-
The United States and China: Clean Energy Friends or Foes?
July 7, 2010 // By Joshua NickellMORE
As the world moves toward clean energy alternatives, companies in the United States and China are working to develop new, more cost-efficient manufacturing processes and increase their shares of the domestic and export markets for new renewable energy technologies. Controlling production lines and growing market share will certainly have important economic implications for both countries. But over the long term, a broader perspective suggests that cooperative initiatives to increase the capacity and reduce the cost of renewable energy technologies may produce benefits on both sides of the Pacific.
At an event co-hosted by the Wilson Center on the Hill and the China Environment Forum last month, John Romankiewicz, a senior analyst for China Clean Energy and Carbon Markets at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, and Ethan Zindler, head of North American Research at Bloomberg New Energy Finance, considered the big picture implications for U.S.-China clean energy cooperation and development.
Coming from an investment background, Zindler said that he looks at clean energy development “not as a social project, but as an industry.” The end goal, he asserted, is to produce clean energy more cheaply than fossil fuels. Zindler argued that if clean energy remains prohibitively expensive and uncompetitive without subsidies, it will be more difficult to implement and less likely to produce the desired environmental benefits.
Romankiewicz discussed China’s current supply of and growing demand for energy, pointing out that China’s power grid has grown by more than 70 gigawatts per year during each of the past 5 years, and that “at some point next year, the total installed capacity of China’s grid will surpass that of the United States.”
While coal and hydropower continue to play a significant role in meeting this growing demand, Romankiewicz noted that China also has set ambitious investment targets for wind farms, solar farms, biomass power plants, and other renewable energy sources.
China Looks to Go Global With Renewables
China is investing in clean energy not only to serve growing domestic energy demands, but also to become a major force in the international market, Romankiewicz asserted. Already, China has made impressive advances in clean energy industries: Of the top 15 wind turbine producers, four are Chinese and only two are American. Of the top 10 crystalline-silicon solar cell producers, six are Chinese.
But how will the United States impact China’s drive to become a major player in exporting clean energy technologies? Romankiewicz argued that breaking into the American market could prove exceedingly difficult for Chinese companies given the stiff competition from U.S. companies and other foreign firms.
The speakers also emphasized the importance of understanding the complex global economic implications of clean energy development. “If the Chinese are helping to drive down the cost… then they make solar less expensive,” said Zindler, “which means you can create more jobs in California or New Jersey.” Romankiewicz cautioned against reading too much into the “Made in China” label on clean energy technologies, as the supply chain could include parts from all over the world.
Though he maintained that focusing on the long-term benefits of clean energy investment in the United States would prove beneficial, Zindler advocated for a modicum of urgency. “I think a lot of opportunity would be missed potentially because there is innovation that doesn’t just come from a lab but comes from building newer and newer assembly lines,” Zindler remarked. But in the end, he characterized the U.S.-China battle for influence in the world’s renewable energy market as “a marathon, not a sprint,” asserting that “we’ve got a long way to go to determine who the winner will be in the clean energy race here.”
Joshua Nickell is a staff intern with the Program on America & the Global Economy at the Woodrow Wilson Center.
Photo Credit: <Wind Turbine Manufacture (in China),” courtesy of flickr user ANR2008. -
Eye On
U.S. Navy Task Force on Implications of Climate Change
What about climate change will impact us? That’s the question the Navy’s Task Force Climate Change is trying to answer. Rear Admiral David Titley explains the task force’s objectives in this interview by the American Geophysical Union (AGU) at their recent “Climate Change and National Security” event on the Hill.MORE
The task force is part of the military’s recent efforts to try to better understand what climate change will mean for the armed forces, from rising sea levels and ocean acidification to changing precipitation patterns. In the interview, Admiral Titley points out that for the Navy in particular, it is important to understand and anticipate what changes may occur since so many affect the maritime environment.
The Navy’s biggest near-term concern is the Arctic, where Admiral Titley says they expect to face significant periods of almost completely open ocean during the next two to three decades. “That has huge implications,” says Titley, “since as we all know the Arctic is in fact an ocean and we are the United States Navy. So that will be an ocean that we will be called upon to be present in that right now we’re not.”
Longer term, the admiral points to resource scarcity and access issues and sea level rise (potentially 1-2 meters) as the most important contributing factors to instability, particularly in places like Asia, where even small changes can have huge impacts on the stability of certain countries. The sum of these parts plus population growth, an intersection we examine here at The New Security Beat, is something that deserves more attention, according to Titley. “The combination of climate, water, demographics, natural resources – the interplay of all those – I think needs to be looked at,” he says.
Check out the AGU site for more information, including an interview with Jeffrey Mazo – whose book Climate Conflict we recently reviewed – discussing climate change winners and losers and the developing world (hint: the developing world are the losers).
