A New International Report on the Prospects for a Global Deal on Clean Technology Transfer

Governments need to lead the breakthrough on technology 6

The Obama administration once again convened a Major Economies Forum in Italy this week after the G-8 meeting, which included the world’s 17 major carbon emitters, to press forward on a global deal on climate change and the transformation to a clean-energy economy. One of the most important announcements to come out of this meeting is the formation of a formal “Global Partnership” on “low-carbon,  climate-friendly technologies.” This program aims to double the current commitments on technology assistance by 2015 and sets a deadline for mapping actions for achieving a range of important goals on this cluster of issues by November 15, 2009.

Achieving success in this program could potentially be key for engaging the major emitting developing economies, such as China and India, on accepting meaningful measures for reducing their carbon emissions. Such assurances are necessary for negotiating a successful new international treaty responding to climate change this December at the U.N. climate change meeting in Copenhagen. The countries composing the Major Economies Forum have, with this movement, recognized that the struggle against climate change will not be won without a revolution in the use of existing, low-carbon technology and a tidal wave of new inventions.

The Center for American Progress, working jointly with eight other progressive think tanks from around the world in our Global Climate Network, today launches a report, “Breaking Through on Technology,” to help to pave the way for a successful global deal on the transfer of clean-energy technology. Together with our partners in India, China,  Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, Germany, Australia, and the United Kingdom, we think a new focus on technology will not only help to avert a climate crisis, but also transform the ongoing international negotiations into a forum focusing on shared opportunities rather than arguments over historically differentiated carbon emissions.

Our research involved speaking to more than 100 leading business people, government officials, and academics in eight countries:  Australia, Brazil, China, Germany, India, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United States. We reached three key conclusions through these discussions, which leaders should consider in enacting the new technology partnership mandate of the Major Economies Forum.

First, we argue, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also said, that a low-carbon technology revolution will not simply happen—it requires government intervention. Our research demonstrates that one of the major barriers to low-carbon technology is the lack of coherent policy at the domestic level in both industrialized and developing countries.

Conventional wisdom points to the importance of establishing economy-wide programs to price carbon emissions through taxation or trading, such as the cap-and-trade program passed recently by the House of Representatives as part of the American Clean Energy and Security Act. This may indeed help low-carbon technology over the longer term,  especially when innovations are more firmly established.

But right now more keenly targeted government policies are urgently needed, particularly because many of the barriers have to do with a lack of skills and know-how, including knowledge of how to make good policy, as well as the availability of technology. Such policies might include phasing in carbon standards for specific products or sectors,  providing tax incentives to drive investment in low-carbon energy, and generally creating stable investment climates and supporting the research, development, and deployment of new technologies.

The need for finance is the second conclusion of this study. Almost all of those interviewed identified the lack of upfront finance and financial mechanisms to help meet the higher costs of deploying new technology rapidly as being a major barrier to low-carbon technology.  The private sector should become the major source of low-carbon finance, but government money is needed early on to make new technologies cheaper and less risky. We at CAP advocated the establishment of a new national green bank to help achieve this outcome within the legislative architecture of the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

But beyond this domestic initiative we suggest that an international framework for reducing emissions should contain a mechanism to reward robust, comprehensive policymaking at the national level with new finance. Developed countries have an obligation under the existing U.N.  climate agreement to be the major contributors to this effort.

Third, we call for an international technologies initiative, which could help accelerate the collaborative development of new technology and realize the brightest and best ideas through the difficult demonstration stage to full commercial production and deployment. The so-called “valley of death” in which many great ideas perish for want of finance cannot be allowed to kill off important low-carbon innovations. We will argue for such an expanded function as part of the MEF’s Global Partnership on technology.

Again, many of the experts we consulted in our study highlighted the perilous state of research and development funding. We propose that governments, key academic institutions, and companies work together in regional hubs and under the umbrella of such a clean technology initiative to share equipment, know-how, and skills in an urgent drive to find the climate-saving technologies of the future, especially those that will also help bring energy services to poor people.

Some will balk at the suggestion that government should have such a strong role in driving new, low-carbon technology. And yet our study shows that while there are some differences of view among public servants, politicians, and people in the private sector, the overwhelming conclusion is that governments have to steer the low-carbon technology revolution, and do so with more purpose than has hitherto been the case.

Cooperating on technology will not be easy; the bailing out of banks and resuscitation of economies has led to large fiscal deficits in some countries, even if some of the money has helped deploy low-carbon technology. But our message in this research is clear: put technology at the heart of negotiations; agree on an international mechanism that rewards robust low-carbon development strategies; pool resources to plough into research, development, and project demonstration; focus on know-how as much as equipment; share knowledge across borders; and propagate skills.

Success at Copenhagen in December depends on reaching consensus in each critical area currently under negotiation. A clear commitment by developed countries to support robust, internationally approved,  national plans with new finance and agreement and a commitment to make the new MEF initiative on technology successful could lay the foundations for the low-carbon revolution we need.

Read the report: Breaking Through on Technology: Overcoming the Barriers to the Development and Wide Deployment of Low-Carbon Technology

For more information, see:

Andrew Light, Ph.D., is a Senior Fellow at American Progress specializing in climate, energy, and science policy. He coordinates American Progress’s participation in the Global Climate Network, focusing on international climate change policy and the future of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. He is also director of the Center for Global Ethics at George Mason University.

