The Kyoto Protocal is a flawed and failing concept. It demands that nations reduce greenhouse emissions, but does not provide a reasonable alternative. Also, it is very unambitious, only requiring greenhouse emmisions to decline to levels of a decade ago, which would only marginally affect global warming. Most seriously, it could cost trillions of dollars. One can think of it as an unfunded mandate, legislating without effectively forwarding environmental progress.
There is an alternative approach, however, one that even the US could be persuaded to join. Instead of banning emissions, we should research technologies to move beyond them. There should be a serious international scientific effort to develop alternative sources of energy (ie fusion, solar, wind.) To illustrate, something called the ITER project promises to be the immediate predecessor to the first commercial fusion reactors. It is tremendously important for the future. This important project is funded by a consortium of several industrialized countries and will cost approximately $5-10 billion over the next ten years.
The price may seem high, but when we consider that NASA gets $15 billion every single year, we see it is nothing. The International Space Station will cost something like $100 billion. Now I value the space program, but isn't alternative energy worthy of comparable funding considering the value we can get from this investment? I propose a comparatively modest $10 billion invested annually in an international research program to develop alternative energy sources, a program which I think could really revolutionize energy production while helping us to expand the economy environmentally.
What is your opinion?
I agree
No opinion
I disagree
Add your comment
Now, what exactly is your idea?
Sorry if I was unclear. I have reworded it a bit. Basically, the proposal is made explicit in the last sentence, that an international research program into alternative energy sources would be more effective than the Kyoto Protocal.
Well, such research is being done at the moment. US President Bush (not really a 'green') has funded research on hydrogen as an alternative resource. He mentioned it in his 2003 State of the Union, I believe he granted the research-program 2 billion dollar. The 'Governator'of California, Schwarzenegger, has spoken on the "hydrogen highway".
Also energy companies such as Shell and BP are working on alternative forms of energy, as do many other smaller companies and universities. DaimlerChrysler has produced a Mercedes that runs on hydrogen. A lot of research is being done at the moment!
National governments such as mine, the Dutch, have set themselves targets on what percentage of energy consumption must be renewable in the year 20XX.
So your idea is good, but it is definately not new!!
All we really need is a carbon tax. Private capital markets could then be left to decide how much to invest in alternative energy research and what specific areas to fund. The research being done now by private firms as mentioned in the comment above (Michiel) would probably increase several fold given a pretty modest tax. But, of course, this is not a new idea.
Yes, I do propose a new idea. Let me be really specific. I propose a massive new international governments-funded research program on the scale of the International Space Station collaboration. This would involve a coalition of the US, Japan, and the leading industrial states of Europe (ie. UK, France, Germany etc.) It would involve a budget of at least $10 billion per annum. $2 billion spent over 10 years or so is not nearly sufficient. This is a universal, public problem which requires a universal, public solution. I do not think that punitive measures on the private sector are the solution. The new technologies needed are so expensive and general in application that I believe they would best be developed by governments, like the highway system.
Sorry, I meant that a carbon tax is not a new idea. Your idea probably is. However, let me take issue with your characterization of carbon taxes (or more generally, any externality tax) as 'punitive'. Such taxes are really much more akin to user fees than fines; They put a price the use of a scarce public resource...In this case, the capacity of the atmostphere to absorb carbon without causing undo harm to our climate.
Unfortunately many people react as though they are being punished when the price they have to pay for something increases from $0 to something positive. Consider this: If your local grocery store always gave away free peanuts, would it 'punitive' for them to start charging for them (perhaps because they had become more scarce)?
When I called the carbon tax punitive, I did not mean it in just a derogatory way. I do not think the goal of the carbon tax is just to compensate the government for the deterioration of the publicly-held atmosphere. Presumably, its main purpose of is to punish polluters in order to discourage polluting.
While the carbon tax might encourage modest improvements in companies' energy efficiency, I do not think that we are likely to see massively cooperative private financing of billion-dollar alternative energy research projects. Unless the tax is so high that it actually threatens the whole economy(which would not be a good thing), I do not think there would be sufficient incentive toward revolutionary private research. The factory might switch to flourescent bulbs, even install a couple of solar cells on the roof(cutting its energy consumption by 20% or so), but it is not going to buy into the Fusion Fund.
So you see I think the carbon tax would mostly be a painful waste. But that presumes the tax would go to the general revenue. I think the carbon tax could work, however, if it funded serious government research, like, I don't know, my original proposal of a serious international research collaboration, in which case it would sort of act like compensation to repair harm done to the atmosphere.
Two comments about this topic:1. Having companies (polluters) pay for the amount of carbon they produce only supports those who can afford it. That would be major companies, and major polluters. 2. Alterative energy sources have been researched and developed during the last 20 years to the point where they could be (and should be) used about 75% more than they are now. However, we are knee deep in oil and a change would have a serious effect on those in power. (yes I'm talking about the Bushies and other greedy right wingers; as well as selfish profit worried SUV driving short sided thinkers). Until we have people that are willing to put the good of the envoirnment and the world ahead of their own personal comforts....
Developing better energy production methods is important, but you can find very convincing arguments that energy savings through more efficient technical solutions still have a very big potential. Possibly with efficient enough cars, heating, etc. energy produced through more efficient solar panels, wind turbines and other low-impact energy generation methods would be sufficient for human needs. This is why I like the idea of a carbon tax (or more generally an energy/fuel tax) gradually replacing income tax. This can accomplish two goals: (1) improving energy efficiency: through providing BIG direct financial incentives for energy savings and development of more energy efficient technologies (2) fixing tax system: instead of very convoluted tax code we would have very simple system in which everybody pays tax according to energy/fuel use.See also:- "The Economist" (www.economist.com) "The future of energy: The end of the Oil Age" Oct 25th 2003 - www.cbo.gov (The Economic Costs of Fuel Economy Standards Versus a Gasoline Tax, December 2003)- my posting in Bussines:Taxes:income -> consumption tax.
The problem with taxes is ,it lets people who can afford,abuse when the action is detrimental to society. The scarce resource is not available to less fortunate & economically backward. Creating an international fund for research is the way to go.
The spirit of your idea is great, but a bit out of touch with reality. The main thrust of your idea seems to be an initiative for research.
Whereas I agree more research needs to be done, I think you should acknowledge the current situation with regard to the exsiting technology.
Solar - solar energy will get better sure, but its never going to be efficient enough for really large scale energy production. Their really expensive to make and you don't get that much power. There a major limitation in terms of the intensity of sunlight hitting the earth.
Fusion - There's actually a tremedous amount of research going on right now. Princeton and U Wisconsin have very active plasma programs that are slowly but surely working out the problem along with reactors in Japan and Europe. It will happen, but its still 20 years away. Also, consider that even when the technology is perfected, fusion reactors (like fission reactors) will be large, expensive to build and expensive to maintain - though the fuel is free. The programs are well-funded by the NSF and other govt agencies.
Wind - any way you look at it, wind is BY FAR the best alternative energy possibilty on the table today. At this point in time, wind power is neck and neck with fossil fuel power in terms of price. In as little as 5 years, it will be significantly LOWER than fossil.
Large scale, green wind power is available today. You don't need $10 billion dollars or even one billion. You just need to stop subsidizing the coal industry and provide minor tax intiative to get more wind companies off the ground and running. Look at the numbers, wind power production in Europe has exploded. The cost is dropping as production of the turbines becomes more mass produced. Wind power is ready, it's just waiting for the US to catch the breeze.
The Windicator
Since I personally have a positive attitude, I dislike being pessimistic. However, I suspect that certain futurists are correct in saying that by the end of this century, 75% of our energy will come from conservation. Unfortunately, that level of reduction will sap our economies and standards of living.