Talkin’ ’bout a Revolution
October 9, 2009
(3 votes, average: 3 out of 5)
Loading ...The 20th Century’s most successful revolution involved seeds rather than guns. The so-called Green Revolution used research and the latest agricultural techniques to drastically increase the yield of products such as wheat and rice and has been credited with saving more than one billion lives world-wide. India, for example, went from facing the threat of mass famine in 1964 to exporting 4.5 million tons of rice in 2006 thanks to this Green Revolution.
The time has now come for a second green revolution. Where the challenge of the last century was to find ways to feed the world’s billions of additional citizens, this century faces the additional threat of climate change and nothing else but a second revolution will do to tackle a problem of this size. Like before the solution lies in fostering research and innovation. Research is what kick-started the industrial revolution, eradicated smallpox and put men on the moon. It will also help the world to battle climate change.
This is something that the European Commission has always realised. It adopted in 2007 the European Strategic Technology Plan (SET-Plan) with the aim of accelerating the development and widespread market take-up of low carbon technologies. It now proposes to go one step further in a communication adopted this week by calling for an increase of investment in energy technology research by an extra €50 billion over the next 10 years. The SET-Plan brings together the research capacities of the major European institutes and universities, while industry has also been involved since the start. This is no surprise as this project will create business opportunities, stimulate market development and remove technological obstacles that discourage innovation and the market deployment of efficient low carbon technologies.
The time for talking about how to proceed has long passed as people across the globe increasingly feel the effects of a planet that is slowly but surely heating up. Only a few days ago a report by British scientists at the Met Office Hadley Centre warned the water supply of half the world’s population could be threatened by 2060 if nothing is done about climate change. Speeding up investment in innovation is a concrete measure to ensure the European Union will continue to lead in forging a sustainable future.
We can only hope that this green revolution will be as successful as the first. But with the future of our planet at stake, doing nothing is not an option.
Print This Post
Email This Post
RSS comments feed on this entry
October 9th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
1.
Regarding “A green revolution… The 20th Century’s most successful revolution involved seeds”
Well now, funny you should say that…
given the online coverage of the EU’s activities in this area…
for example:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/3317690/Vegetable-varieties-down-98-per-cent.html
” Some 98 per cent of vegetable varieties have disappeared over the past century and regulations are hastening the decline, according to an organic charity,
Garden Organic, which is dedicated to researching and promoting organic gardening, said 95 per cent of the vegetables eaten come from just 20 species of plants.
Remaining traditional species from Britain and abroad are facing extinction due to European Union regulations that ban the sale of seeds unless the variety is registered on a national or EU list.
Garden Organic said the loss of species threatened the diversity and of our food.
Relying on a few species also threatened the security of supplies.
Garden Organic runs a heritage seed library that aims to conserve and make available varieties that are disappearing. It said it had saved 800 types of vegetable that were on the verge of extinction. “
You see, Commissioner, this is where people like you and I will always differ.
I believe in variety and diversity.
I believe in the ability and right of consumers to decide what they can and can’t buy and use.
I don’t believe in your EU Commission and it’s hangaround committees defining what I can buy
- when it does not directly relate to usage safety reasons
(like poisonous food, or lead paint, or asbestos lining for example).
2.
Regarding low emission technology
Where there is a problem, deal with the problem.
By all means should efficient low emission and other technologies be encouraged:
(low emission referring to other substances in emissions too, whatever about the CO2 relevance)
But not by banning the alternatives.
Unfortunately, whether in the construction/production of buildings or TV sets or dishwashers or light bulbs,
many desirable product features, e.g. performance efficiency, appearance, construction
as well as lower purchase cost and indeed overall savings can be tied up with product versions that use more energy (see: http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x onwards).
Emissions,
can and should be dealt with directly,
electricity generation and transport account for 4/5 of CO2 emissions in developed countries
Limits can simply be set, like with mercury emissions, that have to be adhered to by certain dates.
