Green Project

When the UN awarded the Nobel prize to the scientists who make up the IPCC and Al Gore in 2008 for their work in documenting climate change from greenhouse gases, in the eyes of most of the world, the science on this issue was solved.  In recent months, however, a number of events have given heart to climate skeptics who never went away.  First hacked emails of scientists at the Climate Research Unit in East Anglia England contained statements that caused the institute's director, Phil Jones to resign.  Then the IPPC's chairman, Rajendra K. Pachauri became embroiled in conflict of interest questions.  The weather itself turned cold at least in influential places like Washington, DC which received a huge snowfall last week.  And Phil Jones recently told the BBC there is no statistically significant different in warming trends now and in the 19th Century.  The cascade of events brought the issue to the editorial page of the New York Times which this week published an editorial on the controversy, saying the stakes are so high that scientists need to act in a way that is beyond reproach.  The new datapoints are not enough to change the views of experts, but they have given the skeptics ammunition with which to launch a full scale offensive in the conservatie media and led, Donald Trump, for example, to call for Al Gore's Nobel prize to be revoked.

While I am not a climate scientist, to my mind abornormally cold weather could be as much an argument for climate change as abnormally hot weather and what happens in Washington DC is not representative of the planet as whole.  But I believe these questions are best left to scientists.  The question I want to address is whether cold weather this year has any bearing on the need to build a cleaner more efficient economy.  In my view, the answer is no.  The business and policy case for clean technology is compelling whatever may be happening to global temperatures year to year. 

Clean technology is not just about greenhouse gases.  It is about reducing conventional pollutants--particulate matter, mercury in fish from burning coal and other byproducts of burning fossil fuels.  It is also about promoting peace through renewable power since resource economies are notoriously unstable and undemocratic. (Oil is a virtual magnet for violence and the fact that the oil states tend to be anti-democratic is a special case of this general rule.)  And it is about bringing the energy sector into the 21st Century.  Something often forgotten in talking about clean technology is the fact that the energy industry--in particular the electricity industry is unique in the modern global economy in having been starved for decades for money for research and development.  The R&D deficit in the electricity industry--the industry at the center of the wider energy network--is severe and it has been severe for decades.  This is the deficit that more than climate change or anything else has created the clean technology opportunity. 

It is sometimes said that Thomas Edison would recognize today's electricity system it has changed so little in the past century.  And one of the main reasons clean tech garnered  $5.4 billion in investment last year according to the Cleantech Group, much of it in energy, is that the sector has been neglected for so many years.  Switches remain mechanical and wires are often undersized.  But the next question is why does the electricity industry spend less than 1% on R&D each year compared with 10% or more in technology industries?  The answer is that its highly regulated structure provides no reward for risk and, indeed, creates a bias in favor of legacy technology.  The decades old innovation deficit in electricity is what makes the category such a deserving one for investment today.  But the cause of that deficit is the chief obstacle to modernizing the industry.

For the investments in clean electricity to achieve their full potential, the underlying reward risk profile of the industry needs to change.  The electricity industry requires an upgrade to Electricity 2.0, a new modernized, open architecture to allow more players to participate in electricity markets, democratize global energy and unleash a renewable revolution.  Those changes and upgrading our electricity system to Electricity 2.0 need to happen no matter what occurs with global temperatures.

In short, while climate change remains a presssing and perhaps existential concern it is only one of many reasons to create a new clean energy future.  Clean technology will be central to America and the world's economic future, regardless of what happens to temperatures in a given month or year.

In addition to Michael Moynihan’s must read analysis of the UNFCC COP-15 in Copenhagen, here’s a round-up of some analysis of the climate summit:

Climate Conference Ends in Discord by Fiona Harvey, Ed Crooks and Andrew Ward, FT

The Copenhagen climate conference ended on Saturday without unanimous agreement as the world’s biggest economies backed a limited accord that leaders said would form the basis for a future deal to tackle global warming.

Ban Ki-moon, UN secretary-general, acknowledged that the outcome was “not everything we hoped for” but described it as an “essential beginning” as he brought a close to two weeks of fractious negotiations in the Danish capital.

Talks had continued through Friday night into Saturday morning in a bid to reach consensus on a tentative agreement struck between the US, China and other big emerging economies on cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and financing to help developing countries cope with climate change.

But several developing countries, led by Venezuela and Bolivia, refused to endorse the deal, ensuring that the conference would end without an official agreement. Instead, all 193 countries agreed to “take note of the Copenhagen Accord” without committing to accept it.

