The release of climatic gasses has unacceptable environmental consequences. An increase in the global temperature will lead to the rising of the sea level, changes in precipitation and wind patterns, loss of biological diversity and a decrease in the quality of life, especially in the poorer parts of the world.
Norway is one of the Great Powers in the energy world with 75% of all oil reserves, 30% of all gas reserves and 30% of all gas production in Western Europe. As a large exporter of CO2 we have an international responsibility to develop new clean energy solutions. One cannot expect the poorer developing countries to bear these expenses.
In spite of the considerable impact hydropower has, the CO2 produced by Norway per inhabitant is at the same level as for the other countries in Western Europe. The emissions are increasing greatly, while at the same time we must decrease these by 90%.
Under the best conditions for developing new sources of renewable energy we can eliminate the burning of oil, and with the technology for removal and depositing of CO2 , we can reduce emissions created by the Oil Industry quite drastically. In addition, we can dispose of the emissions from waste deposits very inexpensively. Looking further down the road, our special advantages when it comes to production and use of hydrogen dictates that we must place demands on putting this to use in fuel cells in the transport sector.
By 2020 we can cut CO2 emissions in half, free up one/sixth of today's power usage, produce 50TWh of renewable energy and concurrently export large amounts of "clean" fossil energy. In this way, Norway can change over to becoming a major supplier of clean energy, which contributes to solving environmental problems instead of creating them. This will be in keeping with both the Kyoto Protocol and the recommendations by the specialists on the International Panel on Climate Changes (IPCC).
If this is not the goal we set for ourselves and the ambitions we as a nation must have, who then will pay for the polluting emissions we refuse to take responsibility for?
In order to reduce emissions, more forceful tactics are required. There are significant emissions from the existing facilities in Norway. Eventually, these emissions will decrease over time as their sources, quite naturally, have a limited lifetime. One thing that those who make prognoses on these emissions forget is that most of the sources of emissions in the future have not yet been built and we can just avoid building the polluting ones, thereby solving that problem. In addition, various steps can be taken (e.g. enforce the pollution laws) which will result in reducing the emissions even more.
By enforcing the pollution laws we thereby prevent new sources of emissions from increasing the overall emissions, while at the same time measures can be introduced to reduce the pollution from existing sources even further. This will be the quickest, least expensive and simplest way to achieve the reductions that are necessary to reach the goal of a renewable and pollution-free energy system with minimal environmental impact.
For those sources of emissions which, because of purely technical reasons, are difficult to deal with in short terms - such as those that are mobile - we propose "green certificate markings / green portfolio". In other words, different requirements for sale or use of a certain percentage of zero emission technology within a specific time frame.
Finally, it is presumed that we must use the best available technology (BAT) for all new production as well as any expansion of existing production facilities. The lowest emission levels from specific BAT technologies must, without fail, be required at all times.
Fair competition practices and socio-economically beneficial investments will be achieved only by allowing the different entities to actually pay for their own environmental expenses (or initiate appropriate clean-up), and by such practice also minimize the environmental impact. Since not all emissions will be eliminated overnight, these polluting plants will naturally have to pay for releasing these pollutants into the atmosphere until they cease to pollute.
Capital generated from the pollution taxes not used for separate green technology funds, should finance north-south green technology transfers. Since these countries must be allowed to increase their emissions while emissions in the western countries must be reduced, this transfer of technology does not give us the right to release a corresponding amount of emissions until we have reduced our existing emissions by 90%. In other words: Major use of the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) without comparable increase or credit allowed for Norway.
Commission for a national trading system for greenhouse gases
The basis for considering use of a trading system was the desire to impose regulations on emissions where regulation was lacking. Where there is no regulation or just weak regulation, it is most likely an advantage that these emissions at least have a limit and a price. In the meantime, the Quota Commission has proposed the widest possible form of a regulating system, without consideration as to whether this is a decidedly better regulating system than other alternatives.
Bellona's requirements for effective measures are that they be:
Long/term cost efficiency / Take into account long-term adjustments where we must be prepared for steadily increasing obligations.
Investments must be long-term and not bind us to unnecessarily high emissions over long periods.
Not excluding further reductions.
Technologically and socially feasible / Utilize the driving forces within the economic systems.
Internationally based and globally beneficial / Incites technological development leads to global benefit
Be in the forefront of environmental technology.
Technological development which can make considerable reductions in emissions profitable.
Incentives for initiating " break-through technology "
The following weaknesses in using flexible mechanisms are identified as:
- To compensate for new costly emissions by allowing cheaper solutions increases the overall costs of measures needed to reach a fixed reduction goal. This makes it both more expensive and more difficult to reduce emissions and attain/maintain stricter environmental commitments.
- The price of flexible quotas reflects, ideally speaking, the supposed costs of fulfilling the Kyoto obligations/standards and not the environmental expenses or costs of the efforts make by the individual entitity.
