In May 1961, then-US president John F. Kennedy stirred the US and the world with these words: “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the Earth.”
Just eight years later, NASA did just that — with astounding benefits for science, technology and the world economy. Now, a group of leading scientists, innovators and economists has identified this era’s moonshot: to replace fossil fuels with clean-energy technologies within this generation.
Since a group of policy leaders from the UK initiated the Global Apollo Programme to Combat Climate Change earlier this year, many have enthusiastically signed on. The program, named after the NASA moon mission, is built on the idea of “directed technological change.”
In other words, people can steer the development of the advanced technologies needed to ensure humanity’s safety and wellbeing. At the top of the list is clean energy, which will enable people to head off the global warming caused by the combustion of massive amounts of coal, oil and gas worldwide.
The Deep Decarbonization Pathways Project (DDPP) has demonstrated that a low-carbon future is within reach, with huge benefits at a very modest cost. In the US, for example, cutting emissions by 80 percent by 2050 is not only feasible; it would require added outlays of only about 1 percent of GDP per year. And the benefits — including a safer climate, smarter infrastructure, better vehicles and cleaner air — would be massive.
Pathways to a low-carbon future focus on three main actions: improving energy efficiency, producing electricity from low-carbon energy sources, and switching from petroleum to low-carbon energy for powering vehicles and heating buildings. These are clear and achievable goals and the public sector should play a major role in advancing them.
Politicians need to end subsidies for coal, oil and gas, and start taxing emissions from their use. Moreover, they must meet the need for new power lines to carry low-carbon solar, wind, geothermal and hydroelectric power from remote areas to population centers.
However, meeting these requirements presupposes advances in technologies that will enable low-carbon energy systems to compete with the alternatives. That is where the Apollo Programme comes in, with its bold goal of reducing the cost of renewable energy to below that of coal, oil and gas.
Of course, renewable energy is sometimes already cheaper than fossil fuels — when the sun is shining bright or the wind is blowing strong and consistently. The main challenge with renewable energy is storage, in two senses.
First, consumers need to store renewable energy for use in vehicles in a low-cost and efficient way. While many already have high-quality electric vehicles, they require improvements in range and cost to be able to outcompete conventional vehicles. The highest technological priority is to develop batteries for transport that are cheaper, longer-lasting, faster-charging and lighter.
Second, energy suppliers need to store intermittent energy for times when the wind is not blowing, the sun is not shining and rivers are not flowing strongly enough to turn hydroelectric turbines. Many energy-storage technologies are already in use or in development. One example is pumped hydropower, in which excess wind and solar energy is used to pump water uphill into reservoirs that can later produce hydroelectric power. Another is the conversion of renewable energy into hydrogen or a synthetic liquid fuel made with carbon dioxide from the air. Others include compressed air and large-scale battery storage.
Low-carbon technologies can be improved markedly in many other areas as well. Power grids running on renewable energy need more sophisticated systems for balancing energy supply and demand. Improvements in carbon capture and storage technologies would enable some fossil fuels to be used safely. And nuclear power plant designs can be made safer with passive safety systems and fuel cycles that leave behind less radioactive waste and fissile material that could be turned into weapons.
Given the trillions of US dollars of potential losses from human-induced climate change and the trillions of US dollars invested annually in global energy systems, the world’s governments would be wise to invest tens of billions of US dollars each year in the research and development (R&D) needed to achieve a low-carbon energy future. With this in mind, more than one politician should have already followed in Kennedy’s footsteps, stepping forward to announce this generation’s critical moonshot and to offer the public finances needed to make it happen.
So far, none has. In the US, for example, the government allocates about US$31 billion per year to biomedical research — with great returns to health — and roughly US$65 billion per year for military R&D, but only about US$7 billion per year for non-defense energy, and, of that, less than US$2 billion per year for renewable-energy R&D.
This is a shocking lapse on two counts: First, the US and the world are losing time on decarbonization; and, second, the US is squandering the chance to develop its own future high-tech industries.
Together, the Apollo Programme and the DDPP point the world’s governments toward the agreement they should reach at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris in December.
First, governments should pledge to decarbonize their economies to keep global warming below the extreme danger zone of 2?C.
Second, they should promise to unveil, in the next couple of years, national “pathways” to deep decarbonization by 2050.
Finally, they should join together to fund the new global moonshot for clean energy. The pooled financing should start with a minimum of US$15 billion per year and rise sharply thereafter, as key, high-return technology breakthroughs come into view.
As Kennedy showed, great progress begins with a great goal, one that is bold yet feasible. The goal today, backed by the Apollo Programme, is deep decarbonization. It is time for world leaders to commit to the planet-saving clean-energy moonshot.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of sustainable development, professor of health policy and management, and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, as well as a special adviser to the UN secretary-general on the Millennium Development Goals.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers