Last Saturday’s edition of the New York Times had an op-ed by Bjorn Lomborg, Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center at Copenhagen Business School, that raised a good argument. In regards to climate change, his main point was that the focus should be making clean energy cheaper in order to “make low-carbon alternatives like solar and wind energy competitive with old carbon sources.”

There is a lot of talk about tackling global warming but the reality is that it falls at the bottom of Americans’ priority list, as a recent Pew survey has shown. What’s more, there is no consensus as to the best way to tackle what most people see as the real and serious threat of climate change. Mr. Lomborg argues that countries at the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen, Denmark in December should not focus on how to cut emissions. Instead, he proposes an agreement that calls for “every country to spend one-twentieth of a percent of its gross domestic product on low-carbon energy research and development.” This would make green energy sources fall in cost, eventually becoming competitive with traditional energy sources. The question is whether this would provide enough incentive for quick and broad development of alternative energy. Or is it necessary to have emission cuts backed by a cap and trade system that rewards those who reduce emissions in order to truly invigorate the private sector? Would such government action lead the private sector to experiment and mass produce clean technology more than a policy of allocating one-twentieth of a percent towards R&D? Thomas Friedman espouses that “he’d settle for any carbon price mechanism — cap and trade, fee-bates, carbon tax and/or gasoline tax — as long as it is real and provides consumers and investors a long-term incentive to shift to clean cars, appliances and buildings.” The battle is on not only for whether there will be climate change legislation but also over what shape that legislation will take.

In the end, a combination of government incentives and policy directives as well as concerted action from the business community is needed to really move on clean energy and the related issue of climate change. Whatever approach is decided upon, it is going to take leadership and cooperation from business leaders and government officials alike. The issue should be framed in terms of what their constituents see as top priorities. According to the Pew survey, in America those priorities are 1) economy 2) jobs 3) terrorism. A shift to clean energy can incorporate all three of those priorities. Businessmen and politicians should use this point to inform the public in order to build broad support for the major changes that are needed. At the same time, citizens in America and democracies around the world should take responsibility to educate and persuade their elected officials by lobbying for an energy revolution as a way to tackle their economic woes, joblessness, and fears of terrorism. With both top-down and bottom-up lobbying efforts making the same case, the need to change our energy strategy will be impossible to ignore.

- Justin Manger