The BlueMotion is the most economical car in each of the Volkswagen series. The new fuel concept CCS combines the advantages of the diesel engine and the Otto engine: the economy of the Diesel with the low emissions of the Otto engine.

Stephen Marglin is a professor for Economy at Harvard and an adviser of the World Future Council. To him the report of Sir Niclas Stern is just the beginning of linking ecology with economy. The United States still wait for their Stern-Report, he says during our interview.Economists tend to seek small solutions for the challenges of climate change. There has not been a whole picture developed yet. The exclusive look at society with the economist's eye alone however will not provide the answers needed Stephen Marglin points out in our interview and in his new book "The Dismal Science. How Thinking Like an Ecologist Undermines Community".

The third part of the IPCC report is released. Climate change can be stopped is the good news. To let come this true action is needed. However this call to mind might not mark the tipping point in international engagement against climate change. There is another thing in the presentation of the report on May 4th in Bangkok that has gotten policy makers' and politicians' attention: Growth of economy and wealth of the people do not have to correspond with the use of energy. This means that rising energy use is not neccessary for economies to increase; interesting news for growing economies in China, India and elsewhere. The scientists checked this by observing the world economies from the seventies of the 20th century on until today and compared it with the energy consumption.
The upper line marks the growth of wealth, the one beneath, the blue line the use of energyUntil 2050 CO2 emissions would have to diminuished by 50-85 percent to prevent the climate collaps we all are afraid off. To achieve this from 2015 on emissions must not increase anymore. By doing so the temperature raise would stop with 2° Celsius by 2100. The costs say the scientists are about 0,12% of the world's economic performance. With part III the IPCC report closes. After a few years of working hard the scientists have achieved a lot: they fought for a global media attention and created awarness for the alarming facts and figures regarding climate change. We spoke with one of the scientists who is a co-author of the latest report, Dr. Niklas Hoehne, from Ecofys about the work in the world's most esteemed scientist circle.

Niklas Hoehne Why were you asked to contribute to the IPCC assessment report?Scientists were nominated by the governments of UN member nations to contribute to the IPCC report. The criterion was that these scientists have written publications relevant to the IPCC assessment topics. I personally wrote my dissertation on the political framework of the Kyoto protocol.Could you help us understand what took place in the long period needed to prepare the IPCC report?The process did indeed require several years. First of all the governments of the UN member nations voted on a table of contents, which determined the chapters of the three main sections of the IPCC report. That was in October 2004. After that around 150 authors met for the first time in Jena as the working group for the third section. By the way, a total of six Germans took part in working group III.How did it go from there?There were four meetings. After each meeting a draft was put together that was again reviewed. The first review was informal, the second review was carried out by experts, and the third review by the respective governments. The fourth review is now taking place the beginning of May in Bangkok. At this juncture a 23-page summary is being produced from the 1000-page report, whereby each thought will be discussed sentence-by-sentence. How did you perceive the clash that ensued the beginning of April regarding the wording and phrasing of the 23-page summary of the report’s second section?The report is a consensus document. It is not just the publication of scientists, but is “intergovernmental”. That means that it contains political viewpoints to a certain degree.Is the report therefore advice for politicians, a guide for political action?No, it is not that. For each chapter we scientists compiled and evaluated all relevant literature. We did not invent anything new. Our job was to compile all pertinent information and fit all the results together to form an overall picture.No political realism then?We don’t hand out advice to the politicians of our day. Of course we have integrated literature about political developments in our report. These are developments that took place in the past; their evaluation doesn’t substantiate guidelines for political activity in the present. One accusation aimed at the working groups was that you deliberately stoke up fears through your report. I can’t comprehend this viewpoint at all. A great many experts have worked on this document, and there were four phases of review. That means that at the end there were no more extreme positions. If at the end of such a process as this one there is a clear message, then this message is significant and very momentous. It is not blown up out of proportion – on the contrary - if anything, it has been toned down.What will be stated in section III that is being reviewed for the final time in Bangkok on May 4th? What chances do we still have?Section III is a summary of the political measures that have to be seized on the domestic and international levels in order to stop climate change. Included in the report is what we have to do to reduce emissions and till what time that must happen. Without foreclosing the details, there are possibilities of arresting climate change to a measure that many experts would classify as unperilous.

How so?We can reach that only if we implement immediately all possibilities now at our disposal on all levels!Does that mean no more new coal-fired power plants?We do not give, as I already said, advice for concrete technical options. We do not say: no lignite, only renewable energies or something like that. We present all existing options. There are numerous options that can be implemented to reduce or terminate the production of greenhouse gas emission.In that case, what must be done concretely?On the personal level, each consumer has to make his or her purchase decisions in such a way that he does not pollute the environment or cause a lot of emission. On the national level, the federal government must implement the ambitious measures it has announced and not allow those measures to be watered down in the discussion with interest groups. On the international level, a new global climate agreement must be adopted.

Is the catalogue of countermeasures realistic?This question is left without comment in the assessment report. I personally think that the catalogue of countermeasures is theoretically possible. Whether it is politically enforceable, that is a difficult question. The report describes the situation in all clarity and illustrates the possible remedies. It reveals that change of direction is not as expensive as many fear.
Interview: Alex Goerlach
Foto and grafic: Spiegel online

The seismograph of social change in the USA is the economy. National trust in the mechanisms of the market is often greater than in political forethought. The current trend is toward environmentally compatible industries, toward renewable energy technology and sustainable design. Fund managers are looking right now for investment opportunities in the energy technology sector. Furniture designers like Jesse Johnson produce beautifully designed furniture without chemicals additives.Business representatives are surging into the political arena. At the end of January this year ten large companies, including the energy corporations BP America and General Electric, the chemical corporation DuPont, and the construction and mining equipment manufacturer Caterpillar have founded the United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) in Washington D. C. On their Web site the group issues a “Call for Action”. They maintain that the challenges posed by climate change will create more economic opportunities than risks for the US economy. If legislators don’t take immediate action, then the business world must step in with market-driven approaches. And, incidentally, the environment will profit from that.

When we take a look at the big trends and issues of the 21st century, the future of energy and resources are among the dominating mega trends for the next 50 years:While the era of fossil fuels is coming to its end, a new
mega industry is likely to emerge very soon. All mayor developments have a so-called “tipping point”, where certain factors meet and jumpstart a new
boom. In the case of the hydrogen economy, we predict this point between 2010 and 2014.Let’s explore the underlying factors: The major factor is the factor of resource: We don’t have much time to waste: In just 520 weeks, we will find ourselves in the year 2016. By that time, the third oil crisis is likely to
be a harsh reality. While most of the oil fields in production today are in the stage of “post peak” - oil production from these fields are gradually
declining every year - developing nations like China still double their oil imports every 6.8 years. If we forecast on current data with pure mathematics and without any wildcards, this scenario calls for a new oil
crisis between 2010 and 2014. But unlike the ones 1973 and 1979, this one will not be over in just a few weeks! Tune in again next week!

 

More information about Lars Thomsen

 

www.future-matters.com