Speeches
Meeting the Energy and Climate Challenge: America is Ready to Lead
Copenhagen Climate Solutions Conference, September 25, 2007
James P. Cain
U.S. Ambassador
Good morning. It is an honor to kick off this important event, bringing together leaders from government, industry, academia and civil society to increase international awareness and to develop solutions to move toward a low-carbon economy. Today’s event is remarkable in its timeliness, given what is happening this week in New York and in Washington. Today's event also highlights Denmark's creative leadership and incredible talent exploring clean energy solutions.
I have learned something about that creativity and leadership on my recent bike tour around Denmark. Some of you may have heard about my trip, which we call "The Rediscovery Tour.” It's a 1700-kilometer journey across the countryside to rediscover that special connection, that unique spirit that has united America and Denmark in a common transatlantic bond for generations. We are eight days into it, and have traveled about 500 kilometers.
I have witnessed that spirit at countless stops along the tour: in schools and town halls; in ethnic communities and country estates; in corporate headquarters and research facilities; in galleries and churches; in museums and mosques.
I witnessed that spirit on Day One of my tour, on the island of Lolland, where I joined a class of happy pre-school students at the Nakskov municipal recycling plant. Together we learned that energy must not be wasted and that most wastes can be made clean again.
I witnessed that same spirit later that day at the Baltic Sea Solutions Hydrogen Test Facility where you are creating a storage capacity using hydrogen for storing electricity produced from wind turbines. It is here that creative Danes, in collaboration with Americans and others, are creating the first truly energy independent island in the world.
I witnessed that spirit again as I stood atop one of Denmark’s tallest wind towers, having climbed the 80-meter ladder to get to the top of the Vestas-made, Dong-operated turbine. I must admit, standing atop that turbine, in a 20-kilometer per hour wind, waving a Dannebrog, holding on to the lone tether that was the only thing preventing me from tumbling to the ground, was one of the most exhilarating, and terrifying, things I have ever done.
I also witnessed that spirit on Day Four of my Rediscovery Tour, a Day when Minister of Culture Brian Mikkelsen and his wife Eliane rode with me, when, leaving the Old Grocery Store in Forslev, headed to Roskilde, we literally stumbled upon, unplanned and unscheduled, one of the most unique cultural connections between America and Denmark that I have seen. We turned a rural corner and happened upon "Texas Western", a Country and Western store that rivals anything Texas itself has to offer.
If the American flags flying from the roof hadn't caught my attention, then the cowboy in the window, and the fake horse out front surely did. We slammed on the breaks, brought the caravan to a screeching halt, and dashed inside. There the storeowner Doris Olsen, who was in the back and had not witnessed our arrival, practically had a heart attack when she came out and realized who this excited group of English-speaking visitors was. She quickly called her husband Jorgen, who soon arrived with great enthusiasm, insisting that he change into his "authentic country and western cowboy uniform" and join us for a priceless photo. I thought Rene and Alex, the PET bodyguards, were going to jump him when he strapped on his six-shooter, went to the window, and pulled the trigger to prove to me it was real!
What do the Naksov recycling facility, the Baltic Sea Solutions hydrogen test facility, the Vestas wind turbine and “Texas Western” all have in common? The answer to that question will become clear, I hope, at the end of my remarks this morning.
On the way there, I hope to do three things:
First, I will try to broadly frame the problem and focus on some particular hurdles in America associated with the challenges of global warming and energy sustainability.
Second, I will explain what America is doing to face these challenges, and in the process, show you, I hope, that America is indeed ready to lead on this serious issue.
And third, I will address the question, "What in the world does Texas Western have to do with meeting the climate and energy challenge?"
First, the challenge. Let me begin with some hard facts. The U.S. leads the world in total greenhouse gas emissions, followed closely by China and the European Union. China isn’t far behind the U.S. and may have actually already surpassed us. The U.S. annually emits about 20 tons of greenhouse gas equivalents on a per-capita basis. That’s more than twice as much as Germany and nearly three times as much as Denmark and France.
The U.S. numbers are high.
