Former Vice President Al Gore charged universities with the task of bringing the truth of the climate crisis into the global consciousness yesterday at Harvard’s Tercentenary Theatre.
The keynote address – which drew several thousand of Harvard students, faculty, staff and guests despite the cold and threat of rain – followed a daylong private roundtable hosted by Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center and attended by leading climate change and energy experts.
The roundtable, hosted by Belfer Center Director Graham Allison, focused on Gore’s challenge of making all electricity used in the U.S. to be from renewable energy within ten years.
“We can make the transformation,” Gore said. “We can do it sooner than people think. It is possible. We can, with American leadership, galvanize a global commitment to solve the climate crisis. We must do it with this generation. We have everything we need, with the possible exception of political will, but political will is a renewable resource.”
Gore and Harvard President Drew Faust emphasized the role universities have and will continue to play in addressing climate change. “Universities are charged to look beyond the immediate and beyond the local, to take the long view and the broad view. Climate change requires just such an approach,” Faust said.
Gore highlighted the pattern of decisions being made based on flawed perspectives instead of knowledge, citing climate change, but also the economy and Iraq War. He compared the “sub-prime mortgage fiasco” to the greenhouse-gas emissions crisis because both were based on assumptions that led people to believe they were safe.
“We now have a few trillion dollars of sub-prime carbon assets, whose value is based on another assumption that is in the process of collapsing, namely that it is perfectly all right to put 70 million tons of global warming pollution into that thin shell of atmosphere every 24 hours. It’s not okay,” Gore said.
He also cited that the day before the Senate voted to invade Iraq, more than 75 percent of Americans thought Saddam Hussein was responsible for the terrorist attack on Sept. 11, despite the lack of fact to back up that perspective.
“Too many of our decisions in this country are now made on the basis of information supplied not from universities, not from processes governed by the rule of reason, but instead by self-interested institutions, corporations, groups that want to make questions of fact questions of power,” he said. “Our challenge is to find the truth of the climate crisis and use it as a basis of the development of a new consciousness of who we are.”
Gore’s keynote address was the highlight of Harvard’s first Sustainability Celebration, which highlighted the university’s previously announced commitment to reduce its greenhouse-gas emissions by 30 percent from 2006 levels in eight years. The celebration included booths giving out T-shirts that read “GREEN in the new Crimson” and reusable water bottles and serving squash bisque, apple crisp, warm cider, and kettle corn.
This article was originally published here: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18626/
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Monday, October 20, 2008
A nuclear weapon-free world is possible, Nunn says
The U.S. must work with other countries – both those with nuclear capacities and those without – to move toward a nuclear-free world, according to former U.S. Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA).
Nunn outlined what he believes needs to be done to reduce and ultimately eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons while delivering the inaugural Robert S. McNamara Lecture on War and Peace on Friday (Oct. 17) at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum. The discussion was moderated by Belfer Center Director Graham Allison.
“I believe America would be far more secure if no one had nuclear weapons,” Nunn said. “Right now we can’t see the top of that mountain. It’s very difficult to see. But we can see that we’re heading down the mountain.
“But if we want our children or grandchildren to have any hope of seeing the top of the mountain, and in the meantime to help prevent a catastrophic terrorist attack in the United States, we’ve got to have that kind of world movement,” he said.
Nunn served in the Senate from 1972-97 and as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1987-95. Among his legislative achievements is the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which helps former Soviet states control and protect their nuclear weapons, weapons-usable materials, and delivery systems. Nunn is currently co-chairman and the chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
To begin moving toward the goal of a nuclear-free world, Nunn told the Forum audience, the U.S. and other Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatories must complete the steps outlined in the treaty to address the new threats of nuclear terrorism and the familiar threats posed by nuclear countries using their weapons and non-nuclear countries attaining weapons.
Nuclear-armed countries in particular, Nunn said, have an obligation to reduce their arsenals.
“We and the Russians and other nuclear powers are viewed by the rest of the world as not living up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty,” he said. “We have to march up the mountain together.”
Nunn said the U.S. needs to begin serious and substantive discussions with Russian leaders on a number of critical issues – including missile defense, nuclear warning systems, and nuclear submarines – if the nuclear-free dream is to be realized.
“We’ve had all sorts of windows of opportunity to find ways to work with Russia, and for their reason and our own reasons, we have not done so,” Nunn said.
But while Russia’s actions and perceived intentions may arouse concern for some, Nunn is much more concerned about non-state actors using nuclear weapons.
“I’m much more concerned about a terrorist without a return address that cannot be deterred than I am about deliberate war between nuclear powers,” Nunn said. “You can’t deter a group who is willing to commit suicide. We are in a different era. You have to understand the world has changed.”
