• Japan
    Japan: How to Help
    Japan needs assistance immediately for those stranded in the northeastern part of the country devastated by the earthquake and tsunami. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese tonight continue to be displaced, and in need of basic supplies such as water, food and blankets. Communities are devastated and a sustained humanitarian support effort will be required. While the nation’s military and civilian disaster relief teams are hard at work, supported by the U.S. and other national disaster relief teams, donations to experienced non-governmental disaster relief agencies can help mitigate the suffering. Agencies with strong organizational capacity in Japan are: American Red Cross International Red Cross Red Crescent Save the Children Mercycorps The Japanese Embassy in Washington, DC website carries a list of options for those seeking to donate to the relief effort as well. For U.S. citizens trying to locate family and friends in Japan, the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo has a dedicated page for the relief effort in Japan. Japan-America societies around the United States are also organizing donation efforts. A full list of these efforts can be found at the National Association of Japan-America Societies.
  • Japan
    Beware Nuclear Policy Experts Talking About Japan
    I have quick piece up at CFR.org assessing the potential policy consequences of the ongoing Japanese nuclear disaster. Short version: Take a look at political prognosticators’ track record from the early days of the BP oil spill before you decide to believe anything that’s being predicted right now. I chose not to write about the nitty-gritty of the current technical situation for a simple reason: I don’t really have anything to add to what the honest-to-goodness experts have to say. I know more than enough about the technical ins and outs of nuclear power to speak intelligently about related policy issues, but the situation at the reactors is complex and opaque. Even bona-fide nuclear engineering experts have severe limits to their ability to predict where things are going. A disturbingly large fraction of the people currently opining on television and radio, though, aren’t even experts on nuclear technology. They are policy experts who apparently can’t say no when people ask them to go on TV and talk about the technical ins and outs of the unfolding situation. I’m not naïve: I know that the airwaves are always full with people who don’t quite know what they’re talking about. But the current situation is special. Nuclear incidents are inevitably amplified by fear, and fear is multiplied when people lose trust in their information sources. It is particularly important right now that people get the best information possible, and it’s incumbent on the media to make sure that they go to people who really know what they’re talking about. I’ve said no to more than a few interview requests over the last few days, and have directed producers to real engineering experts instead. I’d be thrilled to see more nuclear policy experts do the same. And there are plenty of people for the media to turn to. I often have policy disagreements with the nuclear skeptics at the Union of Concerned Scientists, but David Lochbaum, in particular, has been great at giving clear technical information in the last few days. Olli Heinonen, formerly of the IAEA and now at Harvard, has been solid; it helps that he spent several years as an inspector based in Japan. The reporters of the New York Times have been doing a stellar job, which isn’t a surprise, particularly given Matt Wald’s deep expertise in the area. Finally, the pro-nuclear World Nuclear Association has been publishing a great series of detailed technical updates.  Bookmark their page and update it frequently; I certainly have been.
