After COP15 Copenhagen Summit
It has a little bit warmish while President Obama reemphasized ” reasserted America’s pledge to forward the work of the conference agenda back home in the United States no matter how the conclusion to be made after COP15 summit” On the other hand, it was so frustrated in the frozen weather of Copenhagen when we noted there wasn’t any significant progress for a new accord which likely is surround in the air. Obviously, the Climate change discourse and its solution to solve potential crisis of mankind may take even more longer with an unforeseeable distance way to go.

Assuming all leaders from 193 countries they all realize the imperative issue and all agree it has to work out an accord as expected 10 days ago. Unfortunately, it was deeply disappointed. As 193 leaders, each represents one’s harvest expectation and his responsibility for the homeland after meeting. While the argument of Co2 (represents GHG ) emission cut still laid on the table without consensus, another topic of funds to be donated and allocation which raised another complex dead-knot .

Backward, the major earth warming which was mainly caused by the Green House Gas (GHG, e.g. Co2, CH4, CFC, Sox, Nox, PFC etc. which a major part of GHG generated and accumulated in atmosphere for a long time historically during the industrialization progress not caused overnight, it was difficult to figure out which country shall be responsible and shall be payable if any one has over emitted? By Carbon Tax and trade? Carbon disclosure perhaps is a method, but who can monitor and supervisor?? That really makes solution falling into the complicate approach not as normal successful case “Simplify” instead. One example as below is explaining the dilemma

We have constantly quoted the figures of year 2005, as per index made by CAIT under World Resource Institute, where has a notable figures of major GHG Emission in 2005 as below;
Country(population) Total Mt co2 Rank % of Total Ton/person Rank
China (1,304,500K) 7219.2(1) 19.12 5.5 72
USA ( 296,507K) 6963.8(2) 18.44 23.5 7
EU 5047.7(3) 13.37 10.3 39
Russian 1960.0(4) 5.19 13.7 18
India (1094,583) 1852.9(5) 4.91 1.7 120
World Total 27525Mt World Population 6,461,584K Average 4.46Ton/Person
Basically, assuming the total GHG of each country emission was calculated correctively. Thus, by means of Carbon Disclosure project, Carbon Tax etc. Acts, further assuming USA could control the GHG emission 25% down in next 10 years as expecting(5072.85Mt), which on the other hand, shows that India total and per person emissions are significant lower than both US and China, and only roughly around one fourth of the world average. Under a fair Co2 control, which perhaps reflects that India has right even to emit triple total Co2 emission and would still only be at 20% of per-capita level of USA. It is not a real method to abate the GHG emission but a trick game to forming another funds management bloc like IMF to maneuver Carbon trade, it obviously will be not much helpful for the Climate Change solution, for the GHG control, and the Carbon minimizing or Charge Carbon Tax /Carbon trade which would be involving even a very complicate calculation, as accuracy would be highly concerned which drops a spot of endless argument.

Again, while President Obama indicated the “Clean Energy”, perhaps, by means of “Clean Energy Index” (similar to the pill’s ingredient) which could be effectively to unify each campaign combining together for at least following major favorable aspects:
1. Encouraging Power generate from 100% Clean energy, e.g. Solar Energy, Wind, Hydropower even Hydrogen (we have waste more than 7000 times total earth consumption annually from Solar energy) so as respectively easier to minimize the Green House Gas.
2. Each product to show/labeling what percentage used in “Clean Energy” to teach people how to judge the “Green Products”.
3. Widely give incentive for what clean energy is applied for using e.g. Zero Emission Car, Fuelcell power pack, Hydrogen power etc.. To be selected preferably.

That means “the best way of restrict GHG emission is using more Clean Energy instead of focusing on minimizing of Co2 which would be a dead-end. The G8 (July 2009 in Italy) and G20 summit(at Pittsburgh) as well as COP15 Copenhagen Summit yesterday. Are there some things wrong fundamentally. Perhaps, the corrective way would be reset and “simply” to consider “Clean Energy”!? And, Samso Island of Demark is a successful story which has been developing over 90% all energies are using clean energy. Let’s see, while funds to be used for those low-developing/poor countries to set up these visible SolarPower, HydroPower or Windpower facilities along with “Clean Energy Devices” which perhaps would be easier to achieve a Clean Energy Index as 10% over total country energy consumption within a few years. So as the rich and hi-industrialized countries leading by Obama administration to cast efforts for a 10% Clean Energy share within a few years which will be a way to minimize the impact of GHG also gain more new jobs as well as a new tools of economic stimulus.

We Talk campaign which shall be touching the people’s heart worldwide” Under globalization movement today, each country could state what their using “Clean Energy” in their country or what product to show the “Clean Energy Index” which would be fairly represent the contribution or even third world or very low developed countries could participate. This conception would move away “only hi-industrialization countries could play” If so, we see that could be all human being to participate. In any event, the Earth Issue shall be all human-being to get involving.

Hence, “Clean Energy Index” could be figure relatively much easier. e.g. what is the percentage of Clean Energy used in each country which is calculate-able or practically programmable the target e.g. each 5 years to be made 10%-20% Clean Energy share up toward 60%+ (assuming this is the guideline by an international organization of UN e.g. World Weather Organization)

Recall Einstein’s spirit of simplicity “Everything should be made as simple as possible but not a simpler”, the “Clean Energy Index” perhaps would be another relatively easier way for solution of GHG abatement.

Carson Chen
General Secretary
Non-Profitable Foundation
R&D Center for Environmental Protection & hi-tech of ROC
7F, #43, Sec. 1., Min-Sheng E. Rd., Taipei, Taiwan, 104
Tel#886 2 2523 2880 MP886 920816181
12/20/2009