Thursday morning’s session at the Papandreou Foundation’s Symi Symposium focused on the "green economy": how to craft economic policy that both internalizes the costs of a carbon-based economy, and creates incentives to move away from carbon-intensive energy sources. The presenters in this session were Joseph Stiglitz, professor of economics at Columbia University and former member of the Clinton administration, and Angelo Consoli, Director, Codeco s.s., European Affairs and Progressive Communication.

Professor Stiglitz’s presentation picked up on a theme that has run throughout the conference: the question of the best economic mechanisms to address climate change. Stiglitz argued (as have others) that a carbon tax is preferable to a cap and trade system (the model embraced by the Kyoto treaty, and much of the business world). Because changes in the market away from fossil fuels will inevitably make those energy sources less expensive, carbon taxes keep their prices high, reflecting the costs imposed on society by carbon emissions. Stiglitz also argued that such taxation responds to another reality: market-based approaches won’t work by itself, and government investments in infrastructure, research, and preparedness will be needed to round out a comprehensive approach to fighting climate change.

Other costs that the developed world likely will face stems from advancing the concepts of energy security and independence. If countries like China and India act in accordance with these concepts, that inevitably means that they’ll be burning more coal — China is already building coal-fired power plants at the rate of one/week. This could be disastrous in terms of climate change, but it points to the need for developing countries to build their energy infrastructure. If countries like China and India have to impede their own development to play a part in a global response to the climate crisis, Stiglitz argued that they should probably be compensated.

All of these question are important for the next round of climate negotiations. Stiglitz noted that in order to bring the developing world into this process, measuring carbon emissions on a per capita basis will be critical, as will a strict enforcement system. His last point: trade sanctions will likely be the most effective means of enforcing adherence to carbon mitigation strategies adopted by the international community.

Consoli’s presentation dealt with a completely different issue: the necessity (his argument) of developing the hydrogen economy in order to address global warming. He argued that one of the major impediments facing the growth of renewable generation technologies is storage, and that by using renewables such as wind and solar power to electrolyze water and create hydrogen, we can overcome that impediment. Consoli noted that the development of such systems, which would be decentralized, also has the benefit of empowering (in every sense of the word) people around the globe without access to electricity, or the capital to create it with current centralized generation technologies. The economic effect of such a transition involves a move from carbon-intensive energy sources, which require high amounts capital, to renewable sources that require high amounts of labor, so renewable production of hydrogen as an energy storage mechanism ends up boosting employment and economic growth.

Consoli presented the EU Parliament’s Written Declaration on energy, and it’s five pillars:

• Efficiency
• Renewables
• CO2 Reduction
• Hydrogen
• Smart Grids

As you might imagine, the questions and responses came quickly and furiously to these presentations, and included thoughts about the political reality of carbon taxation, the idea that such taxes create a right to pollute, the problem of hydrogen generation from "dirty" sources, and the methods by which governments can encourage their citizens to accept changes that could be painful in the short term. As usual, I’m giving a quick and dirty overview here — feel free to ask questions or offer your own responses.

Photo: A view of the Mediterranean

Editor’s note: I started working on this post yesterday, and after writing and writing and writing, I realized it was turning into a David post While I heard a lot of interesting discussion yesterday, I’ll try to stick to an overview of main ideas and questions, and then respond to your comments and questions. Perhaps we can extend the symposium into our own space here…

This morning, I got to attend my first major session at the Papandreou Foundation’s Symi Symposium. Entitled "Energy in Flux: Safe Passage to a Future of Alternatives," the session consisted of three presentations on transitioning to a new energy future, and a lively debate over the challenges and opportunities created by the need to shift energy priorities in the face of global climate change.

Overall, I was delighted by the optimistic tone that ran throughout these presentations (which, in some cases, became points of contention in later open discussion): all three speakers acknowledged the enormity of the environmental challenges we face, and noted that combined efforts of the public and private sectors will be necessary to mobilize the larger public to action. In each presentation, the speaker focused on public involvement (in the roles of consumers and citizens), and made the case that an educated populace will provide the momentum for adoption of clean, renewable energy options. Let me just give a very brief overview of the main points offered by each speaker.

