by Karl E. Watkin, Chairman of D1 Oils plc (D1), the UK-based global producer of biodiesel

Climate change is a global problem that can only be solved with globally implemented solutions. There is a Tsunami of dedication, commitment, and money being thrown at the problem. The commitment and enthusiasm is generally focussed and responsive, the money and regulation are sadly not; indeed the latter is probably the biggest remaining problem we need to address today. An ill-informed media distort the story making the implementation of sensible regulation ever more difficult, sometimes it seems there is someone trying to stop everyone doing anything.

The total one-sided obsession of the media on the wrongful use of food grade land for biodiesel feed stocks and aircrafts' contribution to carbon emissions are solid examples of poor reporting. This does not lead to proper and informed debate over the use of non-food feed stocks, but instead to the real contributors to global warming encouraging flawed policy making.

Billion dollar funds to develop technology-led businesses are in abundance but their agility is no match for the pace and energy of the developers. Developers are progressing their ideas in days and weeks; "venture" funds, which lost their "ad" many years ago, are dinosaurs that are not delivering the support which is required. Reasonable due diligence is still essential but time lines from concept presentation to delivery of funds need to be cut by 90 percent. Implementation risk is built into the investment community's decision-making process, which considerably undermines the value and economic effectiveness of the emerging business.

Investment managers and funds themselves need more certainty -- a certainty that can only be delivered in a regulated market. And that market, like climate change, is a global one. Governments need to recognize the imperative of acting in coordination with others and regulate for the long term. A period of at least 15 years is required; at worst a rolling 5-year regulated stable market is needed.

The emerging biodiesel industry, as one example, has seen and is experiencing the stupidity of governments acting in isolation and following short term interests. Germany removed a tax incentive this year for imported biodiesel which led to an immediate million-ton excess capacity in the European Bio Diesel industry. This would have been difficult for a mature industry to deal with, impossible for an emerging market.

Currently the US government is subsidizing the manufacture of biodiesel B99 at $1 a gallon, which producers are then exporting to the UK where, under a different subsidiary regime, the biodiesel receives a second subsidy. This madness strengthens the US industry but destroys the UK's at a stroke.

At a micro level in the UK for example the biggest risk to the emerging climate change reduction businesses are local governments and antiquated planning policies. The need to consult with organizations such as RSPB (Royal Society for the Protection of Birds) and Natural England, who, as a matter of course, object to every planning application. The effect is that, like Nero, they fiddle with minutiae whilst the environment burns up. Speedier planning clearance of clearly beneficial projects is required

A 15-year, stable, regulated, informed global market in every area of climate change reduction is required from governments. If governments deliver that, entrepreneurs and technology supported by proactive and reactive adventurous funding will deliver the necessary solutions.

By James K. Boyce, Director of the Political Economy Research Institute's program on Development, Peacebuilding, and the Environment and Professor, Department of Economics, University of Massachusetts

To combat global warming we must confront two tragedies of open access.

The first used to be called the "tragedy of the commons," a misnomer since societies often devise rules to manage common property sustainably. The problem is that when there is open access to a scarce resource, individuals have no incentive to conserve it and instead will overexploit it, even to the point of collapse. In this case the scarce resource is the limited capacity of the Earth's biosphere to absorb and recycle our emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.

The second tragedy of open access is less widely recognized but no less real. Although in theory open-access resources are equally available to all, in practice some people are, in George Orwell's haunting phrase, "more equal than others." Open access often generates short-run benefits for those who least need them and long-run costs for those who can least afford them. Global warming is a good example. Rich countries burn more fossil fuels than do poor countries, generating more carbon dioxide emissions. And within any given country, richer people benefit most from the fossil-fueled economy by virtue of the facts that they consume more goods and services.

Meanwhile it is poor countries and poor people who stand to bear the greatest costs of global warming. They are less able to invest air conditioners, sea walls, or other adaptations. They live closer to the edge: the rich can weather a 20 percent decline in their real incomes, for example, with relative ease, but for the poor the same decline may be the margin between life and death. And the places that climate models show will be hit hardest by global warming -- including drought-prone regions of sub-Saharan Africa and coastal south and southeast Asia -- are home to some of the world's poorest people.

