On Reality Asserts Itself, Mr. Pollin says Germany runs its economy at twice the energy efficiency as the U.S.
This is an episode of Reality Asserts Itself, produced January 8, 2015.
STORY TRANSCRIPT
PAUL JAY, SENIOR EDITOR, TRNN: Welcome back to Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network. Iām Paul Jay, and weāre continuing our series about how do we get to a green economy with Bob Pollin. Thanks for joining us, Bob. So, one more time, Bob is codirector, distinguished professor of economics at the Political Economy Research Institute at the University of Massachusetts Amherst. And he is the author of two reports on going green. Oneās called global green growth, a forthcoming report with the United Nations [Industrial] Development Organization. So weāve been talking about why we need to and what it might look like. And watch the first segments and youāll know why and what. But now weāre going to talk about what can we learn from other countries. So, first of all talk about some positive examples. Are there models in the world that could be applied in North America that make some sense?
PROF. ROBERT POLLIN, PERI CODIRECTOR: Thereās a lot of positive evidence from other countries. We can start with Germany. So Germany is a country that is roughly at the U.S. living standard. So theyāre not sacrificing anything.
JAY: On the whole, probably a littleāin many ways higher. But go on.
POLLIN: Well, you know, roughly at the same. In terms of what we talked about in the last segment on energy efficiency, theyāre running their economy twice as efficiently as the United States. So this notion that itās really hard for us to achieve efficiency gains is completely contradicted by the fact that Germany is running their economy today at twice the efficiency level of the United States.
JAY: And have they sacrificed anything in terms of productivity?
POLLIN: No. I mean, theyāre running an economy at per capita GDP the same as us, as a higher level of average productivity growth that is much more successful in terms ofā.
JAY: So howād they get there?
POLLIN: Well, theyāre committed around issues of starting again with energy efficiency. So you can operate the U.S. economy tomorrow at the German level of efficiency if we made the investments. Their buildings are way more efficient, their cars are way more efficient, they use a lot more public transportation, and their machinery is more efficient, because they think about it. Now, not only that, because one of the arguments as well, how could we ever get to the German level, well, not only are they twice as efficient now, but their plan for 20 years is theyāre going to double their level of efficiency over the next 20 years.
JAY: So whatās the big difference? Why was Germany able to do it and not here? POLLIN: Two big things. One, theyāve had a Green Party for 40 years. And I donāt necessarily agree with everything the Green Partyās done, but they have been successful. I mean, when they got first elected in the 1970s, they were a bunch of crazy hippies. Thatās how they were perceived. But they were in the Bundestag, they were part of the political process, and they won. And theyāwell, I donāt know the vote they get. It rangesā10, 15 percent. But they have power. And that has forced the mainstream partiesāno matter which mainstream party is in power, they do not openly defy the Green Party. And number two, they donāt have any oil. JAY: No big oil companies.
POLLIN: They donātātheyāre there, but theyāre not basedāand Germany doesnāt have the resources. So you donāt have that resistance from the fossil fuel industry that you do in the United States. I would say those are the two big factors.
JAY: Yeah. Well, in some ways, maybe the second even the most prominent, although I wouldnāt underrate the first. But they donāt have the Koch brothers and all the others like the Koch brothers actively fighting any kind of legislation.
POLLIN: Thatās right.
JAY: And I assume the preponderance of Germans believe there actually is such a thing as climate change.
POLLIN: Well, if you talk toāyou know, anecdotally, as Iāve done, if you talk to Germans, and if they say, you know what, itās going to cost us $1,000 a year to do this, which I donāt necessarily think is trueāand we get into thatābut they say, so what if it costs us $1,000 a year? Weāre a rich country on average. We can afford $1,000 a year. I mean, there is a rural town in Germany whose name I canāt remember right now. They are operating on 100 percent green energy. And it wasnāt because they were ultra-greens. It was because they figured out, by operating at high efficiency and relying on wind power, in their case primarily wind power, they could do everything they wanted, and they didnāt have to spend a lot on bringing oil and bringing utility-based electricity into the community.