So why is the U.S. such a large emitter of greenhouse gases? First, America has the world’s largest economy. With only 5 percent of the world’s population, the U.S. accounts for 25 percent of global economic output. Economic output and emissions are very closely linked. Our substantial GDP is reflected in higher levels of personal income, which means bigger houses, second homes, more travel, more and bigger cars, and longer office commutes. The sheer size of the country and the way it has developed results in people having to drive more.
Another factor is our climate. It is simply much colder in the winter and much hotter in the summer in the U.S. than it is in Denmark and most of the EU. You might say we have the energy demand for heating of Sweden in the winter, and the demand for cooling of Italy in the summer.
Another factor affecting greenhouse gas emissions is that the U.S. has abundant coal resources and burns a lot more coal for power generation than most EU countries. Coal is a large producer of CO2 emissions. For these same reasons, Australia and Canada have about the same amount as we do of energy-related carbon dioxide emissions per-capita.
But as energy use increases, all of us face a problem of global climate change. The population of the world is increasing, and is projected to do so through most of this century.
More people everyday, thankfully, are able to enjoy rising incomes. I say thankfully, because the biggest rise in incomes in the future will be in the developing world. There, a higher income doesn’t mean a second home or a bigger car, but rather necessities like a full meal, a roof over one’s head, or antibiotics to use against a deadly disease.
So the answer to the problem is going to have to be how to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as population and personal incomes rise. Conventional wisdom says there are three ways to address the solution: improve energy efficiency, use alternative energy options, and recapture and sequester greenhouse gasses.
So how much potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions does each of these options offer?
Efficiency is probably the most appealing. Two examples are green home technologies such as better home insulation and fluorescent lighting. Each involves higher upfront costs, but less energy consumption over time. And this provides great opportunities in America for Danish companies like Rockwool.
But efficiency improvements alone will not be enough to achieve the emissions cuts needed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.
Most experts agree that even if we were to capture all of the available efficiency improvements, we would still be at the current levels of emissions in 2017-2022.
So to reduce emissions we are going to have to rely heavily on alternative sources of energy, and changing the way we use conventional sources of energy so that we can capture and sequester greenhouse gases as they are produced. Low carbon or no-carbon alternative energy sources including solar, hydro, wind, biomass and nuclear, among others, currently accounts for 19.7 percent of worldwide energy production. That is up from 14.6 percent in 1971. Most of the increase from 1971 until now came from an increase in nuclear power - one of the reasons France’s per capita greenhouse gas emissions are so low. But very little nuclear power is projected to be added in the near future.
Recapture and sequestration currently contribute very little to reducing emissions. But they will be vital components of a solution in the future.
Reforestation and other forms of terrestrial sequestration will also play an important role. About 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions result from deforestation and other land use changes. By halting deforestation, helping forests to regenerate, and promoting carbon-friendly agricultural practices, the land we manage can become a net absorber of greenhouse gases.
The hard reality is that there are no easy solutions to the problem of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The problem isn’t going to be solved just by people turning down their thermostats a couple of degrees and buying a hybrid car. These will help, but even if everyone in the world turned in their cars today and replaced them with hybrids, greenhouse gas emissions would drop by less than 10 percent. (That’s a shocking thought, isn’t it?)
So where are the solutions? This brings me to my second point: What is America doing to face our global challenge?
Sometimes I think Europeans don’t fully acknowledge the long tradition in the U.S. of resource conservation and activism on environmental issues. If you have traveled to the U.S. you probably visited one of our national parks, which are part of an extensive system created as a result of a conservation movement in the U.S. more than a century ago. President Teddy Roosevelt, who initiated our National Parks System, and by all rights earned the reputation as one of America’s greatest conservationists, came to Denmark in 1908 and was celebrated for his conservation leadership. Since Roosevelt’s time, there have been thousands of governmental and non-governmental programs that protect our land, waterways, and coastlines.
The U.S. was at the forefront of the earliest efforts to clean up rivers and lakes and reduce air pollution from cars and industry.
Many, if not most, of the regulatory and technological solutions to these environmental challenges originated in the United States. Even so, the pathway to these solutions came only after a long and confrontational public debate. That debate helped us understand the extent of the problem and arrive at the best solutions.
