EU-China: And now there is a solar war...

Here is a link to article in China Daily where I highlight one key aspect. Below some more thoughts:

Unfortunately this was expected. Two years ago I launched an initiative, 21st Century Solarmap, that I hoped could mitigate this development. Did not get enough support for it at the time to stop the current development, but it might be time to re-launch it with more stakeholders?

It should be obvious to enough people that we need to move forward with accelerated deployment of solar solutions and that frameworks like those in WTO should not and can not be used when transformative change is needed. We need collaboration, not war...

My thoughts regarding 1. Is it smart of the EU to initiate anti-dumping investigation on solar panel imports from China (especially when China have asked for a dialogue to find smart ways forward)?

2. What could China do (beside what it is already is doing)?

1. Is it smart of the EU to initiate anti-dumping investigation on solar panel imports from China? No, it is not smart from EU to act in such a way. If EU is a low-carbon champion they should start from a low-carbon development goals and ask if the low process from China is helping achieve the goals in EU and the global goals. Then after they should look at how EU can ensure that they use the low process on solar panels to become leading exporter in related areas. We know that current trade rules need to show flexibility in order for us to ensure the accelerated uptake of low-carbon solutions. As the price of carbon is still zero or much to low in all around the world, including EU, we are today in reality subsidising fossil fuels.

To not address the hidden subsidies of fossil fuels and instead attack China for providing the kind of prices for solar solutions that the world needs, is not only undermining EU as a green champion it is a clear demonstration that EU look at short-term populism instead of long-term collaboration and employment. Low prices on solar panels already help EU to create new sustainable jobs in a low-carbon economy. EU is today leading in areas such as system solutions for solar panels, architects providing , buildings that are net producers of green electricity. All these depend on inexpensive solar panels and are already exported from EU. So EU is not only running the risk of punishing China and the world, it will most certainly make EU less competitive in the low carbon economy.

Taking a broader approach we also should note that low prices on solar panels is the future, and by reacting so strongly against low prices EU demonstrate that they are afraid of the future.

2. What could China do? My urge would be for China to have a two prong track when they respond to EU:

2.1. In order to avoid a destructive trade war and turn EUs destructive move into something positive it would be very good if China responded by asking for a broader review of WTO when it comes to environmental goods and services, this time with focus on climate change. It is clear that we must accelerate the uptake of low-carbon solutions. China has done this and for that China should be rewarded not punished. Current WTO legislation is designed for incremental improvements in existing systems, and this is positive in many areas, but not for low-carbon solutions. We need accelerated uptake and accelerated increase of trade in low-carbon solutions in many areas, for this WTO is not ready and a reform is needed (or WTO could be told that low-carbon trade is outside its mandate)

This case is similar to the situation where EU used WTO rules to put taxes on Chinas energy efficient light bulbs (CFLs). That time it was also clear that EU action was undermining a sustainable development, by increasing the global price on a vital low-carbon product, by making it more expensive both in EU, but also in the world by artificially keeping the prices high and attacking China .

2.2. In parallel with the WTO work it would be very helpful if China, if possible together with the BASIC block, could initiate a global dialogue on accelerated uptake of key low-carbon products and services. We are not talking about any ordinary product here, we are talking about goods that can help the world avoid a climate catastrophe. We need to discuss how the world can collaborate to reach this goal. We can not allow old legislation in WTO, that in some cases was helpful in addressing protectionism, undermine the necessary global development in the 21st century.

China will be a key country when it comes to deliver low-carbon solutions in the 21st century to the world, but have so far not been very active when it come to establishing global dialogues in key areas. This could be such an opportunity. Such a dialogue should obviously build on China's bilateral dialogues that have a very strong focus on low-carbon development and a global peaceful development. These dialogues could develop into concrete action plans for new global governance initiatives.

With the failure first in Copenhagen and later in Rio to reach any kind of meaningful agreement on a low-carbon development strategy, this trade problem with wind and solar could be turned into an opportunity for the first serious dialogue about global governance for sustainable development in the 21st century.

22nd century voices: 350+ million already today, half a billion by 2017, a billion by 2023, two billion by 2025...

Is it time to start an initiative to gather 22nd century voices? They are already more than 250 million alive today that still will be alive 2100... I put a counter on this webpage, www.22nd-century-voices.net, and hope to take this further soon. The total failure in Rio to deliver anything substantial is just the latest example of the lack of capacity for long-term thinking/action demonstrated by governments today. Unfortunately companies are, in most cases, even more shortsighted and NGOs struggle to present anything that is relevant for a 22nd century agenda. In many areas NGOs (and sustainability consultants) are actually the most shortsighted, with simplistic fundraising/labeling and attempts to offset/price nature/people without any consideration/assessment of the long-term consequences.

