The Wall Street Journal, April 16, 2010
Obama Gets Reasonable on the Environment By Bjørn Lomborg President Obama shocked many supporters last month by proposing to expand offshore oil and gas exploration along the U.S. East Coast. The obvious explanation among outraged environmentalists was that the White House was playing politics with ecologically fragile coastlines. But this particular initiative had more to do with technological and economic realism than partisan maneuvering. Mr. Obama indicated as much when he presented his offshore drilling plan. "Given our energy needs," he noted, "we are going to need to harness traditional sources of fuel even as we ramp up production of new sources of renewable, homegrown energy." This is a polite way of stating an inescapable fact: As much as the United States or any other nation might aspire to energy independence and a carbon‐free future, none of us can end our addiction to fossil fuels any time soon. That's because no green‐energy technology is remotely ready to shoulder more than a tiny fraction of the burden currently borne by oil and coal. It took courage for Mr. Obama to acknowledge this unpopular truth. In the near term at least, we have no choice but to continue using fossil fuels. Ending our reliance on them instead requires a serious commitment to achieving breakthroughs in green energy technology. Ironically, Mr. Obama's drilling proposal offers a great opportunity to do just that. Offshore production could generate an estimated $165 billion or more in federal royalties—money that could and should be spent on green energy research and development. The energy challenge for Mr. Obama is not just at home. An ugly international confrontation came to a head last week when rich nations faced off against poor ones in an argument over which problem deserved priority: global warming or poverty? At issue was a plan by South Africa's energy utility Eskom to build a 4,800‐megawatt coal‐fired power station in the northern town of Medupi. The plant would be one of the largest power stations of its kind in the world—and would throw off an estimated 25 million tons of carbon‐dioxide each year. But it is needed to relieve a shortage of generating capacity that threatens to undermine the economic growth of South Africa and its neighbors. As South African Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan noted recently, "To sustain the growth rates we need to create jobs, we have no choice but to build new generating capacity—relying on what, for now, remains our most abundant and affordable energy source: coal." To help finance the power station's construction, South Africa asked the World Bank for a $3.75 billion loan. Normally, such a loan would be quickly approved—although South Africa is poor by Western standards, its economy is relatively well‐managed. But the request provoked vociferous opposition from some developed countries that didn't want the World Bank to support projects that may contribute to global warming. In the U.S., three influential members of Congress—Rep. Barney Frank (D., Mass.) and Sens. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Patrick Leahy (D., Vt.) linked continued U.S. financial support of the World Bank to the bank's adoption of lending policies reflecting what they called "21st‐century priorities." While Africa's energy needs were certainly "urgent," they wrote in a letter to World Bank President Robert Zoellick, "we cannot ignore the reality that our planet is hurtling toward potentially catastrophic climate change."
COPENHAGEN CONSENSUS CENTER COPENHAGEN BUSINESS SCHOOL • SOLBJERG PLADS 3 • 2000 FREDERIKSBERG • DENMARK +45 3815 2255 • INFO.CCC@CBS.DK • WWW.COPENHAGENCONSENSUS.COM
In the end, Mr. Obama directed the Treasury Department not to oppose the loan but to abstain when it was voted on by World Bank directors—a decision that effectively guaranteed the loan's approval. As with Mr. Obama's offshore drilling plan, the Medupi decision exhibited common sense. Stopping the Medupi project would have shown that developed nations put more emphasis on discouraging use of fossil fuels than on developing affordable alternatives. This is an ineffectual response to global warming, and, in condemning tens of millions of Africans to continued poverty, downright immoral. We can't expect South Africa or any other nation to stop using coal or oil unless we can find practical, affordable alternatives. For example, if we had solar panels that could produce electricity more cheaply than fossil fuels, then of course South Africa would switch. But we need to develop green technology before we can ask any leaders to consign their people to poverty for the sake of the climate. Moral posturing about global warming is easy, and it feels good. Actually doing something to solve the problem—like committing serious amounts of money to green energy research and development—will take real effort and sacrifice.
2