Greening It Alone

The world is building a low-carbon global economy -- with or without the United States.

BY CHARLES KENNY | AUGUST 1, 2011

It may be hard to remember amid all the news of decline, but in plenty of areas, the United States is still the world's leader. You can't propose global banking regulation without buy-in from Wall Street. And if you want to invade somewhere far away, it's probably best to have America front and center, or at least ferrying troops and supplies. But when it comes to responding to the biggest global challenge of the 21st century, the United States is no longer even first among equals. And given the complete paralysis in Washington, that's a relief.

I'm speaking about climate change, which has emerged as the most intractable issue for a U.S. Congress that apparently can't manage anything more exciting than naming a post office without threatening the country with default. With the U.S. House of Representatives busy trying to zero out aid financing for activities related to climate change and delaying any domestic regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the Environmental Protection Agency, it would be hard to imagine how the phrases "U.S. leadership" and "global climate change" could be used in the same sentence without the word "absent" making an appearance. To be fair to House Republicans, however, it isn't as if two Democratic chambers and President Barack Obama did much better prior to the midterm elections -- which suggests that this isn't a problem that might just go away in 18 months.

But before you pack up the kids and move to higher ground to avoid rising sea levels, consider this: China's fuel economy standards for passenger vehicles are already around 25 percent tougher than those in the United States. The country generated 667 terawatt-hours of electricity from hydro, wind, and nuclear electricity in 2009, a 50 percent increase on four years earlier (and 10 percent more than Brazil's or India's current annual electricity consumption). China already accounts for one-quarter of the world's installed capacity of wind, small-scale hydro, biomass, solar, geothermal, and marine power facilities. And the overall amount of energy used to produce a dollar of GDP in China has dropped 5 percent every year since 1980, according to Qi Ye at the Climate Policy Initiative in Beijing.

China's attempt at a green leap forward isn't entirely new news -- but this isn't just a Chinese story. Developing countries as a whole accounted for two-thirds of the growth in renewable and nuclear power generating capacity worldwide between 2002 and 2008, according to my colleague David Wheeler at the Center for Global Development. The developing world is now home to more than half of the world's renewable energy generating capacity, and it is likely to extend that lead.

Going forward, Wheeler reports that India is planning to generate 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, up from less than 2 percent today. Ten thousand megawatts of that -- a little under 10 percent -- would come from new solar energy installations (to put that in perspective, that's more than total global solar photovoltaic capacity in 2007). At the U.N. global warming conference in Cancún, Mexico, last year, developing countries pledged to restrict their carbon emissions considerably more than did rich country delegations. In particular, China's promised reductions from what would happen under "business as usual" were a lot larger than promises made by the United States. Indeed, in the U.S. case, some calculations suggest the pledge may amount to the commitment to do nothing, which sounds all too plausible.

You wouldn't have guessed developing countries were taking the lead on counteracting climate change given the caterwauling about harm to U.S. competitiveness that accompanies discussion of greenhouse gas regulation in Washington, but it is true. They're motivated by a mix of wanting to stave off climate change and wanting to develop renewable industries, and they benefit from energy and industrial sectors with less installed capacity as a proportion of future demand -- which means less entrenched opposition to higher standards. And that's good news, because while the United States accounts for three times China's carbon dioxide contribution to the atmosphere to date, today China is the largest carbon emitter in the world. India and the rest of the developing world are fast climbing the ranks, as well. Without developing country leadership, we'd all be sunk (literally, in the case of Vanuatu).

LIU JIN/AFP/Getty Images

 

Charles Kenny is a senior fellow at the Center for Global Development, a Schwartz fellow at the New America Foundation, and author, most recently, of Getting Better: Why Global Development Is Succeeding and How We Can Improve the World Even More. "The Optimist," his column for ForeignPolicy.com, runs weekly.

JMITCHELL@LOGICANDLOGISTICS.COM

8:23 PM ET

August 1, 2011

The ONLY Way to Enact a Carbon Tax in the USA

These rhetorical questions are the key to enacting a material carbon tax in the USA:

1) If the solution to too much CO2 in the air is to use less fossil fuels, why is NOT the solution to too much federal debt to use less government?

2) If the optimal amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is 350 ppm (current=389 ppm) because that is the maximum concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere under which life as we know it can continue, why is 18% of GDP (current =25% GDP) NOT the optimal size of the federal government since that is the size that most likely yields maximum economic growth?

Think about it. Progressives and Conservatives are actually making the same apocalyptic argument albeit on different issues. They both make good arguments for action. But the public is yawningly uninterested in AGW and unwilling to make the hard choices on America’s fiscal problems. Buying off the opposition is the American way so why not use the system we have to get the outcome you want. And that’s what Let’s Make A Deal—The Plan is all about: getting the outcome you want.

