May 22, 2008
Interview with Yuan-Tseh Lee
In this recent interview, we spoke with Nobel Laureate Yuan-Tseh Lee of Taiwan's Academia Sinica. Below is an edited transcript of our conversation. He shares his thoughts on nuclear power, sustainability, development, and education.
Frank Ling (FL): What are some of the challenges at the interface of science and policy today?
Yuan Lee (YL): The development of renewable energy and efficiency will make contributions in coming years but the urgency of reducing carbon dioxide exceeds the development of science and technology. No single country alone can solve this problem. We will need to change our lifestyle in a drastic way.
FL: Scientists were recently surprised to find that CO2 emissions are rising faster than expected. Recently, you have come out in support of nuclear power. Why?
YL: Safety in plants is no longer a problem. The treatment and waste is. If the urgency for us is to reduce CO2, then nuclear power will be an important option.
FL: One of the gaps is between the social and physical sciences. Has anyone in Taiwan tried to address this gap?
YL: If you look at a Chinese painting, you find that everything in the painting is related to science. Look at this house. Energy and what we eat were all recycled. A hundred years, we were all a part of nature. So we can eat well without using so much energy! Today we waste so much energy.
FL: You have been involved with education reform. One of the concerns today is that there is not enough time to think. There is a lot of knowledge but not a lot of time to wonder about what it means. How do you strike a balance?
YL: We need enough knowledge to ask sophisticated questions. But schools today teach too much. We should learn so that we can do new things.
Click here for an earlier interview with Professor Lee on the chemistry of climate change.
投稿者 econetworks : 06:22 AM | コメント (0) | トラックバック
May 13, 2008
Nuclear Return?
Recent developments in Europe suggest that Japan might need to reconsider it's moratorium on building new nuclear power plants. Instead of banning coal, which is the dirtiest among fossil fuels, Europe is now planning up to 50 more plants in the near future. But why would an environmentally progressive region of the world raise their emissions?
At a time when the US is on the verge of imposing a moratorium on coal, Europe has plans for adding up to 50 new coal-fired power plants. In contrast to scientists who say there is an urgent need to drastically cut our reductions, coal is making a comeback. Does this mean, greenhouse gas levels will continue to rise or are there other alternatives out there?
In an article in the New York Times, coal plants are being built in Germany, the UK, the Czech Republic, and Italy, which already pays the highest cost in electricity. The author says:
"Over the next five years, Italy will increase its reliance on coal to 33 percent from 14 percent. Power generated by Enel from coal will rise to 50 percent.
And Italy is not alone in its return to coal. Driven by rising demand, record high oil and natural gas prices, concerns over energy security and an aversion to nuclear energy, European countries are expected to put into operation about 50 coal-fired plants over the next five years, plants that will be in use for the next five decades."
In contrast to an image of a Europe that is eco-conscious, these trends are driven by economics and energy security. Oil and natural gas prices reaching record levels, and so the only economical option is to turn to coal. At the same time, natural gas comes from Russia and could be affected by instabilities in the Russian government.
This seems contradictory to perceptions that Europe is ahead of the US when it comes to the climate change. Germany has put enormous resources into building up a solar and wind industry. France has many nuclear power plants, which has arguably contributed to lower emissions.
And yet one would think that Europe can continue these trends toward lower emissions but the limitations in squeezing out efficiency and deploying renewables suggest that either energy supplies coming from coal or nuclear are needed for the economy.
Large scale carbon capturing of emissions from coal fired plants have not yet been demonstrated to be successful. And so it may be time to reconsider nuclear power. While the risks of nuclear power are real, it may be one of the options needed to attain drastic reductions in GHG emissions without severely slowing down economic growth.
The debate in the US continues as the government has recently authorized the construction of nuclear power. As unpleasant as it may sound to many environmentalists, a similar public discussion in Japan is needed to better understand the costs and benefits of this source of energy.
投稿者 econetworks : 02:52 PM | コメント (0) | トラックバック
April 29, 2008
Sustainable evolution: Are we developing too fast?
One of the interesting topics I've discussed recently is how our evolution and our ability to plan for the future as a species has not caught up with our development as a civilization.