This article was originally published here: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18606/
Nunn outlined what he believes needs to be done to reduce and ultimately eliminate the threat of nuclear weapons while delivering the inaugural Robert S. McNamara Lecture on War and Peace on Friday (Oct. 17) at the John F. Kennedy Jr. Forum. The discussion was moderated by Belfer Center Director Graham Allison.
“I believe America would be far more secure if no one had nuclear weapons,” Nunn said. “Right now we can’t see the top of that mountain. It’s very difficult to see. But we can see that we’re heading down the mountain.
“But if we want our children or grandchildren to have any hope of seeing the top of the mountain, and in the meantime to help prevent a catastrophic terrorist attack in the United States, we’ve got to have that kind of world movement,” he said.
Nunn served in the Senate from 1972-97 and as the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1987-95. Among his legislative achievements is the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program, which helps former Soviet states control and protect their nuclear weapons, weapons-usable materials, and delivery systems. Nunn is currently co-chairman and the chief executive officer of the Nuclear Threat Initiative.
To begin moving toward the goal of a nuclear-free world, Nunn told the Forum audience, the U.S. and other Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) signatories must complete the steps outlined in the treaty to address the new threats of nuclear terrorism and the familiar threats posed by nuclear countries using their weapons and non-nuclear countries attaining weapons.
Nuclear-armed countries in particular, Nunn said, have an obligation to reduce their arsenals.
“We and the Russians and other nuclear powers are viewed by the rest of the world as not living up to the Non-Proliferation Treaty,” he said. “We have to march up the mountain together.”
Nunn said the U.S. needs to begin serious and substantive discussions with Russian leaders on a number of critical issues – including missile defense, nuclear warning systems, and nuclear submarines – if the nuclear-free dream is to be realized.
“We’ve had all sorts of windows of opportunity to find ways to work with Russia, and for their reason and our own reasons, we have not done so,” Nunn said.
But while Russia’s actions and perceived intentions may arouse concern for some, Nunn is much more concerned about non-state actors using nuclear weapons.
“I’m much more concerned about a terrorist without a return address that cannot be deterred than I am about deliberate war between nuclear powers,” Nunn said. “You can’t deter a group who is willing to commit suicide. We are in a different era. You have to understand the world has changed.”
This article was originally published here: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18606/
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Memo to the Next President: Addressing the Energy Crisis
In this exclusive web video, Kelly Sims Gallagher, director of the Energy Technology Innovation Policy (ETIP) research group, outlines the priorities on which the next president should focus in order to address the energy crisis and climate change.
TRANSCRIPT
Kelly Sims Gallagher is director of the Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. She is an international member of the Task Force on Innovation for the China Council International Cooperation on Environment and Development.
One challenege in the way of an "energy revolution" is the lack of technology. What kinds of technology need to be developed, and how can the next president encourage this?
Well, I think the biggest challenge to the energy system right now is the need to develop low-carbon technologies that are economic in the market place. So, the next president will really need to focus on creating an incentive structure that allows both the private sector and government-funded research to flourish in terms of the development and deployment of low-carbon energy technologies.
Considering the recent discovery that there are reachable shale beds of natural gas in the U.S., what are the pros and cons of tapping this resource?
Natural gas from shale has been uneconomic to produce for many years and the reason why is that it's trapped in sedimentary rock. So it's quite difficult to extract. But recent technology, which permits horizontal drilling, has allowed previously uneconomic resources to be exploited. And this has helped to increase the production of natural gas in the United States for the first time in this century. It's still not clear that the reserves that we have in terms of shale oil can be economically fully exploited. And that really depends on the level of the natural gas price. Gas prices are still relatively high so it's economic to produce the shale gas. But if gas prices were to fall back down, it would be more difficult to economically recover it.
Should the U.S. drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the off shore? Will this address the current energy crisis in a real way?
Depending on how you define the energy crisis, off-shore oil drilling and drilling in ANWR may help to increase the world supply of oil. The off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR is not an immediate fix. Any kind of drilling will take quite a long time – the exploration needs to be done; wells need to be drilled; off-shore oil platforms need to be built. So it's a longer-term solution. And in any event, it's not guaranteed that increased off-shore oil production will help reduce gas prices at the pump. Whatever is produced will be sold on the world oil market, and whatever the prevailing world oil price is will be the level at which gas prices remain. So if it helps to add a lot to world supplies of oil, then prices should come down. But if the effect is pretty marginal, then prices may not fall too much.
What part does the international community play in the energy crisis, and in what way should the U.S. engage the global community?
