Renewable Energy In The Politics Of Climate Change
By Melis Jensen
While the Paris Climate Agreement promised to invoke significant action to address the climate crisis and reduce global emissions, the lack of contractual obligation to the agreement has made its effects unsubstantial. Developed countries, including the U.S., must take the necessary steps to lead the nation towards progressive action, such as renewable energy. There is a dire need for government intervention to address the rapidly growing CO2 emissions and temperature increases. In addition to climate change being a global crisis in need of immediate attention from the U.S., there are many diplomatic and commercial benefits to taking action.
First, there are many diplomatic benefits that would come with increased trade relationships in the green energy sector. In the past, the oil and gas industry has created strong trade alliances between nations, including the U.S.. Although the environmental effects have been detrimental, there is truth behind the value of trading relations in the nonrenewable industry. Much of international cooperation and peace has developed from energy trading relationships. Because much of the world’s oil and gas reserves are located in developing countries, it forces nations with more stability to form trade alliances with these developing regions. This same trade dynamic can easily be mimicked with the renewable energy sector as it is a rapidly growing industry with much trade potential. Understanding that clean energy is a market with untapped potential for diplomatic relationships will be the most efficient and quickest way to make a transition away from the fossil fuel industry.
The most important way for the U.S. to address climate change would be to act as a world leader in climate change diplomacy. As a global powerhouse, the U.S. has the resources necessary to bring unity among the nations for carbon emission reduction and to also provide aid to developing countries suffering from the effects of a declining environment. We saw the beginning of international climate diplomacy from the U.S. at the UN General Assembly in September 2021. In his opening address at the assembly, President Biden voiced his intention to provide $11 million in support to countries with no resources to recover from natural disasters caused by climate change. In addition, President Biden encouraged all developed countries to aim for $100 million in total for developing countries. While making promises without full action or budget approval for increased aid is not nearly enough to bring the necessary changes to the climate crisis, it is a way to illustrate the U.S. intention to lead the climate change cause.
Although past COPs have led to little international climate change cooperation or binding treaties, these meetings still act as the one time a year where the nations are compelled to gather in one location to discuss climate crisis strategy. Now more than ever, it’s important for the U.S. to pave the way for negotiations and agreements during this year’s COP. One way to do that is by involving local and state-level governments, such as mayors and governors. If we look at the states individually, it is clear that local officials are the individuals who address the consequences of the climate crisis in their community. An example of state progressiveness and reform for climate change is California. The California Energy Commission has formed a successful renewable energy agenda using an RPS (Renewable Portfolio Standard) system. This program continuously increases renewable energy procurement requirements for the state’s businesses and entities. California leads the nation in climate change reform on the path to reaching net zero, which can be greatly accredited to the strong RPS and Renewable Energy Credit system. Many other states in the U.S., such as Washington and Oregon, have very similar renewable energy portfolios with strict goals to reach net zero in the coming decades. Energy Commission representatives, such as those in California, would be extremely valuable in paving the way for climate change agreements at the international scale, as they can serve as examples to other countries for what policy decisions work effectively.
One final way to strengthen the U.S. international footprint on climate change reform would be for the U.S. representatives in international affairs to put pressure on the World Trade Organization to support buy-local provisions, rather than banning its practice. In general, this ban on buy-local businesses makes it extremely difficult for locally-based renewable energy manufacturers to support their own community and Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards. Many PV cell and wind turbine manufacturers are abroad in countries whose own carbon emissions need to be significantly reduced. However, the WTO’s current system doesn’t allow domestic industries to provide renewable energy technology to its own community. The U.S. has a history of attacking nations for producing green energy materials in a way that encourages local industry to take steps backward. As a strong, unified nation, we must use our influence to encourage existing entities, such as the WTO, to aid in clean energy dissemination, not restrict it.
Regarding commercial benefits, recent research has shown that renewables have become an increasingly better investment for industries. Specifically, government incentives offered in certain regions and recent decreases in renewable equipment prices have contributed to an increase in investor interest. An example of this at work is the solar energy market. The SEIA (Solar Industry Research Data) has reported that the cost to install solar (both residential and commercial) has dropped over 70% in the past decade, which has led to an expansion in market and system deployment across the country. Furthermore, the cost of photovoltaic (PV) cell purchasing has dropped from $5.79 in 2010 to $1.25 in 2020. Conversely, the U.S. energy market has seen a rise in non-renewable energy costs. Over time, the demand for energy has gone up exponentially, while the availability of non-renewable energy has gone down. This has led to unstable and fluctuating energy costs. The instability in the oil and gas market has drawn many investors to invest in clean energy.
Unfortunately, a lack of education on clean energy and its many economic benefits has led to common misconceptions that affect investment interest. One major fallacy that has plagued the progress of solar energy investment is the belief that solar power can only be collected under perfectly sunny conditions. However, this is simply not the case. Photovoltaic Cells have the power to produce power from both direct and indirect sunlight. The SEIA reports that PV Cells can perform up to 25% of its peak effectiveness in unideal weather conditions. In fact, many of the U.S. states with the highest reported solar energy production are not known for their temperate climates and sunny weather, but instead are all classified by their high energy costs. For example, San Francisco is a leader in solar power production, despite the city’s infamous low-hanging haze and cloud cover. This is due to Northern California’s high electricity and non-renewable energy costs. In addition, the most commonly used solar power batteries, lithium ion batteries, can hold anywhere from 1 to 5 days of stored power. This allows for a window of inefficiency where the solar panels could collect little sunlight and still output power. Clean energy has proven to be an asset for regions that suffer from expensive energy costs, regardless of weather patterns.
About This Piece
This piece is a research-based simulation Information Memo, that would be, theoretically, prepared for the Secretary of State from a member of his or her staff. Because it is a piece written for a Climate Policy course, the primary guidelines were to write the memo around a certain
environmental concern in the political arena today.