In the past, humans had to hunt for food and live in shelters that were not permanent. In order to survive, it was essential that humans worked together and form communities. This was the way humans lived for tens of thousands of years. Wars, diseases, natural disasters, and limited accessible resources were the norm. It is perhaps these challenges that have brought people together and defined their communities, which are arguably an evolutionary trait that helped humans survive. With the development of new technologies, the industrialized world has been able to avoid most of these dangers.
And so we are among the first of a few generations that have not experience the challenges that humans were historically adapted for. Indeed, I feel fortunate to live in these times and to be living in an industrialized nation. I have not had to face imminent threats in my lifetime. But with fewer and fewer memories of the struggles that earlier generations endured, this notion of interdependence among people is thinning as well as the sense of community.
While nobody would advocate for intentional hardships, there is a need to plan for an uncertain future as civilization reaches the limits the of planet's resources and its capacity for renewal (some would argue we surpassed that a long time ago). According to various scenarios, the future climate will not be pleasant (if not harsh) and there will be a need to move away from the fossil fuel based economy that the world currently runs on.
Part of the solution is to restore the sense of community that has served humans so well in the past. By community, I do not mean a conspicuous gathering of people, but a general sense of shared responsibility. Along with the proper use of technology, humans will be able to collectively make better decisions for living sustainably.
So, is the world developing too fast? More likely we are simply not developing wisely. I don't know what policies will get us there, but some form of political leadership will be needed to evolve from our current pathway of development.
投稿者 econetworks : 06:26 PM | コメント (0) | トラックバック
March 26, 2008
Energy Policy and the Next US President
I was asked recently about my thoughts on what the next US administration should be doing in terms of addressing climate change. What should the position be considering the recent history of US involvement (or lack of)? What should their negotiating strategy be?
I started thinking about the successor to Kyoto. The specific targets and how we could get there. But those were the stumbling blocks. How long will it take for the countries to agree to them? By the time an agreement is reached, it might be too late.
Undoubtedly, the US will have to take the leadership position, which has been lacking since they pulled out of the Kyoto process. As the world's economic, industrial, and technological leader, the US has a responsibility to engage in the process if the world is to take meaningful action on climate change.
In the past couple years, there has been a change in perception in the US. Most Americans now accept global warming as a serious problem and are asking themselves what they can do about it. Partly popularized by Al Gore's Inconvenient Truth, climate change is now taken more seriously. More importantly, regions that have traditionally not taken strong action (eg. Florida) are now quickly changing their minds as they see the impacts of global warming (rising sea level and coastal erosion).
Moreover, Americans are now asking politicians to support the development of alternative fuels and renewable energy as fossil fuels become much more expensive. Whether for environmental or economic reasons or both, Americans now see energy as a major issue.
All remaining candidates (now Obama, McCain, and Clinton) in the US presidential campaign have come out with positions on energy and environment. Regardless of who becomes president, the next administration will have to engage not only the domestic economy but also with the rest of the world.
In terms of policy, a tax or cap-and-trade system will be needed to assign a price to carbon emissions. All three candidates agree on some version of pricing the externalities associated with emissions and energy use.
At a townhall meeting, Professor Dan Kammen from the University of California at Berkeley said that the next president will need more than just a sound energy policy, he/she will need to be a true leader. This is one person who can inspire individuals and corporations to stay engaged as the price of carbon evolves.
As a supporter of Obama's campaign, Kammen says, "We are in a critical need for a president who can inspire."
Getting back to the original question of what the US strategy should be, I have come to believe that genuine leadership, more than time tables and targets, is what's needed to take the world onto a path of environmental and economic sustainability. Leadership is ultimately about creating more leaders.
投稿者 econetworks : 04:22 PM | コメント (0) | トラックバック
March 07, 2008
Reporting from Yokohama: CITYNET conference
As the nations of the world develop targets and timetables for lowering greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs), the hard part is yet to come: how do we get there? Breakthroughs in renewable energy and energy efficiency will no doubt play a very important role. Policies and market mechanisms will also be needed to drive low carbon practices. But at the practical level, how do we bring about changes that are responsive to the needs of the population and their access to resources?
These questions were discussions were recently discussed at the CITYNET symposium in Yokohama, Japan. In this conference, city leaders, UN affiliates, NGO's, and private industry, and academics came together to discuss their experiences in linking local practices to a global agenda.