  • Japan
    Japan Begins Recovery
    President of International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Tadateru Konoe walks among rescue workers searching through rubble in residential area of tsunami-hit Otsuchi. (Damir Sagolj/Courtesy Reuters) The impact of Japan’s deadly earthquake and tsunami is now apparent. With search and rescue personnel now reaching some of the communities in the northeastern region of Tohoku, the devastation along the eastern coast is complete. Entire villages are in ruin, roads and bridges broken and impassible, and thousands remain stranded in isolated schools and buildings where they managed to retreat in the face of the tsunami. The human toll is tremendous. The confirmed death toll has reached 1,834, but over 15,000 remain unaccounted for three days after the Great Tohoku Earthquake. Over 450,000 have safely evacuated, but many are without water or food. Temperatures in the chilly northeast have dipped below freezing, and many are without heating or blankets. Telephone service is starting to be restored, but water and food are hard to come by. Japanese television on Monday captured heartbreaking stories of those who survived and the long lists being compiled by local shelters of those who are searching for separated family members.   Prime Minister Naoto Kan told the nation on Saturday that this was the worst crisis Japan has faced since the devastation of World War II, and asked every person in Japan to contribute to the effort to recover. The Japanese government has displayed remarkable calm in the face of this tremendous catastrophe, and from the beginning launched an all-out and comprehensive effort to organize the country in the face of catastrophe.    The search and rescue effort has been enhanced by additional Self Defense Force deployments. Over 100,000 have now been mobilized, as well as local fire and police units. Helicopters have been working non-stop to remove those stranded in the midst of this devastation. The U.S. military has added considerable airlift capability and is working to supply the Japanese military ships that have been deployed offshore. Additional emergency relief supplies have also been brought to Japan. The USAID Disaster Assistance and Response Team (DART)—including 150 personnel and 12 canines from urban search and rescue teams from Virginia and California—arrived in Japan on Sunday. As if this wasn’t enough, the Japanese government has been struggling to contain the damage incurred by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant. For the first time, a state of nuclear emergency was declared, and residents were evacuated from nearby communities. The radius of evacuation was expanded on Saturday after a hydrogen explosion at Fukushima Daiichi plant’s Unit 1 reactor increased concern. Some of those evacuated revealed limited exposure to radiation. A second hydrogen explosion occurred on Monday at the Unit 3 reactor.    As of Monday, 91 countries have offered Japan assistance. The World Food Program and five other international organizations have begun to organize help as well. On Friday, President Barack Obama pledged full assistance and promised Japan that the United States would stand beside Japan through its reconstruction. U.S. Ambassador John Roos in Tokyo announced on Saturday details of Operation Tomodachi (“friend” in Japanese), including the deployment of the aircraft carrier USS Ronald Reagan as well as eight additional naval ships to waters off northeastern Japan. U.S. Forces Japan (USFJ) redeployed its military units stationed in Japan to regions where they could offer full assistance to Japan’s Self Defense Force. DART search and rescue teams will be based at Misawa Air Force Base. U.S. government nuclear experts are also working closely with the Japanese government. In the United States, fundraising has already begun. The American Red Cross, Save the Children, and Mercy Corps (working with Peace Winds Japan) have efforts with their counterparts in Japan. The Japanese Embassy in Washington carries a list of options for those seeking to donate to the relief effort. The National Japan America Society in Washington DC, as well as Japan-America Societies around the country, are organizing to help the disaster victims. Throughout the weekend, as the effort to organize relief gained momentum, the dignity and the calm of the Japanese people in the face of such devastation was on display across the board. Japan’s leaders, dressed in blue disaster relief uniforms, presented the scope of the disaster with clarity and calm, providing detailed descriptions of the complex stream of information becoming available from the stricken regions in the north as well as from the nuclear complex in Fukushima. Japanese television reporters supplied a comprehensive coverage on a similar range of information by providing nuclear physicists to carefully explain the details of the government’s announcements, following the growing number of displaced Japanese in the northeast, and streaming the names of those already confirmed dead.    In community after community, the Japanese people were articulate—if traumatized—about their needs and their experiences. In the face of this overwhelming shock and loss of life, the resilience and the strength of this fragile nation has been on constant display. Needless to say, the effort at reconstruction will be long, and hard. This morning the country began scheduled power cuts across much of Tokyo and its surrounding region in an effort to avoid a power failure. With many nuclear and conventional power plants offline, Japan has lost access to about 25 percent of its electricity. Transportation systems have been affected, and Tokyo commuters lined up in the hundreds at train and subway stations in an effort to make their way to work this morning. Yet, despite the shock and devastation, the Japanese people have gone on to focus on recovery—and they will need all the help we can offer.
