Germany to Swap Nukes for Renewables by 2022

CCS Could Trigger Earthquakes

IEA: World Should Eliminate Fossil Fuel Subsidies

Currency Trading Now $4 Trillion per Day

Study: Geoengineering Clouds Could Backfire

IEA: Solar Can Power One Quarter of World 2050

EU: Carbon Tariffs Risk Trade War

CCS No Fix for Warming: Study

EPA Sets Limits on GHGs from Cars

CO2-Absorbing Algae found Toxic to Sea Life

Economic Growth Must Stop: Study

Could "100 Miles of Mirrors" Power the US?

Bolivian Offset Test Falls 90 percent Short of Goal

US Has 10 Years to Get Off Carbon: WGBU Study

Carbon Scrubbing Eyed as Part of the Solution

Royal Society Cautiously Suggests Geoengineering

"Safe Climate" requires ditching 75 percent of carbon fuel reserves

"Carbon Trading Won't Stop Global Warming"

Ocean "Fertilization" Scheme Scuttled By Hungry Plankton

Proposal: Cut Emissions From Richest Individuals

WEF Calls for $10 Trillion in Clean Energy by 2030

CDM dam projects "game" the system

Scientists Worried About Geoengineering Schemes

Climate Stablization May Cost Three Times Earlier Estimates

GAO: Carbon Offsets are Unreliable

"The Climate Crisis and the Adaptation Myth" -- Robert Repetto

EPA Freezes New Coal Plant Construction

Uranium Reserves Too Scarce To Solve Energy Shortage

Old Grids Limit Clean Energy in US

Hidden Costs Bedevil Carbon Sequestration

Gore Calls for Carbon-Free US Electrical Grid By 2020

Sun-Blocking Mirrors Would Redistribute The Warming

G-8 To Cut Current Emissions 50 Percent By 2050

Reality Check for Carbon Capture and Storage

EU Raises Serious Doubts About Carbon Trading

McCain Calls for 45 New US Nuclear Plants

IEA Urges Rapid Global Energy Transition

Germany Resists G-8 Rush to a nuclear future

UN Halts Algae-Seeding Plan to Control Emissions

Offsets "deeply flawed" -- Christian Science Monitor

Clean Coal's Costs Put It On Life Support

DOE: Wind Can Provide Percent of Electricity by 2030

McCain Proposes Cap-and-Trade to Address Warming

Gordon Brown: World Needs a New Marshall Plan

Study: CCS Unproven and Too Late

Biofuels Found To Be Net Carbon Source

'Algae Seeding' Found Ineffective as Warming Brake

USDA Touts Promise of Grass-based Fuel

Offsets Fall Two-Thirds Short of Nature's Requirement (Nov. 2007)

UK Mandates 60 Percent Cuts by 2050

Biofuels Will Harm World's Poorest People: UN, Oxfam

Biofuels Seen as Financially, Environmentally Unsustainable

Lovelock Promotes Deep Ocean Tubes to Enhance CO2 Capture

Iron Fertilization of Oceans Explored

Biofuels Impact Climate More Than Oil

Aerosol Cooling Would Lead to Global Drought

Forests Nine Times Better than Biofuels For Cutting CO2

Geoengineering -- An Eternal Treadmill

The Economist: Cap-and-Trade Won't Work

FT: Why Carbon Trading Won't Work

FT: Countries Must Cut Emissions in Concert

Groping Toward A Carbon Pricing Regime

Toward A Real Kyoto Protocol (Nov. 2003)

"Rx For An Ailing Planet" (April, 2003)

Terrorism, Recession and The Climate Crisis

Solutions Overview

A Modest Proposal to Stop Global Warming (Sierra, May/June 2001)

Rx For A Planetary Fever (May 8, 2000)

GEF: Multi-Billion Market in Renewables (Feb. 2001)

World Energy Modernization Plan

Highlights of Plan

Energy Modernization Plan: A Narrative

Download the Plan

German translation of Plan

French translation of Plan

Spanish translation of Plan

"A Good Climate For Investment" The Atlantic Monthly, June, 1998

Rewiring the World with Clean Energy

  REWIRING THE WORLD WITH CLEAN ENERGY

         
         Many creative schemes have been proposed to pacify our inflamed atmosphere. Unfortunately, virtually all of them address only domestic emissions.
 
         The reality, of course, is that the problem is global. If the countries of the West were to cut emissions dramatically, those cuts would be overwhelmed by the coming pulse of carbon from India, China, Mexico, Nigeria and the large developing economies.
 
         One plan to rewire the world with clean energy involves three macro-level strategies to propel a global transition to non-carbon energy.
 
          * In industrial countries, withdraw all subsidies from fossil fuels and redirect equivalent subsidies to non-carbon energy sources;
          
           * Create a large global fund of about $500 billion a year to transfer clean energy technologies to developing countries; and, 
 
           * Incorporate within the Copenhagen framework a progressive  Carbon Intensity Standard that rises by 5 percent per year.
        
          The urgency cannot be overstated: the deep oceans are warming, the tundra is thawing, the glaciers are melting, infectious diseases are migrating and the timing of the seasons have changed. 
 
         In the next few decades, we will see increasing crop failures, more water shortages, uncontrolled migrations from areas which can no longer support their populations and a succession of extreme weather events which will cripple national budgets.
 
         This plan was designed to provide one model of the scope and scale of action that is appropriate to the magnitude of the climate crisis.  
 
          * The subsidy switch:  the U.S. currently spends more than $12 billion a year to subsidize oil and coal. In the industrial countries overall, those subsidies have been estimated at  more than $90 billion a year.  
 
         Those industrial country subsidies should be rapidly phased out and redirected to clean energy sources.  (A tiny portion of the U.S. subsidies would be used to retrain or buyout the nation's coal miners.)   The lions' share of the subsidies would be used by major energy companies to retrain their workers and become aggressive  developers of fuel cells, wind farms, and solar systems. 
 
         That same subsidy switch would activate an army of energy engineers and entrepreneurs -- with successively more efficient generations of solar film, turbines and tidal devices -- in a burst of creativity that would rival the dot.com explosion of the 1990s.
 
          * The global fund of about $500 billion a year for several years to jumpstart renewable energy infrastructures in developing countries. Virtually all poor countries would love to go solar; virtually none can afford it. 
 
The fund could be financed by a carbon tax in industrial countries or a tax on international air travel. A third alternative, a tax  on international currency transactions, would involve the private banking system in implementing the transition.  Today the commerce in those swaps amounts to about $5 trillion per day. A tax of a quarter-penny on a dollar  would exceed (a roughly estimated) $500 billion a yearfor wind farms in India, fuel-cell factories in South Africa, solar assemblies in El Salvador, and vast, solar-powered hydrogen farms in the Middle East.
 
Since currency trades are electronically tracked by the private banking system, the banks would receive a fee to administer the fund, avoiding the need for a new bureaucracy.  That fee would offset the banks' loss of income from the contraction in currency trading. Moreover, the administration of the fund by the banks would minimize corruption and ensure the money goes directly to clean energy projects. As renewable infrastructures take root in developing countries, the fund could be phased out.
         
          * The progressive Carbon Intensity Standardis the basic driver of the plan. It would harmonize the energy transition in a way that emissions trading cannot. 
 
         Under this Standard, every country would start at its current baseline to increase its carbon fuel efficiency by 5 percent a year. To comply, each country would produce the same amount as the previous year with five percent less carbon fuel.  Alternatively, it would produce five percent more with the same carbon fuel use as the previous year.  (Domestic cap-and-trade programs could be very useful in helping countries meet their goals.)
 
Since no economy grows at five percent for long, emissions reductions would outpace long-term economic growth. 
 
For the first few years, countries would achieve the 5 percent reductions simply by eliminating the waste -- the 'low-hanging fruit' -- in their current energy systems.  As those efficiencies became more expensive to capture, countries would meet the progressive efficiency standard by deploying clean energy technologies which are 100 percent "carbon efficient."
 
That, in turn, would create the mass markets and economies of scale for renewables that would bring down their prices and make them competitive with coal and oil.
 
A nation's compliance could be measured simply by calculating the ratio of its carbon fuel use to its gross domestic product.  That ratio would have to change by 5 percent a year.
 
In sum, the subsidy switch would propel the metamorphosis of oil companies into energy companies; the progressive Carbon Intensity Standard would harmonize the transformation of national energy structures; and the competition for the new $500 billion a year market in clean energy would power the whole process.     
 
          A worldwide transition to renewable energy would also dramatically reduce the significance of oil -- and with it our exposure to the political volatility in the Middle East. A diverse renewable energy economy --  with its home-based fuel cells, stand-alone solar systems, regional windfarms -- would make the electricity grid a far less strategic target for terrorists. 
 
        Most significantly, development economists tell us that energy investments in poor countries create far more wealth and jobs than equivalent investments in any other sector. 
 
      A properly framed global energy transition would create millions of jobs in developing countries and begin to redress the economic inequity that threatens to split humanity irreparably between rich and poor.
        
        Stepping back, a plan of this magnitude would turn impoverished and dependent countries into trading partners. It would raise living standards abroad without compromising ours.  And in a very short time, it would jump the renewable energy industry into a central, driving engine of growth of the global economy. 
 
          Finally, at the risk of being overly visionary, because energy is so central to our existence, a common global project to rewire the world with clean energy could be the first step on a path to peace even in today's profoundly fractured world: Peace among people and peace between  people and nature. 
 

 (For a much more detailed explanation of the plan, see: 
              "Global solution: rewiring the world with clean energy"
 
 
                                  ( c) Ross Gelbspan