On Thursday, a critique co-signed by Roger Pielke Jr., a science-policy specialist at the University of Colorado at Boulder, caused quite a stir. The study attempted to show that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was way off with its assessment of the technology challenge the world is facing.

The study referes to the unexpected rise in global emissions and to the decline in energy efficiency and presents a rather pessimistic view on things. “Even with a cutback in wasteful energy spending, our current technologies cannot support both a decline in carbon dioxide emissions and an expanding global economy. If we try to restrain emissions without a fundamentally new set of technologies, we will end up stifling economic growth, including the development prospects for billions of people,” Jeffrey D. Sachs, head of the Earth Institute at Columbia University, said after the release of the study.

Working alongside Pielke, we find Tom Wigley from the National Center for Atmosphere Research in Boulder, and Christopher Green McGill University in Montreal. In their study, it is said that the IPCC believes in the automatic reduction of emissions, without any action what so ever. The three disagree, as they feel technology will need to advance in order for (good) changes to occur.

Several promising technologies were indicated: capturing and burying of carbon dioxide, plug-in hybrid cars and solar-thermal electric plants. “Each will require a combination of factors to succeed: more applied scientific research, important regulatory changes, appropriate infrastructure, public acceptance and early high-cost investments,” Jeffrey D. Sachs said. “A failure on one or more of these points could kill the technologies.”