John Podesta is the President and CEO of the Center for American Progress.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. Kyriaki Venetis Posted 5:31 pm
    10 Jul 2009

    Kudos. The article has a lot of great information and resources. The one opinion I would add is that I understand that developing countries are concerned with their economies above all else, and consider worrying about emissions to be a luxury. Though, I wonder how much of a luxury they would consider it if they had hail the size of baseballs falling like it is now in Kansas, or the potential for crop damage from their local climate going awry.
  2. Delay And Deny's avatar

    Delay And Deny Posted 11:33 am
    11 Jul 2009

    Maybe it would be easier if instead of saying "low carbon technology" you simply said "hydrogen fuel cells".Because as far as I see, that's about the only thing worth pursuing.And btw, it seems like private investment is poised to reap the benefits of this solution to pollution.
  3. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 3:57 pm
    11 Jul 2009

    Very well written, although I don't think that governments should be the lead players, although "seed money" is a great idea.  Governments don't solve problems, people and scientists and engineers do.  Even the track record on many universities is mexed, since they like to grapple with the theoretical side instead of the applied.  That said, I will admit the the DOE and NASA have done some great things.But not always.  A new technology is being tried right now for ships that are 15 to 30 percent more efficient, and thus less CO2 - emitting.  The technology relies on micro-bubbles injected underneath the ship's hull.  Those crazy Norwegians didn't get a drop of government money that I am aware of, yet their invention is possibly a major break-through.  The reduction are impressive because very large auxiliary diesels are required to pump air to the bottom of the ship - with an alternate power source, additional reductions could be achieved.Another aspect that frightens me more than anything else, is that investment in the private side is way down, due to lack of liquid funds such as for wind turbines, wave machines, tidal turbines, advanced solar, capacitors, and so forth.  Sure there have been some great developments but many projects on the books are being cut off.  T, Boone Pickens just announced that he wouldn't build "the largest wind farm in the world" in the Texas Panhandle because of the poor economy.  Three offshore wind farms off New England are stalled, even after receiving regulatory approval.  The government itself is a major hurdle and barrier to such innovative developments because of a Balkanized energy policy - really not a policy, but "bad politics." With at in mind, I strongly doubt that governments can do the job via deficit spending, which never yields any profit.  Hydrogen cars have been mentioned, for example.  The government could come up with some perfectly fine prototypes, but would be totally unprepared to build a million of them.  They can hand out incentives, subsidies, and even mandates to companies like GM, but if the product run loses money, or nobody buys them because they might blow up, it just doesn't make any sense. Finally, I worry about talk like the US government, using its powers of Federalism and the Interstate Commerce Clause, could try to nationalize power generation, a leading source of greenhouse gases and especially with coal.  The world has been growing more nationalized and protective of national interests, despite all the rosy words and harmonious thoughts.  That's probably a topic for another posting though, although an issue the G-8 must eventually come to grips with.Good job and my thoughts are only meant for discussion, not an attack.
  4. sandra Posted 7:17 pm
    11 Jul 2009

    hi my name is sandra and want to let you this place to help our planet we will provide you a program who will gide you how to make more green our planet go here: http://974cf4pmv80j0n5bpn1fcy6y4-.hop.clickbank.net/
  5. Billhook Posted 6:16 am
    12 Jul 2009

    Quite why there is such faith in the idea that US promises at Copenhagen of Sus-Tech 'transfer' will cause developing nations to accept US preferences on burden sharing, seems to me opaque  - (particularly given Asia's massive increases in spending on graduate-level education and on Sus-Tech R,D&D).The lack of trust for US diplomatic integrity is deep and widespread - which is hardly suprising after 8 years of a US regime that tore up treaties as it pleased. Who can say just what the 2012 presidential election will empower ? Or any of the elections within the >50-year period of the climate treaty ?To participate in global emissions restraint, developing nations will need to own shares of the remaining 2012-2050 global GHG emissions budget (split into annually contracting global budgets) with those national shares converging (over an agreed period) from the present distribution de-facto reflecting nations' GDP, to a de-jure reflection of nations' population (at an agreed date). This eventual per capita parity of tradeable emissions rights is the essential guarantee of equity that will allow sufficient confidence of mutual interest for formal agreement and signing, and will buttress the treaty's operation against long term stresses.This framework is known as "Contraction & Convergence" and has engaged widespread formal support around the world.Here in Britain treasury spending on so-called "renewable" energy techs has been such a priority since 2000 that is has just about kept pace with treasury spending on rural bus services. Institutional corruption plus the conventional measures of cost-benefit analysis have kept the spending to this purely token level.The climate treaty's provision of a global emissions-licence price will transform the treasury's cost-benefit calculation for renewables R,D&D support, since it will face the need to buy in emissions licences from nations with a surplus if the UK exceeds its own allotted entitlements.At that point we may actually get some serious treasury backing for harnessing our quite exceptional energy resources, including forest biomass, geothermal and offshore wave, but until then, much as I'd like to, I don't see any serious change coming in the treasury's dismal calculations.Regards,Billhook
  6. Clifford Wells's avatar

    Clifford Wells Posted 6:18 pm
    12 Jul 2009

    Very interesting oberservations, Bill Hook.  Sounds par for the course?

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement