The U.S.-led six nation Asia-Pacific Partnership met in Sidney, Australia to set in motion plans to "pursue development and poverty eradication".
Representatives of the United States, China, Japan, India, South Korea and Australia met recently in Sidney to determine a course of action for their new Asia-Pacific Partnership, the announced purpose of which is to address the "urgent need to pursue development and poverty eradication," according to their official statement.
Although the partnership says that it wasn't formed to compete with the Kyoto Protocol, whose purpose is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, it appears that philosophically, they are poles apart. The Partnership's underlying premise appears to be the pragmatic assumption that only increased energy production can assure continued economic growth and with it greater prosperity for everyone, guaranteeing sufficient national wealth to tackle the pollution caused by increased energy consumption.
Does that sound like circular reasoning to you? It does to me, but hey, I am just a guy with a theology degree.
With respect to the question of which energy sources to encourage, the joint statement out of Sidney reads, "We recognised that renewable energy and nuclear power will represent an increasing share of global energy supply. We recognised that fossil fuels underpin our economies, and will be an enduring reality for our lifetimes and beyond".
As a result, the partnership agreed to work cooperatively to develop and disseminate "clean coal" technologies, along with researching other ways to reduce emissions from a host of critical industries including steel, aluminum and cement production.
Here are the six agreed upon areas of research.
- Accelerating the deployment of coal gasification and other clean coal technologies, particularly in those Partner countries with plentiful coal resources and rapidly increasing energy demand.
- Expanding the use of renewables to provide lower-cost, clean power in areas without access to modern energy services.
- Encouraging the power sectors in each Partner country to improve the efficiency and reliability of their electric power systems.
- Developing and deploying advanced manufacturing processes for cleaner aluminum, cement, and steel production.
- Strengthening adoption and use of building and appliance efficiency standards, using proven market approaches.
- Capturing and using coal-bed methane as a clean energy source, and adopting new techniques and technologies to improve safety and reduce emissions in the mining sector.
In order words, the plan is pretty much business as usual: lots of good intentions with little or no teeth.
With respect to the question of global warming, the Sidney communique states, "We view climate change in particular as a serious problem that warrants a long-term commitment to substantive action. The Partnership will be consistent with and contribute to our efforts under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and will complement, but not replace, the Kyoto Protocol".
Significantly, the word "conservation" isn't used anywhere in the statement and energy efficiency is used only once. Renewable energy is mentioned twice, while fossil fuels get three nods. Reducing greenhouse gas intensity is mentioned, but not greenhouse gas reduction.
All of this appears to be voluntary on the part of the six member nations collectively representing the largest greenhouse gas emitters in the world. While all this faith in the power of future technology is commendable, the unanswered question is why should any of them bother to comply? What's the motivation? What are the market forces that will drive it? Clean coal technology is likely to be much more expensive than current technology, at least initially. So, where's the incentive for developing nations like China or India to install these plants, when utilities in affluent nations like the United States fight tooth and nail, to the point of buying off politicians, to keep from having to install far less expensive scrubber technology?
Look, if car companies say they can't sell the "green benefits" of hybrids -- instead, they have to focus on fuel savings and increased performance -- then why would a utility in Guangzhou invest hundreds of millions of dollars in technology that will only reduce its profit margin just to feel good about itself?
While commendable, the whole enterprise seems to me a bit too faith-based: faith in immature, unproven technology and faith in the good intentions of people who have little economic incentive to participate.
How did Ronald Reagan put it? "Trust but verify"?