Home › Policy › Environment › Climate Change and Energy

Jeffrey Sachs: China's Role in the Global Climate Game

Share

Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, at the Asia Society.
enlarge image

Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, at the Asia Society.

NEW YORK, June 1, 2009 - Professor Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, says we need to fundamentally change the way we produce energy if we want to make progress on climate change.

"The evidence is growing ... that climate change caused by humanactivity is not only real [but] is extremely dangerous," said Sachs.

Sachs spoke in conversation with Orville Schell, Arthur Ross Director of the Center on US-China Relations at the Asia Society's New York Headquarters.

Sachs emphasized that one of the main problem is coal: "Any realistic quantitative path for a fast-growing China will mean atremendous reliance on coal," Sachs said.

Coal remains the source of 80 percent of China's electricity and 50 percent of the United States'. "Either we figure out how to live withcoal, or we're going to have to figure out how to live with climate change."

Since coal is clearly here to stay, Sachs argued, the US should workwith China to make a massive investment in developing and testing a newcoal processing technology designed to reduce emissions.

While this technology, known as carbon capture and sequestration(CCS), is still expensive and unproven, Sachs believes it's the bestway to address climate change quickly. "I've thought for the last eightyears that is the number one strategic thing to do, period," he toldthe audience.

However, Sachs was skeptical of current attempts to establish broader international agreements that target reducing emissions. "We will reach an agreement. But whether it's an agreement that changes theplanet, or whether it's an agreement that makes us feel good on the wayto the cliff is what's the real issue."

Reported by Dan Chinoy

rae | 02:17:10 11:56am
agreed, the future is alternative fuel. whether or not one agrees will not matter in the long term, as at one discerning point, we will not have a choice.
vikash mittersain | 12:08:09 07:21pm
One very important aspect for Carbon Redduction is agreement on REDD, the forestry proposal. It is astonishintg that growing or saving our forests is being given such short thrift. It is the most important thing that can be done to reduce carbon in the atmosphere, you can even say that forests sequester Carbon. Everytime a tree is cut it releases the carbon it absorbed during its lifetime, and every tree planted takes away some carbon from the air. The world is looking for so many Industrial solutions to this problem we face, but here is an age old solution which God Himself provided and we are ignoring it. We should insist on much greater attention towards the beneficial values of Forests. If we dont let Forests grow on the land, we will be forced to let the seas take it over
Malkovic | 11:23:09 12:49pm
We must slow down to destroy our planet. If we have the intelligence and tools, we can do this with them too.
John | 11:17:09 09:47pm
left only 3 years. and the end in 2010...Do you believe it?
Robert | 08:07:09 12:17am
I saw Professor Sachs speak at this event on climate change and global warming. Professor Sachs, who has no formal training in science, meteorology or physics (he is just an economist), proceeded to give a lecture where he said there was no credible scientists that disputed the idea of man made global warming. This is very typical of the pro-global warming crowd who delibertly make these misstatements - they ignore any inconvienient truths like the fact that there are thousands of scientists with degrees in atmospheric science, meteorology and related fields who dispute the idea of man made global warming. One of these scientists is MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen. Why does Sachs with no training in science have any credibility when he speaks about global warming? Anyway, Sachs' misleading commentary was just half of the program. For the other half of the program he made personal attacks against Bush, Republicans and anyone else who disagreed with his own views. The moderator of the program even had to ask Sachs to come back to the point of the event - China and climate change! Apparrently Sachs was unaware that there might have been Republicans in the audience. Overall Sach's performance was unscholarly, not credible and irritating.
Keith | 08:03:09 09:09am
We've got to speed up alternative fuel innovation and green technology too. We all know this to be the needs right now that will lead us into the future. We have the intelligence and tools in place to get this going.

Post new comment

Your comments are welcome, please adhere to our guidelines

Be respectful. Personal attacks will not be tolerated; nor will profane, abusive or threatening posts.

Keep it short (150 words or less), Stay on topic.

Asia Society reserves the right to moderate all comments and remove or edit for guideline violations. Thank you.

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.