Views and debates on climate change policy
Home | Panelists | Staff Blog | RSS

Lars G. Josefsson
CEO, Vattenfall

Lars G. Josefsson

Lars G. Josefsson is president and CEO of Vattenfall, Europe's fifth largest generator of electricity and the largest generator of heat with operations in Denmark, Finland, Germany, United Kingdom, Poland, Netherlands and Sweden. He is also a member of the UN Secretary-General's Advisory Group on Energy and Climate Change. ALL POSTS

Capping emissions and stimulating investment go hand-in-hand

Q: As the prospects for a climate bill in the Senate get dimmer, some in Congress have said the solution is not to limit U.S. emissions but instead invest in green technology (wind, solar or earth's natural heat) that might be able to produce the same energy but with less pollution. Is this a good way to go, instead of setting a legal limit on emissions?

There is no doubt that investment in new energy solutions must be prioritized. There is equally little doubt that the investment will have to come from companies -- the private sector will probably have to put up 80 percent of the needed investment if we are to meet the urgency of the challenge. So the question is, how do you get companies to invest?

I believe that a cap on emissions is a central part of the answer. A long-term cap that is low enough will essentially rule out investment in technologies that emit carbon dioxide, and force companies to look to alternative solutions. When combined with an emissions trading system, the cap creates a situation where companies make money by reducing emissions -- thus creating a revenue source that underpins their investments. Such a system leaves the companies to choose the most competitive options for getting the job done, rather than asking governments to 'pick winners.'

But other mechanisms are needed as well. Public investment in R&D is important, and programs that provide financial support and risk sharing can help get new technologies past the 'death valley' of demonstration and out into the marketplace. Standards and labelling for consumer products will also help stimulate demand.

It's not a question of either/or. A cap on emissions is a tool for increasing investment - correctly implemented, it will be the most important tool.

By Lars G. Josefsson  |  February 4, 2010; 6:21 AM ET Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Subsidies vs. market apporach | Next: Both are needed

Comments

Please report offensive comments below.



FLASH!!

This Brand New Video Blows a Huge Gaping Hole in Obama's Cap and Tax Scheme: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BVm5-6H_sH4

Posted by: CommieBlaster | February 6, 2010 6:55 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Here are a Few of the MANY Scientists Who Believe Global Warming is Primarily Caused by Natural Processes and NOT because of Greenhouse gases!

- William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University [1] [2]

- Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics [1]

- Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University [1]

- Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician and astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences [1]

- Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia [1] [2]

- Frederick Seitz, retired, former solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences [1]

- Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics [1]

- George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California [1]

- Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa [1]

- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology [1]

I will listen to these guys instead of Al Gore who thinks the “Earth’s core temperature is several millions of degrees”. Al is also Vice President of the CHICAGO (hint) Climate Exchange and stands to make Billions if Cap and Trade legislation passes. That almost sounds like a conflict of interest? Hmmmmmm

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | February 5, 2010 9:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Mann e-mail of 11 Mar 2003
In one e-mail, as a response to an e-mail indicating that a paper in the scientific journal Climate Research had questioned assertions that the 20th century was abnormally warm, Mann wrote:

“I think we have to stop considering Climate Research as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal."[37]


Jones e-mail of 8 Jul 2004
An 8 July 2004 e-mail from Phil Jones to Michael Mann said in part:

"The other paper by MM is just garbage. [...] I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"


Jones e-mail of 2 Feb 2005
A 2 February 2005 email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann includes:

"And don't leave stuff lying around on ftp sites - you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days?—ours does! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind.”


Trenberth e-mail of 12 Oct 2009
An email written by Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, discussed gaps in understanding of recent temperature variations:

"The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't,"[


Phil Jones
"I've just completed Mike's Nature TRICK of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to HIDE THE DECLINE."

You don't have to be a Climate Scientist to understand this. We are supposed to invest Trillions of Dollars based on the manipulation of Data by Corrupt Scientist? Thank God for Senator Inhofe!

Posted by: Senator_Salesman | February 5, 2010 9:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment

Post a Comment


 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company