What Hath Copenhagen Wrought? A Preliminary Assessment of the Copenhagen Accord by Robert Stavins, Harvard University 

It is unquestionably the case that the Accord represents the best agreement that could be achieved in Copenhagen, given the political forces at play.  Indeed, were it not for the spirited – and as I suggested above, quite remarkable – direct intervention by President Obama, together with the other key national leaders, there would have been no real outcome from the Copenhagen negotiations.  

Examining the Copenhagen Accord by Michael A Levi, Council on Foreign Relations

The Copenhagen Accord, agreed to on Saturday, is neither earth-shattering nor a failure. It avoids an international political mess that appeared likely as late as Friday afternoon. It falls short of expectations mainly because expectations had been ratcheted up far beyond what was realistic. It is a meaningful step forward, but its ultimate value remains to be determined.

Attention should now turn to elaborating the transparency measures contained in the text, and to implementing ambitious and intelligent domestic emissions-cutting efforts in the major emitting countries. It would be unwise to place significant hopes on converting the deal into a legally-binding pact soon.

The most interesting point to me, though, is what the process in Copenhagen means for Europe. Europe, unquestionably the leading region of the world in addressing climate change, was rendered virtually diplomatically irrelevant by the United States and a group of emerging economies:

An Air of Frustration for Europe at Climate Talks by James Kanter, The New York Times

Mr. Reinfeldt said President Barack Obama had been “very constructive” at the talks, creating a basis for the accord by smoothing over the dispute with China over an international monitoring system for emissions.

Still, the Swedish leader hinted that the Europeans had been caught badly off guard.

Mr. Reinfeldt said he had gotten his first signals that a deal had been struck while still engrossed in meetings.

“We had very tough negotiations two and a half hours after I read on my mobile telephone that we were already done,” he said.

With the President getting ready to go to Copenhagen, the EPA did what Congress wouldn’t: It put in place a policy that ultimately would sharply reduce carbon emissions.  The EPA finding that greenhouse gases (GHG) pose a health threat and thus trigger a process to reduce the risks through direct regulation has become the president’s “deliverable” in Copenhagen.  More important, the only forces that will ever prod Congress to take action on climate are broad public opinion and pressures from powerful groups – and that’s the real importance of the EPA finding and a series of additional rule-makings scheduled over the next year.  The finding and prospective rule-makings should bolster the public’s existing opinion that serious measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions action are required, and put the fear of God in many business executives (or more precisely, the fear of unaccountable government regulators).  And the threat that the EPA may directly regulate the greenhouse gas emissions of every company in America is a credible one, given the Supreme Court’s recent holding that the law requires that EPA come to some finding about the dangers of those emissions.  The only course left for all the powerful groups that work so hard to stop or profoundly weaken climate legislation –their most recent handiwork is evident in the effective gutting of Waxman-Markey – is to enact a serious program that would preempt EPA.  Are you listening, big coal?  And climate activists should be on the same mission, once they consider what EPA regulation could look like under the next conservative Republican president.

The finding also could accelerate the search for new approaches to climate change, broadening the debate beyond the cap-and-trade model which Congress has already rejected three times and, if Kerry-Boxer ever comes to a vote, will almost certainly defeat again.  The leading alternative, of course, is a carbon-based tax with the revenues going to cut payroll or other taxes.  It’s an approach that’s worked well in Sweden and now is being considered in France, Ireland and Denmark.  Economists like it, because it doesn’t introduce additional volatility to energy prices as cap-and-trade does; and environmentalists like it, because a stable price for carbon is a prerequisite for businesses to invest large sums in developing and adopting alternative fuels and technologies.  Now, if businesses can come to dislike the prospect of direct EPA regulation with enough fervor, a new consensus could emerge around a new way to address climate change.

Speaking of Copenhagen, let’s also cut through the nonsense about the whole project foundering unless rich countries agree to pay for the climate efforts of poor countries.  Climate change is almost entirely the business of the world’s developed and large, fast-developing countries, because poor countries simply don’t have enough electricity generation, factories, capital-intensive farming, and automobiles to produce significant amounts of GHGs.  In fact, the world’s three economically-dominant places -- America, the European Union, and China -- account for 55.5 percent of all emissions.  Include twelve more nations -- Russia, India, Japan, Canada, South Korea, Iran, Mexico, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Australia, Brazil, Indonesia, -- and you cover 85 percent of global emissions.  Among those twelve, the only, barely plausible cases for assistance are India and Indonesia, although both are on sharply-rising growth and development paths that could soon generate the incentives and resources required to become more climate-friendly on their own.  Ensuring that the world’s 120 or so other countries, most of them small and many of them poor, share some responsibility for addressing climate change is truly a secondary issue.

