Home
There is no getting around it. Leadership from China and the U.S.,
the world’s two biggest emitters of greenhouse gases (GHGs), is
imperative if any sort of successful international agreement is to come
out of the Copenhagen climate change negotiations.
Set to begin in about two weeks, we’ll see if the two giants will step up to the plate and foster a productive process and effective outcome.
While I tend to write about the facts of renewable energy, the recent partnerships announced by China and the U.S. have prompted me to discuss why these two nations are instrumental to a successful outcome in Copenhagen. First, no international environmental treaty has ever produced truly effective results without the leadership of the United States. The Montreal Protocol, which is often deemed the only successful international environmental treaty, entered into force in 1989 after encouragement and leadership from the United States to repair the expanding ozone hole by banning chloroflourocarbons (CFCs) from refrigerants and aerosol sprays.
So why were we able to reach an agreement in Montreal but an agreement on climate change seems so unattainable? Simple: industry had a solution. DuPont, the main developer of CFCs, had developed an alternative and was positioned to profit from the agreement in terms of both financial gain and corporate citizenship. This is one of the key differences that China and the U.S. must lead other nations to recognize: a multitude of people and industries are to be affected by climate change and a different solution must be found for each. We are not just dealing with refrigerants and hair spray manufacturers. Shipping, public transportation, building manufacturing, agriculture, automobiles, tourism…the list goes on and on of who and what will be affected by climate change legislation and, possibly more importantly, the consequences of inaction.
Second, we approach the situation from inherently different angles. The U.S. emits greenhouse gases to maintain our level of prosperity and continued economic growth. The majority of accumulated GHGs from decades of advancement can be attributed to the already developed nations of the West. On the other side of the coin are rapidly developing economies such as China, who argue that they are entitled to the same path of development that has industrialized much of the developed world. It is a legitimate fear that a mandatory cap on GHGs will slow economic growth and increase the price tag associated with development.
The good news is that industry does have an answer to climate change. It’s called energy efficiency and renewable sources of power (such as wind, solar power, algae ethanol, etc.). What we need is for China and the U.S. to set the example through policy measures that protect and promote renewable energy and energy efficiency. China can leapfrog in technology and the two nations can drive the price of renewable energy down by rapidly scaling sources in tandem. Coal and oil companies should be encouraged to diversify supply portfolios and expand areas of expertise to renewable sources if they are to survive in a carbon-conscious world.
Although the recent announcement to foster clean energy partnerships is one to raise hope, the true test will be if the two countries step in sync and lead already developed and rapidly developing countries (Brazil, Russia, India, and China) to the negotiating table at Copenhagen.