Crafting climate solutions requires us to address both tragedies. At the international level, the key to a comprehensive agreement to reduce emissions is the principle that every person in the world has an equal right to the planet's limited carbon-storage capacity. In exempting the developing countries from emission targets, the Kyoto Protocol implicitly embraced this principle. But by basing targets for industrialized countries on past emissions, Kyoto ignored it and instead rewarded countries for their past pollution. To devise an accord that is acceptable to all nations, it will be necessary to build it around the principle of equal entitlements.

Does this mean that the majority of people in the industrialized countries must suffer a cut in their standard of living to safeguard the global environment? Not if the same egalitarian principle is applied within countries, too. The creation of national "sky trusts," which receive revenue from the sale of carbon permits to the firms that bring fossil fuels into the economy, and then recycle the money equally to every woman, man, and child, will protect the real incomes of lower-income and middle-income households. The cost of carbon permits ultimately will be passed to consumers, so all households pay more for goods and services, with the amount depending on how much they consume. Upper-income households, who generally consume the most, will pay the most. Since all receive the same sky-trust dividend, households who consume less than the average will come out ahead financially. Because incomes and consumption are skewed toward the rich in every country, this revenue recycling would protect the real incomes of the middle class as well as raising the incomes of the poor.

Well-designed policies can combine environmental protection with income protection for the majority of the world's people. This combination is not only ethically desirable, but also politically necessary to win support for effective policies to fight global warming.

By Representative Tom Udall (D-NM)

As Congress takes its initial steps to address the global warming crisis, I am learning a lesson that is as true in public policy as it is in sky diving: the first step is always the hardest.

Thanks to the work of activists from Al Gore to the Union of Concerned Scientists, people from all walks of life finally have begun to pay attention to global warming. Large majorities in countries around the world now acknowledge that global warming constitutes a serious and immediate threat to the world’s ecology and economy. Yet strong Congressional action to address the problem often has seemed a distant hope.

The world wants action, but we have little experience with the kind and magnitude of action that the problem demands. To effectively address global warming, we must rethink our whole approach to the politics and economics of energy. We must reshape our energy markets to internalize an externality of global proportions. America did it with the Apollo program, and we must do it again. However, it will require renewed trust between citizens and government, and between nations.

Unfortunately, that trust has not yet been built. In the U.S. Congress, regulating carbon dioxide and other emissions presents a monumental challenge because of the far-reaching implications for our nation's economy. The science underpinning the need for emissions reductions is indisputable, but the American people must see that a plan for tackling global warming can be good for business and workers. On the international level, no country wants to accept curbs on emissions until they know that other countries will also do their part. The United States, which produces 36 percent of the world's carbon emissions, must play a leadership role on this issue, but we cannot succeed alone. Through our example and our diplomacy, we must build a global consensus that every country will do what it takes to protect our planet. We are all in this together, and the solution requires a global effort.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has tasked the 110th Congress with crafting legislation to combat global warming. The House took a first step this past August when my Renewable Electricity Standard amendment to the energy bill comfortably passed the House. My amendment requires America's investor-owned electricity supplying utilities to provide 15 percent of their electricity from renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures by 2020. Studies have shown that an RES will reduce global warming emissions at a rate equivalent to taking 71 million cars off the road. A more comprehensive global warming bill is needed, however. I believe it must set achievable emissions reductions goals without harming the U.S. economy. I introduced such a bill during the 109th Congress and will be doing so again soon. These measures are modest because they set achievable goals and protect our workers and our economy. But they are revolutionary because they set a precedent for concerted action against climate change.

Through pragmatic measures like these, Americans will learn that environmental sustainability can produce jobs, encourage investment and boost the economy. Leaders around the world will learn that America will be part of the solution to global climate change, not part of the problem. With policies like these, we will finally take that crucial first step towards a sustainable future.