The global warming challenge is proceeding along a similar path. Some in the U.S. have been skeptical about the problem and whether or not it is caused by human activity. But in the last three or four years, there has been a growing scientific and political consensus. That consensus is helping us to find and promote solutions.
That consensus is building in part because more people believe the science of climate change, and in part because even climate skeptics recognize that the time has come for America to wean itself off of imported oil from unstable and extremist regimes in the Middle East, Latin America, and elsewhere.
I think the U.S. sometimes appears slower in responding to big public issues like global warming because, in a nation of 300 million, it takes longer to develop a political consensus for action. But once that consensus has developed--and I am convinced it has on global climate change- the U.S., like Denmark, is very good at developing and implementing solutions and does so surprisingly quickly.
As this consensus has been building, the Bush Administration has been initiating ambitious programs to address the global warming challenge. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established new tax rules and loan guarantee programs to encourage investment in energy efficiency and clean energy technologies.
Most recently, the U.S. House of Representatives on August 4 passed an energy bill providing longer-term incentives for the production of energy from renewable sources. Those sources include wind, solar, biomass, geothermal and others. This bill could become law and also raise auto emissions standards if differences with the Senate are worked out. And if it passes, it will be a great boost for companies like Vestas, Novozymes and Danisco.
In his State of the Union Address in January of this year, President Bush, proposed the most significant series of mandatory programs in US history to reduce gas consumption and CO2 emissions. His "20 in 10" initiative sets a goal to achieve a 20 percent reduction in gasoline consumption from automobiles in 10 years. This is twice as ambitious as the EU transportation program, and could be every bit as much of an incentives-based mandate as the EU’s Emissions trading system.
This is a massive undertaking, and comes on the heels of aggressive government leadership in other areas. In all, the U.S. government has devoted 37 billion dollars since 2001 to climate-related science, data assessment, technology, international assistance, and incentive programs that address global warming challenges.
And we are delivering results. The United States is expected to avoid emitting more than 2.2 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents from 2002 to 2012. This corresponds to taking all U.S. passenger vehicles off the road for more than one year. And this goal alone would allow us to cut by three-fourths the oil we now import from the Middle East.
The United States is also on track to exceed the goal set by President Bush in 2002 of reducing greenhouse gas intensity – that’s our greenhouse emissions per unit of GDP – by 18 percent by 2012. And the growth in industrial emissions in the U.S. has virtually come to a halt.
We are seeing state governments across the US, including such states as Texas, California and Connecticut establish innovative new ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including through renewable energy portfolio standards for power generation. Innovation among states is typical in the U.S. and is the same pattern that emerged in regulating safety and emission standards for automobiles. In the 1960’s and 70’s, states like California implemented regulations before a national consensus had developed. When federal regulations did come on line, they worked better because they benefited from the collective experience of our states.
Our private sector has also been aggressively developing technological solutions to some of the biggest emission challenges. For example, General Motors has spent many billions developing electric car and fuel cell technology while other companies have been aggressively developing clean coal technologies.
At the Frankfurt Auto Show last week, Ford announced a new plant in Romania to manufacture highly fuel-efficient mini-cars for the US market.
These moves by GM and Ford are a reaction to a public awakening. It is only within the last year that people in the U.S. have started to ask what the CO2 emissions are for the new car they are thinking of buying. Or how many kilograms of CO2 they will emit if they take a weekend trip in an airplane. Or whether the risks of nuclear power are outweighed by its potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
There also has been a lot of progress in developing government and private sector efforts leading to solutions. Some of these include multilateral approaches like the "Clean Coal Initiative" and "Methane to Markets Partnership," both started by the Bush Administration several years ago.
Another example of U.S. support for multilateral action is the Asia Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate, where we are working with our Asian partners to reduce barriers to trade and investment in green technologies.
We’re seeking cooperation with the EU through our "High Level Dialogue on Climate Change," which kicked off last October in Helsinki.
So how are we doing so far?
Most European nations have not yet achieved their targeted reductions under the Kyoto Protocol. Although the U.S. did not join the Kyoto agreement, in the most recent reporting period, 2000-2004, the U.S. did marginally better controlling our greenhouse gas emissions than Europe did. U.S. emissions went up only 1.3 percent in that period while emissions for the EU-25 went up 2.1 percent and the EU-15 went up higher by 2.4 percent. This is particularly significant when you consider that America had economic growth of 10 percent over that period, compared with Europe’s economic growth of 7 percent.
In 2006, I am pleased to tell you that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions actually dropped slightly, even as our economy continued to grow. Perhaps we have learned from Denmark that it is possible to decouple economic growth and environmental emissions.
I am also encouraged by past experiences with similarly serious problems that were confronted and solved.
By way of context, let me give you a little history. About 25 years ago, scientists discovered a hole developing in the ozone layer over Antarctica. It was being caused by hydro/fluorocarbons, CFCs, which were used as a propellant in aerosol cans and as a refrigerant in refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment. Some people were forecasting a global pandemic of skin cancer, melting of the ice-caps, and other catastrophic consequences.
In the 1980’s, the U.S. got serious about this issue and led what became a cooperative global effort to reduce CFCs. An agreement called the Montreal Protocol was reached between 27 countries in 1987. Since 1987, nearly every nation has become a signatory. By 1996 CFCs had been phased out in most developed countries. Today the 191 Montreal Protocol Parties have eliminated more than 95 percent of all ozone-depleting chemicals controlled by the Protocol.
And this past Friday night, a deal was worked out to advance the final phase-out of ozone depleting CFCs by 10 years. The United States is proud of its leadership in developing the Montreal Protocol, most importantly because of its achievements in protecting and restoring the ozone layer.
We also take pride in the Protocol’s design, which allows for ambitious yet pragmatic goals, relies on developed and developing countries, and has at its core a commitment to decision-making based on science.
Incidentally, the Montreal Protocols have resulted in ten times as much greenhouse gas reduction as the first phase of the Kyoto Protocol. As with CFC's and our experience under the Montreal Protocols, the United States knows that global success on today's climate challenge requires global dialogue to seek medium-term progress and longer-term solutions to the challenges of global warming. The Montreal Protocols are thus a great template for the Major Economies Meeting that is occurring in Washington in two days time.
The Major Economies Meeting has generated much interest around the globe, and may I say a little carping from Europe. There are those in the European media who argue that the Meeting is President Bush’s attempt to “undermine” or “sidetrack” the UN process. Those critics, in my opinion, have no fundamental understanding of that UN process, the path of diplomacy, nor the purpose of the Major Economies Meeting, because the Major Emitters Meeting is designed to accelerate the process, not sidetrack it. Allow me to explain further.
On May 31 of this year President Bush invited representatives from the world's major economies, including the EU, and the UN to meet over the course of the coming year to develop international targets for emissions reduction. The invitees represent 80% of the greenhouse gas emitters, and most importantly, include China and India, and all invitees have agreed to attend. China must be engaged, because it will pass the US as the largest greenhouse gas emitter this year, could be double the US rate within 10 years, and could in the near term, surpass all cumulative US greenhouse gas emissions. And one more reason China must be engaged: it is exporting its air pollution. More than one-fourth of California’s air pollution comes from China.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will host and President Bush will address the first meeting of these stakeholders in Washington in just two days time. These discussions, and there may be multiple such meetings in the coming months, are designed to allow a framework to develop so that the UN Process will be more focused, and more productive. The next step in the UN Process is the conference in Bali later this year. In such a forum, with 200 or so participants, it is virtually impossible for progress to be made. The Major Emitters Meeting format, brings together the significant stakeholders who must act, if our challenge is to be sincerely addressed. In this way the MEM is the engine that will drive the UN Process. The end game of this process? The Copenhagen 2009 Climate Conference.
Let me repeat that: the Copenhagen 2009 Climate Conference is anticipated to be the “End Game” of this Major Emitters process. As such, history, hopefully, will record that the Agreement that emerges from Copenhagen, is what put the developed and developing world on a path to reversing the course, halting the changes in our climate, and releasing ourselves from the grip of regimes opposed to our values and our civilization.
I urge you, our European allies, and the European media, to be supportive of this process. This landmark development reflects America’s commitment to actively participate in open dialogue in order to build towards regional, national and global goals to result in a framework on climate change by 2009. The US is committed to leadership, in order to meet this challenge of our age.
As I ponder the keys to meeting this challenge, I think back on my experience at “Texas Western”, and thereby move to my third and final point of the morning. What in the world does Texas Western have to do with meeting the climate and energy challenge?
At Texas Western, outside Forslev, Doris and Jorgen Olsen are showcasing a spirit of creativity and connectivity that I have found all over Denmark. It is a creativity that connects something American with something Danish. In their case it is a cultural focused creativity that shares roots with the American cultural experience.
In the case of the Nakskov recycling facility, the BASS Hydrogen Test Facility, and the Vestas wind turbines, it is a different type of connectivity. It is a different type of spirit, and I believe it is the spirit that is one of the keys to successfully addressing our challenge of climate change and energy sustainability.
It is a spirit of innovation and creativity on which America's remarkable entrepreneurial economy has been built; a spirit born by our forefathers who brought with them from Europe and Asia that inspiration and that attitude that has made America the "Land of Opportunity" for over 200 years.
It is a spirit that America shares with Denmark, and that is present in Nakskov, at BASS, at Vestas, at Novozymes, at Danisco, and at countless other places in Denmark.
It is a spirit that holds one key to our meeting this challenge of our age. It holds the key, if you in Denmark will do one thing:
Let America Be Your Partner.
You in Denmark have the culture of innovation and creativity. We in America have the markets, we have the capital, we have the scale, and we have the collaborators to harness that creativity to change the world.
Some of the great commercial success stories of recent days have come from partnerships between Denmark and America.
* Motorola's world-class Razor phone; designed and tested in Denmark.
* Bavarian Nordic's life-saving smallpox vaccine, production enhanced exponentially through a billion dollar deal with the US Department of Health and Human Services;
* Microsoft's acquisition of Navision, which Steve Balmer told me was revolutionizing Microsoft's innovative capabilities, and was the best investment Microsoft has ever made.
* Leif Hansen's strategic collaboration with Thornton Tomasetti Group, developing and engineering "green" buildings throughout America and Denmark, including the new T-houses in Orestad, and Vestas' new blade factory in Colorado.
These are examples where Danish innovation has collaborated with American capital and American marketing power, to create powerful synergies that can change the world.
We are working hard to encourage American capital and American companies to come to Denmark, to seek out such collaborations. Your Embassy in Washington and your consulate in New York, and your Innovation Center in Silicon Valley are doing the same thing.
This past spring, I traveled to Chicago, Minneapolis and Silicon Valley to introduce American venture capitalists to the remarkable opportunities emerging in Denmark in the area of energy innovation.
Denmark is already a world leader in sustainable energy. To leverage this knowledge, to share this experience, let America be your partner.
The recent high level visits from senior U.S. Officials to Denmark, the Energy Conference in Washington last week sponsored by Dansk Industries and the Foreign Ministry, your Environment Minister's activity and visibility in the halls of Congress and the Executive Branch, and your Prime Minister's presence in New York this week, all demonstrate that America acknowledges that it has much to learn from the creativity and ingenuity and sacrifice of the Danish people.
America has challenges doing its part to turn back the warming climate, and to meet the necessity of sustainable energy.
But if we build that culture of transatlantic collaboration; if we involve the private sector, the public sector and the academic sector and work together in an environment of empowerment, of innovation and of urgency, then we can rise to this challenge.
My Rediscovery Tour has helped me to better understand the roots of America and Denmark's enduring relationship. Along the way I have met many ordinary and extraordinary Danes. I have come to appreciate the tradition of innovation that is etched in your history and culture.
From Tycho Brahe's revolutionary developments in astronomy, to Niels Bohr's advances in physics; from Peter Bang and Svend Olufsen's achievements in radio and sound technology; to Wilhelm Hellesen's invention of the dry battery and portable power; from Poul LaCour's and Christian Riisager’s radical achievements in wind turbine design, to, yes, Doris and Jorgen's importing a little of Texas exuberance…., Danish creativity has driven global progress for hundreds of years.
I yearn, as do all America's leaders, for this culture of creativity to help America, and the developed, and the developing world, to meet this grand challenge of our age.
America appreciates its partnership with Denmark as we rise to this challenge together.
And I appreciate your inviting me to join you this morning.