It’s also clear that at this time, virtually no country seems prepared to shoulder the cost of making even its own economy truly climate friendly, much less pick up the bills to make other countries less carbon-dependent.  The best course is probably a business form of technology sharing, in which governments support the formation of joint ventures between developers in the United States, the EU and the other dozen or so large GHG emitting nations –especially China and India – to develop, produce and sell climate-friendly fuels and technologies.  Then saving the planet could end up being good business for everybody.

The New York Times "Wheels" blog delivers some interesting news on the Nissan “Leaf” (not sure about that name), the company’s new electric vehicle that is being introduced in Los Angeles today. 

The Leaf, an all-electric five-door hatchback, will have a 100-mile range, Nissan said.

Mr. Ghosn said last month, in introducing the Leaf at the Tokyo Motor Show, that the vehicle would be priced “competitively” compared with other cars its size. This has been estimated at $25,000 to $33,000. But the price won’t include the lithium-ion battery packs; those will be available for lease separately. The spent battery packs will be recycled by Nissan and reused.

The Times writes those last two sentences (emphasis added) as if leasing the battery packs is some kind of "catch" in the pricing. It's not. Rather, the battery pack and the electricity to charge it are analogs to gasoline in conventional vehicles, which is never sold with the car.

For this reason, Nissan is on to something with the battery leasing. Like Better Place, which is building infrastructure for electric vehicles (and is teamed up with Renault-Nissan), Nissan knows that the key is not to build a car with a battery for the same price as a conventional gasoline car. Rather, the key is building a battery-less car for the same price as a conventional car. And once that happens, because electricity is far cheaper than gasoline, all one has to do to beat conventional cars is make the lease cost of a battery plus the electricity costs competitive with the cost of gasoline over the same period (which is already a reality in many countries). Incorporating the battery and its cost into the vehicle is likely not the right way to go for so many reasons, but on the financing side the cost of actually making a car go is always an addition to the purchase cost. 

Fully electric cars have some way to go – charging infrastructure needs to be built out and standardized, battery costs still have to come down, and capacity should go up – but getting the cost structure right is crucial in creating this piece of the low-carbon economy. Electric vehicles will ultimately offer tremendous benefits to consumers, from price stability to never having to go to the gas station, and to the electricity system, as the aggregate storage capacity in batteries will provide a demand response capability. And while I might prefer a name that connotes a bit more strength, the Leaf is a nice step forward.

Over the weekend, Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham penned a joint op-ed in the New York Times that has made those of us who care about action on climate change pretty happy. The prospects of Republican support extending beyond the Snow-Collins duo to John McCain's best friend in the Senate this early in the process is exciting, to say the least. And the compromise that Graham wants isn't too far-fetched.

There is, however, one piece of the op-ed that has made many who understand that combating climate change is a multilateral challenge nervous:

Fourth, we cannot sacrifice another job to competitors overseas. China and India are among the many countries investing heavily in clean-energy technologies that will produce millions of jobs. There is no reason we should surrender our marketplace to countries that do not accept environmental standards. For this reason, we should consider a border tax on items produced in countries that avoid these standards. This is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organization and creates strong incentives for other countries to adopt tough environmental protections.

I agree that we can't sacrifice jobs to overseas competitors. Competitiveness is one of the best reasons to pass climate legislation that spurs innovation and deployment of a whole generation of low-carbon technologies domestically. That said, climate change is a pressing global challenge that inherently requires unprecedented levels of global cooperation, but the proposed punitive trade policies are expressly unilateral mechanisms. This is a policy mismatch that will not help us solve this challenge. 

If we want the developing world – from which the vast majority of emissions growth is expected in the coming decades – to be on board with creating a solution to climate change and to buy our climate-friendly goods, slapping a tariff on them right away is not the way to make friends and influence people. And it's not as if the United States has been leading on climate issues – Imagine the American response if Europeans had imposed these tariffs. I don't want to begin to imagine the retaliation that other nations may decide upon; what do we do if China and India – who already have high barriers to climate friendly technologies – decide that they're not quite high enough, especially for American goods?

