IPCC Expert Sees Need, As Do Others, for Government Backing of Energy Research
A key member of the international body that has done much to warn the world of the dangers of climate change says that a needed part of the solution – government support for research into new technologies – is falling ominously short.
In a recent presentation in San Francisco sponsored by the California Public Utilities Commission, Bert Metz, co-chairman of a key group of researchers within the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added his voice to what appears to be a growing chorus calling for major new public investments into energy technology research and development. While other measures, such as market systems to promote energy efficiency and greenhouse gas reductions can help, they may not be enough, according to these experts.
In his presentation to an auditorium filled with energy experts and members of the public, Metz (pictured) foresaw the need for society "to rely on technologies that are not yet on the marketplace today. So that brings us to the area of how can we get them into the marketplace later. That means sufficient [research and development] investment." But there is a problem, he noted:
“One sobering fact from the IPCC assessment was that energy R&D has gone down significantly since 1980. It’s now about half the level that we saw in the 80s. I’m talking about government, public R&D. That has not been taken over by the private sector. So we are worse off than we were 25 years ago. That is, of course, completely counter to the messages in this report.”
Last November the IPCC, which won a share of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for its work sounding the global warming alarm, issued its fourth report assessing the climate threat (see text here). Researchers asserted that the climate is changing and that most of the increase in global temperatures since the mid-20th century was very likely due to human-caused increases in greenhouse gases. They also saw little time to act to prevent the most severe effects from occurring.
At the same time, the report also concluded that a combination of responses, including efforts to reduce or mitigate the growth in emissions, could significantly reduce the risks. Since 1997 Metz, a senior researcher at the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, has co-chaired the IPCC's group looking at mitigation strategies (see mitigation report). Metz is also a visiting professor at Stanford University.
Metz said that in order to achieve the goals of avoiding the worst effects of climate change, government support for technology and “a lot of R&D” was needed. He also said that other steps, including setting a price on carbon by means such as a cap and trade program, were also critical:
“At that moment, emissions of [carbon dioxide] and other greenhouse gases get factored into business decisions. They become really part of the balance sheet. That’s a very good incentive for businesses to take proper action.”
His remarks mirrored those of other experts who have recently advocated that more than a market-based approach will be needed to cope with global warming. There is a note of increasing urgency in light of information, such as that cited by Metz from the IPCC suggesting that more serious problems may occur at lower temperatures than earlier estimated.
The New York Times recently reported on the shifts in the debate over what to do (see story here). Among those it cited was prominent Columbia University economist Jeffrey D. Sachs. In a piece in Scientific American (see article here), Sachs argued that a variety of approaches, including new research, was needed:
“We will need large-scale public funding of research, development and demonstration projects; intellectual property policies to promote rapid dissemination to poor countries; and the promotion of public debate and acceptance of new options. We will need to back winners, at least provisionally, to get new systems moving.”
He argued that even with a cutback in "wasteful energy spending," current technologies could not support both a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions and a growing global economy. The key, Sachs wrote, "is new low-carbon technology, not simply energy efficiency."
A critical issue is time. Metz displayed statistical graphs showing that emissions should have peaked no later than 2015 in order to prevent global temperatures from increasing by much more than 2 degrees Celsius, a kind of benchmark denoting the point at which serious human adaptation would have to occur.
“What we do in the coming ten to 20 years is of crucial importance, [determining] how much warming and how many impacts we will have in the longer term,” he said. Metz noted other estimates showing that if carbon were to achieve a price of about $100 a ton by 2030, that could drive emissions down to 2000 levels, which he called “a fairly positive signal.”
But he also noted that as of right now, emissions are still on the increase, and there were other factors at play. For instance, he said, even some actions that pay off economically are not being pursued.
“If you invest in energy savings in buildings you earn your money back quickly. It makes economic sense to do it and still it’s not happening because of all sorts of barriers and low incentives. That’s why specific action in terms of policy needs to be taken to make things happen.”
The task ahead, Metz suggested, employing a metaphor rooted in the fossil fuel industry, is formidable.
“It’s like turning around a super-tanker,” he said.
(Photo credit: Climate Law Update)