Sources: American Geophysical Union, New York Times.
Video Credit: “What does Climate Change mean for the US Navy?” courtesy of YouTube user AGUvideos.Topics: Arctic, Asia, climate change, demography, environment, environmental security, Eye On, military, natural resources, oceans, population, security, video -
Urbanization, Climate Change, and Indigenous Populations: Finding USAID’s Comparative Advantage
May 26, 2010 // By Kayly OberMORE
“Part of the outflow of migrants from rural areas of many Latin American countries has settled in remote rural areas, pushing the agricultural frontier further into the forest,” writes David López-Carr in a recent article in Population & Environment, “The population, agriculture, and environment nexus in Latin America.” In a May 4 presentation at the LAC Economic Growth and Environment Strategic Planning Workshop in Panama City, Panama, he discussed how to integrate family planning and environmental services in rural Latin America.
Latin America is one of the most highly urbanized continents in the world, with an average of 75 percent of the population living in cities. However, “there are two Latin Americas,” said López-Carr at the workshop, which was sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program and Brazil Institute, as well as the U.S. Agency for International Development. Largely developed countries like Chile, Argentina, and Uruguay are close to 90 percent urbanized, while Guatemala, Ecuador, and Bolivia are about 50 percent. In less urbanized countries, rural-rural migrants in search of agricultural land remain a major driving force behind forest conversion, he said.
Between 1961 and 2001, Central America’s rural population increased by 59 percent, said Lopez-Carr. The increasing density of the rural population had a negative impact on forest reserves: a 15 percent increase in deforestation totaling some 13 million hectares.
“Rural areas of Latin America still have high fertility rates but (unlike much of rural Africa, for example) also have a high unmet demand for contraception, meaning that improved contraceptive availability would likely result in a rapid and cost-effective means to reduce population pressures in priority conservation areas,” he said. Additionally, remote rural areas with high population growth rates tend to be associated with indigenous populations located in close proximity to protected forests.
For example, in Guatemala, communities surrounding Sierra de Lacandon National Park have, since 1990, grown by 10 percent each year, with birthrates averaging eight children per woman. Larger communities and larger households have led to agricultural expansion, which infringes on the park and accelerates deforestation in one of the most biologically diverse biospheres in the world, said López-Carr.
Based on these demographic and environmental trends, López-Carr suggested USAID’s work in the region should focus on rural maternal and child health, and education – especially for girls. Not only does USAID already invest in such programs, but they only cost pennies per capita and could reduce the number of rural poor living in Latin American cities by tens of millions.
Given the strong links between population density and deforestation in Latin America, expanding access to family planning would also be a smart investment in forest conservation and climate mitigation, López-Carr concluded.
Source: Population Reference Bureau.
Photo Credit: Dave Hawxhurst, Woodrow Wilson Center. -
Beat on the Ground
Philippines’ Bohol Province: Elin Torell Reports on Integrating Population, Health, and Environment
MOREFor 10 years, I have been working on marine conservation in Tanzania with the University of Rhode Island’s Coastal Resources Center. As part of that effort, I’ve helped forge links between HIV/AIDS prevention in vulnerable fishing communities and marine conservation. However, family planning and reproductive health (FP/RH) were relatively new to me. But a recent study tour of an integrated Population, Health, and Environment (PHE) program in the Philippines helped me understand that combining family planning services and marine conservation can help reduce overfishing and improve food security.
Together with developing country representatives from seven African and Asian countries, I spent two weeks in February visiting three PHE learning sites and a marine protected area in Bohol province in the central Philippines, as part of a South-to-South study tour sponsored by the USAID-funded BALANCED Project, for which I work. The tour focused on the activities of the 10-year-old Integrated Population and Coastal Resource Management Initiative (IPOPCORM) project, which is run by PATH Foundation Philippines, Inc. (PFPI).
IPOPCORM has garnered a wealth of lessons learned and best practices to share with PHE newbies like me. Its integrated programs train people to be community-based distributers (CBDs) of contraceptives and PHE peer educators, as well as work with local and regional government officials to build support for family planning as a means to improve food security.
I was most impressed with the ways in which PFPI identifies and cultivates dynamic and motivated local leaders–men, women, and especially youth–to reach out to the members of their community who are highly dependent on marine resources for their survival. My Tanzanian colleagues and I would like to foster the volunteer spirit and “can do” attitudes we experienced through our work in East Africa. (Similar PHE peer educators are successfully working in Ethiopia’s Bale Mountains, as reported by Cassie Gardener in a previous edition of the “Beat on the Ground.”