  • Japan
    Reaching Out to Our Japanese Friends
    Evacuees stand around Shinjuku Central Park in Tokyo Japan March 11, 2011. A massive 8.9 magnitude quake hit northeast Japan on Friday, causing many injuries, fires and a ten-metre (33-ft) tsunami along parts of the country's coastline. (Courtesy Reuters/Kyodo) Japan suffered a tremendous earthquake yesterday afternoon, and already we know that many have lost their lives. My thoughts and prayers are with all Japanese families as they seek to cope with yesterday’s devastating shock and loss. The Japanese government has mobilized the largest relief operation ever, with tens of thousands of Self Defense Force personnel, as well as coast guard, fire and police units, deployed to the northern part of Japan. The U.S. government, too, has pledged immediate and extensive assistance, and U.S. naval ships are already on their way with helicopters and other emergency relief needs. On a more personal note, I wanted to share some preliminary information available for those of you—like me—who are attempting to find family members, friends and colleagues. There is virtually no telephone communication at this moment. The government is asking Japanese not to use the phone lines so that they may be dedicated to the rescue efforts in the Tohoko region. Instead, the internet and the cell phone companies, are making their services available to individuals trying to find people. Google has created a multi-language person finder site. The cell phone companies are also operating message boards—with English options available also—and those within the disaster area can post messages on this site. The areas where this services is available are Aomori, Miyagi, Yamagata and Fukushima prefectures—thanks to Risa Kamio of the Japan-America Society of Washington, DC for providing the links to each company below. For those of us who are looking to hear from friends in Tokyo, we will need to be patient still. Cell Phone Message Boards: For the docomo users: http://dengon.docomo.ne.jp/top.cgi For the KDDI (Ezweb) users: http://dengon.ezweb.ne.jp/ For the Softbank users: http://dengon.softbank.ne.jp/ For the Wilcom users: http://dengon.willcom-inc.com/dengon/Top.do Another way to find out: http://dengon.emnet.ne.jp/
  • Fossil Fuels
    Libyan Oil Isn’t Coming Back Soon
    I’m hearing more and more people ask whether an early end to the fighting in Libya might bring Libyan oil back onto the market soon. I thought a quick note was in order to explain why the answer is no. If Khadaffi manages to hold on, it will be brutal. There is no way that sanctions on Libya would be lifted quickly. The West might resign itself to a Khadaffi victory, but it will not be willing to line his pockets. Non-Western oil companies would be hard pressed to fill in, both because of technical demands, and because of the tricky international politics that would be involved. In addition, regardless of who prevails, worker safety will be a lingering concern. Foreign oil companies are not going to send their workers back in until they’re confident that they’ll be safe. It will take some time for such confidence to be established. It’s also worth remembering that prices are currently elevated in substantial part because of fears that unrest will spread. Resumed Libyan production would presumably free up spare capacity elsewhere to respond to further distruptions. But it would not remove basic concerns about contagion. Any market impact would thus be limited.
  • Fossil Fuels
    Oil Crises and Policy Trivia
    Turmoil in the Middle East has focused Americans’ attention on oil in a way that happens only on rare occasions. That should be occasion for a serious discussion regarding what to do about U.S. dependence on oil. Instead, we have this on today’s New York Times op-ed page: Virtually everything we consume — from hamburgers, running shoes and chemotherapy to Facebook, Lady Gaga MP3s and “60 Minutes” — is produced from or powered by fossil fuels and their byproducts, all of which could grow more costly as the price of petroleum rises. The problem is that there is no easy way to quantify how much total energy we consume. Fortunately, there’s a great model already in widespread use: the nutritional information that appears on the back of every food product. Why not create the same sort of system for energy? Here’s why: It would be an expensive and cumbersome way to do approximately nothing. We already have a “labeling system” for the most oil-intensive thing we consume: automobile fuel. We get to look at it on the pump every time we fill up our gas tanks. And yet somehow we still consume a massive amount of petroleum-based fuel. There’s a simple reason: we don’t care all that much about how much energy we use; we care about how much it costs. So long as fuel is relatively cheap – and, most of the time, it still is – we’ll keep using it in massive quantities. (Thought experiment: Eliminate the part of the fuel pump display that shows gallons consumed, but keep the part that shows how much the fuel costs. Now do the reverse: get rid of the price display, but keep the one that shows how many gallons have been pumped. Which scenario leads to less fuel consumption?) Putting energy-content labels on a wider range of products would have even more underwhelming consequences. The author of the Times article points to the precedent set by UK retailer Tesco with its carbon labeling program. But take a look at the numbers. For example, Tesco explains that producing a 250ml orange juice generates 260 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent. Assume that all of that is due to oil consumption (which it isn’t): that translates to 0.03 gallons of gasoline. If someone can explain to me why knowing this will substantially change consumption, I’m all ears. But if people aren’t willing to change their driving habits in order to save, say, a measly gallon of gas each month, I’m not sure why they’ll eliminate their daily orange juice consumption to accomplish the same end. This is just one instance of a pervasive problem in our thinking about energy: we are unable to distinguish trivia from things that matter. The energy content of our running shoes is trivia. The energy content in our gasoline is not. We will not have a serious debate about energy until we learn how to separate the two.
