INDEX of all files on this site
This informal website is primarily for information and discussion between the present members of the Energy PMP .
To post something on this site, send it to the present webmaster at wilson5@fas .harvard.edu. who hopes that in due course a more direct method will be possible. I would prefer it in html, or in pdf formats, but any format such as msword and  power point presentation will be acceptable pro tem.   You will be able to download them but not open them on line.

THE MOST RECENT REPORT IS FIRST;  earlier reports are at the end.   BUT  for a given meeting the reports are in order

Monday March 17th 2008

3 years ago we tried to get Tom Shea to talk at Erice but he had to  back out at the last moment.   He now has a new job as Director of Global Nuclear Policy Forum in London and has a screed he would like us to consider.

Saturday March 15th 2008

The reports on the Potential for Low Carbon emissions by Professor Julia King (King Review) on low -carbon cars has now been released by the UK government
Part I  , the potential for CO2 reduction
 Part II.  Recommendations for Action
 I note in particular:

"In the long term, carbon-free road transport fuel is the only way to achieve an 80-90 per cent reduction in emissions, essentially decarbonisation. Given biofuels supply constraints, this will require a form of electric vehicle, with novel batteries, charged by  "zero- carbon " electricity oror possibly hydrogen produced by zero- carbon electricity"

This makes our recommendation for treating all non-carbon sources the same particularly relevant.

In view of the fact that the summer 2007 meeting, and the December 2007 meetings specifically discussed the IPCC report, I note the report of the Heartland Institute of February 2008 which disagrees with the conclusions.   I suggest that all members of the relevant panels ead and be able to criticize that report when needed.

Friday March 15th 2008

The article on nuclear power that I was requested to write, and first presented at Erice 4 years ago has only now been published.  It can be downloaded here in pdf format

Thursday December 20th 2007

Sunday August 19th 2007

Energy Permanent Monitoring Panel;  Seminar on Planetary Emergencies; joint meeting with climate PMP.

December 21st 2006

Special  Session in the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, Vatican city

Presentation of 2005 Erice Prize to Lord John Alderdice, Professor Andre Peterman and  Richard Wilson

Talk on Energy Crisis or Environment Crisis by Richard Wilson
Talk on Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons by Richard Garwin

AUGUST 2006 MEETING

Permanent Monitoring Panel Meetings – Saturday 19 August – 09.30-19.00

• Energy – Paul A.M. Dirac Lecture Hall – Patrick M.S. Blackett Institute

• Nuclear Power Future,  Ahmed Kamal and Jeff Ongena
•  Need for Climate  Change Technology Exploratory Research William Fulkerson
• Technology Transfer Between Different Energy Options -  Akira Miyahara
  

International Seminar on Planetary Emergencies 2 sessions on Global Nuclear Power Future: 20th August 2006

•   Introduction and setting the stage : Richard Garwin  IBM Watson Lab

•    The Global Climate Change Imperative- and the Future of Nuclear Power- Steve Fetter,   School of Public Policy, University of Maryland
  
•   A French view of the Future of Nuclear Energy;  Dr. Jacques Bouchard French Atomic Energy Commission, CEA, Paris, France
•  Uranium Reseources for the Long Term,  Steve Fetter and Mathew Bunn
  

• Advanced passively safe and secure reactors at affordable cost - Pebble Bed Johan Slabber S.Africa Slides presented by Bill Fulkerson
  
• Generation  IV:  concepts   Dr Kazuaki Matsui
  
• with comments from  Dr. Jacques Bouchard, CEA, Paris and Dr. Phillip J Finck, Applied Science and Technology, Argonne National Laboratory, USA
  
• Dr. Charles McCombie. Arius Association, Baden, Switzerland, Repositories around the World Abstract  Talk
  
• Proliferation resistance and physical protection: Richard Hoskins, IAEA       
  
•  Coal with sequestration, the principal competitor: Carmen Difiglio, U.S. DOE policy office 
• RECOMMENDATIONS on nuclear power

Monday 21st August -09.30 - 13.00

• Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

• Professor Richard Wilson, Introduction
• Dr Kazuaki Matsui; Proliferation and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle in Japan  MSWORD
  
• Dr Buhlman The Swiss approach to nuclear proliferation
  
• Professor Joachim Krause: How serious is the crisis of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime?
  
• Professor Emeritus Rajaraman  Implications of the Indo-US Nuclear Agreement for S. Asia and the World
  
• Professor Roland Timerbaev Nuclear Non-Proliferation - Current Prospects
  
• Ambassador Ahmed Kamal  The demise of the Nuclear Non-Prolferation Treaty
  
  SUBSIDIARY INFORMATION
  Appeal of Indian Parliamentarians on the India-US deal
• Views of Drell and Garwin expressed to APS

World Federation of Scientists General Meeting - Paul A.M. Dirac Lecture Hall

Wednesday 23 August – 09.30-13.00

• Morning – PMP and Working Groups Reports – General Debate and Conclusions

• RECOMMENDATIONS on nuclear power

June 15th 2006

The International energy Agency (IEA) is preparing a 2006 report on  ENERGY TECHNOLOGY PERSPECTIVES.  When it is ready, and IF it is on the web, it may well influence our deliberations.

February 20th 2006

Hisham Khatib's comment on President Bush's energy plans

August 24th 2005

Meeting of PMP under new Chairman:  Professor Klaus Lackner.
Minutes
Draft recommendation for discussion

August 23rd 2005

Report of Energy PMP
Richard Wilson's comment on non proliferation put here for convenience  (Garwin's also)

Erice  schedule:

July 7th 2005

The founder of Greenpeace testified in US congress (on April 2th 2005) supporting nuclear energy

July 6th 2005

June 14th

Joseph Chahoud reminds us of the following thoughts of his written in 1999 that make the same arguments we have been repeating recently.

The attached document on electrification issues from Ken Davis (one time Deputy Secretary of Energy in ERDA) may be of interest

February 21st

Hisham Khatib sends an article by Malcomb Keay on " CO2 Emissions Reduction: Time for a Reality Check? "

At 11 am today we mourn the fact that the "war to end all wars" had come to an end but did not end all wars.

September 7th 2004

Hishab Khatib's review of Edwards-Kerry energy program

August 20th 2004

Reports of the August 19th meeting and other reports of the August 20-24th meeting are located here

Hisham Khatib Energy in the light of global warming.  Presentation on August 20th
Carmen De Figlio The costs of NOT including Nuclear and Carbon Sequestration
Richard Wilson    Sustainable Nuclear Energy -  Some reasons for Optimism
Barkat Electrification of Bangladesh
Kumar Energy for Rural Areas:  the Perspective of India  
Jef Ongena - The future of Fusion

August 13th 2004

Revised plan for Thursday August 19th meeting of PMP (please make suggestions for modification)
 Meet at 9.30 am
Approval of agenda
Discussion of Energy for Developing countries
Talks by:
    9.45    Dr Barkat (Bangladesh) Electrification of Bangladesh
    10.30 Daniel Kammen (UC Berkeley) will not be coming  Renewables in developing countries will not be given
    10.30 Dr Kumar (India) Energy renewables in India
    11.15   Discussion of ways to help these developing countries (see Fulkerson, Levine et al proposal)
___12.00 Discussion of afternoon's agenda on energy generally and in particular resolution(s) for action that Professor Khatib or the Chairman will raise to the whole group and that we hope Zichichi with support and send upwards.

  SEND IN YOUR IDEAS

5.00 pm   The US often sets the agenda.  We should discuss the energy programs of the rival Presidential candidates

 5.30 pm  (c)   General discussion of energy issues including resolutions for Zichichi
6 pm   Chairman of PMP for next year
6.15 pm Discussion of next years program.   We have discussed earlier that we should emphasize carbon sequestration and meet jointly with the committee of the World Energy Council at Erice in August for 2 days as our August meeting.    I suggest that if we confirm this that we invite Dr Klaus Lackner (originally a high energy physicist) from Columbia University to join us.   He thinks about the problems in ways of which Nino Zichichi would approve.    I will post here within a week some articles on the subject.

6.45 pm   Anyone else want to say anything?    Please let me know

7 pm  Any Other Business
before 7.30  adjourn

On August 20th or 21st Dr Hisham Khatib will present his paper: to the main group. 

August 13th 2004

Senator Kerry and Mr Edwards have released a summary of their energy proposal. It is attached here.   I note that it subsidizes renewables, and coal (new combined cycle plants which cost a lot more) but no mention of sequestration.  It also continues and expands the ethanol from corn program which is actually energy inefficient when the whole fuel chain is considered (and is widely perceived as a subsidy for the company Archer, Daniels, Midland ).    I suggest that we look at this on the afternoon of August 19th at the PMP meeting, and suggest some resolutions for the whole group of WFS.    Although the US is only one country, it remains the world's largest fuel user.     Hisham Khatib's comments upon another version.

August 3rd

Bill Fulkerson sends an update of his and Levine's  proposal for international aid to developing countries with emphasis on energy efficiency.

July 30th 2004

Comment by Joseph Chahoud

Dear Chairman,

I’m here getting back to you only now since until a few days ago I was so busy preparing, finishing and submitting to the editor a paper on “Public Transport Policy and Measures that could improve the air quality in major cities in the Mediterranean basin”. Hence I sat scanning, in chronological order, the mass of correspondence started last winter and early spring within many of the members of the PMP Energy group. Navigation in such a bedlam has revealed itself to be not an easy task, and I had a feeling of bewilderment. But, not exactly all of sudden, I realized that we have, this year, to face two major issues; namely global warming and climate change, and energy for developing countries. This latter was our priority option that was put forward 2 years ago by P.K. Iyengar and others.
As for what concerns global warming and climate change I would say that the problem, which is per se very complex in its intrinsic nonlinearity, is still questionable and under debate within the scientific community (see e.g. Nature, v 429 n 6992, just to mention one of the most recent articles on the subject). Much have been said during the plenary sessions last year, and I wonder if we could put forward any further contribution, except from our own competency calling for a reduction of GHG emissions in the processes of energy production and consumption. So I think it would fair enough if we address proposals in that direction, proposals that should be linked to the second issue which is “energy for developing countries”.
This important issue, although not having been well defined or understood at full, is certainly strictly linked to another one which has a high ethical quality, namely that of “Poverty”. Two billions of fellow citizens live on less than 2 $ a day and survive burning dung or wood for fuel. 80% of them still have no access to electricity. What is needed is an energy system based on renewable energy and improving efficiency; to say it with Klaus Toepfer, a combination commonly called “sustainable energy”, a multi-purpose tool that can best help all countries in their sustainable development. Put another way: development needs energy, sustainable development needs sustainable energy. A tentative definition of sustainable energy could be given by a few examples: sometimes it means increasing the system efficiency of burning fossil fuels, such as coal, to generate electricity squeezing the most efficiency of both supply and demand, while reducing the emissions of pollutants such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and PMs. Sometimes it means a photovoltaic plant, whether small or large. Sometimes it means a dam that can provide water and electricity while protecting the river habitat. Sometimes it means a wind farm feeding electricity into a national grid or into a mini grid.
Amazingly enough we find that the distribution of the population over the globe is mostly concentrated in areas where there is scarcity of “concentrated” primary energy resources; the few have a lot and the many have a little (exceptions do exist and are well known). In my view the soft distribution of the population over the rural areas requires the exploitation of the softly distributed energy resources (renewable) saving thus large investments in transmission lines besides savings a part of losses. In my view the writings of Bill Fulkerson et al and Daniel Kammen are of great value, and could well fit as basis for a resolution with regard to how could we help those developing countries electrifying rural areas and isolated communities.

As for what concerns nuclear power I would say that the nuclear option has never left the table. A new dawn is finding its way back with some of the generation IV reactor concepts. To this regard I would recommend reading the correspondence of Declan Butler published in Nature, volume 429, issue of the 20th of May 2004.

Coming back to conventional fossil fuels I would say that I disagree with two of the statements that have been put forward by Dr Hisham Khatib. The first one (reporting Mitchell) says that “as much as importing countries are anxious to ensure security by having sustainable sources, exporting countries are anxious to export to ensure sustainable income”. Although I consider it legitimate to industrialized to be anxious securing sustainable supply, I dare saying that the attitude of those exporting countries of oil, who are also under development, to be anxious to export to ensure income (which is this way, and in my view, not sustainable) should be discouraged. Economical and social development based on almost one single resource could not be sustainable.

The second statement of Dr Khatib is the one contained in his message of the 2nd of last may, that concerns the “great” advantages of fossil fuel resources. My objection could better be expressed quoting Bart Lijnse, 11 yrs: “ Do we ever run out of energy? Well, yes we do, we run out of coal and oil, but not out of electricity. Why not? Because electricity, that can be generated”. I would also add: when it becomes necessary it will be too late.

July 18th 2004

Bill Chandler, who unfortunately cannot be at our meeting in person, suggests a paper for our enlightenment.  I note that not only is he a coauthor but so also is Xiao Dadi (another member of the PMP),  Adnan Shihab Eldin,  who also cannot be present in person because of a concurrent OPEC meeting,  send a paper by Maugeri  arguing that (if climate change does not force a change) that the age of oil is far from dead or declining.   This seems to be a general consensus in the oil and gas industry of which we should be aware.

June 2nd 2004

Hisham Khatib forwards to us the power point slides of Mr Barry Worthington on how to finance Carbon Sequestration

June 1st 2004

The Chairman notes two pieces of world news that will inevitably influence oil prices, and thereby the potential for alternates to fossil fuels.  He suggests that all members of the Energy Permanent Monitoiring Panel take note.
(1)   The new government in Iraq.   Will it have "full" sovereignty on July 1st 2004?   Only a government with full sovereignty can make long term arrangements over its mineral (oil) resources.   (UN resolution in the early 1970s that may not be respected by US but will be respected by international financiers).   Therefore full sovereignty is essential before any expansion of Iraqi oil production capacity to 10 million barrels a day from the present which is about 2 milion barrels a day.
(2)    The terrorism in Saudi Arabia

These and other matters (dollar devaluation) have already led to a rise in oil prices.

May 18th 2004

    From Dan Kammen   To me, Carmen's assertion raises the critical central issue in all the discussions of lean energy futures: what level of GHG mitigation can we get from evolutionary vs. revolutionary technological paths.  We all know the story that Carmen is referencing when he states that EE + renewables can't make up the energy capacity we need to power the globe at a 30 - 40 TW, let alone 10 - 20 TW level as we expect to need.  There is a good argument for this perspective, to be sure.  On the other hand, the Rosenfeld view of efficiency is that by 2100 carbon emission at the level of gas today coupled with the current efficiency-innovation level (1% growth/year)  expanded to 2 - 3% could do it.  Now, many in this group, to be sure, don't believe that view but I'd like to posit that we really don't fully know.  Art's vision is a reasonable one with California over the past 30 years as the reference.   In my view the aggressive efficiency path coupled with aggressive renewables growth (at the  same level) and nuclear at replacement levels or a bit more, plus a vastly modernized  grid could get us pretty close, with India and China the big variables, naturally.   A number of us are working on a paper now that lays out this forecasted future, and I'd suggest that we at least compare/discuss it viz. the other very technology intensive views  out there.  It is the key to our debates, really. <>Into this mix the role and effectiveness of R&D has to take a central role.  I'll shortly send  around a short update of our 1999 Margolis & Kammen papers on the effectiveness of energy R&D.  For those who want to see them, start with the short on in Science, and the whole set can be  downloaded at:

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html#R&D

May 18th 2004

from  Bill Fulkerson

As many have observed re stabilizing carbon in the atmosphere to levels that will comply with the U.N. convention, there are no silver bullets.   The recent Scientific American paper by Jim Hanson in the March 2004 issue suggests that complying with the U.  N. convention requires  stabilizing carbon concentrations in the range of 500 to 550 ppm(V).  It will be a tough expensive job to stay within these limits unless  some technological miracles happen.  Let us hope that R&D adequately funded may provide such miracles, and Bruce Stram proposes ways to pay the piper.  What is obvious is that all options should be pursued until they are proven to be ineffective.  This includes improving efficiency,    using fossil fuel with sequestration, improving nuclear fission and pursuing nuclear fusion, developing all types of so-called renewables,   and then looking for way out solutions including evaluating reflective particles in the stratosphere (as insurance in case all else fails).  A  balanced robust strategy is needed.

May 18th 2004
From Carmen de Figlio (Adna Shihab Eldin in agreement)

A report to the plenary on what could be done to mitigate GHG emissions from energy should include all important options.  While it is true that  there is, as yet, no agreement within the Energy PMP on carbon capture and storage, perhaps there is also a lack of consensus on what can be  achieved with efficiency, renewables and nuclear.

In my opinion, putting much hope in nuclear power ignores current liberalized electricity markets and public opinion in most OECD
countries. I also think that energy efficiency and renewables will not be able to reduce energy-related CO2 emissions sufficiently to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions in the 500-600 ppm range.  A massive effort on efficiency would not even keep up with the growth of world-wide  emissions.  Renewables can help but, with only 3% of today's primary energy supply (excluding large hydro) and substantial resource  constraints for wind and biomass (that constitute 86% of non-hydro renewable electric generating capacity), they will not do much to slow  the growth of fossil fuels though 2040.  Taken together, strong programs to promote efficiency and renewables would still result in a world-wide emissions profile that is incompatible with stabilizing GHG concentrations at safe levels.  Technologies besides efficiency and  renewables will be needed to stop and reverse the world-wide growth of emissions before 2040-2050.  If we can't reasonably expect a large revival of nuclear power, it must either be carbon sequestration or some technology that we have not yet anticipated.  If we can not move forward with either nuclear or carbon capture and storage, the prospects for mitigating CO2 emissions from the energy sector sufficiently to stabilize GHG concentrations below 600 ppm are poor. I know there are uncertainties about carbon capture and storage.  For example, permanence of storage is still unresolved but there will be a new IPCCC report that may indicate that this is not likely to be a big problem (this report will be published in 2005 but we have seen an early draft that is encouraging on permanence).  Our IEA technology cost and  modeling analysis shows that, without carbon capture and storage or nuclear, the cost of achieving an emissions profile compatible with  stabilization of greenhouse gas emissions is extremely high. In conclusion, I do not think that we should provide a message to the plenary that gives the impression that we can reduce emissions sufficiently with efficiency and renewables or overestimates the very low likelihood that climate change policies would embrace nuclear power

May 18th 2004

From the Chairman

We have arranged that in August 2004 we continue to discuss energy for developing countries.   Coming to the meeting will be  Dr Ashok Khosla who has been working in Indian villages and was UNEP prize winner last year, Dr Abul Barkat who organized Bangaldesh's successful rural electrification system (suggested by Bill Fulkersion and Bruce Starm) and Dan Kammen who has worked on solar ovens in Kenya.

It has also been arranged that at the plenary session (which is primarily about the potential for global warming) someone from our group will present what we think the energy system of the world can do to increase and or mitigate the problem.  I propose therefore that Hisham Khatib do this, but we will discuss this at the PMP meeting to be sure he presents a consensus view or any dissents.

For next year I propose that we discuss carbon sequestration, and the August 2005 meeting be for 2 days and cooincident with the World Energy Council meeting on the same topic at Erice.  We can thereby have more authority and influence.  This has to be agreed soon for organizational reasons.

May 5th 2004

from the Chairman:
As always, we should think about specific resolutions that we may ask Nino Zichichi to urge.

May 1st 2004

 PK Iyengar (who originally suggested this theme, but cannot be there) comments:

I am glad that the PMP will discuss energy problems of the developing vworld, especially in rural areas.     I wish to bring to your attention, the following observation, which is  typical of what science can do to improve the conditions of the developing world:      Last November, I visited the Airbus Industries in Toulouse, France. They  took me to one of their latest models, which will seat 800 people. It was well lit. I asked them what kind of lighting they used. They said it was something new; white light emitting LEDs. I was impressed by that. Its efficiency is obviously higher; it simulates while light well; and can operate on low DC voltages.  I recalled how fireflys produce white light inside the nests, especially in tropical forest areas. Long ago I was in Assam, in North-East India, where I noticed my room had a number of light-emitting fireflys hovering around, which made me wonder why man has not tried to simulate it. I browsed on the Internet to see how much these white LEDs cost. It was around $70 for a 3 W LED array, which, because of the higher efficiency is equivaent to several hundred lumens.

  Today I again browsed and got the following interesting Web-sites. I recommend them to you. One is Sandia National Lab., where the semiconductor LEDs are discussed in great length. There is even a Web-page which discusses the total lighting load of electricity consupmtion, and how the use of LEDs could save electricity and thus reduce global warming. They also talk about organic materials for the LED, which would reduce the capital cost enormously. Nature has already produce that in the firefly! But do the developed nations see this as a priority R&D effort? Will it help the rural village light their homes and eventually improve their standard of living, without being connected to the electricity grid?    Such drastic chages in technology do not seem to get priority in the developed world. I have always quoted other examples, like the maglev train and energy sources for automobiles, in the form of centrifuges, which was demonstrated by the Livermore National Laboratory.     Cold fusion was debunked for a long time. Perhaps they couldn't shut off  the  multi-billion dollar investment in hot fusion overnight. There are still people  continuing to work and demonstrate that cold fusion is reproducible. Most recently, the March issue of Physical Review E carries a paper by Taleyrkhan  and others, demonstrating d-d fusion in cavity collapse in acetone - a miniaturised hydrogen bomb that has most of the physics behind the H-bomb, but using a well-known phenomenon called sonoluminiscience. They seem to have extended the pheonmenon from electron deexcitation to produce light, to d-d fusion,  which,  according to conventional wisdom, requires high temperature and density (the Lawson criterion). This must be a fertile ground for theoreticians to show if it  is feasible and true or not.

  I just want to bring to your attention that things could change in the energy sector  if R&D is not controlled by policy makers and bureaucrats who do not appreciate Nature's laws and the wonders that it has created.

(1) http://lighting.sandia.gov/

What Dick says makes a great deal of sense, but I desire to add another item to his global warming agenda.

Some of you may recollect that I have been advocating an international (hopefully global at some point) program of energy research and development (and probably limited deployment) that is "permanently" and reliably supported by some "trust fund" mechanism, which I have generally described as a (small) carbon tax.  Other mechanisms would of course suffice. (Nations' participation in the program and access to the research is contingent on enacting a trust fund mechanism and contributing the proceeds to research, or in the case of nations in the developing world, providing scientific skills.)  The ultimate goal of this research program is to achieve what Bill Fulkerson calls a miracle: an energy alternative less costly than currently available fossil fuel sources.  It is fair, I think, to describe this goal as a miracle because the technologies currently under significant development don't seem likely to ever meet this criterion.  But miracles of this sort do occur, and it may well make sense to increase the likelihood that one will happen in the next half century. Obviously such a goal can only be achieved in the long run.  However, this does comport with the long run nature of the global warming problem. Further, this approach has the advantage over all other global warming
policy ideas in that it is self implementing: if its cheaper, they will use it and discard fossil fuels (eventually).   In proposing this I am implicitly assuming that increased and stable R & D expenditures will be commensurately effective if appropriately implemented (as opposed to say our desperate efforts at instant success in the 70's and 80's), and that technologies meeting that criterion are "out there".  A second assumption is that such technologies are in fact out there, not too far over the horizon.

I am trying to get a handle on the best research per the incremental efficacy of R & D, and energy R & D in particular.  (If anyone knows of any such sources I would very much appreciate hearing about them.)  I would like to add the "over the horizon" technology question to our agenda.  If this question has been thoroughly explored (that is, including some hard nosed assessment of the promise of any such technologies) I think it very appropriate that we put it on our table and review it.  If not, I'd suggest,  we discuss the possibility of sponsoring the development of such an assessment.

Additionally, I'd just mention that Bill Fulkerson and I are exploring linkages between such a research program, and energy problems in the  developing world, especially including the rural poor.  We don't know yet  whether we'll have a useful product.

I think that there are good reasons to think that with any sort of well-directed and even reasonably funded R&D effort in these areas, b
below BAU energy costs is quite reasonable.   If may be worth looking at the set of R&D studies my group did:

http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~rael/papers.html#R&D

(and we'll have an update coming out shortly, we hope)

April 29th 2004  (the Chairman is 78 years old today)

There seems to be a consensus that at the whole day PMP meeting on August 19th 2004, we should:

(1)  continue to discuss energy for developing countries, and in particular rural areas where there is little energy (and no electricity)
There is a general feeling that the problem of getting energy to these areas is NOT technical (scientific) but social, economic, and such details.   Most of us have little experience in this.  However, I have persuaded Dr Ashok Khosla (PhD physics, Harvard in 1970s;  UNEP prize 2003) to join us.  He has experience in just these matters in India.  Also I hope Dan Kammen can join us: he has experience in east Africa. Bill Fulkerson has a report on what they have done in Bangladesh where there is a lot of natural gas.

(2)  be prepared to contribute to the global warming discussion that is the general theme of the August meeting by outlining the technical steps that can be taken.
There seem to be several:
(a)  nuclear power
(b)  much improved efficiency
(c)  MUCH increased use of renewables
(d)  a medium shout :  carbon sequestartion
(e)  a long shot- fusion.

Again, a lot of this is not scientific but (a) at least is strongly related to public perception.

I will be in Erice next week at a meeting on Risks of Bioterrorism and will discuss with Claude and Nino the extent we can contribute to the main sessions on August 20-23 on global warming.

April 22nd 2004

A draft paper resulting from Fulkerson and Levine's reports to PMP in 2003

April 11th 2004

Bruce Stram's comment:

For some time now, environmentalists and others have chosen to focus the policy discussion re: global warming, on Kyoto like approaches.  While some of us feared this approach contained fatal flaws, in effect all or almost all of our “eggs”, have been put in this basket.  Now, as it appears those anticipated flaws are being exposed, there are little in the way of coherent alternatives.  I don’t wish to kindle a reiteration of this debate, but simply to observe the inescapable: the process is in trouble and it is reasonable to worry that it is doomed.

At the same time it is impossible, at least for me, not to have great concern with regard to global warming issues.  But I’m becoming fearful that no long-term strategy will be implemented.

Logically, one knows that anthropogenic induced global warming, if it will indeed prove to be a problem, accumulates over the long term and any policy that addresses the generation of GHG can only take effect over a long period of time given anything resembling current economic parameters.  These facts tend to “trap” us into thinking in terms of long run solutions.

This of course runs counter to the reality of the dynamics of policy formulation.  Policy is most easily formulated in response to a clear and present danger, and the ideal policy instruments are those that lead t