tv [untitled] April 24, 2012 2:30pm-3:00pm EDT
so, it gets much more complicated in the negotiation, which is why, in anything like this, you have to have a secretary-general who is just going to drive it. and he has done so with kande and a very, very good former head of deponte and now the former bank america is the other co-chair. serious efforts along with lots and lots of companies just to kind of bulldoze your way through it. if you're meek about it, it gets pecked to death, and that's true of what goes on on capitol hill. if you drive it, it doesn't happen. the u.n. is more difficult, so that happens here. is the u.s. a leader in this? well, we'll hear from the special representative who's focusing on this for hillary. you know, the u.s. is always a little bit nervous about any kind of international agreement, and we would hope that they would pick and really endorse
this and drive it and lep to make it become a reality. i think that is now going to happen. let's hope that's going to happen. >> okay, v.j., maybe you could say a little more about vietnam because everyone always talks about partnership and private capital. the question is about the policy environment in many countries. will it attract private capital? what were the keys in vietnam? you know, i was struck when you were talking, it's so world bank in a good way, but also in a troubling way. you have to put everything together. you know, in the technical assistance. the right financing. the right policy. give us insight into how it worked recent in vietnam and why what were the key issues that got addressed? >> thank you, nancy. vietnam is a very interesting case, because here was a country that came out of war, came out of conflict.
and the leadership there was very committed to finding ways in which economic development could be driven. in a very intensive way. and in 1993, when they started embarking on this, finding ways in which they could increase electrification, a lot of factors, good factors were present that enabled that to at least get off to a good start. so you had a good program from the donor agencies, the development bank, asian bank, to provide the initial level of technical assistance and cast building to understand, unpack and prepare the sort of groundwork for looking at solutions that would enable them to achieve this electrification. then the whole issue about how do you find it? as i mentioned, successful cases of electrification around the world have got two major ingredients that sort of cut across everything.
one is a large level of political -- very strong level of political commitment in the leadership to keep driving the campaign, because this takes years. it doesn't happen in five or ten years, it takes 15, 20 years. in the u.s., it took 20 years. it's something that needs to be consistent across the political spectrum to achieve that, and vietnam achieved that kind of political commitment behind the campaign. second is large amounts of public and private concession that is needed to power the funding that is needed to finance the networks, needed in order to put in place some of the large investments that are needed to create that basic framework. so in the case of vietnam again, this was driven largely by a lot of concessional lending and funding from grants and other sources for vietnam over a sustained period of time. so together at the same time, they had to start looking at
diversifying their resource base as well. for generations. they started moving into gas. they have a much more balanced system than anything back in the '90s, and it's grown quite substantially also in the clean and green field. has come back to some of the other countries totally dependent. for example, india is very large ly dependent. at the national level, the local levels, the local governments very much behind this push. there was good public asser station, that brought in a lot of the civil society organizations. so in the big name for five or ten years, it was very messy. there were different types of models in play off grade, on
grade and all these coexist today in vietnam. you have the ledges powered to many grades in off systems with local generation. there are systems connected to the national grid. there are many islands that have stand alone systems. so what has emerged is a very good kind of approach, but it has worked in its dimensions. for five or ten year, did it guard more systematic and starts to produce more. >> very interesting and no problems with pricing, under pricing. there's constant pressure. >> there's always pressure for pricing. >> right. >> and it's as much of a political issue as anything else that's in it to work. >> that's our problem in the u.s., too. 12,000 megawatts or whatever it was. >> 10,000 kilowatt hours. >> there must be some underpricing as the global level. right. okay. let's turn to those of you who would like to raise questions. yes, please. please introduce yourself. stand up, introduce yourself.
