from Climate Alert Volume 9, No. 5 September-October 1996

Tickell Stresses Energy Role of Governments and
International Bodies

Our conference has covered three broad themes: the accumulating science on climate change, the impacts it is likely to have, and the particular problems these create for the future generation of energy. We began with theory and ended with the detailed practicalities. In so doing the Climate Institute has continued to act as a catalyst for both thought and action, and helped shift current paradigms. Such changes cannot take place overnight, but in the ten years since the creation of the Institute, major changes have taken place and the Institute has contributed greatly to them. We must not be depressed by the continuing inertia within the current system, and the mobilization of vested interest and interested parties, notably the fossil fuel industries, who are bound to mount a spirited resistance.

We must also accept the limitations inherent in much current thinking. There have been many appeals to market forces, and market forces are indeed a determining factor. But they are not the only factor. As I said yesterday, markets are superb at setting prices, but incapable of recognizing costs. Those costs, well brought out by a panel of the US National Academy of Sciences in its report on the Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming in 1991, are primarily the responsibility of governments charged to look after the common interest. The current hierarchy of energy costs is artificial, and if social cost pricing were introduced would change overnight. There is also artificiality in many current finance mechanisms, as we have heard from several during the conference. I was impressed by Florentin Krause's analysis of the limitations of some of the economic modeling which was discussed in Working Group III of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report. The picture he painted must have been unfamiliar to those who feel excessively daunted by the economics of climate change. Again we have to think anew.

I think our conference well brought out that the problem is not whether we should prepare ourselves for climate change with a green revolution, but how that green revolution should be launched. There are many factors, some negative and some positive:

• if energy prices and environmental protection cannot be left entirely to the market, we should not expect voluntary arrangements to meet the needs of the hour. In some areas governments must act, and set equitable ground rules of a mandatory kind;

• obviously we need cooperation and partnerships between the private and public sectors. In a small world cooperation soon reaches beyond frontiers. Few governments are strong enough to act alone. Here is a vital role for international organizations, ranging from the UN agencies concerned to the World Bank and the regional development banks;

• successful introduction of new technologies is often dependent on securing sufficient volume of production and thus bringing down costs. This is happening already, but clearly not enough. As was well said in the conference, more money may now be needed for advertising than for research, development and demonstration.

There are certain things that we have not discussed which perhaps we should have done. Three spring immediately to mind:

• the future role of nuclear energy as a renewable source. I know that there are many problems about use of nuclear energy but whereas some countries in the world have more or less renounced it, others are intent upon developing it, and see it as their primary source for the future. We need a thorough look at the whole issue. I very much support current efforts to set up a world commission on nuclear energy designed to produce a balanced assessment for the future;

• we have only briefly touched on the issue of size of future energy sources. Small may not always be beautiful, but there is a strong trend away from massive centralized systems toward more local, decentralized and self-sufficient technologies. This has many implications for our society;

• nor have we examined the artificiality of many of the measuring tools of current economics. The use of GNP or GDP as yardsticks of prosperity is grossly misleading, and we have to rethink our vocabulary. It is very relevant to the current debate.

I particularly welcomed the speech by Peter Goldmark of the Rockefeller at lunch yesterday. He made four points of great importance for all who, in his words, want to get off the fossil-fuel juggernaut. All are relevant to our current debate:

• first he underlined the importance of dialogue between scientists. The perceptions they share creep out and eventually infect government policy and public opinion. But of course this takes time, and we do not always have it;

• to speed things up he suggested a focused set of meetings among leading climate and energy scientists, key government decision makers and private sector leaders from China, India, Indonesia, South Africa, Mexico and Brazil (all countries with large and burgeoning populations). If this is to happen, the case for the use of solar energy must be made to them through due preparation by the experts concerned. He generously offered the Rockefeller facilities at Bellagio for the purpose;

• he then underlined, as I have done, the importance of bringing in the multi-lateral institutions. It would, he thought, be important for such bodies as the World Bank to stop lending, either directly or indirectly, for conventional fossil-fuel plants. Environmental sustainability should more than ever be the goal;

• last he suggested putting together a team to advise government leaders accordingly. He is already in touch with one or two possible members of such a team, including Jose Goldemberg, who is with us today. Such a team could make the case not only to the industrial countries but to reach political and business leaders around the world.

In all this the Climate Institute could continue to play its vital catalytic role. The modalities would be complex, and will need careful thought. But our conference today may come to be seen as a turning point at which things which were hitherto unthinkable suddenly emerge into the sphere of the possible as well as desirable.

We have had a wonderful conference. The points I have chosen to single out may seem somewhat arbitrary, and others may have different priorities. We are immensely indebted to John Topping, as President of the Climate Institute, and to his team for having put the conference together, brought the participants under one roof, and orchestrated such an interesting and fruitful result. In concluding I would like first to congratulate him, and then all the other participants who have made this an outstanding event.

 

Article List | back: Lieberman & Alvarez | return: Overview