| Submit your comments on this article |
| Science & Technology |
| What to expect from the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate |
| 2006-01-10 |
| By George A. Pieler, through Tech Central Station Carbon-based energy sources are whatâs âinâ for 2006. These classic fossil fuels, which many thought were on their way out courtesy of the Kyoto Protocol, have made a truly stunning comeback: indeed they dominate energy news at the dawn of the New Year. * New Zealand has abandoned a planned carbon tax (tax on fossil fuels) on the ground that it was regressive, damaging to agriculture, and ineffective in cutting so-called greenhouse gas emissions. New Zealandâs Minister for Climate Change Issues notes âMany of our current policies were developed in the 1990s. Since then, New Zealandâs economy has boomed, petrol prices have risen and other factorsâŠhave changed our situation.â Nothing like a swift kick in the butt by the reality and clue bats to make one see the light. They like most of the rest of the signers jumped on the Kyoto bandwagon because it sounded and felt good. Then when the receipts came in, they said, "Holy Schitskis! We better rethink this one." Action, meet consequences, heh. * Russia cut off Ukraineâs natural gas supply in the midst of stumbling negotiations aimed at raising Gazpromâs prices to market-clearing levels. At least thatâs the Russian version. Gas prices have shot up as the security of supply Europe-wide is put in question. Europe looks to natural gas for much of their clean energy, and that means Russia, for one. Dependency on Pooty Poot. * In the US the Northeastâs Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) has been thrown for a loop with Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romneyâs decision to withdraw from this regional scheme for mandatory cuts in utility emissions of carbon (meaning higher energy costs or strict limits on energy use, however implemented). Any word on reactions from Teddy or Kerry? Just curious. The civilized world was supposed to be weaning itself off fossil fuels and moving towards renewables, fuel cells, and off-the-grid self sufficiency, but instead relies on fossil fuels more than ever. The economic emergence of China contributed mightily to the run-up in energy costs in 2005, and future growth in the developing world will do the same. Further, the surge in gasoline prices in the U.S. demonstrated consumer demand is astonishingly inelastic, as drivers decided they wanted to keep driving after all. One lesson is that artificial government support for carbon stretchers -- ethanol, mandatory fuel economy standards -- and carbon substitutes -- tax breaks and government purchase orders for synthetics, wind farms, and exotic fuels -- just reinforces our commitment to fossil fuels. Since the 70âs, nuclear aside, every energy policy initiative has keyed off fossil fuels in trying to reduce the geopolitical, environmental, and economic costs of their use. Is that a bad thing? No, at least not in the short run. No one knows if the future lies with super-efficient adaptation of known energy sources or advances in much-hyped innovations such as nanotechnology, fusion power and fuel cells. Yet todayâs headlines remind us that political manipulation of fossil fuel supplies in touchy parts of the globe -- and donât forget Hugo Chavezâs Venezuela and the new Bolivia of Evo Morales -- is not good for the global economy. No Shiite, Sherlock. Perhaps this year we will grasp the truth: true energy security comes from diversifying approaches, using objective research and sound science, not subsidies, rationing, and price manipulation. Some of these diversified options are being aired in Sydney, Australia this week as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate gathers to sort through a carefully-reasoned menu of energy options the embrace economic growth. Insert Master of the Obvious pic here. All kidding aside, it will be scientific advances and the market that will drive a more diverse energy supply. We need to create a market climate friendly to innovative designs. But remember, new energy sources, like new engines, take time. We are talking a ten year span. I'm waiting for the new diesel engine for my airplane. The six nations of the Partnership -- the US, Japan, China, India, South Korea, Australia -- will discuss, inter alia, rapid transfer of clean energy technology to the fast-growing Asian economies, who are also the fastest-growing producers of greenhouse gases. The Partnership can succeed by focusing on cost-effective ways to improve energy efficiency, transferring proven energy-saving technologies, and maximizing economic efficiency. As well they should. Chicom products take significantly more energy to produce per unit than the US. We cannot compete on labor. However, the cost of improvements have to be borne across the board. The US shouldn't foot the bill by ourselves. Another option before the Partnership will surely be nuclear power. Recently US Senator John McCain visited Australia and urged Environment Minister Ian Campbell to support the US in boosting use of nuclear power as the classic clean energy source. Yet McCainâs presence suggests a cautionary note: he has also embraced much of the neo-Kyoto agenda, specifically mandatory caps on CO2 emissions. In the Yukon last August the Senator noted melting frost and glaciers, and asked âhow much damage will be done before we start taking concrete action?â What the world doesnât need is for the post-Kyoto agenda recently agreed in Montreal to be joined by an Asia-Pacific agenda that starts drifting towards the Kyoto mentality. His and Billary's headline grabbing trip to the Yukon and Alaska, which raised greenhouse gasses in many ways, heh. So the Partnership convening in Sydney must, first and foremost, heed the laws of economics and basic tenets of scientific inquiry. As should every endeavor, Jeeze Louise. It is not scientific to draw sweeping conclusions from near-term changes in temperatures and melting patterns, and it is not rational to ignore the costs of arbitrary cuts in CO2 emissions. Rational, well-calibrated steps to help the world adapt to possible risks of climate disruption are what the Partnership needs to formulate. And if this group can impliment that fundamental idea, and get something done, then energy security is increased, and the UN becomes more irrelivant, which is one WIN-WIN. Good luck t'all o'ye. |
| Posted by:Alaska Paul |
| #5 An agreement that actually means something. I means people are acting out of self interest not out of some loonie half science half religious Tranzi political agenda. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-01-10 18:11 |
| #4 I knew when I read "Holy Schitskis!" that it was your post AP...lol! |
| Posted by: Frank G 2006-01-10 18:00 |
| #3 Right, phil_b. Saw this in NZ last year. They did not pencil it out first, but went with their feeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelings. And now they regret it. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-01-10 17:43 |
| #2 New Zealand makes an interesting Kyoto case study. They originally signed up believing they would get a net financial benefit from Kyoto, since then costs have steadily increased and are now well north of a billion dollars (for a very small economy). Energy costs to the consumer have increased sharply. And all kinds of distortions and adverse environmental consequences have resulted such as large scale clearing of forests. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2006-01-10 17:09 |
| #1 "...UN becomes more irrelivant...." To become irrelivant you must first be relevant. I was in Las Vegas last weekend. Did some world shattering event happen that I missed? |
| Posted by: kelly 2006-01-10 16:33 |