It’s time for progressives concerned about rising temperatures and conservatives concerned about rising federal debt to realize the obvious: they need to BUY each other off in order to effectively address their pet ideological concerns-there is no other way. This means trading, among other things, a carbon tax for a balanced budget amendment and a more limited government. This plan is outlined at http://letsmakeadeal-thebook.com

LMAD BUYS OFF Liberals with much more than just a $600 billion carbon tax. It also adds fully-funded Healthcare for every American, a public option health insurance entity, and the implementation of tax schemes frequently advocated by Liberals such as a “sugar” tax and a value-added tax. The LMAD plan even grants overnight amnesty of 10 million illegal aliens.

LMAD buys off Conservatives with much more than a balanced budget and limited government ; it permanently ends future illegal immigration, adds tort reform and completely replaces all taxes on production, labor, saving and investment with the new carbon tax, the value-added tax and the sugar tax. The LMAD plan even removes the burden of healthcare expenses from corporate balance sheets by ending our reliance on employer-provided health insurance.

Liberals can breathe easier knowing that global warming is finally being addressed, that every American has adequate healthcare and that consumption and that waste and affluence are appropriately taxed. Conservatives can fire their guns in the air over the knowledge that the budget is balanced, the size of government is held in check, and those anti-growth taxes and business-borne healthcare costs that are killing American exports and penalizing work, savings and investment are forever ended.

Both sides will appreciate that the LMAD deal is a potent GDP-growth accelerant that puts the United States firmly in the China/India economic growth league. The country will be transformed from a debt-ridden, gluttonous net-importer afflicted with high structural unemployment, unaffordable healthcare costs and scant economic prospects to a lean, efficient, export juggernaut that creates millions of new, higher-income jobs and hosts an increasing number of world class companies that choose to relocate to the only country on the planet that doesn’t tax production or labor. With healthcare costs finally contained and economic growth unleashed, Medicare and Social Security will be made solvent without the need to impose politically painful benefit cuts

Blog: letsmakeadeal-thebook.com/

Facebook: facebook.com/pages/Lets-Make-A-Deal-The-Book/143298165732386

Twitter: twitter.com/#!/lmadster

Or just Google "LMADster"

 

ZORRO

9:41 AM ET

August 2, 2011

Rhetorical How?

1. In both cases there is a plus and minus side. An alternative to using less fossil fuels is to take CO2 out of the atmosphere. An alternative to smaller government is higher taxes.

2. Why is 350 PPM optimal? Because it best fits the currently available evidence.
Why is 18% optimal? The Scandinavian countries seems like an effective counter proof to that thesis. High taxes, high growth.
The optimal tax quota is not independent from what the government does with the money.

 

JMITCHELL@LOGICANDLOGISTICS.COM

6:52 PM ET

August 2, 2011

Here's How

High Growth In Scandinavian countries? I hear this all the time. Facts show otherwise

Real GDP 1970/2006
==================
Scandanavia : 2.6%
USA : 3.1%
Continental EU : 2.2%
Mediterranean EU : 2.6%*
*Note that the slacker countries of Spain/Greece/Portugal beat Denmark/Finland/Norway/Sweden

Why is 18% optimimal? Because whenever USA GDP size was 17% to 18.5% since WWII, GDP growth averaged 4.1%!!!

You left out the OTHER, more likely alternative to using less fossil fuels. Doing nothing. Given how the AGW guys have bungled the sales job, that's what's going to happen.

So if you want to fix global warming, this LMAD plan is your only option.

 

TEAMMATE

10:47 AM ET

August 2, 2011

Excellent efforts

India is coming fast with the green technology for producing the huge requirement of the country. It is already coming up with the vast coastal line of the country and in the next 5-10 years , the wind energy in India is expected to rise exponentially. samsung tablet

 

THERSITES

11:05 AM ET

August 2, 2011

These developments are indeed

These developments are indeed encouraging. The Chinese, the Indians and others who only started destroying the atmosphere in the past few decades (which we in the West have been doing since about 1750) are at least trying. We Americans, of course, as they say, do nothing. So it is certainly a worthy cause to laud the efforts of the Less Than Utterly Insane (i.e., non-American actors in climate change policy.)

Yet it is important not to lose sight of the basics. To put it starkly: It actually DOES NOT MATTER what the "carbon dioxide output per unit of output" is in China. What matters is: what is the TOTAL co2 output? Of course, a reduction in co2/output is a good thing--since the PRC (and the CCP) is committed to economic growth, no matter what. But what matters, climatologically, is the total amount of co2 in the atmosphere. Period. Note, for example, the goal of India: 15% renewable energy by 2020 (versus 2% today). Which means, of course, that in 2020, 85% of energy will be from burning fossil fuels, and therefore pumping more co2 into the atmosphere. Presumably, by 2020, Indian total energy consumption will be much higher than today. And so, total Indian co2 emissions will be higher. Ditto the Chinese.

Please check the Keeling Curve, and note that there has been NO REDUCTION--only a continued upward trend. The basic news is deeply grim.

