Interview with Daniel Kammen, lead author of IPCC report section on Renewable Energies
Noize from the Future works on Saturday too, to deliver you fresh, interesting and insightful pieces of news. This morning we met Daniel Kammen, leading author of the IPCC renewable energy policy report. Below you can also find the video of his speech in front of the Copenhagen Climate Congress plenary in March 2009.
Q: On Copenhagen Climate Council’s webpage you say that “The scientific verdict on climate change is long-since decided; we must act now, not in a decade, but now.” The consequences of not acting now from a scientific point of view are clear…
A: Well, the outcome is clear that it won’t be good but the precise outcome is not clear. Whether it will be heat waves, or problems with fish population – the details are not clear. We are very well adapted to this climate and we are not adapted to the climate that may come.
Is not that the global climate models don’t show precisely at what date or what concentration of CO2. but ll the models show that the environment is diverging from what it used to in a decade or two.
Q: How would an unsatisfactory outcome of the UNFCCC affect the work of the research and development community and all those who are already working on the ground, implementing solutions?
A: It wouldn’t be good for us, although not major. But if the environment changes too much, you never know. but certainly it would be a shame if we didn’t take more action because many of the technologies and policies that we know we need are already existing, and they are not even that expensive. In fact, there is this ongoing debate where developing countries think that the number for year should be around USD 150bln, and essentially Europe and the US are talking more about USD 10bln or 12bln. This sounds like a lot in the world of finance but this not a whole lot of money compared to the environmental damage. So, it would be very unfortunate not to act. Because this is not actually that part of the problem, we just have to choose to solve it, rather than choosing to wait.
Q: This conference has seen an unprecedented degree civil society participation. What is your assessment of the pressure exerted by civil society on the ongoing political process? Helpful or harmful?
A: I don’t think it’s harmful at all, it is surely a good thing. I’m surprised that the pressure is so late. There is supposed to be 50’000 people marching here today, so let’s hope, because the first week has done very little. And can’t keep pulling it off. Three months ago everyone said: “Oh Copenhagen is going to be the big meeting, there’s going to be a treaty signed, etc.” Now, that’s gone. And so now people are saying: “Well, this was a good meeting, but Mexico – that’s the important meeting, that’s going to be the big one.” You can’t keep doing that and it’s a big mistake. I’ve been going to COP meetings for 10 years and it’s always the next one or the next two, which means that a lot of time has been wasted.
Q: The case has been made that to avoid politicization, the IPCC should be no longer under the aegis of the UNFCCC. What is your view on that?
A: I don’t have a very strong view on this. Whether it’s under one UN agency or another, or a foundation – I don’t think it matters very much. I am the lead author on the renewable energy policy report, that is the current road map for a low-carbon economy. And I cannot tell my authors what to do. People work on different sub-sections and you cannot tell them what to do. They are going to write what they want. So I don’t think it really matters where it’s based. Scientists, economists, physicists – they are a very unruly bunch, it’s hard to tell them what to do. And the most important feature of the IPCC isn’t very it’s based but that it’s a lot of scientists around the world, with different backgrounds and different political views. The only problem I see is that it’s a long process and it takes years to write a report, but I don’t think there’s much issue about politicization – it’s too much of a big group, several thousands of scientists.
Q: A draft deal was put on the table yesterday. It doesn’t seem to address too much the concerns showed by the IPCC. Is there still margin for major improvements modifications in your view?
A: That’s right, the draft deal doesn’t address the major scientific concerns at all. There’d better be margin, because unfortunately what’s still happening is that all of this kind of documents have all been written in the world of politics, but nature doesn’t care about politics. Nature’s clock is totally independent from the political process. And even worse than that nature doesn’t care about how carbon-intensive our economies are. That’s a number based on economic terms. We are not going to get anywhere until the units we use reflect nature sand the amount of money we are talking about reflects how much it costs to change the fossil fuel economy. And both these areas so far, not only this COP but all COPs haven’t done enough. We are not speaking nature’s language yet. So it’s a long way to go. Maybe that could be changed overnight but they are not speaking nature’s language yet.
Q: So how many more COPs will be needed to reach the right deal?
A: One, this one! If you think that on average it costs USD15’000 per person to come to COP, it’s even clearer that we can’t waste more time and resources.
~~~~
Daniel Kammen is Professor of Energy at the University of California, Berkeley, where he holds appointments in the Energy and Resources Group, the Goldman School of Public Policy, and the department of Nuclear Engineering. Kammen is the founding director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory (RAEL). Kammen is also the Co-Director of the Berkeley Institute of the Environment.
Thanks to ‘GHF Youth Forum/ Noize from the future’