  • Fossil Fuels
    (Some) Speculators Are People Too
    Here’s an iron rule of oil politics: when gasoline prices go up, calls to crack down on speculators increase alongside them. The current situation is no exception. Some who are calling for an SPR release argue that it would succeed by punishing, and thus deterring, speculation. (In the memorable words of one man interviewed by the New York Times, an SPR release would “spank the speculators”.) Others are calling for direct restrictions on speculative activity. Set aside whether you think that it’s healthy to have lots of money sloshing into oil funds. (Daniel Ahn does a great job of explaining the arguments for and against in a recent CFR study.) If you go after speculators with blunt tool like the SPR, you have a second problem: you will hurt bona-fide hedgers too. What do I mean? There are lots of firms that are exposed to oil price volatility. (Think airlines and petrochemical plants.) We want them to be hedging against oil price risk in the current (highly uncertain) environment. If we “spank the speculators”, we will deter them from doing that. That’s fine if everything turns out okay in the oil markets. But if prices blow up, those firms will be exposed. A clumsy crackdown on “speculators” will have ended up doing exacerbating damage to the real economy. This isn’t by any means an argument against all regulation of financial players in oil markets. Financial speculators have a mix of positive and negative impacts on the markets. But in deciding what to do about them, it’s important to remember that they aren’t the entire picture. Indeed the more that we can do to help and encourage actual consumers to hedge their exposure, the better.
  • Fossil Fuels
    Does OPEC Still Matter?
    Bob McNally, one of the smartest obsevers of the nexus of energy and politics around, published a provocative note last Thursday on the recent evolution of OPEC and what it means for global oil markets. In light of what’s been going on in the Middle East, I thought it would be worth excerpting at some length. Here’s how he starts:   We believe the 36-year era of OPEC oil price control ended in 2008, giving way to a new, indefinite "Swing Era" in which large price swings rather than cartel production changes will balance global oil supply and demand.  The Swing Era portends much higher oil price volatility, investment uncertainty in conventional and alternative energy and transportation technologies, and lower consensus estimates of global GDP growth. Ironically, Western governments and investors will miss OPEC, or at least the relative price stability it tried to provide   After talking a bit about history since the early 1970s, he turns to the last price shock:   From 2005-2008, it was OPEC’s turn to fail to rise to the task when needed.  It was the first instance during peacetime when OPEC spare capacity was depleted…. In 2008, market  balance was  only achieved  through a brutal price spike that rationed demand and crushed income.   What does that mean for the future?   Looking to the foreseeable future, a replay of super-tight 2005-2008 fundamentals is not a question of if, but when…. Saudi Arabia holds the bulk of spare capacity, but has frequently stated it wishes to keep only 1.5-2.0 mb/d. Even if total oil production is far from a peak, ex-ante demand growth is likely to outstrip net supply growth, draining spare capacity and requiring demand-rationing, if not GDP limiting, price increases to ensure consumption and supply growth are balanced.   Bob doesn’t think that OPEC is completely done, but he does think that its influence will be significantly lessened:   In the future, OPEC can maintain a price floor by cutting supply.  But insufficient spare capacity will deprive it of  the  power to impose a ceiling.  When demand growth again whittles spare capacity below 2 mb/d, prices will soar….   I’m pretty sympathetic to this argument. I also think that it has big consequences for how we need to think about oil. But I’d still throw in a few notes of caution. First, if global economic growth falls substantially below expectations, Saudi Arabia might find itself with considerably more spare capacity than planned. That scenario could leave it with real stabilizing power for much longer. Second, the current unrest in the Middle East might make Riyadh rethink its attitude toward holding spare capacity: if high fuel costs drive unrest, and that unrest has the potential to spread to Saudi Arabia, it could get policymakers’ attention. Third, while more volatile oil prices would be a net negative for the U.S. economy, part of the impact might be lessened by the deepening and broadening of hedging products. Right now, it’s tough to hedge oil exposure out more than a year or two, in part because would-be market makers are uneasy with the political risk that stems from OPEC’s role in the market. If the oil market starts to look more like, well, a market, consumers might be able to hedge more effectively, which would help blunt the impact of increased volatility a bit.