JAY: What are some other global examples?
POLLIN: Brazil is another. Brazil is a great example. If we talk about the global situation, right now, globally, on average, every person emits or generates 4.6 tons of CO2 per year. Now, of course, thereās massive differences, but on average itās 4.6.
JAY: Yeah, itās because if you live in the United States, youāre doing a heck of a lot more thanā.
POLLIN: Now, the United States is 18. Okay? But, anyway, the average is 4.6. Brazil is at 2.4.
JAY: Highly industrialized country.
POLLIN: And itās a growing industrialized country. Now, they have big advantages, in that they have a lot of hydro resources and they utilize hydroelectric power. Thatās a big part of it. But they also are running an economy at a much higher level of efficiency than the United States or other newly industrializedā.
JAY: For example?
POLLIN: Okay. So letās take another example. South Africa.
JAY: No, stay with Brazil. What are they doing thatās more efficient?
POLLIN: Oh. Well, the efficiency is not, like, any big deal. You have more efficient buildings, you have a more efficient transportation system, you have smaller cars, and you have more public transportation. Thatās all there is to it.
JAY: I mean, and it would be relatively simple to put it in the building code. I mean, you have one thing is retrofitting, but thereās veryāI donāt know if thereās anything in the building code thatās actuallyāassists on efficiency, is there? I mean, not where we are.
POLLIN: Well, there are. For public buildings nowā.
JAY: No, I mean for private buildings.
POLLIN: No. I mean, of course it varies by community, but the basic answer isā.
JAY: In California I think there is for public buildings. Is it national?
POLLIN: Well, public buildings, yes. In the U.S. now we do have standards. We are getting to more efficient buildings, but not efficient enough. Like I said, Germanyās standard is zero emissions. And we can get there. Like I said, I myself am involved in putting up a building now in Amherst, Massachusetts, that will be zero. Thereās no reason why every new building canāt be there. Yes, we have to think more, we have to spend more up front, but weāre going to make it back within a couple of years.
JAY: And, of course, if everybody does it, it gets a lot cheaper to do.
POLLIN: Yeah, and then it just becomes part of common conventional wisdom how you put up a building.
JAY: So South Africa.
POLLIN: South Africa is really bad. South Africa is extremely inefficient, and they are very high emissions because they rely on coal. Theyāre a big coal exporter. They consume coal. Coal is the most dirty burning fossil fuel. Oil and natural gas are cleanerātheyāre not clean, but theyāre cleaner. So if you compare Brazil and South Africa, where, in those two countries, the per capita per person GDP is roughly the same, Brazil on average isāthe average Brazilian is emitting 2.4 tons per year; in South Africa, itās more like 14.
JAY: And this is public policy is the difference.
POLLIN: Well, it is resources. I mean, you know, like I saidā.
JAY: Hydroelectric.
POLLIN: Hydro is big. But hydro canāsmall-scale hydro has a lot of promise. And people think hydro is a disaster ācause you put up these massive dams, you displace hundreds of thousands of people. Thatās not the only way you can do hydro. You can do smaller-scale hydro. Thereās, for example, a lot of opportunity in India. Indian small-scale hydro could be a major new resource. And renewable energy on averageāso weāre talking about hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and clean bioenergyātheir costs are now at close to parity with fossil fuels. Solar is not. But the others, on average you can put them up and run them, and nobodyās sacrificing anything in terms of the costs.
JAY: Now, if youāre talking globally, the other country that kind of really matters is China. Whatās going on?