The UN has recognized that the sharing of information at the local or urban level is essential for disseminating best practices. At the international level, policies are limited by diplomatic and bureaucratic hurdles. There could be overcome through city-to-city interactions that give urban leaders critical experience and technology in their development.
One of the themes at the conference was about fostering private-public collaborations and the role of NGO's and academia. Among the participants was Microsoft, which is trying to find a role for information technology in enabling the sharing of knowledge between leaders.
The role of community was also of concern. How do you engage the local population to become active participants? The participants tended to be on the older generation of leaders. The future of course belongs to the young and while they tend to be fairly well educated, it's not clear if they are concerned or curious about these developments.
There was also debate as to the values of the networks. The major concern was that they can be process oriented, redundant, and relies heavily on funding. Past experiences have shown how tenuous these initiatives can be when the money runs out. Can the costs of these networks be brought down through inexpensive software and hardware? Certainly, information technology has already made strides in social networks but can they be adopted for city-to-city interactions?
In the US, the campaigns for the election has shown the power and significance of Web 2.0. Leaders in both parties are levering the power networks such at Facebook and Myspace and Youtube has greatly reduced the barriers to disseminating news and recent information. Perhaps with the right software and support, cities and their leaders can share their experiences more easily and even foster a global community across many stakeholders.
投稿者 econetworks : 05:22 PM | コメント (0) | トラックバック
February 19, 2008
Lester Brown Interview: Plan B 3.0
Joining us for our inaugural feature interview at Sustainability Context is noted environmentalist Lester Brown from Washington DC. Mr. Brown is the President of the Earth Policy Institute and is a Director at Japan for Sustainability.
(Frank and Lester Brown)
He is the author of numerous books including "Eco-Economy: Building an Economy for the Earth" and "Building a Sustainable Society." Most recently, he release Plan B 3.0 which is the successor to Plan B 2.0.
In this new book, he discusses the latest indicators of global warming and efforts in the US to address greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
Brown says, "When Plan B 2.0 came out, we were worried about ice melting for example. Now we look at ice melting and it's not just worrisome, it's getting scary. The principal difference between 2.0 and 3.0 is a greater sense of urgency now in terms of our response to trends undermining our future."
In fact, sea level rises are occurring two to three times as fast as the IPCC report had earlier indicated.
"In Plan B 3.0, wind energy is touted as an affordable and scalable solution for replaced coal-fired plants that release most of the carbon dioxide GHG. Wind is widely distributed and easily harnessed. We expect wind to be centerpiece of the new energy economy. And it's at the heart of Plan B 3.0 in cutting carbon emissions by 80% by 2020, not by 2050 which politicians like to talk about," says the author.
Brown says that the world needs to reach GHG reduction sooner in order to stabilize the climate before it gets entirely out of hand. Wind is growing by about 30% worldwide per year and he thinks it can grow even faster with the right kind of government support.
Lester Brown's book is available online at http://www.earth-policy.com/ as a paperback or hardback book and also as a free download.
To listen to this exclusive interview, click here:
http://www.archive.org/details/LestorBrownInterview
投稿者 econetworks : 07:09 AM | コメント (0) | トラックバック
January 23, 2008
EPA Regulations
The fight is on. California, along with 15 other states, is now suing the US EPA for blocking their authority to regulate pollutants. In an unprecedented move, the EPA is no longer granting states waivers that have for many years allowed them to set greenhouse gas emissions levels for new cars and trucks.
The current administration believes that a new federal mandate would be more efficient in curbing emissions and has denied states to further waivers.
In an article in the New York Times, Felicity Barringer writes:
“California officials argue that the agency had no legal or technical justification for blocking the new standards. The E.P.A. administrator, Stephen L. Johnson, said when announcing the decision that a new federal fuel-economy mandate would be more efficient in curbing pollution than the state standards.”
Environmentalists say that the automobile industry has exerted pressure on the EPA so that it could escape from more stringent California regulations
The proposed California standards would have required automakers to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent in new cars and light trucks by 2016, beginning with 2009 models. Cars and light vehicles would need to have a mileage of at least 43 miles per gallon (18 km/l). In contrast, the new federal mandate only requires a performance of 35 miles per gallon (15 km/l) by 2020 and does not limit emissions.