By Steen Riisgaard, CEO of Novozymes A/S

Deadly tornados, hurricanes, extreme and unexpected weather, melting glaciers -- climate change is here. Regardless of the argument of who is to blame for it, global warming has sunk its warm claws into our planet, becoming the greatest global challenge of the 21st century.

Countering this challenge requires each one of us to do our share -- use fluorescent light bulbs, choose renewable energy, use energy-saving appliances, drive less, drive fuel-efficient cars, use environmentally-friendly fuel.

In the large schema, many measures are being taken and are in the planning to fight global warming. Biofuel has emerged as one of the top warriors in this battle. Experts foresee that biofuels could achieve a 25% share of the liquid fuels market in the future.

The biofuel industry today is based on first generation starch and sugar conversion -- it is an environmentally friendly renewable energy source that is one of a few technologies available for limiting the negative impacts of road transport. Second generation biofuels will be made from what is deemed as waste matter, including corn stover, bagasse, and other agricultural and industrial by-products, but also energy crops like switchgrass, which binds more carbon and requires less fertilizer than traditional crops. The technology is still new and it will take about three to five years to make it commercially viable.

Biofuel reduces carbon dioxide emissions (second generation biofuel will reduce this by nearly 90%); creates jobs and stimulates development in rural areas and developing countries; helps alleviate poverty by improving economies; and, last but not the least, gives developing countries access to energy, a prerequisite for economic development.

However, the production of biofuel can do more harm than good if pursued irresponsibly. Some unfortunate impacts are difficult or impossible to entirely mitigate, and we may have to accept them as necessary costs in order to reap greater benefits. Most of these issues can be effectively tackled if developing countries as well as developed countries continue to actively promote the production of biofuel in environmentally and socially sustainable ways.

The international community must come together to exploit the benefits of biofuel and minimize any unfortunate impacts.

The biofuel industry can and will develop the technology to make commercial ethanol from cellulosic feedstock, which will increase benefits and mitigate costs. Politicians around the world must ensure that standards for sustainable biofuel production, including sustainable agricultural practices, are developed. A trustworthy global certification scheme for biofuels should be created and implemented as soon as possible. In addition, the academic community must supplement the industry in the quest to create innovative and sustainable solutions to counter global warming.

The end is not exactly near -- but time is definitely up. We need to band together as a world community and save the planet; make sure we don't melt glaciers while we tank up our cars.

By Ruth Greenspan Bell

The urgent need to act on climate change is sadly counterbalanced by the paucity of viable ideas for controlling further carbon emissions. Even those firmly convinced that prompt action is required appear mesmerized by the tantalizing hope that the problem can be efficiently controlled –- and developing nations induced to participate -- by harnessing market forces.

The Kyoto Protocol's Flexible Mechanisms enshrine several forms of emissions trading -- among participating industrialized countries, project-by-project between "donor" and "host" countries, and between the developed and the developing world (the Clean Development Mechanism) on the assumption that reductions are cheaper in the developing world -- to achieve "mandatory" but unenforceable greenhouse gas reduction commitments by developed countries.

But many have questioned the integrity of CDM results. Recently documented cases show that investors reap enormous profits -- up to 100 times the actual cost of cleanup -- to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions in China and India rather than revise practices at home. The deals are Kyoto-authorized, but don't address deeper structural change. The incinerated waste gas, HFC-23 (also an ozone layer depleter), is produced during the production of the refrigerant HFC-22. Clearly, eliminating HFC-23 has greenhouse benefits but at a large and unnecessary cost.

More damning, the profits are not invested in long-run antidotes to climate change by either western investors or the home-country beneficiaries. Instead, the proceeds frequently expand existing factories and build new ones that produce the same offending gas to feed growing demand for air conditioning.