My favorite part of the tour was a trip to the Verde Island Passage to see PFPI’s efforts in this fragile hotspot. The insights my Tanzanian colleagues and I gained from talking to the field practitioners in the Verde Islands helped us refine our ideas for translating some of the PHE techniques used in the Philippines to the Tanzanian cultural context, including an action plan for strengthening our existing PHE efforts with CBDs and peer educators.
Thanks to the study tour, I now have a better understanding of how to address population pressures in the context of conservation. Overall, my Tanzanian colleagues and I were inspired by the successes we saw firsthand and hope to emulate them to some degree in our own projects.
Elin Torell is a research associate at the Coastal Resources Center at the University of Rhode Island. She is the manager of CRC’s Tanzania Program and coordinates monitoring, evaluation, and learning within the BALANCED project. -
Reading Radar
Climate Change and U.S. Military Strategy
MOREPromoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and U.S. Ground Forces, a new working paper by Christine Parthemore of the Center for New American Security (CNAS), delves into how climate change will affect future operating environments, related missions, equipment, and capabilities of U.S. ground forces. The working paper, part of “Promoting the Dialogue” series, is based on interviews, research, and site visits. The paper follows Promoting the Dialogue: Climate Change and the Maritime Services, also by Parthemore, and a publication on climate change’s implications for air missions is forthcoming. Parthemore concludes with recommendations for areas of future research and a call for “[d]eeper intellectual study of how climate change is likely to affect the U.S. ground forces.”
Neil Morisetti, U.K. rear admiral and climate and energy security envoy, and Amanda Dory, U.S. deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy, published an article in Defense News discussing the inclusion of climate change as a new variable in strategic planning. “The Climate Variable: World Militaries Grapple With New Security Calculus” labels climate change a “threat multiplier,” noting that “[c]limate change will amplify the impact of some of the world’s most difficult and common challenges.” Morisetti and Dory call for greater military-to-military engagement concerning disaster response, studies into at-risk military infrastructure, and efforts to foster innovative energy technologies. “Current military operations must continue to be our highest priority, but we also have a responsibility to assess the future security environment, including the impacts of climate change and other key trends such as energy, demographics, economics and science/technology,” they conclude.
Morisetti and Dory recently spoke at the Wilson Center as part of a panel discussing climate change and energy in defense doctrine. -
City Living: World Health Day 2010 Focuses on Urban Health
April 7, 2010 // By Julien KatchinoffMORECelebrating World Health Day, the World Health Organization, with its partners around the globe, today launched an initiative for healthly lives in urban settings, through the theme “1000 Cities, 1000 Lives.” “We are at a critical turning point in history where we can make a difference,” said Dr Ala Alwan, assistant director-general for noncommunicable diseases and mental health.
Since the first World Health Day 60 years ago, the world has seen a dramatic rural exodus. Today, more people live in urban areas than anywhere else. Providing healthy livelihoods for the urban poor is a challenge, as poverty-stricken urban centers face a number of health obstacles, from high child mortality rates, environmental pollution, and widespread disease, to a lack of access to basic water, sanitation, and health care.
“In general, urban populations are better off than their rural counterparts,” said WHO Director-General Margaret Chan. “They tend to have greater access to social and health services and their life expectancy is longer. But cities can also concentrate threats to health such as inadequate sanitation and refuse collection, pollution, road traffic accidents, outbreaks of infectious diseases and also unhealthy lifestyles.”
The 1000 Cities campaign hopes to encourage all cities to promote healthy activities during the week following World Health Day (4/7-4/11). Through a new website, the WHO is collecting profiles and pictures in an easy-to-navigate map. Notable activities include HIV/AIDS-awareness flashmobs, skateboarding and cycling competitions, car-free days, outdoor sports events, and dance performances, in cities as diverse as Mandalgobi, Mongolia; Bangalore, India; and Luanda, Angola.
The Wilson Center’s Environmental Change and Security Program and its Comparative Urban Studies Program have collaborated on urbanization events and publications that examine the strong and critical connections between healthy urban populations and environmental sustainability.
With proper attention paid to delivering population, health, and environmental services in our urban centers, it may be possible to leverage the benefits of higher urban densities—such as lower aid dispersion costs, communication access, infrastructure services, and fertile environments for ideas and productivity—to ensure urban sustainability for the future. -
Canada Flip-Flops on Family Planning, Will the G-8 Follow?
April 5, 2010 // By Laura PedroMORE“The Canadian government should refrain from advancing the failed right-wing ideologies previously imposed by the George W. Bush administration in the United States, which made humanitarian assistance conditional upon a ‘global gag rule’ that required all non-governmental organizations receiving federal funding to refrain from promoting medically-sound family planning,” said the Canadian Liberal Party about the country’s Conservative government in a Parliamentary motion last week.
