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. Iâm Paul Jay, and weâre 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. Oneâs called global green growth, a forthcoming report with the United Nations [Industrial] Development Organization. So weâve been talking about why we need to and what it might look like. And watch the first segments and youâll know why and what. But now weâre 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: Thereâs 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 theyâre not sacrificing anything.
JAY: On the whole, probably a littleâin 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, theyâre running their economy twice as efficiently as the United States. So this notion that itâs 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, theyâre 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 ofâ.
JAY: So howâd they get there?
POLLIN: Well, theyâre 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 theyâre going to double their level of efficiency over the next 20 years.
JAY: So whatâs the big difference? Why was Germany able to do it and not here? POLLIN: Two big things. One, theyâve had a Green Party for 40 years. And I donât necessarily agree with everything the Green Partyâs done, but they have been successful. I mean, when they got first elected in the 1970s, they were a bunch of crazy hippies. Thatâs how they were perceived. But they were in the Bundestag, they were part of the political process, and they won. And theyâwell, I donât know the vote they get. It rangesâ10, 15 percent. But they have power. And that has forced the mainstream partiesâno matter which mainstream party is in power, they do not openly defy the Green Party. And number two, they donât have any oil. JAY: No big oil companies.
POLLIN: They donâtâtheyâre there, but theyâre not basedâand Germany doesnât have the resources. So you donât 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 wouldnât underrate the first. But they donât have the Koch brothers and all the others like the Koch brothers actively fighting any kind of legislation.
POLLIN: Thatâs right.
JAY: And I assume the preponderance of Germans believe there actually is such a thing as climate change.
POLLIN: Well, if you talk toâyou know, anecdotally, as Iâve done, if you talk to Germans, and if they say, you know what, itâs going to cost us $1,000 a year to do this, which I donât necessarily think is trueâand we get into thatâbut they say, so what if it costs us $1,000 a year? Weâre a rich country on average. We can afford $1,000 a year. I mean, there is a rural town in Germany whose name I canât remember right now. They are operating on 100 percent green energy. And it wasnât 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 didnât 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, thereâs massive differences, but on average itâs 4.6.
JAY: Yeah, itâs because if you live in the United States, youâre doing a heck of a lot more thanâ.
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 itâs a growing industrialized country. Now, they have big advantages, in that they have a lot of hydro resources and they utilize hydroelectric power. Thatâs 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 industrializedâ.
JAY: For example?
POLLIN: Okay. So letâs take another example. South Africa.
JAY: No, stay with Brazil. What are they doing thatâs 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. Thatâs 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 thereâs veryâI donât know if thereâs anything in the building code thatâs actuallyâassists on efficiency, is there? I mean, not where we are.
POLLIN: Well, there are. For public buildings nowâ.
JAY: No, I mean for private buildings.
POLLIN: No. I mean, of course it varies by community, but the basic answer isâ.
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, Germanyâs 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. Thereâs no reason why every new building canât be there. Yes, we have to think more, we have to spend more up front, but weâre 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. Theyâre a big coal exporter. They consume coal. Coal is the most dirty burning fossil fuel. Oil and natural gas are cleanerâtheyâre not clean, but theyâre 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 isâthe average Brazilian is emitting 2.4 tons per year; in South Africa, itâs more like 14.
JAY: And this is public policy is the difference.
POLLIN: Well, it is resources. I mean, you know, like I saidâ.
JAY: Hydroelectric.
POLLIN: Hydro is big. But hydro canâsmall-scale hydro has a lot of promise. And people think hydro is a disaster âcause you put up these massive dams, you displace hundreds of thousands of people. Thatâs not the only way you can do hydro. You can do smaller-scale hydro. Thereâs, for example, a lot of opportunity in India. Indian small-scale hydro could be a major new resource. And renewable energy on averageâso weâre talking about hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, and clean bioenergyâtheir 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 nobodyâs sacrificing anything in terms of the costs.
JAY: Now, if youâre talking globally, the other country that kind of really matters is China. Whatâs 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 theyâre going to cap their emissions. That is progress. But thatâs not nearly enough. The U.S. and China are responsible for 40 percent of all emissions, okay? So, yes, the rest of the world weâve got to cover, âcause thatâs 60 percent. But the U.S. and China, both have to reduce their emissions by 40 percent within 20 years. And so itâsâChinaâs saying theyâre going to cap in 20 years. So thatâs not close to adequate. So China has to doâitâs 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 theyâre exporting all the solar panels. They arenât keeping them in China.
JAY: Yeah, theyâre, like, one of the worldâs 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. Itâs because if you spend on the clean, green energy economy, it requires more people, and thereâs 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 canât just make buildings more efficient and start using alternative energy; you have to start reducing the use of carbon-based fuels. And Chinaâs arguing that for the foreseeableâyou know, that 20, 25 years or whatever, you know, you guys have had, like, more than 100 years of industrial development, and youâre profiting from it, and youâre 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 youâre telling us we have to get off fossil fuelâ
POLLIN: True, true, true.
JAY: âbefore we get there.
POLLIN: Yes. Thatâs true. And itâs 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 hereâs another example. Indonesia. So Indonesia weâre talking about levels of emissions per person. Indonesia is at 1.7 tons per year per person. Again, the United States is at 18. Chinaâs at about six. Well, Indonesiaâsâtheyâre saying, well, we want to grow like China, and you canât stop us, thatâs not fair, because their standard of living is one-tenth or one-12th of the United Statesâ. And, yeah, by that measure of fairness, theyâre 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 canât do it.
POLLIN: Right. But evenâso 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 ofâ.
JAY: And start reducing their carbon use. Itâs not just the investment [side. (?)]
POLLIN: All them.
JAY: And theyâre saying their developmentâs going to slow down ifâ
POLLIN: It wonât slow down.
JAY: âthey start reducing the carbon side.
POLLIN: No, because the only reason it would slow down is if it costs more or if you literally haveâyouâre short of resources.
JAY: Because as you invest in the alternative energy side, you donât need so much carbon.
POLLIN: Iâm not going to say cut coal today. Iâm 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. Itâs 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 thereâs 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 theyâve heard all these arguments.
POLLIN: I donât think they have. Thatâs why Iâm on your show.
JAY: Alright. Well, maybe theyâre watching.
POLLIN: Yeah.
JAY: Okay. Weâre going to pick this up. On the next segment, weâre going to talk about, well, thereâs an alternative to what Bobâs saying, and thatâs go nuclear, in terms of energy production, and to carbon-captureâthis carbon stuff can be solved; it doesnât have to be so dirty. So weâre going to see what he thinks of all that. Please join us for the continuation of Reality Asserts Itself on The Real News Network.