- Little consideration is made for long-term adjustments where we must be prepared for increasingly stricter commitments.
- Investments will not be made with long-term interests in mind, but bind us to unnecessarily high levels of emissions for a long time.
- Gradual price increases in quotas creates higher total expenses, because by doing this, we will be "investing several times" as the reduction levels are tightened up.
- Use of flexible quota regulation methods means using "off the shelves" solutions, which does not encourage development of new technology. This weakens the incentives for research of "break-through" technology.
- It weakens the possibility for allowing considerable reductions in emissions in a profitable way.
- It lessens Norway's chances for being in the forefront of environmental technology.
- Today, it has not been shown probable that flexible regulation methods, as opposed to alternative solutions, will incite measures, which otherwise would not have been put into use.
- Redirecting reduction measurements to secondary parties can mean that the original polluter is no longer paying his fair share of the costs.
- Acquisition of quotas can result in biased competition because in this way one firm is "subsidized" while another is not.
- Using flexible measures means that - directly or indirectly - someone can emit gasses from one place and compensate by buying "hot air" somewhere else.
- Use of flexible measures can to a large extent incorporate "no regret" cases, i.e. removing subsidies and similar actions which, regardless, would be done independently of the environmental issues.
- Use of the Kyoto mechanism contributes to maintaining existing energy structures and leads to costly "patch-up" tactics later on, at the expense of new energy carriers and solutions.
- This could extend the lifetime of high emission energy systems.
- Allocating quotas is a short-term solution without focus on how we can actually solve the climate problems in the long run.
- The use of flexible agreements can, directly or indirectly, involves countries that are not bound by these standards and have no framework or guidelines for handling these discharges. The discharges could then very likely increase both in the West and in developing countries.
- Use of the Kyoto mechanisms reduces the possibilities to later emission reductions, i.e. it works towards exclusion of further measures within, while consuming other necessary measures.
- Use of flexible regulation involves a much more complex and hard to manage system which makes it difficult to get an overall view of the situation and maintain control, as compared to requiring direct clean-up and depositing of CO2 .
Bellona Foundation also advocates protecting the individual's rights to choose less polluting operational activities without others necessarily being allowed to increase theirs respectively, and we feel that quotas or other allowances for emissions does not release the company from its responsibility for damage to others. There is no "amnesty", as such, granted until a company is able to fully meet the standards required by the Kyoto Protocol, and neither will this be granted after they are met. Regulations must go into effect immediately, taking this into consideration in all seriousness. The natural result of this would be for the regulating body to not only handle quota distribution, but to make a collective analysis for presentation to the Parliament supporting this proposal, which would be covered in more depth in the following report.
Energy After Rio:
Prospects and Challenges
Chapter 5 - Making it Happen: Energy for Sustainable Development
5 Making it Happen: Energy for Sustainable Development
5.1 Introduction
5.2 The Larger Context: Current Global Trends
5.3 Policy Considerations for Sustainable Energy Strategies
5.4 Improving the Overall Economic Framework
5.4.1 Accessing Capital for Sustainable Development
5.4.2 Financing Sustainable Energy Technologies via Innovative Credit and Purchase Arrangements
5.4.3 Reducing Subsidies to Conventional Energy
5.4.4 Internalising Environmental Costs in Energy Markets
5.4.5 Developing New Technology
5.4.5.2 Launching new technologies in the market
5.5.1 Technology Innovation and Growth
5.5.2 Technological Leapfrogging
5.5.3 SeizingMarket Leadership for Energy Technologies
5.6 The Time for Sustainable Energy Has Come
Appendix C: Removing Impediments - Some Examples
C.1 Measures to Create EarlyMarkets for New Technology
C.1.1 Renewable energy development in India
C.1.2 The Public Utilities Regulatory Policy Act (PURPA) in the United States
C.1.3 Brazil's Ethanol Programme
C.1.4 The Renewables Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) in the United Kingdom
C.1.5 A Renewables Portfolio Standard
C.2 A Measure that Would Raise Funds for Purposes Relevant to Sustainable Energy (e.g. Research and Development): a System Benefits Charge in California
C.3 Measures to Advance More Efficient Use of Energy
C.3.1 Market transformation through technology procurement by NUTEK in Sweden
C.3.2 The PROCEL electricity conservation programme in Brazil
C.3.3 The Building Measurement and Verification Protocol (BMVP) for measurement and evaluation of energy efficiency improvements
C.3.4 Energy-efficient lighting in Mexico
C.3.5 Appliance and equipment efficiency standards in the United States
C.3.6 ASEAN commercial building codes
C.4 Institutional Mechanisms to Encourage Investment in Sustainable Energy Technologies
C.4.1 Rural credit and purchase mechanism: the Sudimara story for Indonesia
C.4.2 Curitiba: towards sustainable urban development
C.4.3 The rural electricity development concession in Argentina
C.4.4 A wind energy resource development concession
5 Making it Happen: Energy for Sustainable Development 5.1 Introduction
Present human activities are unsustainable, and current energy demand and supply patterns are contributing to this problem. Based on an analysis of the important linkages between energy, social, environmental, economic and security issues, it was concluded in Chapter 2 that the world's present energy systems and trends are not compatible with reaching the social and environmental goals and objectives emanating from UNCED and other United Nations global conferences of the 1990s, nor those of the environment-related conventions. Major changes in the energy service delivery system are required to meet these objectives.
