Earlier this month, the US National Academy of Engineering released a report on "Grand Challenges for Engineering in the 21st Century." The goal is to focus attention on the potential of technology to help the world address poverty and environmental threats.
The list includes potential breakthroughs such as low-cost solar power, safe disposal of carbon dioxide from power plants, nuclear fusion, new educational technologies and the control of environmental side effects from nitrogen fertilizers. The report, like the Gates Foundation's similar list of "Grand Challenges" in global health, highlights a new global priority: promoting advanced technologies for sustainable development.
We are used to thinking about global cooperation in fields such as monetary policy, disease control or nuclear weapons proliferation. We are less accustomed to thinking of global cooperation to promote new technologies, such as clean energy, a malaria vaccine or drought-resistant crops to help poor African farmers.
By and large, we regard new technologies as something to be developed by businesses for the marketplace, not as opportunities for global problem solving.
Yet, given the enormous global pressures that we face, including vastly unequal incomes and massive environmental damage, we must find new technological solutions to our problems.
There is no way, for example, to continue expanding the global use of energy safely unless we drastically alter how we produce electricity, power automobiles, and heat and cool our buildings.
The reliance on coal, natural gas and petroleum, without regard for carbon dioxide emissions, is now simply too dangerous, because it is leading to climate changes that will spread diseases, destroy crops, produce more droughts and floods and perhaps dramatically raise sea levels, thereby inundating coastal regions.
The National Academy of Engineering identified some possible answers. We can harness safe nuclear energy, lower the cost of solar power, or capture and safely store the carbon dioxide produced from burning fossil fuels. Yet the technologies are not yet ready and we can't simply wait for the market to deliver them, because they require complex changes in public policy to ensure that they are safe, reliable and acceptable to the broad public. Moreover, there are no market incentives in place to induce private businesses to invest adequately in developing them.
Consider carbon capture and sequestration. The idea is that power plants and other large fossil fuel users should capture the carbon dioxide and pump it into permanent underground storage sites, such as old oil fields. This would cost, say, US$30 per tonne of carbon dioxide that is stored, so businesses would need an incentive to do it. Moreover, public policies would have to be designed to promote the testing and improvement of this technology, especially when used at a large scale.
New kinds of power plants would have to be built to make carbon capture economical, new pipelines would have to be built to transport the carbon dioxide to storage sites and new monitoring systems would have to be designed to control leaks. Likewise, new regulations would be needed to ensure compliance with safety procedures, and to assure public support.
All of this would take time, costly investments and lots of collaboration between scientists and engineers in universities, government laboratories and private businesses. Moreover, this kind of technology would be useful only if it is widely used, notably in China and India. This raises another challenge of technological innovation: We need to support the transfer of proven technologies to poorer countries.
If rich countries monopolize new technologies, the goal of worldwide use to solve worldwide problems would be defeated. Thus, technological developments should involve a collaborative international effort from the start.
All of this requires a new global approach to problem solving. We need to embrace global goals and then establish scientific, engineering and political processes to support their achievement. We need to give new budgetary incentives to promote demonstration projects, and to support technology transfer.
And we have to engage major companies in a new way, giving them ample incentives and market rewards for success, without allowing them to hold a monopoly on successful technologies that should be widely adopted.
I believe that this new kind of global public-private partnership on technology development will be a major objective of international policy-making in the coming years. Look for new global cooperative approaches to clean energy systems, medicines and vaccines, improved techniques for fish farming, drought and temperature-resistant crop varieties, high-mileage automobiles and low-cost irrigation techniques.
Rich countries should fund these efforts heavily, and they should be carried out in collaboration with poor countries and the private sector. Successful technological breakthroughs can provide stunning benefits for humanity. This is an exciting time to be a scientist or engineer facing the challenges of sustainable development.
Jeffrey Sachs is a professor of economics and director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US president-elect Donald Trump continues to make nominations for his Cabinet and US agencies, with most of his picks being staunchly against Beijing. For US ambassador to China, Trump has tapped former US senator David Perdue. This appointment makes it crystal clear that Trump has no intention of letting China continue to steal from the US while infiltrating it in a surreptitious quasi-war, harming world peace and stability. Originally earning a name for himself in the business world, Perdue made his start with Chinese supply chains as a manager for several US firms. He later served as the CEO of Reebok and
Chinese Ministry of National Defense spokesman Wu Qian (吳謙) announced at a news conference that General Miao Hua (苗華) — director of the Political Work Department of the Central Military Commission — has been suspended from his duties pending an investigation of serious disciplinary breaches. Miao’s role within the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) affects not only its loyalty to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), but also ideological control. This reflects the PLA’s complex internal power struggles, as well as its long-existing structural problems. Since its establishment, the PLA has emphasized that “the party commands the gun,” and that the military is
US president-elect Donald Trump in an interview with NBC News on Monday said he would “never say” if the US is committed to defending Taiwan against China. Trump said he would “prefer” that China does not attempt to invade Taiwan, and that he has a “very good relationship” with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平). Before committing US troops to defending Taiwan he would “have to negotiate things,” he said. This is a departure from the stance of incumbent US President Joe Biden, who on several occasions expressed resolutely that he would commit US troops in the event of a conflict in
US$18.278 billion is a simple dollar figure; one that’s illustrative of the first Trump administration’s defense commitment to Taiwan. But what does Donald Trump care for money? During President Trump’s first term, the US defense department approved gross sales of “defense articles and services” to Taiwan of over US$18 billion. In September, the US-Taiwan Business Council compared Trump’s figure to the other four presidential administrations since 1993: President Clinton approved a total of US$8.702 billion from 1993 through 2000. President George W. Bush approved US$15.614 billion in eight years. This total would have been significantly greater had Taiwan’s Kuomintang-controlled Legislative Yuan been cooperative. During
RSS