Additionally, it's crucial to note that climate legislation already allots (as opposed to auctions) permits to energy intensive industries. Tariffs amount to a double correction. Here's leading international economist Jagdish Bhagwati at a recent NDN-New Policy Institute event speaking about the tariffs and the WTO compliance of a cap and trade regime:

Some important people are wary of or opposed to these tariffs: The head Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Rajendra Pachauri, thinks they're a bad idea:

"This is a dangerous thing, and I think people in Congress must understand this," said Pachauri, who spoke with the AP after he addressed the National Press Club. "Please don't use this weapon. I'm afraid that those that have been pushing these provisions probably don’t realize that all of this can cause a major negative reaction," Pachauri added. "The United States has always stood for a free market system. … Legislation to move away from that principle is clearly counterproductive."

As does President Obama: 

At a time when the economy worldwide is still deep in recession and we've seen a significant drop in global trade, I think we have to be very careful about sending any protectionist signals out there. There were a number of provisions that were already in place, prior to this last provision you talked about, to provide transitional assistance to heavy manufacturers. A lot of the offsets were outdated to those industries. I think we're going to have to do a careful analysis to determine whether the prospects of tariffs are necessary, given all the other stuff that was done and had been negotiated on behalf of energy-intensive industries.

So certainly it is a legitimate concern on the part of American businesses that they are not disadvantaged vis-a-vis their global competitors. Now, keep in mind, European industries are looking at an even more ambitious approach than we are. And they obviously have confidence that they can compete internationally under a regime that controls carbons. I think the Chinese are starting to move in the direction of recognizing that the future requires them to take a clean energy approach. In fact, in some ways they're already ahead of us -- on fuel efficiency standards, for example, they've moved beyond where we've moved on this.

There are going to be a series of negotiations around this and I am very mindful of wanting to make sure that there's a level playing field internationally. I think there may be other ways of doing it than with a tariff approach.

I'm excited that the chances for getting climate change legislation through the Senate have grown, I just don't want to see them destroy the chances for multilateral climate action. Both are important for American competitiveness, jobs, and the creation of a low-carbon economy.

Yesterday, NDN hosted three experts in the automobile industry to discuss the future of clean transportation. NDN Green Project Director Michael Moynihan moderated this wide-ranging and well attended discussion, the video of which can be found below.

Kim Hill, the Associate Director of Research at the Center for Automotive Research and the Director of the Sustainable Transportation and Communities Group, spoke about a recent study he conducted on the economic impact ATT’s shift to a more efficient vehicle fleet. The short version: the conversion to CNG and hybrid vehicles saved fuel and money and created jobs. The detailed study can be found here.

Mike Granoff, the Head of Oil Independence Policies for Better Place, the first service provider for electric cars, building infrastructure, software and the user interfaces to make electric cars available for mass adoption, spoke about the Better Place vision and business model and updated us on Better Place's progress. During the session, he mentioned the video of the battery swap station at work, which can be found here on the Better Place website. 

Finally, Dr. Kathryn Clay, the Director of Research for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers spoke about the industry's efforts to innovate to cut greenhouse gas emissions and the regulatory environment around those efforts. More on the Auto Alliance can be found here.

Here's the video of the full session:

One of the most important pieces for the future of transportation, energy, and climate is how we power automobiles. An interesting piece from the Wall Street Journal's "Environmental Capital" blog discusses a new study on the future of global oil supplies:

Here's an intriguing thought: Global oil supplies are indeed set to peak within a few years, and no, that is not bullish for oil. Quite the contrary—it will spell the end of the "oil age."

That's the take from Deutsche Bank's new report, "The Peak Oil Market." In a nutshell: The oil industry chronically under invests in finding new supplies, exemplified both by Big Oil’s recent love of share buybacks and under-investment by big oil-producing nations. That spells a looming supply crunch.

That will send oil to $175 a barrel by 2016—and will simultaneously put the final nail in oil's coffin and send prices plummeting back to $70 by 2030. That’s because there's an even more important "peak" moment on the horizon: A global peak in oil demand. That has already begun in the world’s biggest oil-consuming nation, Deutsche Bank notes:

US demand is the key. It is the last market-priced, oil inefficient, major oil consumer. We believe Obama’s environmental agenda, the bankruptcy of the US auto industry, the war in Iraq, and global oil supply challenges have dovetailed to spell the end of the oil era.

The big driver? The coming-of-age of electric and hybrid vehicles, which promise massive fuel-economy gains for short-hop commuting but which so far have not been economic.

Peak Oil, which used to be dismissed by many as kind of wacky theory (even though the idea was originally formulated by an oil company geologist), seems to have arrived firmly in the mainstream with the likes of Deutsche Bank onboard. Some argue that the arrival of peak oil will generate a massive shock to civilization, but, true or not, it will certainly be a game-changer that necessitates and speeds the deployment of new technologies. So if the Peak Oil believers are right, it's incumbent on us to start investing in these technologies today: Oil prices spikes have generally been economically problematic – or worse – some have triggered recessions.

