SHI PENGFEI is bemused. His country, China, leads the world in installing
wind turbines鈥攁 technology UN scientists said this week is vital for
fighting global warming. More than 100,000 farmers run their own wind generators
in Inner Mongolia. And Shi, who works for China鈥檚 State Power Corporation, wants
to harness Mongolia鈥檚 winds to power Beijing. There is World Bank cash, Inner
Mongolia wants to sell, but Beijing, a city choking on coal fumes, won鈥檛
buy.
Why has the wind gone out of the industry鈥檚 sails? Local political wrangling
has stopped China meeting its national targets for installing turbines. Shi鈥檚
problem is mirrored in the latest report this week from the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change
(see p 12).
The report looks at fixes for global warming and says that 鈥渒nown
technological options鈥� could help the world to prosper while preventing
greenhouse gas concentrations rising higher than twice pre-industrial levels.
The IPCC argues that progress in fuel cells and wind turbines has been far
faster than anyone imagined. Great news, except that the panel also argues that
politicians don鈥檛 yet know how to implement the technologies.
Advertisement
Those Chinese wind turbines typify the problem. China is not the main
generator of greenhouse gases. But any plan for saving the world鈥檚 climate must
let countries like China鈥攚hich has the world鈥檚 largest coal
reserves鈥攇et rich on other energy sources. How do we make it happen?
Here is one blueprint. First world governments agree on a ceiling for
greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere鈥攕ay, twice pre-industrial
emissions. Then emissions entitlements are calculated for every country to
ensure we keep below the ceiling. Setting these targets will depend on
governments 鈥渃onverging鈥� on a formula based on national populations. To minimise
disruption, overpolluters could buy spare permits from 鈥渦nderpolluters鈥�.
Such a system, called 鈥渃ontraction and convergence鈥�, would be fair and
economically efficient, and create incentives for clean energy technologies. Its
backers include France鈥檚 Jacques Chirac and Britain鈥檚 Royal Commission on
Environmental Pollution. But not the IPCC鈥檚 policy wonks. Their summary for
policy makers ignores this eminently sensible blueprint. The authors, fighting
shy of saying anything 鈥減olitical鈥�, do not even clearly back a ceiling on
greenhouse gas concentrations.
This is madness. Clearly, the IPCC can鈥檛 endorse one blueprint. But it should
lay out the options. And contraction and convergence is only one. This report is
the third in recent weeks from the IPCC鈥檚 various working groups. The first two,
on the science and impacts of climate change, courageously explain the risks the
world runs. This third one fails to take up the challenge.
All is not lost. In September, the three IPCC groups will complete a
鈥渟ynthesis鈥� report on their work. They must take this chance to put things
right, and spell out clearly how the world should head off climate catastrophe.
Once politicians can see the method and the benefits, Shi can get back to
work.
