Copenhagen LEV Outcomes

The Copenhagen Climate Conference that took place last month may have not provided me with as much of a forward looking outcome as I would have liked however, it did present an opportunity for a host of companies to demonstrate their latest technologies. The conference was as much an industry exhibition as an exercise in international political negotiations.

The link below is to a video produced by the Guardian newspaper which investigated Eco Transport at the conference. It provides a synopsis of many emerging Low Emission Vehicle technologies including internal combustion engine vehicles that utilise biofuels (in high concentrations), hybrid electric vehicles, battery electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells. These technologies have been applied predominantly to cars though there is some footage showing motorcycle concepts were also being demonstrated.

Click here for the Eco Transport Copenhagen video.

This piece from the Guardian ties in well with an article published in the Economist this week that discusses the impact of the recent climate negotiations at Copenhagen on the prospects for Eco Technology companies and start-ups (Economist, Waiting for a Green Light, January 2nd 2010, Volume 394 Issue 8663). In the article the author highlights their belief that investment into clean and environmental technologies will be influence more by regional, national and local governmental policy rather than international agreements (or lack there of). This opinion is based on interviews with prominent market investors and company executives.

I personally mostly agree with their conclusions although there are some topics that were omitted from the article. It may be true to state that the prospects of clean technology will not be damaged by the lack of a legally binding agreement but would the prospects have been enhanced had such an agreement been met? I think that an international agreement that is legally binding over the long term would provide firms with the security to invest large quantities of capital that will be required to advance these industries and technologies. This holds true for automotive firms which operate in an international market and would prefer not to develop vehicles for regions or localities (though will do if forced – see the case of California and CARB).

I think development of personal transport and new vehicle technologies along with their demonstration and eventual deployment will be un-phased in the European market. The markets that may have been affected by this agreement are those of the emerging economies including the BASIC countries whose personal transport demand is expected to increase dramatically over the next 20 years. Companies manufacturing vehicles in these countries (mostly indigenous operations) will have witnessed a lack of commitment from their respective politicians and thus may conclude that investing in technology that may not be supported by the national government may pose too great a financial risk. This has the potential to lock these nations onto high carbon development paths into the medium term and decreases the likelihood that these countries will leapfrog polluting technologies.

Whether or not my inclinations will come to pass will only be shown in the future. I hope that the Copenhagen treaty is firstly empowered by large quantities of countries affixing nation commitments to it and secondly that a legally binding international commitment is establishing in Mexico this coming November. What specific effect this will have on LEV development – I will keep this blog posted on.