Though Prime Minister Stephen Harper had pledged to include a voluntary family planning initiative in Canada’s foreign aid plan at last year’s G8 meeting in Italy, the Conservative government recently said that the initiative will not be part of its G8 plan at the upcoming meeting in Canada this June.
This move has surprised both Canadians and Americans. U.S. President Obama overturned the Mexico City policy last year, and has fully supported the inclusion of family planning methods as part of foreign aid.
Harper’s government has maintained that maternal and child health services, such as vaccinations and nutrition, will be a priority, but various components of family planning, including birth control and abortion, will not be included in the Canadian initiative.
The Tories, as along with three Liberal MPs, voted down the Liberal motion 138-144, which requested clarification of Harper’s maternal health initiative and pushed for the inclusion of the full range of family planning options. The Tories focused solely on what they called “anti-American rhetoric” in the motion, which drew attention away from the divisive issue of abortion.
The issue has got caught up in domestic Canadian politics, with opposition Liberals trying to equate the Conservatives with the George W. Bush administration and the Conservatives trying to avoid discussion of intra-party debates on the contentious issue of abortion.
Now it seems likely like that Harper will go to the G8 summit in Ontario with a foreign aid plan for maternal health that makes no reference to issues of contraception. According to Canada’s International Co-operation Minister Bev Oda, “saving lives” of women and children is a higher priority than family planning.
But most international maternal health advocates don’t agree. “Maternal mortality rates are high among women who do not have access to family planning services. Contraception can reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies,” said Calyn Ostrowski, program associate for the Wilson Center’s Global Health Initiative. “For example, at a recent event on our Maternal Health series, Harriet Birugni of the Population Council in Kenya described how integrating reproductive health services such as family planning can reduce maternal mortality rates, particularly for poor young women who have the least access to contraception.”
In response to Canada’s announcement, U.S. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton said that the United States will be promoting global health funding, including access to contraception and abortion, at the G8. “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health,” she said during a news conference with other G8 ministers. Britain has also agreed with this position, which has led Canadian Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff to say that Canada’s G8 position goes against the international consensus.
Laura Pedro is the program assistant for the Canada Institute, and a graduate of the University of Vermont.
Photo.: Prime Minister Stephen Harper, courtesy Flickr user Kashmera -
Is the Melting Arctic a Security Challenge or Crisis? The View From Russia and Washington
March 24, 2010 // By Geoffrey D. DabelkoMOREIn his opening remarks at the Security Council of the Russian Federation’s meeting on climate change last week, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev framed climate change as a force for increased competition and “disputes between countries.” Unsurprisingly, he focused on the Arctic region and what he called the “inadmissible” and “unfair” threats to Russia’s access to the region’s resources:
We must not forget either that climate change can give rise not only to physical change, change in the nature around us, but can also see the emergence of disputes between countries over energy exploration and extraction, the use of marine transport routes, bioresources, and shortages of water and food resources. The countries bordering the Arctic region are already actively engaged in expanding their research, economic, and even military presence in the Arctic. Unfortunately, in this situation, we are seeing attempts to limit Russia’s access to exploring and developing Arctic energy deposits, which is inadmissible from a legal point of view and unfair in terms of our country’s geographical location and very history.
His reference to “shortages of water and food resources” fits squarely within the increasingly common view of climate change’s potential as a “conflict accelerant” (see, e.g., the U.S. Department of Defense’s 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review) or “threat multiplier” (as in CNA’s National Security and the Threat of Climate Change and statements from representatives of the UK and EU foreign offices).
But his Arctic comments sounded different than what I’ve been hearing in Washington. The Arctic rightfully gets a lot of attention for alarming rates of physical change, newly accessible resources, and potential new shipping routes. Yet remarks at a recent spate of Arctic climate and security discussions suggest officials in Washington view the geopolitical and trade issues more as “challenges” than “crises.”
For example, last month at the Stimson Center, and just yesterday at the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Lab, the U.S. Navy’s director of Task Force Climate Change and oceanographer, Rear Admiral David Titley, used “challenge” rather than “crisis” to depict the security situation in the far North. At numerous panels, officials and experts expressed confidence that the Arctic Council and related institutions are forums robust enough to manage current and future disputes.
Ironically, one of those key institutions is UNCLOS, the Law of the Sea treaty, which has been ratified by 157 countries, but not the United States. U.S. military and civilian officials alike see ratification as a key step for the United States to represent its interests in these critical multilateral settings. Nevertheless, we can anticipate some knee-jerk demagoguery about the treaty ceding U.S. sovereignty to the United Nations, so the Senate is unlikely to take up the issue until after the fall 2010 elections.
I want to thank friend and colleague Alexander Carius, co-director of Adelphi Research, for calling President Medvedev’s speech to my attention.
Photo: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, courtesy Flick user World Economic Forum
Subscribe:
