Advertisement

Science Friday
Obama administration should lead energy transition
access
R.K. PACHAURI"There will be some discomfort during the transition to lower-carbon technologies, but at the end of the day, we’ll be better off."TERI

Obama administration should lead energy transition

R.K. Pachauri, an engineer and economist by training, is director-general of The Energy and Resources Institute in New Delhi, India, and a corecipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his role as chief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC periodically issues consensus reports on the science of climate change. Senior editor Janet Raloff spoke with him about changes he hopes to see from the Obama administration.

Pachauri: In the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC [2007], we tried to bring out the finding that there’s enough observed evidence to say warming of the climate is unequivocal and that over the last five decades or so, the bulk of that warming has taken place as a result of human actions. So the world is getting to see that climate change is not something in the distant future. It is already taking place and will only accelerate if we don’t reduce greenhouse gas emissions and use energy more efficiently.

How much do you expect the current recession to affect government climate-protection policies?

The financial meltdown is a major distraction. And it’s serious all over the world. So I realize that to talk about climate change, right now, and what needs to be done to meet this threat is perhaps going to fall on deaf ears. But this financial crisis is not going to take away the reality of climate change.

Once this meltdown sort of settles, I expect there’s going to be a period of deep introspection. People are going to start looking at some of the things that are fundamentally wrong. Like energy waste. Like importing huge amounts of foreign oil.

What timetable do we have for staving off catastrophic global change?

We [in the IPCC] have estimated that to stabilize global temperature increases at just 2° to 2.4° Celsius, we have only about seven years to turn around global emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. By 2015 they’ll have to peak. By 2020, we’ll need to put in place a 25 to 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. That’s a huge challenge.… But I believe these emissions reductions are possible. We’ve carried out assessments of the sort of mitigation strategies needed and find that the costs are really minimal. The necessary technologies are here.… There will be some discomfort during the transition to lower-carbon technologies, but at the end of the day, we’ll be better off. And our children will be much better off.

The United States has not led the world in climate-controlling policies. How problematic is that?

At the 2007 global climate change conference in Bali, the United States refused to sign on to the declaration [for commitments to curbing greenhouse gas emissions]. Toward the end of the meeting, a delegate stood up from a little country called Papua New Guinea and told the U.S. negotiator: “You either lead or get out of the way.” And there was thunderous applause.

The U.S. was completely isolated.

In a world where the United States is a declining superpower, in relative terms, remaining on the outside will result in a huge loss of prestige, of political credibility — and, I would say, market opportunity.

President-elect Barack Obama has the opportunity to use the power of the pulpit and make a big political issue of the fact that its addiction to oil is hurting the U.S. in a variety of ways.

What would you have Obama do?

The president should lay down a target that within seven years the U.S. will reduce oil imports by 50 percent. And that doesn’t mean go out and drill in Alaska or everywhere else.

In terms of innovation, the U.S. still has a unique ability to lead and work toward energy independence. [Obama] needs to bring about a major energy transition.

On the supply side, he can expand the use of nuclear energy and develop more renewable technologies. Of course, there also needs to be more research and development. And incentives can help drive a transition to more efficient use of energy in buildings, more visionary automotive designs and greater development of alternatives to cars — such as efficient high-speed trains that link major cities.

I hope the new president also will convene a meeting of world leaders to talk about what needs to be done in ushering in a new energy future. That would have symbolic importance, especially since U.S. technologies influence goals and aspirations across the globe. If the U.S. is slow in making a transition to cleaner energy, I think it’ll affect everybody else’s resolve.

If I get 20 minutes with the new president, I’m going to … tell him that ‘as leader of the strongest nation on Earth, you have a responsibility to lead the world in change. Please consider it a moral responsibility.’


Found in: Climate Change, Earth Science, Ecology, Environment and Technology
Comments 11
  • Dr. Pachauri, in this interview, has correctly identified the climate change problem but seems unaware that Obama is already politically and morally committed to solving the crisis.

    "The president should lay down a target that within seven years the U.S. will reduce oil imports by 50 percent. And that doesn’t mean go out and drill in Alaska or everywhere else."

    Please, what we need are innovative energy solutions, not broad imperatives!