POLLIN: Okay. So China and the U.S. made this deal, you know, what, two weeks ago, that China promises that by 2030 theyāre going to cap their emissions. That is progress. But thatās not nearly enough. The U.S. and China are responsible for 40 percent of all emissions, okay? So, yes, the rest of the world weāve got to cover, ācause thatās 60 percent. But the U.S. and China, both have to reduce their emissions by 40 percent within 20 years. And so itāsāChinaās saying theyāre going to cap in 20 years. So thatās not close to adequate. So China has to doāitās the same thing: invest a percent and half of GDP per year in clean energy. In fact, China is investing significantly in clean energy, but theyāre exporting all the solar panels. They arenāt keeping them in China.
JAY: Yeah, theyāre, like, one of the worldās leader in the creation of solar panels.
POLLIN: Yeah, but they need to build it out in China. And in developing countries, in China, in India, in Indonesia, in South Africa, in Brazil, the other factor is investing in clean energy is a big source of jobs. And the answer here again is very simple. Itās because if you spend on the clean, green energy economy, it requires more people, and thereās more domestic investment than if you rely on fossil fuels.
JAY: But the other side of this, as you mentioned in the earlier segment: you canāt just make buildings more efficient and start using alternative energy; you have to start reducing the use of carbon-based fuels. And Chinaās arguing that for the foreseeableāyou know, that 20, 25 years or whatever, you know, you guys have had, like, more than 100 years of industrial development, and youāre profiting from it, and youāre eating up the resources of the planet, and you have the highest standard of living.
POLLIN: Yes, true, true, true, true, true.
JAY: And now youāre telling us we have to get off fossil fuelā
POLLIN: True, true, true.
JAY: ābefore we get there.
POLLIN: Yes. Thatās true. And itās not fair. So we have to think of some standards of fairness that reflect the magnitude of the problem of climate change, again, if we take climate science seriously. So hereās another example. Indonesia. So Indonesia weāre talking about levels of emissions per person. Indonesia is at 1.7 tons per year per person. Again, the United States is at 18. Chinaās at about six. Well, Indonesiaāsātheyāre saying, well, we want to grow like China, and you canāt stop us, thatās not fair, because their standard of living is one-tenth or one-12th of the United Statesā. And, yeah, by that measure of fairness, theyāre right.
JAY: And this is the fight that keeps taking place at all the international meetings is you rich countries have to subsidize this or we canāt do it.
POLLIN: Right. But evenāso take the case of Indonesia. If they grow as they intend to grow over the next 20 years, their emissions per person is going to go up sixfold. And then you take the Indonesian case and you spread it throughout Asia, again we have no chance whatsoever of stabilizing the climate. So Indonesia also has to invest a percent and a half of GDP per year. Indonesia has massive resources ofā.
JAY: And start reducing their carbon use. Itās not just the investment [side. (?)]
POLLIN: All them.
JAY: And theyāre saying their developmentās going to slow down ifā
POLLIN: It wonāt slow down.
JAY: āthey start reducing the carbon side.
POLLIN: No, because the only reason it would slow down is if it costs more or if you literally haveāyouāre short of resources.
JAY: Because as you invest in the alternative energy side, you donāt need so much carbon.
POLLIN: Iām not going to say cut coal today. Iām going to say over 20 years cut it by 40 percent. And as that happens, you substitute green energy and efficiency. And when you do that, the green energy is not going to cost more. Itās at rough cost parity, other than solar, and solar is coming down very, very quickly. And so over the next 20 years, solar will be at cost parity with fossil fuel too. So thereās no reason to sacrifice. And on the jobs front, again, Indonesia, like China, would be a massive source of net job creation after allowing that the fossil fuel industry is going to contract by 40 percent.
JAY: So theyāve heard all these arguments.
POLLIN: I donāt think they have. Thatās why Iām on your show.
JAY: Alright. Well, maybe theyāre watching.
POLLIN: Yeah.
JAY: Okay. Weāre going to pick this up. On the next segment, weāre going to talk about, well, thereās an alternative to what Bobās saying, and thatās go nuclear, in terms of energy production, and to carbon-captureāthis carbon stuff can be solved; it doesnāt have to be so dirty. So weāre going to see what he thinks of all that. Please join us for the continuation of Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network.