I think, in my opinion, there are two dimensions to the energy crisis. One is the vulnerability and insecurity with large U.S. dependence on foreign oil and gas supplies. And the second, and more difficult challenge, is the global climate change challenge. In both cases high-degree of international cooperation is required to make significant progress to reduce or relieve the crisis. Taking the energy security question, if large consuming countries have a mechanism to cooperate with each other to release stock piles of oil in the event of a crisis or to build stockpiles in times of no crisis, that kind of cooperation really reduces the power that the oil suppliers have over consuming countries. And to take the climate change example, it's a global problem and the biggest emitters are the United States and China. And if those two countries don't cooperate with it's not going to be possible to address the climate change challenge.
How are energy policy and climate change connected?
Climate change is driven by burning of fossil fuels, and that's the main connection with energy. Some fossil fuels are more carbon intensive, and therefore more potent in terms of their global warming potential. Coal is the most carbon intensive of all the fossil fuels. And so to the extent we burn more coal, and we might want to do that from an energy security point of view, we make the climate change problem worse. And to the extent we're able to improve overall energy efficiency, use cleaner fuels, lower carbon fuels, and move, of course, to renewables or nuclear energy, which is carbon free, we're able to make great progress in terms of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
This was originally published here: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18590/
TRANSCRIPT
Kelly Sims Gallagher is director of the Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group at Harvard University's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. She is an international member of the Task Force on Innovation for the China Council International Cooperation on Environment and Development.
One challenege in the way of an "energy revolution" is the lack of technology. What kinds of technology need to be developed, and how can the next president encourage this?
Well, I think the biggest challenge to the energy system right now is the need to develop low-carbon technologies that are economic in the market place. So, the next president will really need to focus on creating an incentive structure that allows both the private sector and government-funded research to flourish in terms of the development and deployment of low-carbon energy technologies.
Considering the recent discovery that there are reachable shale beds of natural gas in the U.S., what are the pros and cons of tapping this resource?
Natural gas from shale has been uneconomic to produce for many years and the reason why is that it's trapped in sedimentary rock. So it's quite difficult to extract. But recent technology, which permits horizontal drilling, has allowed previously uneconomic resources to be exploited. And this has helped to increase the production of natural gas in the United States for the first time in this century. It's still not clear that the reserves that we have in terms of shale oil can be economically fully exploited. And that really depends on the level of the natural gas price. Gas prices are still relatively high so it's economic to produce the shale gas. But if gas prices were to fall back down, it would be more difficult to economically recover it.
Should the U.S. drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) and the off shore? Will this address the current energy crisis in a real way?
Depending on how you define the energy crisis, off-shore oil drilling and drilling in ANWR may help to increase the world supply of oil. The off-shore drilling and drilling in ANWR is not an immediate fix. Any kind of drilling will take quite a long time – the exploration needs to be done; wells need to be drilled; off-shore oil platforms need to be built. So it's a longer-term solution. And in any event, it's not guaranteed that increased off-shore oil production will help reduce gas prices at the pump. Whatever is produced will be sold on the world oil market, and whatever the prevailing world oil price is will be the level at which gas prices remain. So if it helps to add a lot to world supplies of oil, then prices should come down. But if the effect is pretty marginal, then prices may not fall too much.
What part does the international community play in the energy crisis, and in what way should the U.S. engage the global community?
I think, in my opinion, there are two dimensions to the energy crisis. One is the vulnerability and insecurity with large U.S. dependence on foreign oil and gas supplies. And the second, and more difficult challenge, is the global climate change challenge. In both cases high-degree of international cooperation is required to make significant progress to reduce or relieve the crisis. Taking the energy security question, if large consuming countries have a mechanism to cooperate with each other to release stock piles of oil in the event of a crisis or to build stockpiles in times of no crisis, that kind of cooperation really reduces the power that the oil suppliers have over consuming countries. And to take the climate change example, it's a global problem and the biggest emitters are the United States and China. And if those two countries don't cooperate with it's not going to be possible to address the climate change challenge.
How are energy policy and climate change connected?
Climate change is driven by burning of fossil fuels, and that's the main connection with energy. Some fossil fuels are more carbon intensive, and therefore more potent in terms of their global warming potential. Coal is the most carbon intensive of all the fossil fuels. And so to the extent we burn more coal, and we might want to do that from an energy security point of view, we make the climate change problem worse. And to the extent we're able to improve overall energy efficiency, use cleaner fuels, lower carbon fuels, and move, of course, to renewables or nuclear energy, which is carbon free, we're able to make great progress in terms of reducing global greenhouse gas emissions.
This was originally published here: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18590/
Economic Realities Must Guide Africa's Constitutional Reform Efforts
African countries need new constitutional orders to cope with modern economic challenges, Calestous Juma said at a recent lecture.
The lecture focused on Kenya, where Juma is from, because of the violence that followed its election in December 2007. While the international media blamed the violence on ethnic tensions, he believes these tensions are enflamed with each election because of the lack of inclusive economic development.
