December 15, 2015

President Obama and Secretary Kerry have made the case that developing nations account for 65% of carbon emissions, and that consequently even if industrialized countries were to stop using fossil fuels instantly, now, that would not bring global warming under control.

Statistically they are correct, but that’s not the whole story. For example, the reason that China is now the number one polluter is because the U.S. and Europe have essentially outsourced to it much of their pollution. Were they to repatriate the factories (and the well-paying middle class jobs) to their respective countries to pre-1970 levels, their pollution would likely far surpass China. Accordingly, the argument that each country must rely on its own resources to reduce emissions significantly does not recognize our complicity and responsibility, as consumers, to help those who make the products we use stop using fossil fuels.

The most effective way to reduce emissions to zero is to usher in the age of hydrogen, the only energy carrier that produces water as a byproduct. However, not all countries have the necessary natural attributes to produce a  surplus, and countries with larger populations, particularly India and China, need as much hydrogen as they can get from potential natural exporters, at least for the foreseeable future. Conversely, the U.S., Mexico, Central America, the Caribbean islands, South America, all the Mediterranean countries, New Zealand, Australia, Southeast Asia, Iceland and Hawaii, to name a few, are potential natural exporters of hydrogen as outlined in Plan A. It’s not a question of lack of technology or investment capital (there are trillions of dollars searching for worthwhile investment opportunities). The real problem is fear that the switch would kill the petrodollar, with all its consequences, and that mountains of wealth that would be redistributed. But it can be done in an orderly fashion. And there’s no choice.