  • Energy and Climate Policy
    Oil Price Shocks and Global Recovery
    Oil price shocks spurred by Mideast events are unlikely to derail the U.S. economic recovery, says CFR Distinguished Visiting Fellow Michael Spence. But bigger shifts in the global economy will hit U.S. unemployment, income inequality, and capital costs, he says.
  • Fossil Fuels
    It’s Too Early to Use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
    The New York Times reports this morning that “calls have been growing in Congress for the Obama administration to consider tapping into the nation’s strategic petroleum reserve”. That understandable instinct is premature. Strategic petroleum reserves technically exist to alleviate physical oil supply disruptions. No one is arguing, though, that the United States is facing such a situation. The case being made by more sophisticated proponents of tapping the reserves is that we may be experiencing one indirectly. In particular, Senator Bingaman appears to be arguing that Europe is experiencing a physical disruption of supplies from Libya, and that the disruption is being transferred to the United States through competition for high quality oil. This does not qualify as a physical disruption of U.S. supplies. Markets appear working properly. The disruption is being felt through higher prices, not shortages. (The high/low quality meme is being overplayed a bit too.) That said, I do not subscribe to the orthodoxy that says that strategic reserves should only be used in cases of direct physical disruption, and never in situations where broader market turmoil merely leads to dangerously high prices. If prices are sharply and temporarily elevated, and if an SPR release can address that, it should be strongly considered, as I argued in the FT last week. But those conditions are not yet met. First, the current oil price rise is not fundamentally threatening to the economy. It is simply not big enough. Take a look at the stock market if you don’t believe me. Second, it is not clear that an SPR release would do much, if anything, about the current price situation. The current high prices appear to be more about fears of contagion in the Middle East than about actual supply disruptions in Libya (which appear to have been largely balanced by increased production from Saudi Arabia). If the immediate problem was a physical disruption, and U.S. strategic reserves could (and were needed to) compensate for that, then there would be an argument for using them. But strategic reserves don’t directly compensate for fear. There is no good reason to believe that a release would calm peoples’ nerves. Indeed policymakers should be concerned that it would do precisely the opposite. Tapping the reserves right now could validate fears in the market – after all, it would signal that the United States government was worried. That could simply induce more precautionary buying, thus buoying prices, rather than depressing them. Such an outcome would be doubly dangerous, since, since it would undermine the psychological value of the reserves. Observers might come to fear that another SPR release under far more stressful circumstances would be similarly ineffective. That would tend to exacerbate the present stress. There may yet be a time to call on the SPR. And I understand that policymakers want to do something about the situation. But we’re not there yet.