a mike will come to you. >> good morning. maria. i would like to know a little bit more about what you mean by sustainable what you mean by access and what you mean by all. particularly for prctitioners and furthermore, this idea of stainable access for all, is this aspirational or can we really they've this by 2030? thank you. >> thank you. let's -- is that okay with you? if we do several questions and then people have time -- each have time to do it -- go ahead. >> hi. my name is -- i'm a student from american university, and my question is very simple. what will happen to oil dependent countries as their economy relies on oil and that not always they have another
alternative source of income, such as my own country, mexico, well, or that their economy heavily relies on oil, and is it really possible to great lake this energy monopoly from fuel burning energy? >> michelle? >> hi. i'm michelle from the center for global development. when i look at the u.n. goals, it says doubling renewable energy globally, which is currently like 3%. so we're going to go from 3% to 6%. is that enough? >> great question. one more. let's go to lisa, is it? and then we'll -- >> thanks. lisa friedman from climate wire. i always was interested in vietnam and the number you stated about the 30% per capita emissions increase. it sounds like perhaps you're saying that the concern about emissions rise in developing
countries is a little misplaced. can you talk about, you know, with an energy strategy stuck at the world bank for more than a year now, you know, what -- what is the bank's plan now for balancing the need to develop sustainably and not cause irreversible damage with the pressure from developing countries to build with coal? >> great. thank you very much. why don't we go to tim and then to vijay. >> it's a really good question on renewables. it's the rate of renewable entry into -- not the absolute percentage, whatever it is today. by 2030 we're going to double that? no. the rate of penetration annually we hope is going to double. and that's happening in many, many places across the world. even in our own backyard, we've seen renewable goals that get set that are not only being achieved, but now we've gone beyond them, causing troubles
for much of the renewable energy. the renewable industry. so it's the rate, not the absolute percentage. i think your question reflected absolute percentage. >> for those of us that can't do all that compounding in our head, could we suggest that the goal be framed in a way -- >> it ends up as doubling about 50% penetration of all energy. the hope is it's approximately a 50% goal -- a goal of approximately 50% penetration of renewable energy by 2030, okay? that's what you end up with, something in that ballpark. >> okay. >> does that make sense? >> yeah. that's much more ambitious. good. >> no, it's not. if you -- compound interest is a wonderful thing. >> as i said, we can't all do -- it's a better way to say it. that's what i mean. >> well, lots of way of saying it. how to lie with statistics too. >> maybe we could fool the u.s. into agreeing --
i think we'll hear from carlos. it will be okay, probably. we'll hear from carlos. >> all right. vijay? >> actually, just to pick up on that point and the question that came, at one level these goals are definitely aspirational. i mean, this is to drive action. this is to drive commitment. this is to drive a campaign among countries to build awareness for something that has long -- long development challenges which have not been addressed. in a way some of the other development challenges have been addressed through the mdgs, et cetera. and these goals, the way they are defined have to be unpacked. they have to be understood in the context of each country and each region. it's not the case that every country will have to increase its renewable energy share by 50%. there are countries that are better place to do it than some others. and a lot of the action on energy efficiency and renewable energy will have to come in the developed world.
i give you the example of the united states where energy saving potential is very high. similarly in europe, the energy potential saving is very high. the eu already has goals for 2020 that they are looking at increasing the share of renewable energy and energy efficiency by 2020 that is driving all the eu member countries and aspiring eu member countries in that direction. so a lot of the inherent action is already taking place. around the world. if you look at last year's statistics, about $250 billion was invested in renewable energy around the world. and almost half of it came from the private sector. and a lot of this investment took place in the middle income countries in china and in india and in brazil. so clearly there is action element to these aspirational goals that is proceeding. and the hope is with the leadership of the u.n., secretary general, and other
institutions and the partnership that we are forging and the convening that is happening around these goals will start to drive more and more action and campaign around reaching that goal. to pick up the question that michelle asked, actually, some analytical work needs to be done to unpack these different goals and to see what they mean in real numbers and real terms. so together with the international energy agency, the world bank has already started doing some analytical work to support the secretary general's scheme. in terms of finding what this will mean and what the targets will be, what will it look like, it will bring some scenarios. what is the rate for renewable energy is x percent. what will it look like in 2030. and we would like to track what is happening on these goals around the world also for a period of time. so we are trying to put in place some systems, some monitoring frameworks that will enable the campaign to track what is happening and where we are in achieving some of the goals say five years from now or ten years from now.
picking up this question about the balance between emissions and energy access. in some countries, the solution is fairly clear. there is a lot of potential to scale up renewable energy and sources of energy, and some countries it's more challenging. so just to illustrate, the way we are approaching at least from the world bank this issue of how do we balance access with making it clean and green and reducing emissions as we do it, let's look at east africa. east africa is a very good example there are some countries with very low access there, kenya, uganda, tanzania has less than 10% access, ethiopia. if you look -- look at the resources available in east africa, and if you look sort of 10, 15 years ahead, say, let's do 2025, the demand in these five or six countries in east africa can be met by a mix which would be
about 1/3 geothermal power, which is very clean, 1/3 hydro power, and 1/3 of it would be from gas or other sources. so you could get a 33%, 33%, 33% mix in east africa over a period of time. but that action has to start today to get to that mix. today the mix is heavily weighted in favor of fossil fuels and hydro power. but to balance that mix of power over time, investments in geothermal exploration, investments in finding the right kind of responsible hydro power projects that can be done with minimum impact on the environment, these are some of the issues that we are helping these countries with the long-range planning, finding ways in which you can set the goals today, set the ground today so that ten years from now you end up with that kind of mix. >> let me go back for a minute to the question -- i think i answered nancy's, what is the overall. really, the aspiration is about a 30% penetration of renewables by 2030.
not 50, but 30% the overall penetration. there's another point that i think just go to vijay, talking about the financing of this. the u.n. is at its best when it's setting norms. not in the operational sense, but it setting norms which is why the process of -- the process of engages countries, getting asgreemts in a place like rio, providing those enormous, therefore provide a base against which groups, nongovernmental organizations, states, political parties, you know, can hold governments accountable to that set of norms. that's why what the -- generally why what the u.n. does overall is so very important. the finance side of it falls more into the world bank. but the world bank in cooperation with the global compact in terms of making this a reality. we're not going to reach the goals of the sustainable energy
for all with concessionary financing only. it is certainly not going to be done, you know, with government funding or aid funding. we're going to have to be very creative, and there are teams now working on different financial models so that government funding, foreign assistance funding can be used as, say risk insurance can be used to cover the differential or the costs that are perceived by the private world as the costs between what it's going -- what would they do in a normal market? is this a troubling market? is there a delta there that has to be covered, and we would cover that with some kind of public financing. there are lots of different new models on that coming out. that's going to be one of the most interesting, one of the most interesting features of, again, the very close relationship between the world bank and the u.n. system in trying to figure out how to finance this very ambitious set of goals. >> yeah, that's going to be a very good segue.
keep that in your minds for when we come to the next session. let me just say a word about the question on oil from our colleague from mexico. oil and natural gas. i was reminded, tanzania has just had a huge discovery of natural gas. and of course brazil is about to have come on board very soon a lot of oil for the global market. for development people, the challenge is how to manage these natural resources and to ensure that they are managed in a way that is closer to norway say than to angola, to nigeria. so these natural resources at the domestic policy level can sometimes be as much a curse as a blessing, depending on management. mexico has done reasonably well. i do think there is a big question hanging out there, but hopefully it will be answered in
the next session or in the future about how all this -- all these new sources of old and somewhat dirtier energy, natural gas cleaner than oil, but still somewhat dirty, will they crowd out on the pricing side the willingness of the private capital to go into renewables. so that's just kind of hanging out there. >> that's a very, very good question. we find it in the united states. it's everywhere in the world with these significant discoveries of oil. >> natural gas. >> of natural gas and natural gas and shale oil, what we're seeing in the u.s. is having a really battering the renewables industry. and it's going to happen in a lot of different places. but the world's energy balance has clearly changed in a very, very interesting way in a short period of time. and my guess is that a lot of the policy thinking hasn't caught up with that, or people haven't really become aware of how significantly different, you know, we are today than we were three years ago. >> right, right, with the natural gas.
okay, let's have another round, quickly. please -- yes. there. we only have this one -- and yes, i remember you in the back. okay. you'll be next. >> thank you. ed barry with the sustainable world initiative. food security is important. energy security for all, you know, ending poverty, building infrastructure for health, education, and good governance, those are all good things. those are all things we want, but they all take natural resources. and i have just come from the planet under pressure conference in london where 3,000 scientists very clearly have said we're already overutilizing the earth's resources, and that we're exceeding planetary boundaries. so i would ask you, how do you deal with this conundrum between the desire by us all to develop and the fact that the planet has limited resources? and how would you expect rio to deal with it? thank you.
>> okay. that's a tough question. it goes to the heart. yes, in the back. ross, if you can zip back to the way back there. >> thank you. i'm with voice of america television. i don't know if there isn't a study of the potentially next crisis to produce energy, which is water. so far all our energy systems to produce energy consume massive amounts of water. and we are running out of water. is there any study about the next crisis on water that will collapse the energy production? >> okay, let's see. i saw some others. yes? >> thank you. steve moseley, una board and independent education consultant. tim, i'm wondering if you could -- you talk so eloquently about -- i'm hoping one of the outcomes of rio plus 20 is to
really establish another millennium development goal. there is a tendency in policy for pendulum swings. if you add something, you start dropping things. and we're just at the point where the post 2015 has the opportunity for many of the other mdgs to succeed. but there is a tendency to call for trade-offs. how do you get the energy behind the other millennium goals to ensure that this addition actually becomes a catalyst for something that drives all of them to succeed in education? we see this year the -- this administration is so supportive of girls and women is proposed to drop by 50% the funding for the millennium development goal on children's education as a trade-off for food security, terrible trade-off. can you talk than trade-off dilemma in the post-rio meeting? thank you. >> okay. i'm going to take you one more and give you two the last word to address. pardon me. >> they're all huge questions. great questions. >> i saw somebody -- sorry, yes, that's it, yes.
sorry. can't do everybody. >> hi. nina gardner with strategy international. i was wondering whether there is some discussion in rio about revisiting the whole measuring of gdp and the whole goals of finding other indicators to measure progress. i worked on this at the oecd, which then became part of the significantlets commission. but i think it would be great if in rio the governments would decide to adopt or at least a timetable to get some key indicators to measure progress and we get away from this gdp as the only indicator of economic development. thank you. >> all right. >> let's start with nina's good question because i think it goes back to the first question as well. you know, the door is opening in a very happy way, i think, on people thinking about what is the new economics?
the current system isn't working for us. you know, we're undervaluing or devaluating the environment, the gap between rich and poor is growing. you know, the whole litany. and this system just is not working. the u.n. just had a major conference last week on, you know, sponsored by the government of bhutan. you were probably there. saying what do we mean by a gross happiness index? and how does that relate to the overuse of resources, what was being said in london two weeks before by the ecologists that were meeting there? you know, there is kind of a drumbeat going on there is going to be a big new economic institute meeting at bard college for three days at the second week of june. so it's starting to bubble up in a lot of different places. can that be done at rio? no. but there will be a lot of side events related to this. and this is going to be a very important discussion long term for the u.n. to pursue. remember, the u.n. tends to be the keeper of the statistics. it tends to be the keeper of the rules. some place within the u.n.
system, largely unesco, which, of course, we're out of for a lot of stupid reasons, but, you know, we're the keeper of those rules, the u.n. is, and how those rules get changed and who we work on them is going to be very important. it's a wonderfully interesting challenge, i think, for those of us concerned about going back to the first question, what do we mean by sustainability. well, what is sustainability? how are we overusing resources? how do we really dramatically change our way? we have to change definitions, as you point out. gross domestic product by itself does not help. so we've been talking about that now for 20 years, but now i think institutionally i think that's beginning to change. i'll stop with that. the other questions are great. but that was a good opening. >> and that addressed also the -- >> the first question. >> the planning under pressure question. >> okay. >> not fully. >> let me try. they're really great questions. and, of course, we are all
trying collectively to find answers to some of these very difficult questions. just to go back on your point, nancy, on the gas. actually, if you look at the way gas projects are done, gas to power projects are done and how renewable energy projects are done, the gas technology of power generation is very well established. it's less risky. there are no barriers to developing those kinds of projects. so what needs to be done on the renewable energy side is to de-risk, the projects that we try to do in renewable energy. costs are higher. technologies are unproven. it's not available at scale. so some of the work that the world bank and other institutions are doing is to find ways in which renewable energy investments can be de-risked. this is a major area we are putting a lot of focus on. >> this is the point that tim was also making. >> yeah. and clearly this is an area where private sector and public sector have to come together to find leverage points so that we can leverage technology, we can
leverage knowledge to capacity, and also funding. >> could you on this give for the simple-minded, including me, when you say "de-risk," are you talking 10 to 1 public to private money, 5-1? does it vary tremendously? what does it mean for renewables? >> let me give you a concrete example. if you look at the clean technology fund. this is a fund that many of the developed countries put together to trigger -- >> catalyze, leverage. >> investment in renewable energy in developing countries. and about $8 billion from the clean technology fund has been committed, but it has leveraged about $26 billion of other monies. >> so it's three plus to one. >> burr we warrant to make it 1 to 5. we want to make it 1 to 10. that's the direction we want to go in.
but to go in that direction, it would be important to work with governments, work with agencies and other influence-makers to find ways in which the right policy framework and also increase the risk appetite of financial institutions to go into these areas. otherwise, it would be a problem. the energy/water/food/security nexus is extremely important. if you look at the way i think someone mentioned that the pressure on resources is growing so drastically. so, therefore, we have to find ways in which these three issues can be addressed together, because they obviously influence each other. and there is now a lot of work going on in this area, particularly on the nexus between energy and water and to see how you can mitigate some of the impacts there. the last point i wanted to make was about the natural resources. and, nancy, you made the point very well that how do you go about creating the right frameworks for the transparency in governments of resource industry? and a lot of new work is going on in this area with the
initiatives like the extractive initiative which we are all supporting in order to bring some responsibility around the exploitation of natural resources, but it's a very challenging area. >> it's very challenging. okay. thank you so much, tim and vijay and all of you. now i want to invite nigel to come up and introduce the next session. [ applause ] >> thanks. >> before nigel starts, let me put in another plug for the report he did, which i think is available outside. it brings together some of the questions raised in the last session with some of the answers we hope for in this session. >> thank you, nancy. and thank you for your partnership in organizing this
event and for cgd's tremendous work in raising the profile of development policy and the many contributions your scholars make to that effort. it's a wonderful opportunity to be a partner with cgd on these issues. i want to thank lawrence mcdonald and kyle lawrence at the center for all of their work and preparing for said and i especially want to thank abigail jones, my colleague on the report, for her many intellectual contributions to my thinking and to our joint writing in this area. finally, i want to give a special thanks to our friends at the embassy of denmark here in washington for their support for this work and for their leadership on development issues and climate issues more broadly, particularly in their new very green government. thank you. so we've just heard why ensuring sustainable energy for all is vitally important, and why people live longer, healthier and more productive lives when they don't spend hours each day gathering fuel and breathing smoky air, and when they can read, study, and work even though it is dar