Sign in or 
Location: Desenvolvimento Sustentável
Discussion: In search of a new Kyoto, by Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek)
Category:
Discussion Forum /
General Discussion
Share this
Showing 3 posts
Marcel_Pereira |
In search of a new Kyoto, by Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek)
Apr 19 2007, 5:59 PM EDT
THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION MADE TWO NOTABLE statements on energy policy early in its tenure. They were both highly controversial. The first was that the Kyoto accords, as negotiated, were "dead.” The second was Dick Cheney's declaration in a 2001 speech that "conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy:" As it happens, both are accurate and should be at the heart of any new, ambitious policy to tackle global warning and energy use.
If you haven't fainted yet, let me explain what I mean. The administration had some narrow-minded and callous reasons for rejecting Kyoto, but it also argued centrally that the accords did not include developing countries and thus were ineffective. To understand why that is correct, consider one simple statistic. During the Kyoto time frame (that is, by 2012), China and India will build almost 800 new coal-fired power plants. The combined CO2 emission just from those new plants will be five times the total reductions in CO2 mandated by the accords. Understanding the causes and cures of global warming is actually very simple. One word: coal. Coal is the cheapest and dirtiest source of energy around and is being used in the world's fastest-growing countries. (That includes the United States, which plans to build about 80 new plants in the next five years.) If we cannot get a handle on coal, nothing else will matter. Kyoto represents old thinking: if the " West comes together and settles on a solution, the Third World will have to adhere to;, that norm. It's the way things have been I done in international affairs for decades. . A new Kyoto would start the other way around. The United States should work out an agreement with China, India and Brazil, whose participation is absolutely crucial. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you?
Keyword tags:
None
|
|
Marcel_Pereira |
1. RE: In search of a new Kyoto, by Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek)
Apr 19 2007, 6:00 PM EDT
That would become the new template, defining what further actions are necessary Nandan Nilekani, CEO of the Indian technology giant Infosys and one of the few Asian executives concerned about the environment, says that the industrialized world will have to give subsidies to developing countries to build "clean coal" plants.
Right now in India, and I assume in China, plants are built through competitive bidding. You will have to create a subsidy for clean coal to make it the lowest bid. Otherwise, the dirtiest one will win." There's an obvious problem with this model-where will the money for subsidies come from?-but there's another glitch as well. The technology for clean coal doesn't really exist yet in a form that can be widely used. There are various pilot projects but nothing that is, as yet, economically viable. Both problems can be solved by the same simple idea -a tax on spewing carbon into the atmosphere. Once you tax carbon, you make it cheaper to produce clean energy. Along the way, industrial societies will earn tax revenues that they can use, in part, to subsidize clean energy for the developing world. It is the only way to solve the problem at a global level, which is the only level at which the solution is meaningful. Instead of imposing a simple carbon tax, the U.S. Congress is considering a set of hidden taxes through a "cap and trade" system. The Europeans have adopted such a system, and it's proving ineffective, un- wieldy, and prone to gaming and cheating. It is also unsustainable if Brazil, China and India don't come onboard soon. A carbon tax would send the market a clear and powerful signal to develop alter- native energies and clean methods. Daniel Esty, a Yale environmental expert and author of a smart 2ew book, "Green to Gold," argues that’s the way we think about these issues is old-fashioned. 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
|
Marcel_Pereira |
2. RE: In search of a new Kyoto, by Fareed Zakaria (Newsweek)
Apr 19 2007, 6:01 PM EDT
We're still trying to limit, regulate, control and inspect. That won't make innovation hap- pen. We need to become much more market-friendly, put in place a few simple rules, and let people come up with hundreds of solutions.
We're not even 10 percent of the way down such a path." In the end, innovation is the only real solution to the global-warming problem. And that's where Cheney is right. Conservation is worthwhile but not enough. In America over the last three decades, almost all machines and appliances we use to power our lives have become significantly more efficient (with the exception of cars). And yet we consume three times as much energy as we did 30 years ago. Why? Because rising living standards mean rising energy use. We can slow down the growth, but some increase is inevitable. We have more-efficient air conditioners. But now we air- condition our entire house, down to the basement. Our bed lamps might conserve power. But we also plug in two phones, a BlackBerry and three iPods. And yet the Bush administration's record on energy and the environment is shameful. While they may have the right critique of Kyoto, they have used it as an excuse to do nothing, surrendered energy policy to special interests, subsidized polluters and killed or watered down every measure that would spur innovation and create a new energy framework for the future. They have been weak leaders, bad policymakers and poor stewards of the world. That's not a sign of "personal virtue"; it is instead public vice. Write the author at comments@fareedzakaria.com 1 out of 1 found this valuable. Do you? |