  • Fossil Fuels
    A Gas Tax And A Carbon Tax Are Two Different Things
    I thought I’d filed this one away under “things that some people once believed but now realize are wrong”, but the usually astute Economist, in a largely estimable cover package, wakes me from my slumber: There is a silver lining [in the current situation]: the rest of the world could at long last deal with its vulnerability to oil and the Middle East. The to-do list is well-known, from investing in the infrastructure for electric vehicles to pricing carbon. No, no, no. A carbon tax that rose over a couple decades to $100/ton would push the limits of the economically acceptable. It would, in the process, revolutionize the power sector. It would make coal badly uncompetitive with gas, would almost certainly lead to a large nuclear expansion and to a boost for wind power, and could even (along with RD&D) make carbon capture and storage economically viable. And it would add a measly dollar to the price of a gallon of gasoline a long time from now. Anyone who thinks that that would be transformative enough to “deal with” U.S. oil exposure is kidding himself. The new post-2008 normal for gasoline prices is already more than a dollar higher than people thought it would be a few years ago. But there’s been no radical change. The prospect of paying another buck a gallon in 2030 wouldn’t be much additional incentive. Yes, in theory, one could add a few dollars to the price of a gallon of gasoline by cranking a carbon tax up to a few hundred dollars a ton. But the risk to the broader economy would be immense. (There is also precisely zero chance that it would be politically acceptable.) On top of that, the European experience with petrol taxes suggests that even that might not be enough. Bottom line: If you want to change oil consumption through tax policy, you need to tax oil consumption. If you want to change carbon emissions through tax policy, you need to tax carbon emissions. That’s it. P.S.: The other “well-known” move – “investing in the infrastructure for electric vehicles” – probably isn’t so wise either. The appeal of electric vehicles is that we already have the key bit of infrastructure that we need to get started: the electric grid. The main chokepoint right now is cost, not capacity, and that’s where policy should focus.
  • Climate Change
    Climate Change and National Security
    In this unique and innovative contribution to environmental security, an international team of scholars explore and estimate the intermediate-term security risks that climate change may pose for the United States, its allies and partners, and for regional and global order through the year 2030. In profiles of forty-two key countries and regions, each contributor considers the problems that climate change will pose for existing institutions and practices. By focusing on the conduct of individual states or groups of nations, the results add new precision to our understanding of the way environmental stress may be translated into political, social, economic, and military challenges in the future. Countries and regions covered in the book include China, Vietnam, The Philippines, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Central Asia, the European Union, the Persian Gulf, Egypt, Turkey, the Maghreb, West Africa, Southern Africa, the Northern Andes, and Brazil. CFR Senior Fellow Daniel Markey authored the chapter, "Pakistan," in which an international team of scholars explore and estimate the intermediate-term security risks that climate change may pose for the United States, its allies and partners, and for regional and global order through the year 2030.
  • Iran
    Could Oil Prices Stay High?
    The jump in oil prices over the past month or so has clearly been driven by what’s going on in the Middle East and North Africa. That’s why most analysts assume that when things (presumably) calm down, oil prices will drop back to previous levels too. And so long as oil prices don’t stay high for a prolonged period, the economic impact should be relatively small. But what if the geopolitical stress abates, yet oil prices remain relatively high? The standard answer is that this isn’t possible. If supply returns to previous levels, the market clearing price should too. That seems reasonable, but I’d throw out a caution, because oil prices are funny things. Producers with substantial market power (think Saudi Arabia and maybe OPEC as a collective) target certain prices (currently believed to be between $60 and $80 a barrel) based on, among other things, their judgment as to what the global economy can tolerate. (If high oil prices tank the economy, oil demand collapses, prices follow, and producers’ revenues dry up.) They aren’t always successful, but they do try, and it often works. Producers are deterred from pushing prices too high in part because of fear of the unknown. But if a freak set of events, like we’re seeing now, push prices past previous thresholds, and if the global economy seems to handle things ok, pivotal producers might decide that targeting higher prices makes sense. They would thus cut back on supplies in order to realize the new target. The temporary price hike would become self-reinforcing. This tendency could be compounded by a sense among producers that inflation, whether already realized or still on the way, was undercutting existing OPEC price targets – after all, that was part of the rationale for the original OPEC price hikes back in the early 1970s. To the extent cash poor (and hence price-hawkish) Iran has made relative gains in regional politics over the past month, that could also weigh on decision-making. This is all, of course, quite speculative. But stranger things have happened. Part of the recent price hike could thus stick.
