OPINION
I almost cut myself shaving this morning while listening to a BBC News story about The Hartwell Paper, which I’d only heard about en passant.
The Hartwell Paper was drafted by a group of academics in an attempt to offer a radically different way of framing the issues raised by climate change, and hence a different set of approaches for tackling them.
I’m writing about this now because, if the ideas put forward gain traction, they have the potential to place energy poverty and unsustainable biomass dependence where it belongs: out of the sustainable development wilderness and into the center of the human development policy debate.
The Nut Graph
Via BBC News, I give you, verbatim, Professor Mike Hulme, School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, England. 
On Emissions Cut
“To move forward, we believe a startling proposition must be understood and accepted.
“It is not possible to have a “climate policy” that has emissions reduction as the all-encompassing and driving goal.
“We advocate inverting and fragmenting the conventional approach: accepting that taming climate change will only be achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals that are politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.
“Without a fundamental re-framing of the issue, new mandates will not be granted for any fresh courses of action, even good ones.
“The paper’s first primary goal focuses on access; to ensure that the basic needs, especially the energy demands, of the world’s growing population are adequately met.
“The second is a sustainability goal; to ensure that we develop in a manner that balances social, economic and ecological goals.
“Third is a resilience goal; to ensure that our societies are adequately equipped to withstand the risks and dangers that come from all the vagaries of climate, whatever their cause.
Now to the biomass and energy-efficiency part that concerns us:
On Energy Access
“If energy access is to be expanded to include those without access today while meeting expected growth in global energy demand in the rest of the world, the unit costs of energy will necessarily have to come down.
“But the higher quality fossil fuels are in already tight markets. If the attempt is made to satisfy new demand using these fuels, then costs will rise.
“Alternatives to fossil fuels must be made cheaper. In short, we need to ignite efforts to achieve an energy technology revolution in all the currently active areas: for example, solar panels, biofuels, batteries, and nuclear plants.
“Very large investments in energy technology innovation will be necessary.”
So, Kim, what does this really mean?
With two significant exceptions, I worry that The Hartwell Paper’s vision fits a little too neatly with the discussion we had last week about “Energy for a Sustainable Future,” the UN’s white paper that basically calls for similar action.
The first major difference is about funding this beast, so kudos go to the (courageously tenured?) Hartwellian professors for actually uttering the words “carbon tax.”
To wit: “We propose that nations fund innovation aimed at direct decarbonisation through a very modest (initially) hypothecated carbon tax. The proposed tax would not be designed to change consumer behavior; it would be used to conceive, develop and demonstrate, and even purchase, low-carbon or carbon-free technologies.”
The good news is that I think the Copenhagen fiasco is forcing everyone to rethink and reframe the debate. This can be a valuable exercise if it helps generate the attention and funding need to address global energy poverty.
The bad news is that any such watershed development will require political backbone and leadership.
I just find it very difficult to understand The Hartwell Paper’s assertion that politicians will find energy poverty alleviation a politically attractive and relentlessly pragmatic goal. Honestly, how politically attractive is it to a politician’s career to give money to a developing country? And what to make of “relentlessly pragmatic?” Yes, efficient cookstoves are pragmatic solutions. But they don’t pay for themselves unless someone’s putting up some serious change to roll them out.
Plus, how many times has the developing world been promised development aid only to see pledges go unfulfilled? What’s the figure again, 0.7 percent of GDP should go to development according to the MDG. I haven’t checked recently but I suspect we’re nowhere near the sum. Not in this economy.
Not in today’s financial atmosphere.
I’m afraid I think there’s as much courage and foresight right now to tackle this issue the way the Hartwellians propose as there is an addressing the systemic problems at the heart of the global financial crisis.
So, as far as I can see, it’s still CDM and VRS that’s going to pay for continued stove rollout. But guess what guys? The Hartwellians want to do away with the carbon market, REDD, and Kyoto, so there goes that funding source.
Dude, you’re such a downer!
Yeah, ok, my post about the UN’s white paper and this one are a bit of a downer. The truth is we do need political courage to address these serious social, economic, and environmental issues. I’m just not sure we’ve struck the right formula yet
But don’t despair, we have several good, positive stories in the works, so stay tuned!
English 
French 