Last year has been filled with struggles for environmentalists and climate change advocates. However, mostly their campaigns have fallen on deaf ears. The US rejected outright the guidelines outlined at the recent Bali Climate Change Conference. It was one of the biggest blows to the environmental movement in 2007. Despite being backed by the members of the European Union and Brazil, the US has refused to commit to any cuts in emissions, however unbinding and subject to change in the future they were.
The Bush Administration has yet again proved its unrelenting stand against any initiatives concerning global warming that would involve any compromises from its side. And its excuse: developing countries should be the ones to start making cuts in their emissions, Rabianbusiness.com reported.
Abu Dhabi is intent on playing a role in the development of cleaner and safer sources of energy. Developing countries, meanwhile, are having none of it. The US, they argue, should take the lead, adding historically they have had an unnoticed role in bringing about global warming.
Does it seem like we're going in circles here? From purely selfish, and short-term, economic standpoints it is easy to understand both positions.
Why would the US want to cut down on emissions and bring about any changes in its economy when other nations can do it?
On the other hand, why would developing and booming economies, especially countries such as China and India, be forced to slow down the progress they have made in the last few years while America reaps the benefits?
The solution to the stalemate may lie close to home. Shortly after Bali, Abu Dhabi announced hosting the first energy summit after the Indonesian island's conference.
Abu Dhabi has not been short of surprises last year when it came to its environmental initiatives such as its planned zero-emissions Green City. It seems that the world's fifth largest oil producer is intent on playing a much larger role in the development of alternative, cleaner and safer sources of energy.
Hosting the inaugural World Future Energy Summit (WFES) from January 21 to 23, 2008, the UAE capital will hold the first major summit where government, business and NGOs gather to address energy alternatives and progress global cooperation on future energy.
Promising to be the largest and most comprehensive event on alternative energy to date, the WFES will feature 78 high-profile speakers.
It will also host over 180 top international exhibitors from energy, finance, green construction, government and environment sectors, in addition to 13 overseas energy ministers, and state secretaries from Germany and Norway. Where major announcements and contributions are concerned, HRH Prince Charles, President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom of the Maldives, President Olafur Ragnar Grimsson of Iceland and President Ismail Omer Guelleh of Djibouti are expected to take to the stage. Top managers from global giants such as Shell, BP, Total, Occidental and International Power, along with top financers from Credit Suisse, Standard Charter and Merrill Lynch, and Greenpeace International and Forum for the Future, will join the summit as business, government and NGO's will attempt to clarify their positions on energy and climate crisis issues.
Whether this gathering of world ministers, politicians, business leaders, and environmentalists, as well as international exhibitors will bring about a shift in the global energy and environmental crisis is still to be seen.
However, would it not be fitting if it was Abu Dhabi, at the very heart of the oil producing world, that ultimately proved to be the bridge between the US and the emerging economies of the east, allowing them to finally settle their differences?

Between 2002 and 2006, the number of new photovoltaic systems installed in US homes nearly tripled to 7,446 from 2,805.

When Bill and Margaret Oliver decided to take the plunge into solar energy in 2006, Beach, Calif., couple searched for months to find someone who could install 35 newfangled solar panels atop their three-bedroom home.
Despite the hassles--and though the panels cost them $39,000, after government rebates--the Olivers say they're ecstatic to be escaping power bills that had soared to almost $400 a month. The panels contain a relatively new technology for the home called "photovoltaic cells," which convert direct sunlight into electricity. With the installation complete, their latest monthly bill totaled just $1.34, Mailtribune.com reported.
"We had a cake party when they finished the job," recalls the 85-year-old Mrs. Oliver.
For decades solar energy use was largely confined to a small fringe of diehard conservationists. And their sole option was typically a "solar thermal" system that stores heat from the sun to warm pools or appliances. But these days, solar power is going mainstream in many more homes, helped along by a proliferation of new solar technology like cheaper photovoltaic cells and new solar-powered gadgets.
Photovoltaic cells, most of which are made from silicon, have exploded in use around the country over the past five years as once-prohibitive costs for home use of the technology have declined. Between 2002 and 2006, the number of new photovoltaic systems installed in US homes nearly tripled to 7,446 from 2,805, according to the Interstate Renewable Energy Council in Latham, N.Y. Industry officials say that such installations are expected to top 11,000 this year.
The number of solar gizmos for the home is skyrocketing as well. At last fall's Solar Power Conference 2007 in Long Beach, a record 12,500 attendees--including luminaries like media mogul Ted Turner--crowded past aisles crammed with brochures and products, including everything from solar-powered water heaters to carports.
One of the products shown was the Sunray SX2 golf cart. Made by Cruise Car Inc. of Sarasota, Fla., the cart comes equipped with a 48-volt battery that is charged by electricity generated from a sheet of black solar cells on the roof. The cart can travel as long as three days without having to be charged again, the company says, and retails for about $7,000--or $6,000 after federal tax credits. That's in line with the average price of an electric golf cart.
One problem is that there are hundreds of photovoltaic installers to choose from in states such as California and New Jersey, which are among the most aggressive in offering consumer credits to use solar. That makes it difficult to tell who's reliable. Officials with the Solar Energy Industries Association trade group advise consumers to check out installers through their Web site, www.seia.org, as well as to make sure they are certified by the North American Board of Certified Energy Practitioners.
One of the biggest questions for homeowners is whether converting to solar power will really save money. Installers often say you can pay off a photovoltaic roofing system--which typically costs $30,000 to $40,000, after rebates and other incentives--in as little as 10 years by saving on the cost of traditional power, which can easily run $300 or more a month. But some rooftop systems end up not delivering as much power as promised because the panels aren't installed properly, or because the electric-conversion equipment malfunctions.
Industry officials, for their part, say the new solar systems generally pay off over the long term. Sharp Corp. of Japan, a major photovoltaic manufacturer, estimate consumers spend as much as $140,000 for conventional power over a lifetime. And that total could rise, since utility rates are soaring around the country because of deregulation. By contrast, a $40,000 photovoltaic system can appear cheap.
To help make the high costs of solar systems more palatable, companies such as SolarCity Inc. have expanded their offerings to include remote monitoring of customers' solar production. That helps ensure everything is working and that customers are getting the biggest bang for their buck from their solar technology. The consumer can also monitor their own system's performance through a Web site, say officials of the Foster City, Calif., firm.
Another option for homeowners who find the installation cost prohibitive is to lease a solar system.
Consumers who can't afford a full photovoltaic system may also be able to get solar for parts of their home.