  • Technology and Innovation
    South Korea’s 97 Billion Dollar Question: What is Green Growth?
    Jill Kosch O’Donnell is a former Junior Associate of The Asia Foundation and is a writer in Washington, DC. In an interview with the Korea Herald earlier this year, Hur Dong-Soo, CEO of Korea’s GS Caltex, called his company’s investments in heavy-oil upgrading facilities a “green growth business.” As the phrase “green growth” becomes ever more common—now used in reference to everything from solar panel exports to a stimulus-backed cure-all for ailing national economies—such claims beg the question, what does green growth really mean? Is it a strategy for cashing in on the growing global demand for clean energy products, like wind turbines and smart grid components? Is it the goal to derive more power from renewable sources? Or, is it investing in technology to meet the demand for cleaner-burning petroleum products, as GS Caltex is doing? According to a new report from UC Berkeley and the Denmark-based Green Growth Leaders Council, the answer may be all of the above. The Council, which includes Dr. Young Soo-gil, chairman of South Korea’s Presidential Committee on Green Growth, met for the first time on April 13, 2011, to consider the report’s findings. After reviewing the existing literature, the report authors found six different definitions of green growth and three separate policy debates about it, each with different ambitions. These range from the proposal that reducing greenhouse gas emissions can be compatible with economic growth, to the more ambitious notion that investments in low-carbon technology can drive job growth, and finally, to the idea that green investments can spur an entirely new “green industrial revolution.” South Korea is striving for all three of these goals under the green growth vision that President Lee Myung-bak first announced in August 2008. He pledged to spend 107 trillion won—or US$97 billion—in pursuit of green growth objectives between 2009 and 2013. Since then, he has received several international awards for his environmental leadership. Where does its green growth strategy stand now? There is evidence of success and difficulties. Green growth has served as a basis for new bilateral partnerships and a public relations platform for South Korean efforts to bolster the country’s global image. The Seoul-based Global Green Growth Institute is up and running, with projects underway in three countries. South Korea is building a comprehensive smart grid test-bed on Jeju Island, with the goal of becoming the first country with a nationwide smart grid by 2030. The Basic Act on Low Carbon Green Growth has become law, establishing the legal foundation for the Lee administration to move the strategy forward. But there are limits to how far, how fast, and how easily the government can push forward to achieve its aims. First, how far can the government go? Cap and trade remains a tough sell in South Korea. It is central to the government’s goal of reducing the country’s greenhouse gas emissions by 4 percent below 2005 levels by 2020—something it is not obligated to do under the Kyoto Protocol. Representing the industry view, Lee Dong-keun, executive chairman of the Korea Chamber of Commerce and Industry, told reporters that “Forcing firms to buy carbon permits to cover their emissions output will surely bring competitive disadvantage to our industrial edge.” South Korean business groups cite two other factors in their opposition: the uncertain outcome of global climate change negotiations and the unlikely prospects for implementation of cap and trade systems in other advanced economies, like the United States and Japan. Earlier this year, the government acquiesced to private sector pressure when it revised draft legislation to delay implementation of cap and trade for one year. Second, how fast can the government achieve its green growth goals? Along with green growth, South Korea is aggressively pursuing new sources of fossil fuels, which it will need to power its economy for quite some time. President Lee’s recent trip to the United Arab Emirates underscores this reality. While there, he accepted the Zayed Prize for Global Environmental Leadership and secured an oil field development deal worth 110 trillion won (US$100 billion) for South Korea. President Lee is seeking to achieve a 20 percent energy self-sufficiency ratio in oil and gas during his term. Green growth will play out over a much longer time frame. Third, how easy will it be to marshal public and private sector resources toward common goals? Implementation its green growth strategy is diffused among many who view their role in green growth through different lenses. Given the scope and ambition of President Lee’s strategy, this is not surprising; green growth policies affect the work of many government ministries and research institutes. This is necessary to implement such a sweeping strategy, but it also presents an obstacle to clarity about what green growth really means. Finally, what are the prospects for U.S.