For more on the "coming-of-age of electric and hybrid vehicles" and the general future of clean transportation and automaking, join us at NDN at noon today for Insights into the future of Clean Transportation, which will showcase speakers from the Center for Automobile Research, the Auto Alliance, and Better Place. If you can't make it, watch the event live online. 

With Friday's revelation from the Director of the White House Office of Energy and Climate Policy Carol Browner that President Obama's signature finding its way onto a climate bill was "not going to happen" prior to Copenhagen, it's time to go to Plan B to get the most out of the international conference. Although the US may not be leading on what many consider the most important piece of limiting climate harming emissions, there are still other areas in which we can show leadership.

One place to start is by building on something the G-20 did: a global agreement on the phase-out of fossil fuel subsidies. Taking the agreement from that smaller group and getting buy-in from additional nations (most of whom were obviously not at the G-20), would be helpful. Additional teeth should be put into such an agreement, such as an actual timeline – the current one is a somewhat laughable “medium term.” American can lead by acknowledging that our subsidies to fossil fuel industries easily outpace those given to clean technology, and commit to changing that.

For many developing countries, fuel subsidies are something of a prisoner’s dilemma and policy trap. Governments artificially lower prices via subsidy thereby increasing demand – when, if nation’s acted in concert to eliminate these subsidies – markets would see to diminished demand and a lower world price. (Of course subsidies for low-income and vulnerable populations would remain appropriate.) Copenhagen is the perfect place to agree to such an outcome. 

There are other important ideas, some of which we'll be writing about and advocating in the coming months before Copenhagen. Domestically, a Renewable Electricity Standard and strong clean technology incentives are an achievable necessity. A robust agenda for reforming our electricity markets and slow-moving utilities is also a conversation we can begin.

Internationally, a Global Environmental Organization that adequately represents rising powers and developing nations and that builds and guards the structure and rules for the complicated climate regime, as Ed Gresser advocated in the latest Democracy Journal, is another good idea. And, as you'll be hearing about more in the near future, an agreement to remove the significant barriers to the global deployment of clean technology and environmental services is crucial. 

President Obama will be in a difficult position – he is in the right place on the issue, but the Senate is bogged down with healthcare, and getting to 60 on climate is not a forgone conclusion anyway. His team will therefore have to prepare a robust agenda of demonstrable accomplishments that showcases American leadership and gets the most out of this important conference.

For more on preparing for Copenhagen, check out the Washington Post, where NDN Globalization Initiative Chair Dr. Robert Shapiro continues his advocacy for a carbon tax. 

Experience shows that an important key to growing a vibrant renewable energy sector is a strong domestic market. Germany’s feed-in tariffs have helped it become a world leader in solar energy production. China has long been focusing on building their domestic renewable energy industries, and just announced they are upping their efforts to build domestic renewable demand. 

From the AP's coverage of the U.N. Summit on Climate Change:

Chinese President Hu Jintao said his nation will continue to take "determined" action. He laid out new plans for extending China's energy-saving programs and targets for reducing "by a notable margin" the "intensity" of its carbon pollution — carbon dioxide emission increases as related to economic growth.

He said China would greatly boost its forest cover, "climate-friendly technologies" and use 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020.

That 15 percent renewable energy by 2020 sounds like a Renewable Electricity Standard. It also sounds similar to the one in the ACES bill that passed the House in June, which mandates 20 percent renewables by 2020, but that generally allows for 5 percent of that to come from energy efficiency (which it undoubtedly will, as efficiency is way cheaper than renewables). In fact, the ACES standard can be weakened even further, all the way down to 12 percent renewables in some cases.

So now China's ahead of the United States, and, even if we pass ACES as is, will have a comparable or slightly stronger RES in an economy whose energy use (and therefore said sector) will grow much faster over the next decade than America's will. We'll have the price signal that cap and trade offers, but it’s not nearly as strong as it could be. (China is unwilling to agree to cap emissions and certainly won't ahead of the U.S.) 

Much of the opposition to domestic climate change regimes comes of the idea that American action on climate without China going along hurts the U.S. economy and does nothing to slow climate change. Now, basically the opposite could play out. With China stepping up on an RES and limited movement from the U.S. Congress toward passing a strong climate bill, some Americans seem willing to let China take a leadership role on perhaps the most pressing global governance challenge of the young century and develop an export-capable renewable energy sector that passes ours, thereby surrendering a high potential economic sector to world's most important rising power.