The focus on electricity and transport gives several advantages:
http://ceolas.net/#cc1x (refers to the USA, but principles obviouslythe same for the EU)
1. Local environmental benefit from less pollution of sulphur and all else that’s in the emissions, regardless of the less certain or immediate global benefit from CO2 reduction.
2. Electricity supply alternatives which together with improved grid distribution gives better competition and keeps down electricity bills for consumers.
3. Transport alternatives (using electricity, hydrogen and other energy sources), which give variety of choice and competition advantages for consumers, additionally reducing the dependency on oil imports.
4. No trade problems: Unlike Cap and Trade, which involves cement, steel and other industries having to face imports from unregulated countries, the suggested electricity and transport changes are not just more limited, but also largely local.
Funding and Impact
Equity and long term loan finance can be used: Long term industrial loans from financial institutions, particularly if federal/state guaranteed, give low yearly interest repayments and lessen the effect on electricity bills or transport cost.
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
In 2020 (and again 2030), from then available evidence, either
1. There is increasing consensus that reduction attempts have no value: In that case little has been lost, since the described changes in electricity and transport industry carry their own benefit, or
2. Consensus remains that CO2 emission reduction should continue, in which case Europe is on track, and may continue with more specific emission reduction efforts towards 2050 that extend electricity and transport measures and can involve other industries, if necessary.
What the EU does instead:
You are all off to Copenhagen to set up a Mickey Mouse world emission trading agreement with more holes in it than a Swiss cheese.
The problem with emission trading based suggestions, involves unpredictability, expense, and needless disruption from normal business practice on one hand, and unnecessary profiteering from free allowance handouts with little actual emission reduction on the other hand, along with the difficulty of international monitoring of for example the unfair competiton of imported goods produced in unregulated countries, as already mentioned above.
The inadequacies are then of course papered over with extensive energy efficiency regulation on what people can or can’t buy and use.
Anyone who wants to know what emission trading (Cap and Trade) is all about and why it’s so bad:
http://ceolas.net/#cce5x
Market Reduction of CO2: Cap and Trade - or Not?
Basic Idea — Offsets — Tree Planting — Manufacture Shift — Fair Trade — Surreal Market — Real Market — Allowances: Auctions + Hand-Outs — Allowance Trading — Companies: Business Stability + Business Cost
– In Conclusion
Carbon Taxation is wrong also, as for example with a fuel tax applied to oil, coal and gas.
http://ceolas.net/#cce4x
The reason is that it’s not neutral:
There is nothing wrong with industry using fossil fuel,
if they adhere to given emission standards (by for example carbon capture and storage developments as at Schwarze Pumpe and Lacq), emission levels which may be tightened up over time,
in line with the given policy that the validity of just reducing the emissions of CO2 is kept under review.
.
October 13th, 2009 at 5:24 pm
The impact on the businesses is further lessened by the stability and predictability surrounding the funding.
Since only electricity and transport are involved, other business continues as usual and consumers and society in general are spared expense and disruption.
October 14th, 2009 at 5:12 am
is nothing wrong with industry using fossil fuel,
if they adhere to given emission standards (by for example carbon capture and storage developments as at Schwarze Pumpe and Lacq), emission levels which may be
October 14th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Dear Commissioner,
It is not a very good idea to tell “We can only hope that this green revolution will be as successful as the first.”
The hope you mention is the last we have as usual.
What it would be in between?
October 20th, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Dear Peter in Ireland,
I didn’t realize that the eurocracy had effectively forbidden also the sale of seeds that aren’t approved by the big brother. Thank you for pointing me to this.
This confirms once more that the only “revolutions” from the EU will assume the form of stricter regulation in order to suppress every bit of freedom of its citizens. Not that they want freedom, actually…
October 26th, 2009 at 3:37 pm
Commissioner Piebalgs,
Congratulations for November 3-rd.
Can you please tell a bit more to the public?
October 30th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
In this connection it was sorry to see the recent death of Norman Borlaug, the father of the Green Revolution.