Moving Beyond Cancun

On 12.10.10, In Announcements, By Daniel Goldfarb

With the climate talks in Cancun wrapping up, the blogosphere is sure to be flooded with posts about what we did and didn’t learn.  Beyond the lessons from this latest iteration of international climate negotiations, the end of Cancun provides an opportune moment to look at how we think about progress on climate change and energy in a more general sense. As usual, Andrew Revkin has cut to the heart of the issue, this time in a wrap up of his Cancun coverage in “Climate and Energy Beyond Cancún“:

“What’s important is to keep in mind the limits of what such efforts can accomplish. It was always wishful thinking to expect that 194 parties as varied as oil kingdoms, impoverished and dysfunctional African states, low island nations, superpowers and rising powers would someday magically adhere to a grand and legally binding instrument curtailing emissions of gases that, for a long time to come, will be a nearly direct proxy for economic activity.”

What we know for sure about climate related policy is that economics trump climate concerns.  You can apply this logic to America’s domestic policy landscape and you can apply it to world negotiations.  As such, real change wont come in spite of economics but because of it:

“That’s all fine, but this also means that the climate talks, which head to Durban, South Africa, next year, are not the place to watch for the breakthroughs — social, financial or technological — that will be required if the world is serious about providing some 9 billion people mid-century with the suite of services that come with abundant energy (mobility, communication, illumination, desalinated water and more) while also greatly cutting emissions from burning fossil fuels, which still dominate the global energy mix.”

Americans for Energy Leadership is committed to covering, discussing, and effecting the “social, financial [and] technological” factors that will drive a real energy transition.  Keep tuning in for expert coverage and analysis of all things clean energy, innovation, and technology related from the nation’s foremost young energy leaders.

Tagged with: •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response

Chunks: A(nother) New Approach to Energy Policy?

On 10.01.10, In Opinion, By Staff

By Alex Trembath. Originally posted at Energetics.

In a recent interview with Rolling Stone, President Obama addressed the failed climate/energy attempt of this summer, promising to move forward with a reinvigorated agenda in 2011. However, any such action will likely bear little resemblance to previous attempts. Mr. Obama conceded that “we may have to end up having to do it in chunks, as opposed to some sort of comprehensive legislation.” If this is indeed going to be the form of a new course of action on climate/energy for Mr. Obama, commentators are beginning to wonder exactly what those “chunks” will be.

Never mind the fact that the most recent attempts at energy reform have been piece-meal to begin with–that’s more or less inevitable with so many regulations, markets, fuels, interest groups and players at stake. Before its total dismantling, the American Power Act (formerly Kerry-Graham-Lieberman) was a hodge-podge of cap-and-trade, tax incentives and subsidies for renewables and clean coal technology, loan guarantees for next-generation nuclear power production, and a slew of regulatory reforms to preempt state action of GHGs and promote energy efficiency. Of course that bill never came close to a floor vote in the Senate, but my point stands: a “comprehensive” bill would have to be built one brick at a time anyway, so maybe Obama’s explicit “chunks” approach will get the job done.

So what’s on the table this time around? And, more importantly, what can pass a divided Congress? (more…)

Tagged with: • • • • •
 
3 Comments
Leave A Response

Building the Energy Innovation Consensus

On 06.29.10, In News, By Sydney Baloue

As the national debate on federal energy and climate legislation continues to unfold, Americans for Energy Leadership has been working to advance energy innovation and education investment as a critical component, adding to the growing “energy innovation consensus.”   These efforts have been recognized by a number of outlets and experts.  Some recent examples include:

In Time Magazine’s Special History Cover Issue, “The Electrifying Edison,” Bryan Walsh wrote:

“Even when America’s scientific preeminence was threatened by the Soviet Union’s Sputnik launch in 1957, the U.S. only came back stronger. “The federal response to Sputnik was an overwhelming investment in science and engineering education,” says Teryn Norris, director of Americans for Energy Leadership. “That had spillover benefits across the board.”

At the National Journal, in “Bill Will Slight Technology Innovation,” Mark Muro from Brookings Institution wrote:

“As we and many others have been saying for years, the nation badly needs to sign up for a new push for energy system innovation that seeks countless efficiencies but also triples to quintuples today’s anemic baseline level of federal energy innovation R&D. (For some great discussion of this need see recent posts by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, a group of 34 Nobel Laureates, NYT Dot Earth blogger Andy Revkin, and Teryn Norris of Americans for Energy Leadership).”

At New York Times Dot Earth, in “Quantum Dots, Obama and the Energy Quest,” Andrew Revkin wrote:

“I asked Dan Kammen, along with Teryn Norris, an energy policy blogger affiliated with the Breakthrough Institute… to assess the energy innovation report. Their views are appended below.  Interestingly, there’s a decent amount of agreement between Norris and Sean Pool, the author of the Center for American Progress report. Here’s Norris’s take on the innovation analysis, followed by Kammen’s:”

(more…)

Tagged with: • • • • • • • •
 
0 Comments
Leave A Response
Go To Top »