LAWMAKERS MULL VALUE OF CUTTING EMISSIONS VS. R&D WORK

Tamar Hallerman
GHG Monitor
4/26/13

Lawmakers debated whether investing solely in energy research and development is enough to fight climate change this week after a high-profile witness at a House Science subcommittee hearing suggested that regulating carbon emissions is inefficient in the long term. In his testimony before the Subcommittee on Environment April 25, Copenhagen Consensus Center President Bjørn Lomborg told lawmakers that the United States’ current strategy of cutting carbon emissions from fossil fuel combustion and deploying renewable energy production technologies such as solar panels and wind turbines is “inefficient.” “We need to find cheaper ways to tackle global warming, and that’s why I think we need to recognize that this cannot be about trying to make fossil fuels so expensive that nobody will want to use it,” he said, arguing that the U.S. is paying “ten times more” for emissions reductions than it should be. “That’s never going to work politically and it’s bad economics. Instead, what we do need to do is focus on making green energy so cheap that everyone eventually will want them. That’s going to happen through innovation, which will take time,” Lomborg said.

Lomborg argued that the U.S. and other countries should instead invest heavily in R&D to find innovative approaches to emissions reductions. “If we’re going to fix climate change, we are going to need game changers,” he told the panel. Lomborg pointed to hydraulic fracturing as a success story that illustrates the benefit of government R&D work—the Department of Energy funded the technology with a modest grant in the late 1970s. “The important part is to recognize that investing in research and development, in smart minds coming up with new ideas, is much cheaper than subsidizing existing, inefficient technologies like solar panels and wind turbines,” he said.

Several Republican lawmakers on the subcommittee said they agreed with Lomborg’s approach to focus mostly on energy R&D, reiterating their stance that the current U.S. approach of regulating carbon emissions is too expensive, disproportionately hurts the poor and hamstrings economic development and job creation. “I think technology developments need to come first, and that will yield a better and more cost-effective result [than regulating CO2 emissions],” Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) said.

Others Argue for More Balanced Approach

While none of the lawmakers at the hearing refuted the need for the government to robustly fund energy R&D work, others said a more balanced approach is needed to fight climate change in the long term. Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) said the U.S. cannot give up on cutting CO2 emissions and that it is “foolhardy” for stakeholders to expect that members of Congress will be willing to spend the tens of billions of dollars to fully fund energy R&D programs in the current budget climate. “There has to be some sort of balance that says we need to reduce our current emissions. The United States has to take a lead in doing that, to try and encourage China and India to do [the same]. We have to have a little skin in that game, and we have to invest in green technology,” Edwards said.

William Chameides, dean of Duke University’s Nicholas School of the Environment, said in his testimony that it is “prudent” for the U.S. to develop a more flexible and well-rounded approach to mitigating carbon emissions. “Such a response should [include] reducing greenhouse gas emissions, mobilizing for adaptation, investing in science, technology and information systems, participating in international climate change efforts and coordinating a national response,” he said.