The authors' accent in the positive is laudable and understandable, particularly given the deluded insanity of the American political process. But much, much more is needed--and it is hard to see how we will get there from here.

 

HURRICANEWARNING

6:30 PM ET

August 2, 2011

I don't see this as a bad

I don't see this as a bad thing. the US will end up missing all the knee jerk technological folly going into alternative energy right now. By the time we enter the fray, it will be in a big, extremely important way. Look to the US department of defense, and black budgets, for the energy innovations to come. Other countries will be covered with wind farms, or busy building high maintenance, low turnnout energy sources while we are launching energy grabbing solar satellites into orbit, to beam juice back to the ground. (no, this is not science fiction, space based power is without doubt, the future of global energy. and both the Mitsubishi corp, and california PG&E agree on that). Granted, that may be 20 to 50 years from now. The fact still remains: The road to hell is paved in good intentions. And just because some technology is available now, doesnt mean that the tech that's available should be used. Let the 3rd world experiment with power sources. When we find one that works, we'll snatch it up and make it our own. China style. who said you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

 

WERTHE

11:11 AM ET

August 8, 2011

Good way to go!

Honestly, I believe that whether the high carbon in atmosphere adds to the Global warming or not, the Green produced energy should be a must for state investment and support as the prices of oil rises and the supply is lowering. Hopefully, more developing countries should invest directly in to the green energy because the sooner they invest in it the sooner they can benefit from it!

WerThe from http://lastlongerguide.com/ crew.

 

YELLOWDINGO

8:19 PM ET

August 13, 2011

The Low Carbon Tyranny

I would like to point out that this Low Carbon Policy is to be imposed on the have nots with no sacrifice by those who have a disproprtionate share beyond their own equal share.

The fact is that Every Individual will not be allocated an equal share of carbon limit, and that Corporations will not have to buy from individual (who would thus be forced to reduce their own polution) so that they can polute for further gain and development - nor will shareholders and employees be forced to sacrifice of themselves the right to polute that the company that employs them might use those carbon credits more efficiently.

The Have nots are to be forced to make do with increasingly less so that the haves can remain in a position of power and privilege.

 

ADDIE GUADELOUPE

5:38 AM ET

August 19, 2011

Climate change needs US leadership

Europe has in particular been looking for new US leadership on fighting climate change ahead of an international meeting in Copenhagen in December on reaching a new pact for curbing greenhouse gases beyond 2012. EU nations have agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels, rising to 30 percent if the rest of the developed world -- mainly the United States and Japan -- agrees to do so. The US House of Representatives recently received a draft bill for clean energy development which aims to cut carbon emissions by 20 percent from their 2005 levels by 2020 and boost reliance on renewable sources of energy. Although the US targets were unheard of before Obama took over from Bush, they were given an extremely cautious welcome in Europe because the base year for comparisons is 15 years after that of the EU. The new US goals, though welcome, represent just a five to six percent reduction using the EU's baseline of 1990, EU Environment Commissioner Stavros ginger lee Dimas said this week. German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel described them as "not enough".

 

AXELBROOK

6:37 AM ET

August 19, 2011

either way, something about

either way, something about her just doesn't seem right. i'm not convinced of anyone on either side. too much talking. not enough action. RIO i get the creeps from that woman, thats all i know..

 

YARINSIZ

11:07 PM ET

August 28, 2011

The fact is that Every

The fact is that Every Individual will not be allocated an equal share of carbon limit, and that Corporations will not have to buy from individual (who would thus be forced to reduce their own polution) so that they can polute for further gain and development - nor will shareholders and employees be forced to sacrifice of themselves the right to polute that the seslisiteler company that employs them might use those carbon credits more efficiently.

 

HAROUTNCC

2:39 PM ET

August 29, 2011

The challenge of growing economies

Studies have shown that mid-level income countries (like India and china) only have limited chance to continue a rise trajectory without significantly contributing to their carbon footprint, towards solar energy plants and small greenhouses unless everybody find other areas to outsource their industrial production - which seems unlikely and wouldn't yield an internet decrease in global emissions. This the truth is apt to be the primary power behind the reluctance of India and China to simply accept clear carbon limits, because this probably - would impose almost impenetrable ceilings on the growth expectations.

Thankfully, the worldwide reaction to global warming looks distinctly multipolar. And also at some time, when the Usa doesn't enter into line, all of those other planet will begin finding methods to encourage it.

 

SEO IN KENT

9:16 AM ET

August 31, 2011

America should be on board

America has not had the wisdom to embrace the the change of alternative fuel source, ever since the global recession it has been brushed under the carpet, we need to do more. a href=“http://www.seoinkent.net>seo in kent

 

SEO IN KENT

9:16 AM ET

August 31, 2011

America has not had the

America has not had the wisdom to embrace the the change of alternative fuel source, ever since the global recession it has been brushed under the carpet, we need to do more. seo in kent