“This is largely because Africa’s governance systems are continuation of the colonial constitutional orders which defined the region as a source of raw materials,” he said
Juma, professor of the practice of international development and director of the Belfer Center’s Science, Technology, and Globalization Project, listed the steps African countries need to take to utilize the basic liberties they have to produce the economic gains and development they need for a stable future.
A major challenge is based in the constitutions and laws left behind for the newly liberated countries. “What was being negotiated as independence was really an exercise in constitutional continuity from the colonial period through independence,” Juma said. “And so you find a clear pattern, all across Africa, of continuing colonial practices.”
While there is enormous pressure on African countries to focus on economic programs, they are unable to because the governmental framework left behind did not integrate the economic role of the colonizer into the new role of president. “The role of the governor was transferred to the president,” Juma said. “The president was focused on ethnic balancing, not economic development.”
This fundamental problem has lead to a growing gap between the constitutional structure and objectives, according to Juma. The main areas to focus on to address these issues are: infrastructure, regional integration, technical and vocational training, and entrepreneurship.
Infrastructure is key “for the reinvention of the continent,” Juma said. China has played a large role in developing infrastructure ― both for travel and communication ― in Africa, which some feel is for its own benefit, but the impact is felt by everyone.
Infrastructure is an important part of economic development, specifically in terms of regional integration. Africa needs to open up its economic space, and sited several organizations already on their way. “Trying to fix the problem on a country-by-country basis is not working. It’s the same colonial model,” Juma said.
One challenge in the way of regional integration is that individual countries are concerned about the prospect of a regional president. But Juma thinks that option should be taken off the table because it is stalling the economic development opportunities that the countries need.
Another major issue linked with violence surrounding elections is the lack of job and education opportunities. Juma said that entrepreneurial opportunities need to be created to create new jobs. “The challenge of the continent is not managing existing businesses, but creating new enterprises,” he said.
One enterprise that needs to be developed is technical and vocational training institutions. Juma said people need access to training so they can get jobs, which will in turn foster economic development and ease tensions among different ethnic groups. Both of these will address the unemployment problem, which also adds to ethnic tensions.
Without addressing all of these issues, Kenya and other African countries will not be able to breakdown the colonialist system left behind and create a lasting political and economic structure, Juma said.
This article was originally published here: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18589/
The lecture focused on Kenya, where Juma is from, because of the violence that followed its election in December 2007. While the international media blamed the violence on ethnic tensions, he believes these tensions are enflamed with each election because of the lack of inclusive economic development.
“This is largely because Africa’s governance systems are continuation of the colonial constitutional orders which defined the region as a source of raw materials,” he said
Juma, professor of the practice of international development and director of the Belfer Center’s Science, Technology, and Globalization Project, listed the steps African countries need to take to utilize the basic liberties they have to produce the economic gains and development they need for a stable future.
A major challenge is based in the constitutions and laws left behind for the newly liberated countries. “What was being negotiated as independence was really an exercise in constitutional continuity from the colonial period through independence,” Juma said. “And so you find a clear pattern, all across Africa, of continuing colonial practices.”
While there is enormous pressure on African countries to focus on economic programs, they are unable to because the governmental framework left behind did not integrate the economic role of the colonizer into the new role of president. “The role of the governor was transferred to the president,” Juma said. “The president was focused on ethnic balancing, not economic development.”
This fundamental problem has lead to a growing gap between the constitutional structure and objectives, according to Juma. The main areas to focus on to address these issues are: infrastructure, regional integration, technical and vocational training, and entrepreneurship.
Infrastructure is key “for the reinvention of the continent,” Juma said. China has played a large role in developing infrastructure ― both for travel and communication ― in Africa, which some feel is for its own benefit, but the impact is felt by everyone.
Infrastructure is an important part of economic development, specifically in terms of regional integration. Africa needs to open up its economic space, and sited several organizations already on their way. “Trying to fix the problem on a country-by-country basis is not working. It’s the same colonial model,” Juma said.
One challenge in the way of regional integration is that individual countries are concerned about the prospect of a regional president. But Juma thinks that option should be taken off the table because it is stalling the economic development opportunities that the countries need.
Another major issue linked with violence surrounding elections is the lack of job and education opportunities. Juma said that entrepreneurial opportunities need to be created to create new jobs. “The challenge of the continent is not managing existing businesses, but creating new enterprises,” he said.
One enterprise that needs to be developed is technical and vocational training institutions. Juma said people need access to training so they can get jobs, which will in turn foster economic development and ease tensions among different ethnic groups. Both of these will address the unemployment problem, which also adds to ethnic tensions.
Without addressing all of these issues, Kenya and other African countries will not be able to breakdown the colonialist system left behind and create a lasting political and economic structure, Juma said.
This article was originally published here: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18589/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)