What About Cutting Money Emissions?

Follow the MoneyWhatever the G20 decides on is what’s going to happen with the UN- this is my prediction for not only the remainder of the year and the Copenhagen summit, but for the future of climate change negotiations in general. The G20 are the big guys, the ones with the influence and, most importantly, the ones with the money- this is the meeting where all the industrialized countries will figure out what to say to the developing nations and what they are willing to offer in the way of emissions allowances and financial aid for climate change- caused issues.

Follow the money and you get your answers. And this time around, it looks like the money isn’t going to try anything too novel- a little more pushing it back to the next generation if you ask me.

The G20 draft plan included a goal of ending fossil fuel subsidies in the “medium-term,” meaning they will move to phase out and eliminate fossil fuel subsidies by 1/10 by 2050.

"It could be a critical element for Copenhagen from the side of what developing nations might do," said Helen Mountford, head of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development's climate, biodiversity and development division. "Phasing out fossil fuel subsidies...is one of the few options where there are win-win benefits both for the economy and the environment."

Yeah. Is cutting emissions by 1/10 40 years from now really a big deal? In international diplomacy, maybe. In the reality of actually making any kind of meaningful difference? Not really. It’s hardly even a band-aid. It’s saying, ok, we’ll start giving less money to these companies over the next few decades- then we’ll figure it out later how to fill in the gaps with renewable energy.

You want real change? Cut them 5 years from now. That will kick some asses into gear and actually make companies start to move with some purpose toward how to create clean energy. It’s not like places can’t use the fossil fuels, just no more subsidies. Keep counting on fossil fuels and your prices will skyrocket- is that bad for the consumer? Nope. In 5 years entrepreneurs and smart business-people will develop functioning smart-grid and localized clean energy options- that’s plenty of time and with the promise of converting customers from the big utilities, plenty of incentive.

40 years? Cut subsidies? That’s the same as doing nothing in my book. Obama gets a big FAIL on the audacity of his hope for true climate change policy that means anything.

Estimated fossil fuel subsides paid by non-OECD countries are around $310 Billion. Subsidies for clean energy options are at $40 Billion.

You want change? Give people a few years at flip those numbers. They’ll adapt- enough of this soft-pedaling it. The one thing we need from the switch to clean/ green energy is immediacy- it’s always talked about like: Peak oil is coming, we are at the point that if we wait to do something about climate change it may be too late, somewhere from 2 to 10 degree shift over the next decade- this is not a future thing, this is now. And talking about who caused it or what’s going to happen if we don’t do anything is ridiculous.

Start talking about what we are going to do about it now, then do it.