In order to encourage a slightly longer perspective I have begun to set up an initiative to encourage the implementation of structures that ensure that all major decisions are screened for their 22nd century impact.

As part of the preparations for this initiative I wanted to create a count-up timer that shows how many people that are alive today that still will be alive in 2100.

I was surprised when I saw that already more than 300 million people (children of course) that are alive today will still be alive in 2100. This will increase to half a billion by 2017, then exploding to a billion by 2023 and two billion by 2025 , i.e of all the people living 2017 half a billion will still be alive 2100, of all the people living in 2023 a billion will still be alive in 2100, of all the people living in 2025 two billion will still be alive in 2100. So this might be the fastest growing movement ever...

This is a group that no one listen to, but the fact that so many will still be alive in 2100 is something that makes the way politicians and business leaders behave even more unacceptable.

Below is a graph and I also pasted the actual numbers. The data is the medium scenario from the UN World Population Prospects, the 2010 Revision (Updated: 28 June 2011). Available here.

Obviously these numbers are very rough estimations and if science moves ahead at the current speed we could see a lot more people living a lot longer, increasing the numbers. On the other hand if nothing is done to curb the unsustainable trends today the risk for a collapse could reduce the number significantly, there are even a risk that humanity will not make it to 2100 if we do not address the major challenges today.

Below is the data (will update in better format when I have time, but for the sake of transparency): Birth date Before 2000 2000-2005 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025 2025-2030 2030-2035 2035-2040 2040-2045 2045-2050 2050-2055 2055-2060 2060-2065 2065-2070 2070-2075 2075-2080 2080-2085 2085-2090 2090-2095 2095-2100 Age of those alive in 2100 100+ 95-99 90-94 85-89 80-84 75-79 70-74 65-69 60-64 55-59 50-54 45-49 40-44 35-39 30-34 25-29 20-24 15-19 10-14 5-9 0-4 Alive in each age group 17 795 53 688 132 521 240 653 347 676 433 268 495 013 539 358 571 055 591 456 602 682 607 791 610 462 612 791 614 667 615 142 613 758 610 966 607 573 604 385 602 226 Accumulated number of people 17 795 71 484 204 004 444 658 792 333 2 017 934 2 512 947 3 052 305 3 623 360 4 214 816 4 817 498 5 425 289 6 035 751 6 648 542 7 263 209 7 878 351 8 492 108 9 103 075 9 710 648 10 315 033 10 917 259

The Wonderbox, by Roman Krznaric

I think this is a nice weekend book. While the book balances dangerously close to clichés most of the time and are not that far from the self-help books it dislikes, there is something in the tone that feels genuinely sympathetic. It is as if Roman really wants to help people to take a small step away from the commercial culture surrounding us into something with a little more quality. So while the book does not present anything particular new or challenging it is nice to see someone that writes a book because they actually cares. At the same time I feel ambivalent as it feels like this kind of book is the best that we get right now even when groups that should be able to look beyond the more simplistic approaches enter into the debate. What we get are short snippets in a YouTube culture where short lists and sound bites are for 10-minute presentations are made for entertainment without actual consequences (TED is probably the best example of simple messages in a simple format). It is all about individuals and very little about society, it is very much about the small steps everyone can take. It feels like the equivalent of environmental organizations that collect money for people to help them feel good by planting trees while the people eat so much meat and drive so big cars that there will be no planet left if they keep up what they doing.

I feel frustrated that so much is focused on the individual’s immediate needs. It is as if we have given up trying to create something more

But maybe this is what is needed to take a first step… ?

Roman is taking the self-help books he feels are shallow and try to put some substance into the personal issues that surrounds us. I admire the attempt and I hope it helps someone.

For all those that started to work, forgot to read, watch too much TV/ read mainstream media and focus on their Facebook updates this could be a great wakeup call. There is world that is out there and that is more interested than the commercial

But maybe Roman has a better understanding of what is needed than I. After I read the book I read the May 19 issue of New Scientist and realize that I hope that the editor reads the Wonderbox. The editorial in New Scientist “a new layer of intrigue”, about augmented reality, is some of the most “un-enlightened” texts I have read in a magazine that I subscribe to. It is sad to see how even bright people (I just assume that an editor at New Scientist is reasonably well educated and well read and there should be capable of thinking beyond the current situation) just take a hyper commercial reality for granted. The fact that communication addressing people only as consumers and not as citizens/humans is everywhere is not seen as a problem is disturbing for me as I think we need to discuss mental pollution. For an editor at New Scientist Roman’s perspective might help to show that cities through most of history have been without most of the PR/advertisement and that mass consumption does not have to be the default way of organizing a city.