-ROK cooperation on green growth? There are competitive and cooperative forces at play. In a March 2011 hearing before the Senate Energy Committee, South Korea was mentioned in the competitive context of a clean energy technology “race.” Both countries have been clear that they are seeking to secure leadership positions in the global market for these technologies. The U.S. Department of Energy’s new Strategic Plan reinforces this goal. President Lee recently touted his country’s seven-fold increase in exports of new and renewable energy, saying that South Korea’s solar and wind industries will be nurtured as the semiconductor and shipbuilding industries once were as part of South Korea’s economic development strategy. Further, in U.S. forums like the Senate hearing, South Korea is often overshadowed by China as a strategic focus of cooperation. However, the Department of Energy’s new “Quadrennial Technology Review” (QTR) may bode well for U.S.-ROK cooperation by shedding light on the strategic direction for U.S. energy transformation at the federal level. The QTR will provide a framework for meeting U.S. energy challenges and, in the words of QTR Director Dr. Steven Koonin, consider “how the many different kinds of organizations that influence energy innovation and transformation can better work together.” While there is no U.S. equivalent to South Korea’s Presidential Committee on Green Growth, the QTR might serve as a proxy, at least in the realm of energy technology innovation. In addition, South Korea’s push to establish itself at the center of new multilateral organizations, such as the International Smart Grid Action Network, may present new avenues for cooperation. The Berkeley report cautioned that green growth “may be real and achievable, but hardly generalizable and inevitable.” It also cast doubt on the notion that the transition to a low-carbon economy can drive GDP growth directly. Two and a half years into President Lee’s strategy, green growth has yet to fully live up to its name. But its place in the policymaker’s vernacular seems assured as South Korea pushes forward on this work-in-progress idea.  
  • Fossil Fuels
    Why Is Saudi Arabia Being So Helpful?
    Saudi Arabia appears to have boosted its oil production and is in talks to increase deliveries to Europe. Dan Drezner is puzzled: “Why are the Saudis being so cooperative at this point? There might be sound strategic reasons – preventing a double-dip recession, assuaging longstanding allies, etc.  It could be that the Saudi leadership is feeling secure enough to plan for long-term price stability. Still, based on the recent reportage, I’m a little surprised that the Saudis aren’t exploiting the current uncertainty to ensure the security of the current regime going forward. If I was a Saudi prince right now, I’d be making it very clear to my buyers just how important stability is in my neck of the woods.” Dan asks: “Am I missing anything?” Let me take a stab. First, the strategic incentives that Dan cites for Saudi Arabia to intervene – particularly the risk of a double-dip recession – are pretty significant. Oil prices could fall precipitously if the world reentered recession. That said, the Saudis could have waited a couple weeks to respond without running particularly high global economic risks, if they wanted to spook people. Direct economic interests can’t explain everything. What I suspect matters more is that Saudi Arabia derives much of its influence from its perceived role as the central bank of oil. If it monkeys around too much by letting prices rise considerably higher, others will start to rely on it less, which will weaken its long term influence and bargaining power. Moreover, if Saudi Arabia doesn’t take action, and a strategic stockpile release by the United States and others calms the markets, Riyadh will be shown to be less strategically important than previously believed. It has a lot of incentive to not let things come to that. I’m also not sure precisely what Saudi Arabia would be able to extract by letting things get uglier. Oil markets are behaving badly precisely because people are worried about Saudi stability. If unrest actually migrated to the desert kingdom (a development that I still think is extremely unlikely), I think you’d start to see Saudi take very different steps with its oil. At that point, Riyadh would probably impress on the world that it needed support if they didn’t want to see prices get out of control. That would be a credible threat, and could result in a very concrete set of responses. Short of a similarly acute situation, though, Saudi Arabia would seem to strengthen its influence by responding quickly, rather than by letting things get worse.