In the opening paragraph, they seem to chide industrialized countries for their inability to reduce carbon emissions by stating,
"Having failed to stem carbon emissions in rich countries or in rapidly industrializing ones, policy makers have focused their attention on the only remaining target: poor countries that do not emit much carbon to begin with."
The authors fail to acknowledge that a major reason for action is because vested interests have been fighting action for years. In fact, in during the last election cycle, dirty fuel companies spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to ensure no meaningful action happened on climate change. They also neglect to mention many of the real steps the Obama Administration has taken on climate change – without the involvement of Congress.
But the real errors come later. You see, I work in the energy business. I spend much of my time developing clean and robust energy solutions for the developing world; solutions that make economic and environmental sense. My projects focus on using wind, solar, and geothermal power to replace dirty energy power sources (like coal and diesel generation). We are discovering that we can use wind and solar to pump and purify water, to power cellular communication towers, to light villages – all with competitive prices and less maintenance than dirty alternatives. Please Roger Pielke, don't lecture us on the need for energy in the developing world; I see this reality daily. And don't lecture us on whether there are novel solutions available today that can provide that energy at competitive prices. In fact, if we are smart, we can build energy industries within the developing world so that the economic rewards can flow back into local economies.
How about real examples? I have worked on the ground building inexpensive geothermal cooling systems for buildings in Mali. With almost no cost to construct, we are able to lower temperatures in rooms to more comfortable levels without air conditioning. We also can provide small-scale wind power solutions for remote energy applications with payback periods of 5 years or less. These systems, which are robustly constructed and inexpensive, will have long lifetimes for supplying much needed energy. We are currently working on water heating and purification systems that can be employed almost anywhere for minimal cost yet provide an endless supply of potable water.
It isn't just my team; others are similarly working on both large-scale and distributed wind, solar, and hydropower systems that will prove Pielke wrong. In fact, I've recently written on the intersection of energy and climate change in Kenya and Cameroon.
The elephant in the room with this article was the near neglect of the impact of climate change on people living in the developing world. I have worked in Uganda, Mali, Kenya, and Cameroon and I have spoken with experts on the ground who see climate change in their daily lives. Members of governments, industrial researchers, agricultural experts, hydrology experts, and Deans and Presidents of universities: they are telling me the same story. Climate change is being felt on the ground, in people's lives. It is particularly impacting agricultural practices.
As the climate continues to change, we need to weigh the costs of action against the costs of inaction. Sure, getting one country here or another country there to reduce emissions won't, in the end, change the trajectory of our future. But encouraging countries to work together to reduce emissions will. Creating market forces which reward clean energy innovation rather than business as usual will allow innovators to create the future economy in energy.
The authors downplay the role efficiency can play as part of the solution. In my mind, efficiency is the first and most significant step to solving our intertwined energy and climate problems. By using our current energy more wisely, we reduce emissions and save money; a true no-brainer. We need to advocate for efficiency improvements in all countries around the globe. As an energy expert, I've seen enormous amounts of waste both in the United States and in Africa. I am convinced efficiency improvements can move us a significant way toward our reduced pollution goals.
Perhaps what bothered me the most was the assumption by the authors that since Western countries have used copious amounts of energy, we are not in a position to legislate energy usage for emerging economies. Further, the authors suggest that copious dirty energy use is a necessary condition for development. What the authors fail to recognize is that our energy evolution was shortsighted and wasteful. If we could turn back the clock, I am certain we would have chosen an alternative pathway with a greater emphasis on smart energy use and production.
All those barrels of oil and train-car loads of coal we wasted through inefficiency. The emerging economies have the right to be as stupid as we were (as these authors argue) but we should make every effort to work together as global partners to ensure a smarter path is chosen. A path that leaves emerging economics with more financial resources and all of us with a healthier planet.
The most humorous part of this article is the fact the authors essentially contradict themselves. Roger Pielke has claimed that acceptable levels of carbon dioxide are 450-500ppm (who knows how he came up with that number). If he still believes this, then my challenge is this, how can we stay below 500 ppm without significant improvements to efficiency? How do we stay below 500 ppm without all countries pulling their share of the load? Finally, how do we tell the current and future populations of the emerging economy world, a population that is already feeling the impacts of climate change, not to worry? We'll just build a dirty coal plant in your neighborhood and it will all work out in the end? Sorry Roger, this doesn't pass the smell test.