It will not be easy to bring about a fundamental reorientation from strategies that focus only on conventional supply expansion to those that emphasise energy services through a combination of energy end-use efficiency improvements, increased use of renewable sources of energy, and a new generation of fossil-fuel-using technologies. Discussions about energy demand still focus on how to increase supplies of energy rather than on the more important question of how to obtain the required energy services. Shifting the existing supply paradigm to a focus on energy services will require fundamental readjustments of public polices to promote and adopt sustainable energy options.
Fortunately, a number of feasible technology options (described in Chapter 3) are available or could become available in the near term to meet energy service demands in a sustainable manner. Considerable benefits in social, environmental, economic and security terms would arise from moving towards a sustainable energy future, as discussed in Chapter 4. Thus, new energy systems that are compatible with sustainable development goals are conceivable, feasible and beneficial.
Energy systems have changed dramatically during the course of history—from the use of wood as the dominant fuel in the early 1800's, to coal in the early 1900's, to the current predominance of oil and natural gas. These changes, which took place over several decades, were driven by resource availability, technology developments, and prices.
Today, in contrast to the prevailing assumption in the 1970's, shortages of oil and natural gas are not imminent. In fact, the ratios of reserves to production have been growing steadily. In addition, the world has vast coal resources. So, a transition to a new sustainable energy system will not be driven by either limitations of reserves or resource scarcity, for a long time to come (see Section 4.1.3).
Another significant change is the importance of the present environmental situation, locally, regionally, and globally, and the recognition of opportunities to address social concerns through actions related to energy. Concerns in these areas create a new and different set of drivers for change in the energy sector.
Moreover, shifting patterns of demand are creating new opportunities. Historically, most energy technology development has taken place in the industrialized countries, where economic growth has been strong, and rapidly growing markets provided a good context for innovation in energy-intensive processes. Today these conditions have changed radically. The energy-intensive industries are facing stagnation or experiencing slow growth in the markets of industrialized countries, while growth in the demand for energy and material-intensive products in many developing countries is rapid. Growth in the industrialized countries is now primarily in service and knowledge-intensive industries that use little materials or energy. The shift in growth patterns provides new opportunities for developing countries to become leaders of innovation for the development of new energy-efficient and clean production and end-use technologies.
The first step in designing energy systems consistent with the goal of sustainable development is recognition that the measures to advance sustainable development will have to be shaped in the context of current global trends that are operating through, or in conjunction with, strong constraints on traditional actors. This is the topic of the next section.
5.2 The Larger Context: Current Global Trends
Major trends in the overall political and economic environment in which the new global energy system will evolve include globalization, the information revolution, marketisation, the changing role of governments, governments' fiscal austerity, and popular participation in public sector decision-making.
Globalization: As markets become globalised, trade barriers between countries are becoming increasingly difficult to erect or maintain. Out-sourcing, the procurement of inputs (materials and services) from distant and foreign sources, is becoming common practice. New technology is diffusing globally, at rates faster than ever before.
Information revolution: Worldwide access to information is rapidly improving through the use of modern information technology, including the Internet. Thus, there are new pathways for providing bases for information and dissemination of new technology and know-how. This expansion will facilitate increased awareness of sustainable energy options and deployment of new systems.
Marketisation: Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of planned economies in central and eastern Europe, significant changes have occurred and continue to occur in the structures of many economies. The questions of what, how, and how much to produce, which in some countries had been a preoccupation of central authorities and bureaucracies, are now being decided by market mechanisms. The allocation of manpower, materials, and financial resources as well as the selection of products and production technologies increasingly is a function of market conditions. The process of marketisation is not restricted to the borders of countries; it is extending beyond national frontiers to regions and the whole world.
Changing role of government: Government functions are increasingly moving towards rule-making and monitoring the application and observance of the rules. Thus, the role of governments is changing drastically towards becoming the caretaker of the rules and regulations that ensure that markets can work efficiently. Governments also have crucial responsibilities that cannot be left to the market—to provide leadership in ensuring that people living in poverty and women have access to modern energy services; to work for the empowerment of communities and regions and strengthen their self-reliance; and to protect the environment.