An oil rig in China's Bohai Sea

Rapid economic growth has led to an increasing demand for energy. And as energy prices keep increasing more pressure is being put on supply and demand. The reform of the energy industry, especially its pricing mechanism, has drawn much attention.
According to China Daily, the Chinese National Development and Reform Commission said recently it was necessary to reform the pricing mechanism of resource products to further improve efficiency. But the reform should be implemented at the right time with due consideration for all concerned.
Energy prices in China are mainly decided and controlled by the government and do not reflect the scarcity of resources and the impact of energy use on the environment. The prices are relatively low and the pricing mechanism is not in line with that of the international market. This has caused serious problems in energy utilization, economic development and environmental protection.
The pricing mechanism is not in line with production and consumption. This has led to the over-exploitation of resources. China's rapid economic growth is mainly built on an economic structure of high-energy consumption and low-efficiency. The waste in exploitation contrasts hugely with the shortage of resources.
At the same time, low energy prices have increased the competitiveness of China's high-energy-consuming, high-polluting and resource-based products, enlarged trade surpluses and exaggerated the pressure on the yuan's appreciation.
The government is now paying great attention to energy conservation and emission reduction. Without reform of the pricing mechanism, the efforts will only achieve half the results. Reform is a matter of urgency.
Reform will mean further price hikes, and as it takes hold, it will affect the producer price and consumer price indices. The pressure of increasing costs on producers will gradually be transferred to consumers. The process, however, will take time.
Though the rise of energy prices will increase pressure on middle and downstream products, its impact on inflation in the short term will depend on the supply and demand of consumer goods. Over-capacity will lessen pressure for price increases, judging by China's current industrial and energy consumption structure.
In the long run, a price lever is still the most effective way to conserve energy and reduce emissions. As long as energy prices are low, enterprises will lack the drive to improve efficiency and cut emissions. The only way to stop high-energy consuming enterprises from expanding is to increase energy costs. It is therefore necessary to reform the pricing mechanism, marketize energy products and let prices guide investment and economic restructuring.
The reform faces a series of tough issues.
First, the supporting measures of the reform are not completed. There is a lack of overall planning and design in the pricing structure of different energy products. For example, coal prices are market-led now but not electricity. China's crude oil prices are in line with the international market but reform of refined oil prices has not caught up.
Today discussions on reform of the energy pricing mechanism are mainly about bringing China's energy prices in line with the international market. But merely stressing this while ignoring the characteristics of the country's energy resources is not a good idea.
If the scarcity of resources and environmental costs are properly considered, China's energy prices may be even higher than the international level, which could attract more imports of energy resources.
Social fairness is also an issue that should be considered. The price hikes that will come with reform will produce different impacts on consumers of different income levels and social groups. Even prices that are in line with the international market will harm the interests of some consumers. Transparent subsidies for certain consumers will help solve the problem. This is also an important part of the reform.
The current way subsidies are granted to producers have led to unfair distribution and consumption, which does not improve efficiency or promote social fairness.
Compared with other reforms, reform of the energy pricing mechanism will take time because of its importance, complexity and sensitivity. Marketization offers a way.
Any further delay in reform will make China lose important opportunities and increase the cost of sustainable development. Without feasible alternatives, the inefficient use of energy resources driven by the low prices today will mean higher energy prices and a bigger cost to the environment tomorrow.