    Joel Fairstein
    Solar Labs
    Joel Fairstein Fairstein Joel Fairstein Fairstein
    Dec. 20, 2008 at 7:36am
  • Water vapour is the most important green house gas followed by methane. The third most important greenhouse gas is CO2, and it does not correlate well with global warming or cooling either; in fact, CO2 in the atmosphere trails warming which is clear natural evidence for its well-studied inverse solubility in water: CO2 dissolves in cold water and bubbles out of warm water. The equilibrium in seawater is very high, making seawater a great 'sink'; CO2 is 34 times more soluble in water than air is soluble in water.
    Correlation is not causation to be sure. The causation has been studied, however, and while the radiation from the sun varies only in the fourth decimal place, the magnetism is awesome. As I understand it, the hypothesis of the Danish National Space Center goes as follows:
    Quiet sun → reduced magnetic and thermal flux = reduced solar wind → geomagnetic shield drops → galactic cosmic ray flux → more low-level clouds and more snow → more albedo effect (more heat reflected) → colder climate
    Active sun → enhanced magnetic and thermal flux = solar wind → geomagnetic shield response → less low-level clouds → less albedo (less heat reflected) → warmer climate
    That is how the bulk of climate change might work, coupled with (modulated by) sunspot peak frequency there are cycles of global warming and cooling like waves in the ocean. When the waves are closely spaced, the planets warm; when the waves are spaced farther apart, the planets cool.
    Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists traced the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulphuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the Galaxy - the cosmic rays - liberate electrons in the air, which help the molecular clusters to form much faster than climate scientists have modeled in the atmosphere. That may explain the link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.
    The ultimate cause of the solar magnetic cycle may be cyclicity in the Sun-Jupiter centre of gravity. We await more on that. In addition, although the post 60s warming period is over, it has allowed the principal green house gas, water vapour, to kick in with humidity, clouds, rain and snow depending on where you live to provide the negative feedback that scientists use to explain the existence of complex life on Earth for 550 million years. The planet heats and cools naturally and our gasses are the thermostat. Check the web site of the Danish National Space Center.
    Keeping in mind that windmills are hazardous to birds, be wary of the unintended consequences of the all-knowing environmental lobby groups.
    Francis Manns Francis Manns
    Dec. 21, 2008 at 9:30am
  • Dr. Pachauri is mouthing rubbish about the economy and prosperity of the west. Without prosperity there can be no investment to grow the undeveloped countries. Pachauri has no idea how much pain and hardship his notions from the UNIPCC would cost the world unnecessarily. He is not a scientist, nor is he an economist. There has been no cost benefit except from the intelligent group at the Copenhagen Convention and they rank clean water well above climate change. Crushing the carbon economy is a crazy idea.
    Francis Manns Francis Manns
    Dec. 21, 2008 at 9:40am
  • What a jerk!

    ...leader of a multitude of similar jerks who have sold their scientific souls to the anti-Man philosophy of religion

    I had thought that Science News would care enough for its previously good name that it would have chosen the stance re the IPCC and their Climate Change hogwash that science is not done by an Intergovernmental Panel - and would have been active in reminding its readers that the concept of consensus belongs in the trash folder with demagoguery - not out in the light of day that true science has brought us.

    May he and all his minions suffer personally all the pain that their dishonesty causes all the rest of us on this planet, who would so like to be left alone to try to pursue some happiness in what remains of our singular lives on this planet, instead of having control freaks spend money stolen from us by our governments to support their working tirelessly to steal whatever is left us, for the alleged benefit of nonexistent unborn generations ad infinitum.
    P.Michael Hutchins P.Michael Hutchins
    Dec. 30, 2008 at 5:22pm
  • I certainly have no respect for the IPCC based on their power hungry tactics of not listening to anyone that does not agree with them, then claiming "consensus". They are practicing politics, not science, and poorly at that. Time for a revote with those excluded added. I'm all for solar power but not by a phony crisis where we have to sacrifice needlessly. In another 10 years we'll have low cost solar cells and cellulose alcohol, so what's the problem, even if we are causing GW which stopped 10 yr ago. (or did somehow CO2 cause that?!) The public is not a bunch of idiots, and the internet is spreading the truth.
    Robert Cannon Robert Cannon
    Jan. 5, 2009 at 11:03pm
  • I read the comment by RK Pachauri with interest but wish he would have at least mentioned the need for a transition away from the use of foreigh oil for fertilizer production and a move toward organic agriculture. We use more oil making fertilizer than we do driving automobiles so this should be an issue discussed openly. (
    Bill Mewaldt Bill Mewaldt
    Jan. 6, 2009 at 2:38pm
  • The world is facing recession. And with the new administration of government I hope this could really bring change to our country. People have become more responsible with payday loans and their finances in general. Amid the current recession, we can’t afford to waste anything, whether it’s food or money. The unemployment rate is still on the rise as people are facing more and more layoffs. Everyone is looking for ways to save money. I found an interesting article that offers money saving tips and creative ways to do it. I also read about how Gannett Inc. managed to save money without having to send its people down to the unemployment line. Rather than to lay off more workers, the Gannett newspaper employees were given required unpaid leave for a week. What a brilliant idea! One week of unpaid leave is better than no job at all. They still have their job and can still be qualified for payday loans if needed. To get more ideas on creative ways to save money, I suggest you read this article I found on the payday loans Personal Money Store blog.
    Alvin B Alvin B
    Jan. 21, 2009 at 3:30am
  • Treasury bonds, or T-Bonds are the most well known type of bond. They are issued by the United States government and therefore considered without risk. IBonds don't have anything to do with a baseball player disgraced by steroid allegations. IBonds are a new series of Treasury bonds that are backed by Treasury guarantee to never lose money. However, you won't be able to withdraw if you're staring down the barrel of needing no fax payday loans. You can't withdraw the interest for the first year at all, and then the first five years carry penalties for withdrawal. They stop accruing interest after thirty. They are geared towards being a solid long term investment. You also cannot buy it for anyone other than yourself, so you can't have your children's debt relief in mind for buying IBonds.
    Check out this article: [Link was removed]
    Roy  Eden Roy Eden
    Apr. 24, 2009 at 4:53am
  • Was very useful article. Thank you.. [Link was removed]
    asda asdasd asda asdasd
    Jan. 10, 2010 at 7:35pm
  • [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    Science News Science News
    Jan. 14, 2010 at 5:59pm
  • hımm [Link was removed] Thank you very nice stories
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed] [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed] [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed] [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed] [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    [Link was removed]
    Manga İndir Manga İndir
    Jan. 15, 2010 at 10:46am
Post a comment (Please note: All links will be removed from comments.)

Please login or register to participate.


Advertisement
Reader Favorites:
seperator
SN on the Web:
seperator