Forests in the Climate Treaty: Sinking the Solar Transition?
4/6/98
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: Forests in the Climate Treaty: Sinking the Solar Transition?
Source: Atmosphere Alliance, e-mail:atmosphere@olywa.net
Status: Contact source to reprint
Date: 4/6/98
Byline: Rhys Roth
Global warming is, first and foremost, about fossil fuels. The central
challenge of the climate crisis is to ramp up production of renewable energy
technologies to dramatically reduce their cost, making a clean energy
revolution inevitable. If the Kyoto Protocol allows nations and companies to
meet their obligations by substituting tree planting for actual reductions in
fossil fuel burning, the atmosphere loses.
Let's be clear: there is a huge chasm between the Kyoto Protocol targets and
what scientists tell us is needed to stabilize the atmosphere and put the
brakes on global warming. If we care about the forests, if we care about small
island nations and coastal communities, and about the life of the oceans and
all that depends on a stable climate -- then we must focus on accelerating the
renewables revolution.
Fixing atmospheric carbon in biological systems by, for instance, planting
trees, is no substitute for reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels
release into the Earth-atmosphere system ancient carbon from the planet's
crust, where it was locked safely away for millions of years. Carbon in
biological systems is not "locked away"; it is transitory. Forest disturbances,
especially forest fires increasingly likely as climate instability grows
release the carbon back to the atmosphere.
This is not to say that forests have no role to play in fighting global
warming. In fact, a decade-long program diverting a small fraction of military
expenditures in rich countries toward a large-scale program to protect and
restore forests would yield enormous security benefits. It would reduce social
instabilities that foster conflicts within and between nations by reducing
global warming, deforestation, flooding, and loss of ecological services.
The world will be significantly more secure, let alone more beautiful.
My argument is simply that forest programs should be separate from national
obligations to reduce fossil fuel emissions. Since tree planting is
comparatively cheap, it will be the economic choice to the extent allowed by
the treaty. The extraction and release of ancient carbon will continue unabated
and the mass commercialization of emerging carbon-free renewable energy sources
will be delayed.
The irony is that this will endanger forests, the storehouses of
excess carbon.
The solution to the climate crisis is to pull the costs of renewable
energy below that of fossil fuels. But won't this be enormously costly? While
conventional wisdom says so, many experts beg to differ. Denis Hayes, director
of the US Solar Energy Research Institute under President Carter, argues that
we can do it for solar photovoltaic (PV) in 4 years with just $5 billion. This
is less than the federal subsidies enjoyed each year by fossil fuel
corporations in the US!
The precedent is the computer chip. Huge government purchases in the 1960s
(mainly by the Defense Department and NASA) triggered mass production and
design innovations that pulled chip prices down. Low prices for chips created a
large commercial market, so production volumes shot up still further and prices
continued to drop.
The principle is simple: increase volume, reduce cost. A $5 billion commitment
to buy solar PV in billion dollar increments from any supplier that can meet
price targets that drop each year should do the trick -- after which no further
subsidy would be required. The program could be financed by the US, by the EU,
by the World Bank, the insurance industry anyone that can organize enough
purchasing power to drive prices down.
Tree planting is cheap, it offers great photo-ops for politicians and an
alternative to angering fossil fuel lobbyists. But tree planting is no
substitute for real reductions in fossil fuel burning. Let's say yes to a
large-scale program to protect and restore the Earth's forests, but keep it
separate from national obligations to reduce emissions.
Rhys Roth, Atmosphere Alliance, e-mail:[1]atmosphere@olywa.net