|
|
Search blog entries
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
Archive
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Global Green New Deal
|
|
|
Location: Blogs InnoGRIPSSpecial Topic - Innovation for Recovery |
 |
| Posted by: jhayden |
3/31/2009 11:12 AM |
It looks like the UNEP's plan to green the world's economy is not fairing well in the UK, better luck in South Korea.
Recognizing the duel failures in economics and environment that the status quo has wrought, the ‘solution’ to our current crises offered by many countries address both realms simultaneously– but clearly some countries are giving only token aid to the creation of a green economy whereas others are seizing this moment to produce a future that is actually sustainable. According to recent calculations by HSBC, countries such as South Korea and China are leading the way in green stimulus (allocations for renewables, mass transportation, energy efficiency and water); while for all of its talk, the United Kingdom’s plan is a global laggard. Estimates of the green elements in South Korea’s plan account for 80% of total expenditure and the US' comes in at 18%, the UK- according to the HSBC report- is spending only 7% on environmentally sustainable solutions. What's worse, this figure may be very inaccurate as a report commissioned by Greenpeace from the New Economics Foundation found that only .6% of the UK stimulus will be spent on projects that move the country toward a low carbon economy.
Renewable energy projects in particular are drying up across the UK as funding sources become more and more scarce and firms find they cannot meet the overly optimistic targets set a few years back. For instance, Shell has abandoned its interests in wind and other renewable ventures saying that, "If there aren't investment opportunities which compete with other projects we won't put money into it. We are businessmen and women. If there were renewables [which made money] we would put money into it." (Linda Cook, Shell's executive director of gas and power, quoted in the Guardian 17 March). While Shell may be able to redirect their focus and carry on doing what they have always done (namely depleting a non-renewable resource), there are many small and medium size firms whose sole purpose is to help find solutions to the energy security issues and environmental fallout of our economy’s dependence on fossil fuels- these companies are finding the current economic climate wholly inhospitable. As Andrew Mill, member of the government's Renewables Advisory Board says in the same Guardian article, "I think it's heading towards a crisis, the government has done a lot in terms of policies and targets, but the reality is that it was always going to take a lot of money to make it happen. And that money is not coming through quickly enough." The dire lack of funding for renewable energy projects will mean that Britain will not be able to make the switch to a new low-carbon economy in time to avoid real environmental consequences.
Clearly this is not an ideal climate for the much needed green innovation in manufacturing, energy, and transportation that the United Nations Environment Programme envisages in its Global Green New Deal being promoted at this week's G20 meeting and elsewhere. It really appears that for all the hot air being espoused, the very real and very probable consequences of global climate change are not being considered in the UK's and others' stimulus plans. The UNEP suggestions recognizes this failure by beginning its policy brief saying, “[there must be] necessary changes in international and domestic policy architectures, as the current framework is biased in favour of resurrecting an unsustainable "brown economy."" But still some of the most developed countries insist on continuing down the path that has brought us here- are we really unable to learn the lessons this duel crisis is trying to teach us?
|
|
| Permalink |
Trackback |
Comments (3)
Add Comment
|
Re: Global Green New Deal |
By Ian Miles on
3/31/2009 11:10 AM |
| A Korean PhD student suggests that some of the "green" investment in South Korea is anythiung bbut, and it is important that we explore just how much recovery-related investment really is both new and green. Greenpeace has claimed that the UKL figures (already terribly low) are heavily overstated because little is new. |
|
|
Re: Global Green New Deal |
By Jennifer Hayden on
3/31/2009 12:50 PM |
| It seems the issue of additionality pops up yet again. It is very difficult to determine how much of any green project should be attributed to intentionaly 'greening' vs. simply using current technology which would be used regardless of environmental incentives. |
|
|
Re: Global Green New Deal |
By Hong-Tak Lim on
3/31/2009 6:14 PM |
| First of all, I have to appreciate the effort of Korean government to take a 'green' perspective to its expenditures, which itself should be regarded as a step forward. Yes, there is the issue of classification and naming or renaming. But what should be noted in Korean green expenditure is that some of them might not be regarded as 'green': for example, in HSBC report, the restoration project of 4 major rivers which accounts for more than 34% of total green new deal has generated serious concerns and controversies since the project's original aim is to construct 'Grand Canal' in Korean rivers. Concentrated rainfall during the summer in Korea does not seem to support this attempt to change the rivers into canal: it needs to store the water to maintain the depth, which has implication to flood control as well as drinking water quality. Furthermore, the investment in renewables, low-carbon power or clean energy is mostly associated with energy from waste incineration, less with solar power or wind power. Korean government does have dramatically increased its expenditure on renewable energy R&D and supply (through feed-in tariff system) since 2003, long before the recent world financial crisis, while other countries' investments have been stabilised or reduced. Korea might be leading in those aspects but the claim that 81% of total stimulus can be labelled as 'green' needs to be read with more care. |
|
|
|
|
|
Entries by topic
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic links
|
|
|
|
|
|