The first presentation focused on consumers’ roles in transitioning to a low-carbon energy infrastructure. Dr. Joseph Stanislaw noted that, traditionally, when we talk about energy, we talk about supply: where does it come from? He argued that a shift in mindset and language towards the services energy provides creates greater opportunity for transitioning towards more sustainable energy options. Consumers don’t want energy created from coal, or from solar power, for that matter: they want the services that reliable energy provides. By focusing on meeting this demand, we can address our contributions to climate change by implementing currently available technologies (particularly conservation technologies) while also working on the next generation of cleantech solutions. Consumers can be empowered to contribute to lower consumption by educating them on the "low hanging fruit" available: CFLs, for example. Finally, Stanislaw noted that the private sector is well ahead of the (US) government in recognizing these opportunities: he specifically discussed Wal-Mart’s sustainability efforts.

The second and third presentations both focused on engaging populations as citizens in transitioning towards cleaner energy technologies. The first, presented by James Fishkin of Stanford University of the two described experiments conducted by Texas utilities in "deliberative democracy": representative groups of customers were brought together in person, and through television, to discuss opportunities to purchase "green" power through their utilities. The sessions served to both educate the people gathered, and to listen to their concerns. These sessions produced amazing results: before these sessions, 52% of these consumers will willing to pay more for green energy; afterwards, 84% expressed willingness. The speaker noted the the increased prices don’t have to be much larger: even a $.25 addition to customers’ monthly bills would generate millions of dollars for increased renewable infrastructures. The success of the Texas experiment has led to other requests to hold such events: they’ve been repeated in Nebraska and Nova Scotia (with similar positive outcomes), and more will be held in Vermont, and as part of the next National Governor’s Association meeting. The third speaker, John Panarenos, provided the results of a similar effort in Europe: when asked, the representative samplingof citizens choose "energy and environment" as the most pressing issues facing the EU. The combination of terms was important — when the word "environment" was presented by itself, it didn’t receive nearly as high numbers.

As you might imagine, other symposium delegates had plenty of questions and even challenges for these speakers. A few points offered:

• The "small steps" position of the first presentation was challenged with the Chinese proverb "You can’t cross a ravine with small steps": ultimately, the enormity of these problems require much bigger responses.
• The market focus (which was not exclusive — he wasn’t arguing for "letting the market fix the problems") of the first speaker’s presentation was also questioned, with at least one respondent noting that we must focus on what scientists say is necessary, rather than what is possible in a consumer market.
• Several respondents also argued for more top-down regulation — in fact, that seemed to be a major point of debate: a focus on grassroots action (which is what I heard coming from these presentations) vs. government regulation.

Needless to say, this session was fascinating and provocative: as the first speaker noted, we can’t separate energy issues from climate change, so these kinds of discussions are necessary. I’ve just given the briefest of overviews here — feel free to offer comments or ask questions…

The evening sessions at the symposium are shorter and a bit less formal. Tuesday’s evening’s focused on a presentation by Kim Alter (Oxford University) on the concept of social entrepreneurship and social enterprise: the hybridizing of business and non-profit models into a unique endeavor that harnesses market forces in innovative ways to address social (and environmental) challenges. As with the morning session, the discussion was lively following the presentation. The concept of social enterprise as a distinct category, rather than another form of non-profit, was a major question for participants in the discussion.

Tomorrow: Excursion day…. with lots of photos from Paros and Antiparos….

While some joker will no doubt chime in and say that this phrase is a contradiction in terms, we're looking for a "green (political) conservative" to join our blogging team.

From the time we created our editorial policies, we agreed that we wanted to remain neutral in terms of our political leanings. We'd focus on green political issues, and praise or criticize based on results or potential results; not on party or ideological labels. We know that there are people on both sides of the political spectrum who share our passion for green living, and our concerns about the environmental challenges that face us. We want our readers to recognize that there are "green options" in the political realm, also.

As such, we want to expand our political coverage, and present views from both sides of that (artificial) divide of right and left. Ryan, our current politics writer, will be representing the progressive side; we need someone that feels more comfortable with a conservative take on the environmental issues of the day.

What we're looking for: in short, a "green conservative." That is, someone who tends to favor free-market solutions to environmental problems over those created by government. This person could certainly fall into the "energy hawk" category. While party affiliation isn't as important to us as ideas, we'd guess that this writer would identify as a Republican, or maybe even a Libertarian.

What we don't want: a "red meat" ideologue (on either side). We're looking for reasoned arguments, not bashing the other side. We know Ryan's up to the job for the progressive side, and we also know there are plenty of green conservatives who can make their argument with eloquence. We do want passion, but passion for solutions…

Think you're the person for us? Or, do you know that person? Drop me an email or a private message, and tell me why. We'd love to get this feature going ASAP…