Bjørn Lomborg writes on hisFacebook page about this story on WUWT: Newsbytes: Japan Stuns UN Climate Summit By Ditching CO2 Target
The last twenty years of international climate negotiations have achieved almost nothing and have done so at enormous economic cost. Japan’s courageous announcement that it is scrapping its unrealistic targets and focusing instead on development of green technologies could actually be the beginning of smarter climate policies.
Japan has acknowledged that its previous greenhouse gas reduction target of 25 per cent below 1990 levels was unachievable, and that its emissions will now increase by some 3 per cent by 2020. This has provoked predictable critiques from the ongoing climate summit in Warsaw. Climate change activists called it “outrageous” and a “slap in the face for poor countries”.
Yet, Japan has simply given up on the approach to climate policy that has failed for the past twenty years, promising carbon cuts that don’t materialise – or only do so at trivial levels with very high costs for taxpayers, industries and consumers. Instead, al…most everyone seems to have ignored that Japan has promised to spend $110 billion over five years – from private and public sources – on innovation in environmental and energy technologies. Japan could – incredible as it may sound – actually end up showing the world how to tackle global warming effectively.
Unfortunately the Japanese model is not even on the agenda in Warsaw. The same failed model of spending money on immature technologies remains dominant. That involves the world spending $1 billion a day on inefficient renewable energy sources — a projected $359 billion for 2013. But a much lower $100 billion per year invested worldwide in R&D could be many times more effective. This is the conclusion of a panel of economists, including three Nobel laureates, working with the Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think-tank that publicises the best ways for governments to spend money to help the world.
If green technology could be cheaper than fossil fuels, everyone would switch, not just a token number of well-meaning rich nations. We would not need to convene endless climate summits that come to nothing. A smart climate summit would encourage all nations to commit 0.2 per cent of GDP – about $100 billion globally – to green R&D. This could solve global warming in the medium term by creating cheap, green energy sources, that everyone would want to use.
Instead of criticising Japan for abandoning an approach that has repeatedly failed, we should applaud it for committing to a policy that could actually meet the challenge of global warming.
Read the full article in Britain’s The Times:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/article3924584.ece
More on Japan’s new climate policies: http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-11-14/japan-sets-new-emissions-target-in-setback-to-un-treaty-talks
h/t to David Hagen
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The green tech has to be not only cheaper, but available when needed.
Well, $100 billion wasted is better than $359 billion but it is a leap of raith that the technology will work if only the government throws money at it. Let’s keeep looking for Plan C
But that undermines the whole point of the green movement – wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor. Of course it’s not on the agenda in Warsaw.
Hmm, Plan B, isn’t that OTC at the corner pharmacy?
Japan’s courageous announcement that it is scrapping its unrealistic targets and focusing instead on development of green technologies could actually be the beginning of smarter climate policies.
Not really, but it could be the beginning of smarter policies that recognize that preparing for a changing climate is a better alternative than wasting time, effort, and money attempting to change the climate.
I think the decision to drop the old targets was inevitable, given the decision to shut down all the nuclear power plants for an indefinite period.
What global warming would Bjørn be talking about again?
With Japan out, it should now be clear that the Kyoto Accord was a European deal and not a world deal. Developped countries have no targets, Eastern European countries’ level started from pre-collapse levels, North-America is out, Australia in and out,… Only Europe wanted this. It`s time to move Europe`s model aside, and start becoming more realistic.
“Instead, almost everyone seems to have ignored that Japan has promised to spend $110 billion over five years – from private and public sources – on innovation in environmental and energy technologies.”
Will that include safer nuclear power, the only “green” technology that might economically replace some fossil fuels in the near future?
As nobody has shown that there is actually any ‘catastrophic’ global warming that needs to be stopped. By all means reduce waste, improve energy and resource efficiency, and stop energy projects that are dangerous for the environment such as wildlife killing windmills. But otherwise we are on the climate train and it has far more power than some people’s hubris lets them believe. Therefore, the best way forward is what is known as ‘masterly inactivity’ or perhaps don’t do something, sit there!
I’m sorry, but if CO2 is not a significant driver of global climate, isn’t all this discussion a bit pointless?
And how does this stop global warming? Is this a calculation based on someone’s climate model?
