![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.greenenergyreporter.com\/wp-content\/themes\/v1\/img\/cat\/funding.png\" "\\"Funding\\"")
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/www.greenenergyreporter.com\/wp-content\/themes\/v1\/img\/cat\/policy.png\" "\\"Policy\\"")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
GER:<\/strong> What was the Copenhagen climate summit like to cover?<\/p>\n Andrew Revkin:<\/strong> I\u2019m sure everyone over there had a different perspective based on their experience.\u00a0 I was seeing some really bad signs early on; it was kind of like watching a truck you know is going too fast miss the intersection. There was just no way you were going to get any substantive breakthroughs coming out of something like that.<\/span><\/p>\n There was also the chaos factor. The manager of the treaty process admitted they had 45,000 people registered and they figured at any particular hour they\u2019d only have 15,000 people in the hall.\u00a0Also, having so many heads of state come, you\u2019re superimposing all of those protocols and priorities over a process normally run by functionaries. Which led to some of the fun stuff towards the end.<\/p>\n GER: <\/strong>You\u2019re referring to President Barack Obama barging in on a meeting between negotiators from China and Brazil<\/a>, among other countries. Did that really happen?<\/p>\n AR:<\/strong><\/span> From what I understand, it really did happen There were some private consultations China had arranged with other countries and there was this pattern of China sending some low level functionaries to bilateral talks.<\/p>\n There were hazards here for the president here, since he committed so early on to showing up on the final day. What the outcome illustrated was that there were gambles there. The Obama administration did not have everything in control.<\/p>\n GER:<\/strong> What did you think of the outcome?<\/p>\n AR:<\/strong><\/span> The bigger accomplishment of this conference was the things that happened in the months leading up to it.\u00a0A bunch of countries that had never come close to setting firm targets did so. Brazil, for example, just turned into law their reductions plan.\u00a0I think we\u2019ll look back 10-20 years from now and see the curve of emissions will have moved away from business as usual. It wouldn\u2019t have happened without the conference.<\/p>\n GER:<\/strong> Did you get a new sense of hope from Copenhagen?<\/p>\n AR:<\/strong><\/span> I don\u2019t think, in the end, that\u2019s where you\u2019re going to find it. The thing that will change our energy norms won\u2019t come out of a diplomatic process so much as out of innovations in technology and social innovations.\u00a0There\u2019s those who still think the business world will still be that place. But from the stories that The Times and I have done on these things \u2013 there aren\u2019t really the Bell Labs out there.<\/p>\n I just don\u2019t see Copenhagen as being the game changer. Maybe we need a framework conference on technology change as much as we need a framework on climate change.We need new ways to get energy and the services it provides to people.<\/p>\n GER:<\/strong> Have you seen the discussion on climate shift, over the years, from the scientific to the economic aspects of combating climate change?<\/p>\n AR:<\/strong><\/span> Once Kyoto took effect, from 1997 until the mid 2000s, there was an expectation that there would be a grand and ever-growing market for carbon and technology. But with 190 countries \u2013 the money flows to the easiest things.\u00a0My guess is where that\u2019s going to end up is much more like the voluntary carbon market that we see now. I may be cynical but I don\u2019t see the signs of progress toward that.<\/p>\n The whole philosophy, from early on was, let\u2019s build a global scheme and drive the change.\u00a0The IEA came out with a report that said until even if you get the carbon markets, it wouldn\u2019t make a dent until 2025.\u00a0You have to go direct at the basic R and D and the large-scale demonstration. No venture capital group is going to finance the first gigawatt carbon capture plant because that\u2019s something only governments do.<\/p>\n![\"\"](\"http:\/\/greenenergyreporter.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2009\/12\/revkinA-a260.jpg\" "\\"revkinA-a260\\"")
<\/a>Right-wing firebrand Rush Limbaugh thinks <\/em>the planet would be better with former New York Times climate reporter Andrew Revkin dead<\/em><\/a> and Climate Progress blogger Joe Romm <\/em>wants him to get something (anything) right<\/em><\/a>. Being the target of these two flamethrowers, in addition to writing Page One stories for The Times from the Copenhagen climate summit, running the Dot Earth blog and writing books would wear anyone down. On Dec. 21, Revkin packed it in and <\/em>left The Times<\/em><\/a>, where he had been a staff writer since 1995. Not, mind you, to run and hide, but to begin the next phase of his career as a senior fellow at Pace University\u2019s new interdiscplinary program for applied environmental studies. We caught up with Revkin to talk about Copenhagen and the future of the climate for our Cornerstone Conservations series with leading executives and thinkers in clean tech and green energy.<\/em><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n\n
No venture capital group is going to finance the first gigawatt carbon capture plant because that\u2019s something only governments do.<\/h3>\n<\/blockquote>\n