An interview with Dr. Claudia Kemfert; Head of the Department of Energy, Transportation, and Environment at the German Institute for Economic Research in Berlin

03.02.10 Interview conducted by Aine Ni Ealai

You said in your speech, that only substantial investment in oil exploration would narrow the global supply on oil.  When you mention exploration, do you mean searching for new oil reserves or research in the oil industry?

Both, on the one hand we have to increase oil supply up to 100 million barrels a day, and on the other hand we have to invest in very dirty and difficult explorations, like deep sea and perma frost areas. We have to invest in research as well because of technological improvement, to gain more efficiency, and to find substitutions.  Oil is not only an energy source, it is also used for makeup and many chemically enhanced products.

Do you believe there is a current energy solution for a long-term energy need? If so, what areas should investments be made?

Yes, I don’t see a solution right now, we are running into problems. The problem with the economy is that we wait for high prices and then we act. In 2008 the price of gasoline went up, people began to substitute gasoline by driving less and carpooling, but that’s not really a technological solution and we need more long-term solutions. We need a substitute for oil, alternative fuel, sustainable mobility, and other products. We have a long way to go.

European member states had trouble creating and committing to an agreement to cut their own carbon emissions. After the Climate Change summit in Copenhagen, do you feel Europe is taking enough action and putting enough resources into cutting carbon emissions and forwarding alternative energy initiatives?

Europe started early, and is leading these initiatives because they had already established a climate and energy package. Some years ago it was a regional ruling that we cut emissions by 20 percent, 20 percent efficiency improvement, and 20 percent renewable energy, and that went to the European Parliament who made solutions. Other regions need more time and more money to do what we did.

There seems to be a public misconception that alternative energy sources are not economically viable, especially in our current economic climate. How can one go about changing the public’s perception of alternative energy initiatives?

People can look at wind energy, which is economically attractive, this is why companies invest in large areas like in U.K. and in Scandinavian countries. This is because renewable energy has a long-term benefit. Solar energy needs more time and investment, but at the moment huge funds are going into solar energy. It seems that capitally intact companies see a change needs to happen and we must go forward beyond the crisis. The governments need to make the rules and need to act severely in showing that energy needs to be substituted.

It has been argued that developed nations dominate the debate over climate change, while developing countries are left by the wayside. How might cultural diplomacy bridge the gap between the two and give a voice on climate change to the developing world.

This is why I suggested to change the UN’s process, and to change mitigation. We should go for emission cuts at the G20, and allow the UN to help developing nations who are in need of financial support for adaptation. We can show those nations that the industrialized nations are taking them seriously and helping them do something, as per their request. But we do not have a solution in one binding document, and this is what Copenhagen tried to find, but in my opinion we will never find one document where everyone’s needs are fulfilled. This is why we have to split the G20, and the UN.