Only innovation will make things more efficient. Innovation comes from prosperity. Global Warming policies stifle prosperity. This entrenches the very technologies advocates seek to replace, with no return, leaving nothing but a wealth transfer. It’s ineffective, wasteful, and at it’s worst a scam. Good for Japan.
Oh, and is global warming something we really need to be concerned about?
After all the chest-thumping, and pontifications, and prognostications, and multimillion-dollar climate models, the simple obvious fact is that CO2 doesn’t really make much difference at all (except for the positive plant-fertilization part).
The EARTH has been conducting her own experiment that has shown no rise in global temperatures over 15+ years despite addition of 10% more CO2. Q.E.D. – carbon dioxide is not a climate driver and need not be contained, sequestered, nor reduced.
Conserving energy is a good thing, just as an expression of efficiency. But it’s a personal choice.
Reducing CO2 is pointless, expensive, and full of negative consequences for national sovereignty.
Let’s build thorium-based reactors instead!!
cheap green energy sources! What cheap green energy sources? Verso Economics in Scotland in their report last year found that for every green job produced two to three ordinary jobs are lost from the economy! so much for cheap green energy!
Climate Change, err, I mean the new mini-ice age threat that is upon us will require the world to push for greater efficiencies in existing energy usage and greater insulation effectiveness to husband limited supplies of energy so there will be enough to go around. Japan being a northern hemispheric nation subject to prolonged intense cold of winter must act now to protect it’s population from freezing. To that end, the most cost effective solutions need to be taken first such as CTL technology for coal to diesel oil production for transportation, transferring as much thermal processes as possible to natural gas from electricity such as industrial, commercial, residential cooking, heating homes and water.
Thorium reactors need to built as soon as possible to replace outdated accident prone, light and heavy water reactors for the production of electricity and also to replace the existing coal fired plants.
We must act now, any delay will cause millions to die of cold and starvation. It is irresponsible to wait until the crisis is upon us. Can you take the chance of it not happening in your lifetime?
What are ‘green technologies’ and would you happen to have a LCA showing that they have a lower environmental impact?
Since AGW is a non-problem, having a non-plan B makes a lot of sense. Not very innovative however. California and Germany have been doing it a long time.
David says:
With Japan out, it should now be clear that the Kyoto Accord was a European deal and not a world deal.
Support from the mainstream in Europe is waning too. It seems that the Euro taxpayers in France, Germany, Spain, Greece et al are running out of money to flush down this particular toilet.
Before long it will just be down to the Marxists and environmental whackos. Shame on us if we allow those extremists to dictate economic policy.
Maybe “off topic”, but I’ve recently seen TWO “Tesla” cars, with labels on them (license plate frames) which said: Zero Emissions!
My thought, that completely explains the mentality of the owners. ENOUGH SAID.
“The last twenty years of international climate negotiations have achieved almost nothing…”
YAY!
Boy, plan be is fast. Global warming has stopped! 🙂
“Cimate change activists called it “outrageous” and a “slap in the face for poor countries”.
Freudian slip, your red interior is showing through your green coating.
Here we are at the end of interglacial and “we’re” worried about global warming. WUWT?
Ok, so, for those that just insist on ignoring all the data that clearly shows that increasing atmospheric CO2 isn’t a problem; nature has provided you with the answer to arresting if not reversing the atmospheric CO2 trend. Mt. Pinatubo eruption paused the CO2 increase by some mechanism, some say increased primary production due to increased diffuse solar radiation:
http://faculty.washington.edu/timbillo/Readings%20and%20documents/CO2%20and%20Forests%20readings/Gu%20et%20al.%202003%20Science%20Pinatubo%20and%20photosynthesis.pdf
This conclusion would need to be confirmed, but if true, then the obvious answer is to spend money increasing primary production. Just think if all the money wasted by NGO’s lobbying for carbon regulations, government projects, climate junkets, and carbon trading were spent on projects like increasing irrigation in developing countries. WOW! Feed people and stop the CO2 increase at the same time.
If your motivation is really to save the world from increasing CO2, Mt. Pinatubo shows you the way, however, if your true motivation is to rebel against the status quo then just keep on doing what you’re doing.
Gary Hladik says: “Will that include safer nuclear power, the only “green” technology that might economically replace some fossil fuels in the near future?”
If the UK experience is anything to go for “economic nuclear” would appear to be an oxymoron.
http://www.thegwpf.org/nuclear-subvention-amount-truly-astronomical-cost/