I really think we have a problem when a large part of the population live in large “American-like” cities, something that an increasing number of people around the world, including China, India and other Asian cities are doing. This results in a situation where a generation grows up in a hyper commercial environment where everything has a price and nothing value. Adding augmented reality in this situation is not necessarily a good thing, especially when the development is led by companies that want to sell advertisement (like Google).

So while Wonderbox is not something that will change very much it is nice to spend a few hours over a weekend with someone who wants to take a few steps in a more human direction. Hopefully next Roman could look both a little further beyond the obvious as well as discuss possible options for society as well as individuals.

Please have a look at Roman's webpage also, he might have something interesting coming up... and if not you can just have a look and enjoy the fact that he is one of the few out there who is not cynical. Although I just realized that he's got a .com address, how ironic.

"In the Beginning was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson and the need for Tom Standage and Sam Bozzo to step up and help

I usually only write about books that I think are good and this is definitely not a good book. But the idea to describe the development of programming and our interaction with computers over history is a great idea. And the title is so good that people interested in the idea probably will pick it up, my suggestion is to ignore the book and start writing something.

To be honest I think the book was more an idea for a book that needed an introduction (the programmed universe in the last chapter). When Neal begun to write he became fascinated by his own history and forgot that he really did not have anything to say for those of us that are not interested in his personal (and often incorrect) recollection of things.

I hope his fictions are better researched that this book, if it is something I expect of an author it is that they should do their research and not just improvise.

As inspiration for the kind of book that carry the kind of title as Neal’s I suggest the Victorian internet by Tom Standage and the movie Hackers Wanted, by Sam Bozzo, (I think Sam's movie is still only available on BitTorrent). If Tom and Sam came together I think we could get the ultimate story…

PS It is only and article about Sam and his relation to BitTorrent but it is so interesting that I thought I could provide a link as an initial alternative to reading the book that you might have googled for and arrived here... ;) Here is the link to the article in Torrentfreak. If anyone downloads anything by Sam Bozzo from a source where you don't pay I hope you will go to his webpage send him money so can keep up the good work.

IT som verktyg för en långsiktigt hållbar utveckling: ”Potentialen är enorm – men vi måste tänka nytt”

Här är resultatet av en intervju/samtal med Kjell Åström som är med i "Telias miljörapport 2011".Hela rapporten finns att ladda ner som på Telias hemsida (PDF 2.3meg). +++++++++++++++++++++++++ Visst är det lovvärt med Svanenmärkt skrivarpapper och bilar som går på biobränsle. Men många av våra miljöfrämjande insatser är tämligen defensiva. Antingen innebär de att problemen flyttas utanför Sveriges gränser, eller så kräver de resurser i en omfattning som gör dem omöjliga i resten av världen. Detta anser miljövisionären och regeringsrådgivaren Dennis Pamlin, grundare av företaget 21 Century Frontiers.

Han efterlyser de stora greppen, lösningarna som kan fungera för en värld med 9 miljarder invånare. Tröga institutioner motverkar förändring Att utvecklingen mot ett långsiktigt hållbart samhälle går så pass långsamt beror bland annat på våra institutioner. De växte fram under 1900-talets industriella utveckling och fungerade utmärkt i den samhällstyp vi hade då. Men i dag står vi inför helt nya utmaningar enligt Dennis Pamlin.

– Ta till exempel Trafikverket. Där jobbar man fortfarande bara med fysisk förflyttning. Men jag är bergsäker på att det om tjugo år är totalt otänkbart att planera vägar och järnvägar utan att ta hänsyn till de möjligheter som bredband skapar. Trafikverket har bytt namn till Mobilitetsverket och sysslar minst lika mycket med virtuell förflyttning som med fysisk. Dessutom tänker man globalt och låter planeringsarbetet påverkas inte bara av ekonomiska nätverk utan även av kulturella.

Politiker och beslutsfattare är i allmänhet väl medvetna om att dagens institutioner har svårt att bidra till en resurseffektiv och rättvis samhällsutveckling. Men att förändra deras sätt att fungera är en tuff uppgift som man inte riktigt tagit sig an ännu.

– Vi behöver framtidsinriktade aktörer som kan skynda på omdaningen genom att göra sina röster hörda i kommuner, i riksdagen, i Bryssel och på global nivå. Det är mycket viktigt att skapa en strukturell återkoppling som för oss bort från dagens överkonsumtion av naturresurser, in i ett smartare samhälle där vi ser utvecklingen av människor som långt viktigare än ekonomisk tillväxt, menar Dennis Pamlin.

Makt över återinvesteringarna Det finns en handfull grundläggande behov som hela mänskligheten delar. Alla vill vi ha någonstans att bo, mat på bordet och en möjlighet att förflytta oss. Därför finns de allra största ekonomiska möjligheterna inom energiförsörjning, infrastruktur och livsmedel. På dessa områden har it mycket att ge, inte minst transparens. Slutkonsumenterna får tillgång till information som gör att de förstår sammanhangen bättre och ser vilka konsekvenser som deras köpbeslut får.

– När du väljer att köpa vissa varor medverkar du till att skapa morgondagens värld. I framtiden kommer du att se mycket bättre hur detta fungerar. När du plockar en viss sorts havregryn från butikshyllan vet du exempelvis att en del av det du betalar går till investeringar som skyddar regnskog från avverkning eller bevarar ett öppet kulturlandskap i Mellansverige. Det intressanta är att du fokuserar på det som dina pengar kan skapa i morgon, inte på vad de gör i dag, säger Dennis Pamlin.

Energiproduktionen kan påverkas på ett liknande sätt. En elleverantör kan ha miljömärkt el i sitt utbud, men när kunderna ser att pengarna som de betalar investeras i polsk kolkraft går nog många över till ett elbolag där hållbarhet genomsyrar hela verksamheten. Dennis Pamlin betonar den här aspekten av it och menar att tekniken ger den enskilda medborgaren större makt över samhällsutvecklingen. Hus ska leverera energi, inte förbruka den.

Den svenska miljöpolitiken har sina rötter i 70-talet. Den inriktas huvudsakligen på att minska nationella problem av olika slag. Vi försöker exempelvis hålla nere koldioxidutsläppen genom förmånliga regler för bilar som drivs med biobränsle.

– Tanken är god, men åtgärder av det här slaget fungerar inte globalt. Vi flyttar bara problemen utanför våra gränser. Skulle världens alla bilister gå över till bioetanol så rycker vi bokstavligen maten ur händerna på hundratals miljoner människor, Redan i dag ser vi hur vårt system leder till konflikter mellan olika grupper som vill lägga beslag på planetens begränsade resurser, konstaterar Dennis Pamlin.

I stället efterlyser han transformativa förändringar, ett rejält paradigmskifte där vi börjar betrakta världen på ett helt nytt sätt. Insatser inom bostadssektorn är extra viktiga, eftersom den svarar för ungefär 40 % av de globala koldioxidutsläppen. Han menar att det överhuvudtaget inte finns någon anledning att fortsätta uppföra byggnader som förbrukar energi. Plushus är en teknisk verklighet, alltså hus som producerar mer energi än vad som går åt för driften. Den energin kommer ägaren att kunna skicka tillbaka till elnätet eller lagra i batterierna på den elbil som han samäger med sina grannar. Bilen kommer förresten inte att användas särskilt mycket, eftersom många sköter det mesta hemifrån – jobbet, inköpen och umgänget med andra människor.

– På det här sättet övergår byggnader från att vara vår tids största miljöhot till att bli en avgörande miljölösning. Och det är transformativa it-lösningar som gör processen möjlig. Detta är något helt annat än många av dagens ”lösningar”, som i realiteten endast flyttar våra problem till någon annan plats på jorden, säger Dennis Pamlin.

I ett niomiljardersperspektiv duger endast transformativ förändring It-lösningar som bidrar till en transformativ förändring är hårdvaluta i en värld där miljö- och klimatproblemen blir mer och mer akuta. I Sverige finns gott om skärpta och kreativa it-specialister, vilket borde betyda att vi har lysande möjligheter att utveckla revolutionerande system och applikationer som kan exporteras lönsamt. Eller?

– Tyvärr motverkas den här utvecklingen av både marknadsmekanismer och institutioner. Det är absolut inte fråga om någon medveten, ondsint konspiration utan bara resultatet av att våra institutionella ramverk i väsentliga delar är 50 år efter sin tid.

För att få bättre perspektiv på behoven räcker det med att titta på några enkla statistiska uppgifter. Enligt FN:s prognoser är vi 9 miljarder invånare på den här planeten kring år 2050. Kinas städer växer med ca 18 miljoner varje år– alltså dubbla Sveriges befolkning.

– Under de närmaste 20 åren kommer världen att förändras fortare och mer genomgripande än någonsin tidigare. It har potentialen att både lösa dagens stora problem och skapa helt nya möjligheter i ett längre perspektiv. Det är ingen lätt uppgift, men använder vi it på ett klokt sätt kommer vi att lyckas, summerar Dennis Pamlin.