are in the 'Breaking Through...' report linked on the right hand side here, fossil fuel subsidies came through strongly as a barrier to the deployment of low-carbon technology, as you might expect. Why charge people more through emissions trading schemes for something that you're subsidising to begin with?
Remove the subsidy, but take care to ensure people on low incomes are compensated, especially with ready access to cheap, clean energy.
Wednesday 16 September 2009
EU AND US FALLING OUT OVER COP 15 SAYS GUARDIAN
The UK's Guardian newspaper reports exclusively that the EU and US are currently in disagreement over the shape of a new climate agreement (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/sep/15/europe-us-copenhagen)
The report quotes senior EU and US negotiating sources and in many ways is unsurprising. The EU is committed to the Kyoto architecture and yet Kyoto is damaged goods in the US. It seems to me that while awkward, this conundrum is hardly insurmountable.
The more intractable issue is that of the politics in the US and elsewhere. The Guardian's report quotes Farhana Yamin, an environmental lawyer with the Institute of Development Studies in the UK, saying: "It seems a bit backwards. The danger is that the domestic tail starts to wag the international dog."
To my mind, this view seems back-to-front. Domestic politics are always the main constraint on international cooperation and it is at this level where we need the sharpest focus.
The report quotes senior EU and US negotiating sources and in many ways is unsurprising. The EU is committed to the Kyoto architecture and yet Kyoto is damaged goods in the US. It seems to me that while awkward, this conundrum is hardly insurmountable.
The more intractable issue is that of the politics in the US and elsewhere. The Guardian's report quotes Farhana Yamin, an environmental lawyer with the Institute of Development Studies in the UK, saying: "It seems a bit backwards. The danger is that the domestic tail starts to wag the international dog."
To my mind, this view seems back-to-front. Domestic politics are always the main constraint on international cooperation and it is at this level where we need the sharpest focus.
Thursday 27 August 2009
Breaking Through in Copenhagen
Let’s get straight down to business.
A Copenhagen deal rests on the ability of governments to finance and enable a technological and behavioural revolution in the production and use of energy.
This is not the only or even most significant factor in the political deadlock that persists three months before COP 15 opens. But recognition of the interwoven financial and technological challenges we – particularly those of us in developing countries – face would help in two ways.
First, a clearer pitch from developed countries on the level of financial and technological assistance they’re prepared to offer to developing countries would quite clearly help the politics, even if what’s on offer falls short of need or expectation.
Second, politics aside, we need an investment in decarbonising existing energy systems and in accelerating new technology that goes way beyond the abatement potential of carbon markets, existing public expenditure pledges or current patterns of private financial capital.
A very recent Global Climate Network publication – called Breaking Through on Technology – spells out the challenge. Members of the GCN spoke to policymakers and industry leaders in eight different countries and have summarised their views in a set of reports that we draw together in a single briefing. See the link to the right of this post.
The overriding message coming from the interviewees? We need government intervention to kick-start the technological revolution. So whether or not governments can agree a comprehensive climate framework in Copenhagen, reaching consensus on technology and finance is necessary if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.
A Copenhagen deal rests on the ability of governments to finance and enable a technological and behavioural revolution in the production and use of energy.
This is not the only or even most significant factor in the political deadlock that persists three months before COP 15 opens. But recognition of the interwoven financial and technological challenges we – particularly those of us in developing countries – face would help in two ways.
First, a clearer pitch from developed countries on the level of financial and technological assistance they’re prepared to offer to developing countries would quite clearly help the politics, even if what’s on offer falls short of need or expectation.
Second, politics aside, we need an investment in decarbonising existing energy systems and in accelerating new technology that goes way beyond the abatement potential of carbon markets, existing public expenditure pledges or current patterns of private financial capital.
A very recent Global Climate Network publication – called Breaking Through on Technology – spells out the challenge. Members of the GCN spoke to policymakers and industry leaders in eight different countries and have summarised their views in a set of reports that we draw together in a single briefing. See the link to the right of this post.
The overriding message coming from the interviewees? We need government intervention to kick-start the technological revolution. So whether or not governments can agree a comprehensive climate framework in Copenhagen, reaching consensus on technology and finance is necessary if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
