- Services
- Solutions
- Events
- Partners
- About us
It was a homecoming celebration of sorts today for former Stanford University Provost and 66th U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to be back on campus.
Rice paid a visit to Stanford in Palo Alto, Calif. today, commenting on the complex relationships between U.S. energy issues and international policies as the keynote speaker of the Silicon Valley Energy Summit, and criticizing the climate mechanisms pursued by the administration of U.S. President Barak Obama.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the nation’s first energy and climate bill on Friday, the “American Clean Energy and Security Act.” The Senate is expected to take action next, with discussion currently anticipated in the fall.
The legislation, also known as the Waxman-Markey bill, would establish a “cap-and-trade” market for greenhouse gases (see Obama administration could fast track cap-and-trade, RPS in '09).
Rice said she understands the need for carbon pricing to be established, but cautioned of the abuse of a cap-and-trade system, especially on an international level, calling the Kyoto system for doing so "ridiculous." She indicated it could likely be managed domestically.
“Carbon tax is more straight forward,” she said.
In a sit-down discussion with Stanford Precourt Energy Efficiency Center’s Director Jim Sweeney, Rice answered questions from the audience about major ways energy has impacted diplomacy and foreign policy, and offering suggestions as to how the energy and environmental dilemma could be resolved.
In China, where foreign policies are being driven by resource constraints, Rice highlighted how China is seeking friendships and new relationships in places they haven’t in the past.
With little hope of an open political system and open foreign policy in Russia, Rice referred to the steady accretion of power to the government as “Russia Inc.” She indicated Russia hasn’t been as successful as it hoped in buying its energy advantages from western countries.
She said indicated that how the energy economy environment dilemma is addressed through policy can be a source of conflict or one of cooperation for the United States.
She voiced concern with the growing north/south divide, addressing the need for China and India to be incorporated in “a fair way” into international energy-related framework.
“This new north/south divide can be bridged,” she said, adding that these countries can even be early adopters of new technology.
She also cited concern with international frameworks stifling innovation, especially in regard to genetically modified food.
“At this stage, we need to have an open field for all technology to change the sustainability mix,” she said.
With some new technologies, such as transportation-related battery technologies, already already on the table, she said “we have to be careful of a discontinuous leap,” by making sure international framework is solid.
“I do think there has to be some sense of responsibility in the part of developing countries or we are not going to get there,” she said.
Without China and India dealing with greenhouse gases, for example, she said progress could be reversed or stalled. China is weighing its options in taxing greenhouse gas emissions and waste water (see China to tax polluted air and water?).
China recently passed the U.S. as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases. It gets about 80 percent of its electricity from coal-fired power plants (see China to close 31GW of coal power plants).
With enormous amounts of government spending as well as funds from the private sector pouring into alternative energy, she suggested some of those funds be used to transfer alternative technologies to developing countries.
“Just say zero tariffs on the transfers of any clean technologies and see what happens,” she said.
Rice couldn’t pick out just one country that has an energy policy the United States could emulate. Rather, she suggested the United States could pull from various countries such as France and Australia for specific pieces (see France launches ambitious, €1.5B solar plan and Germany, U.S., Australia inject stimulus spending into cleantech).

Services
Solutions
Cleantech Forum events
Comments
CAP and TRADE(TAX)
Submitted on June 29th, 2009 by Les Horn (not verified)CAP and TRADE is ENRON forced onto everyone.
CAP and TRADE places the entire U.S. economy on the shoulders of speculation and manipulation within the Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX)
CAP and TRADE lowers the standard of the middle class and raises taxes.
The wealthy and the poor have no worries. The rich will get richer speculating on carbon emission permits and the poor will get government
grants to pay their energy and food bills.
Once we have out of control energy prices your local congressman will not be concerned because he/she's penssion will be invested in the Chicago Climate Exchange(CCX)
Don't just say no to CAP and TRADE!
Just say hell no to CAP and TRADE ENRON type trading scheme.
TAX & DIVIDEND
Submitted on July 2nd, 2009 by Erich J. Knight (not verified)What the CFC/Ozone success story was for raising the importance atmospheric chemistry, I feel biochar soil technology will be for carbon soil chemistry, Mycology and Microbiology. The historical climate work of William Ruddiman showing the agricultural origin of most excess CO2 begs this anthropogenic solution of soil carbon sequestration.
The same relationship I felt held for the NOX & SOX success story in raising the prospects for Cap & Trade and would mean,(with the EU lessons learned) for the cap & trade in carbon. I thought the relatively painless process for both industry and consumer in clearing the air and acid rain would offer the best carbon solution.
Dr. Hansen and the Economist magazine have turned me around with their Tax & Dividend proposal . The simplicity of calling carbon by it's name, at it's source, reduces the overall complexity, for the public most of all. This plan puts the $$ directly into the hands of consumers, they can then decide to save it by hitting the light switch or spend it by leaving the lights on.
A system to deal with CO2 equivalence of other GHGs will be complex enough by it's nature of not having a choke point source.
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/2009/WaysAndMea...
Politically, C tax & dividend (I prefer the name Tax & Share) may be to late to the stage this year to have a legislative chance, but I am changing my arguments for it, and will spread theirs.
Here is a post concerning modification of where the dividend should go, by Folke Günther, a chemical engineer in Sweden:
Date: Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Subject: Re: [biochar-climatechange] Emailing: 20080604_TaxAndDividen...
I agree with Jim's proposal on a global carbon tax .
However, I don't think the tax should be paid back to everybody, indiscriminately.
Instead, the tax collected to restrain emissions should be paid to those who sequester carbon from the air.
By that the counteracting measure could be very profitable
(In Sweden, the emission tax is 1 SEK per kg CO2, or 3.77 SEK (about $ 0.5) per kg carbon.)
If the same amount would be paid to those who bury char in their own land , a normal farmer, making char of the haulm could get an extra pyment of about $ 1000 per hectare! (assuming a harvest of 8 tonnes per hectare)
Many would join in. Here we are in a potential situation similar to that depicted by the anti-biochaists.
The solution to that is to restrict the payment to those following certain rules of an 'ethical' charring.
I mentioned that in my paper 'Carbon sequestration for everybody<
www.holon.se/folke/car... >' about Mrs Ruth Less.
FG
Post new comment