Shining a Light on Climate Change
Jul 27th, 2009
by Ban Ki-moon
- Ban Ki-moon is Secretary-General of the United Nations.
NEW YORK – A light bulb may not be the first thing that springs to mind when thinking about revolutionary technology. Yet science and smart policy have the potential in today’s world to transform an ordinary household object into a revolutionary innovation.
Recently, I visited an ambitious project to promote energy-saving lighting in China. By phasing out old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs and introducing a new generation of lighting, China expects to cut national energy consumption by 8%.
This can have a profound global impact. Consider this: lighting accounts for 19% of world energy consumption. Scientists say we can reduce that by a third or more merely by changing light bulbs.
A breakthrough like this highlights one of the many ways in which ordinary people and businesses can reduce energy use and cut greenhouse gases. It underscores the essential role that governments can – and must – play in promoting the green economy. And it highlights the special responsibility of the government of China to lead in the global fight against climate change.
China is one of the world’s fast-growing economies. Last year it also became the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. It is clearly important for the world that China pursues sustainable economic and energy policies – those that reduce both emissions and poverty.
The key is giving a priority to clean energy, which can create new jobs, spur innovation, and usher in a new era of global prosperity.
Those who embark on this path early will reap rewards. They will be winners in the global marketplace. And assuming that prosperity is shared equitably, they will also strengthen stability at home.
There can be no argument that China today is a global power. And with global power comes global responsibilities. Without China, there can be no success this year on a new global climate framework. But with China, there is an enormous potential for the world to seal a deal in Copenhagen.
On September 22nd, I will convene a summit of world leaders to look at the challenges — and the opportunities — we face in the run-up to Copenhagen.
At the G8 summit in Italy this summer, it was agreed to reduce carbon emissions by 80% by 2050. I applauded this. But I also said that was not enough. To be credible, we need to match ambitious long-term goals with ambitious mid-term targets, with clear baselines. I will repeat this call in September.
I will also emphasize that major developing economies have a critical role in the negotiations: Brazil, India, Mexico, South Africa and, perhaps most important of all, China.
Already China has devoted a sizable portion of its national stimulus spending to renewable energy and green economic growth. It has become a world leader in wind and solar technology. China’s dynamic renewable energy sector is worth nearly $17 billion and employs close to 1 million workers.
This is impressive, but it is just a beginning. China, for example, has enough wind resources to generate more electricity than it currently uses.
Imagine the potential. Imagine if, thanks to wind and solar, China could wean itself from coal, which accounts for 85% of its carbon emissions. And if China were to do it, so could much of the rest of the world. In so doing, China can serve as a model not only for developing nations, but for the whole world.
We must also adapt to those climate impacts that are already wreaking havoc on communities, particularly in the least developed countries. Adaptation programs help strengthen climate resilience. Going forward, they should be part of how we do development differently. Mitigation and adaptation are equal partners: one without the other makes no sense. They must be priorities for every government.
If we have learned anything from the crises of the past year, it is that our fates are interrelated. As Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao said earlier this year, “Issues such as climate change bear on the very survival of mankind. No country can be insulated from these challenges or meet them on its own. The international community should intensify cooperation and respond together.”
As we move toward Copenhagen, I urge China to exercise still further the global responsibilities that come with global power. I ask China to act in the global public interest, as well as its national interest. For at the end of the day, as Premier Wen aptly put it, they are one and the same.
By changing a light bulb, and changing our mindset, we can change the world.
Ban Ki-moon is Secretary-General of the United Nations.
Copyright: Project Syndicate, 2009.
www.project-syndicate.org
Project Syndicate
P.O. Box 130
120 21, Praha 2
Czech Republic
Tel: 0042 02 21 50 76 68
www.project-syndicate.org
July 27th, 2009 at 5:33 pm
RE: “By phasing out old-fashioned incandescent light bulbs and introducing a new generation of lighting, China expects to cut national energy consumption by 8%.
This can have a profound global impact. Consider this: lighting accounts for 19% of world energy consumption. Scientists say we can reduce that by a third or more merely by changing light bulbs.”:
Well there are plenty who disagree with the savings, too.
All around the world people choose to buy ordinary light bulbs around 9 times out of 10 (EU/US lighting industry data 2007-8).
Banning what people want gives the supposed savings – no point in banning an impopular product!
If new LED lights -or improved CFLs- are good,
people will buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (little point).
If they are not good, people will not buy them – no need to ban ordinary light bulbs (no point).
The arrival of the transistor didn’t mean that more energy using radio valves had to be banned… they were bought less anyway.
All lights have their advantages
The ordinary simple light bulb has for many people a pleasing appearance, it responds quickly with bright broad spectrum light, is easy to use with dimmers and other equipment, can come in small sizes, and has safely been used for over 100 years.
100 W+ equivalent brightness is a particular issue – difficult and expensive with both fluorescents and LEDS – yet such incandescent bulbs are first in line for banning !
Energy?
Since when is there a need to save on electricity?
There is no energy shortage, in China as elsewhere there are plenty of local energy sources, Middle East oil is not used for electricity generation.
Consumers – not politicians – pay for the energy used.
Certainly it is good to let people know how they can save energy and money – but why force them to do it?
Emissions?
OK: Does a light bulb give out any gases?
Power stations might not either:
Why should emission-free households be denied the use of lighting they obviously want to use?
Low emission households will increase everywhere, since emissions will be reduced anyway through the planned use of coal/gas processing technology or energy substitution.
Also, the actual savings amounts can as said be questioned for many reasons:
For a referenced list of reasons against light bulb bans,