A close examination of offsets -- a growing business selling carbon reduction credits to guilty westerners engaged in carbon-rich activities such as flying and driving fuel-inefficient cars -- intensifies concerns whether anything real is to be gained by outsourcing responsibility. The Times of London spotlighted "the moral predicament of offsetting," detailing close-to cynical efforts claiming climate benefits adequate to balance western lifestyles that actually pass the responsibility for emissions reductions to the poorest people on earth. Climate Care (a prominent seller) provides "treadle pumps" (people push pedals) to poor rural families to get water without using diesel fuel. Whatever the benefits to the families, if a peasant treads two hours a day, it will take at least three years to offset the CO2 from a one way London to India flight, an advertised use of a purchased offset.

Clearly, new approaches are needed and deployable once the United States has shown its own good faith by enacting and implementing serious legislation.

With colleagues at two major universities, I am developing a ground-up enterprise to formulate new climate policy options for the next U.S. administration. Rather than assume that incentives and policy instruments function identically in all cultures, we draw instead on specialists with deep knowledge of the traditions, cultures, beliefs, practices and institutions that condition collective decisions and actions in the key developing world countries.

The result should offer a different kind of vocabulary to engage Indian and Chinese polluters and countries like Indonesia and Brazil that contribute through deforestation, one that tailors appeals to national and local interests, country by country, and harnesses existing cultural values and institutions to rise to the climate challenge.

We envision customized approaches to bring key developing nations to participate meaningfully in climate change mitigation and options for effective implementation of climate goals within each of these nations. This offers an improved chance for the international community to come together around more realistic approaches to the daunting challenge of climate change.

By Richard Moss, Senior Director, Climate Change, United Nations Foundation

Energy efficiency is the single most promising strategy for getting the global community on track to tackle the climate change crisis. Energy efficiency is the cheapest, cleanest, and most readily available energy resource. Reducing the amount of energy used to produce goods and services not only addresses climate change, it also reduces dependence on oil supplies from unstable regions such as the Middle East, and saves money too. Aggressively exploiting global energy efficiency resources will allow for sustainable sustainable growth that avoids further damage to the climate system.

By working together, the countries of the G8 and the +5 can achieve ambitious 2.5 percent annual improvements in efficiency that meet much of their energy demands in the cleanest and cheapest way possible. If extended to other major emitters--such as the "major emitters" (G8 and major emerging economies) invited to President Bush's meeting in Washington from September 27-28--improving energy efficiency at this global average rate would also keep atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide below 550 parts per million. This is the finding of "Realizing the Potential of Energy Efficiency: Targets, Policies, and Measures for G8 Countries," a report released by the United Nations Foundation that represents the views of a distinguished group of over 20 energy efficiency experts from around the world and across many economic sectors known as the Expert Group.

The Expert Group calls for a "pledge and review" framework to drive energy efficiency improvements. First, the G8+5 countries should commit to a collective goal to double energy efficiency improvements to 2.5 percent per year. Second, participating countries should formulate individualized national strategies. Each nation will enact cost effective policies from a menu of proven options, recognizing that some countries have more improvement opportunities than others. International coordination between the G8 countries and the major developing nations of the +5 is critical. An annual high-level "summit" consisting of the G8+5 countries will be convened to maintain momentum, with supporting work groups to facilitate technical cooperation amongst states. Finally, the Expert Group suggests a menu of proven policy options for national policymakers to improve energy efficiency in the transportation, buildings, appliance, and industrial sectors as well as options that cut across the economy and provide guidance for coordinating efforts between the G8 and the +5.

The response to the report has been very positive thus far. The Japanese government, which will preside over the G8 this year, has expressed interest in using the report to guide and inform its efforts to push efficiency to the top of the G8 agenda.

The Expert Group and the United Nations Foundation are now planning how to best facilitate the implementation of the recommendations in the report. There is a great deal of value in promoting greater international coordination of existing and future efficiency efforts. To that end, a "progress report" will be created for major nations and countries to provide a set of comparable, internationally accepted performance metrics and to identify ways existing initiatives can be better integrated.

The full report can be viewed at www.unfoundation.org/energyefficiency.