BRIT SUMS UP CLIMATE SUMMIT

Clean Energy - Should Rich Nations Subsidise The Poor?
Roger Harrabin, 28 September 2009 (BBC News)

"…[W]hat was top priority for climate negotiators seeking political support from world leaders meeting at the G20 last week was not necessarily top priority for the leaders themselves…[D]ecisions left un-taken in Pittsburgh have resounded to rattle the UN climate talks starting this week in Bangkok…[especially] how much cash will be given to help developing countries obtain clean energy supplies.

"…[T]he need to tie developing countries into a climate deal means that the issue of financing is much more important than before… 90% of the new energy infrastructure over the next few decades will be in the developing world…$100 billion dollars a year is needed to tackle poverty through clean energy by 2020…Some developing countries think the figure should be half as much again."

President Obama took the first step in Pittsburgh. (click to enlarge)

"But at the G20 meeting President Obama skirted the issue. His climate policies face potentially insuperable opposition in the US Senate. So now energy funding will be referred back to the G20 finance ministers meeting in November…This is getting very late - and compounds the difficulties of the climate negotiators…

"It's another example of politics lagging behind the science…[U]nless emissions are cut urgently, global temperatures could rise 4C by the middle of the century, maybe 15C in the Arctic…[I]t's clear that politics as we know it can't yet respond to the urgency of the defined risk…Todd Stern, the chief US climate negotiator who helped negotiate the Kyoto Protocol under President Clinton, told me that the US would not repeat the mistake of signing a climate deal that wouldn't get through Congress."

Block tariffs: Big users pay a premium for their gluttony while the poor pay low prices. (click to enlarge)

"The President has been widely condemned by developing countries…But the timing is dreadfully difficult…[Undetermined details of the final U.S. legislation leaves everything uncertain]…President Obama did…[call] for an end to subsidies to fossil fuels…[and an end to the world] spending trillions a year subsidising the very pollution it is theoretically trying to expunge…In many countries the subsidies to the fossil fuel industry - though tax breaks, incentives and failure to pay for "externalities" like polluting the atmosphere - add up to way more than subsidies for [New Energy]…[I]t's easy to give a subsidy to a big polluting industry - but very hard to take it away without facing a barrage of lobbying [by special interests and campaign donors]...

"It might help if more people knew about the "block tariff" policy invented by Bangladesh. Low users of electricity can buy power very cheaply in order to encourage parents to install light bulbs to educate their children. But the price per kWh increases in blocks, so the rich in mansions on the edge of Dhaka end up paying high prices for their air conditioning and fridge freezers. This is the sort of social innovation politicians need more of if they want to tackle the problems of climate change and development."