For a clean technology cheerleader, Nicholas Parker is remarkably cool about the conflicting climate change theories floating around. He also seems least perturbed by the prospect of failure at the Copenhagen climate change summit in December. “I don’t really care about Copenhagen,” says Parker, the co-founder of a company that established clean technology as an investment category. That was way back in 2002.

Parker’s Cleantech Group, a membership network providing research and advisory services, unsurprisingly, holds the trademark for the cleantech name.

Parker, actually, cares about Copenhagen. His point is the shift to clean technology will happen anyhow. With or without climate change. With or without a global pact to deal with it.

There’s an opportunity for a business model innovation (in clean tech) that reaches the bottom of the pyramid in India.” Nicholas Parker, Co-founder, Cleantech Group

Take climate change. “That’s not the only game in town.” Energy security and resource scarcity are serious enough issues. A recent McKinsey study, for example, pointed out that India may have to import 40% of its coal needs (2.4 billion tonnes) by 2030. “There’s no way India is going to be able to secure that. It’s just not available in the world market,” says Parker.

The change driver, according to Parker, will be price signals. “Who would need a cap on carbon when oil prices are $150 a barrel?” They are going to kick in as the world moves out of recession. (During the peak of the slump, renewable energy lost some of its sheen, as oil prices plunged.)

And when the signals do emerge, the world will be better off having a global framework for climate change. Else, Parker reckons, change will be chaotic and socially disruptive. “So, I do care about Copenhagen but I know if it doesn’t work, the back-up is sheer supply and demand,” he says.

Clean Promise

From all this, however, there’s already some good emerging for Parker and Co. “What is good about the Copenhagen process,” he says, “is we are spending more time on innovation and markets.” Which means, “less time figuring out how to trade our way out of this (with carbon credits).”

More innovation is always welcome for an industry group that seeks to build clean technology markets by bringing resources, entrepreneurs and research to the support of new technologies. Till date, it has amongst its members 8,000 investors, 6,000 companies and 3,500 professional services organisations. They represent more than $3 trillion in assets.

Cleantech recently unveiled its first list of 100 promising clean technology companies. More than half of them in the list are based in the US. India has three (Deeya Energy, D.Light Design and Jain Irrigation), ditto in France. Interestingly, China has none. That, however, isn’t enough to put India ahead of China in the eyes of the Cleantech community. “In China, you have got governmental action and the government has money,” says Parker. In India, on the other hand, “you don’t have a government that can act.” Also, “you have the potential to innovate but still not on a scale that will make you a global leader.” And though there is public sensitivity, Parker reckons that’s more around social issues.

So, how does Parker rate India’s eight missions to tackle climate change? “Directionally, they look good,” he says. “But I say show me the money, the price signals, standards and enforcement.” Parker takes the case of the Solar Mission (the $19 billion plan to generate 20 GW of solar power by 2020 from nearly nothing now). “Hugely impressive, grabs the headline,” he says, before counteracting it. “But it’s not as impressive as it would have been three years ago. Because, guess what, the Chinese have a bigger one.”

There’s one more important difference. “In China, they aren’t just thinking about it. They are doing it.” Example, China already has a smart mobility strategy. “You buy a smart card where you take the auto share to the nearest transit hub, from where you take a high speed train. It’s not a pipe dream.” India’s record isn’t great too, he says. Not one of India’s Five Year Plans around power has come close to achieving targets. “The good news, from Nano to Reva, is about India’s ingenuity, technological capacity and maturity as a market.”

The way forward is for India to build its own clean tech solutions. “There’s an opportunity for a business model innovation that reaches the bottom of the pyramid in India,” says Parker. It could be on the lines of China’s smart mobility system. Or Shai Agassi’s electric vehicle network in Israel. Or use of bicycle in Europe using smart card technologies. Something like that is possible from scratch.

The Race Has Begun

India has to pull up its socks. Also, because world over, companies and places are jumping onto the clean technology bandwagon. Canadian auto company Magna, for instance, approached Cleantech to understand how to play the game. In Michigan, the erstwhile auto sector is making wind turbine components. “They think it’s going to save their economy,” he says.

Also, governments these days have a fresh approach to this issue, says Parker. “Earlier, the environment was about beating up the bad guys and relocating the polluting industries,” says Parker. That has changed. “Today, it’s about how do I get my share of the jobs and wealth creation that’s going to come from being part of the solution.”

That’s exactly the path California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger took. “He came to us, because we did a study when California signed its landmark climate legislation.” In that study, Cleantech merely talked about job and wealth creation. That was good enough. He signed the legislation. “I don’t think we have to sell the politicians on a morals story. We don’t have to convert them into Gandhians,” says Parker.

The coming years will make it clear if our politicians do take the clean technology bait. And if Pune does become a clean technology hub, as Parker believes it could. Soon, we will also know if the world comes together for a joint pact to deal with climate change. In fact, Parker believes “there’s a 50% chance” of the Chinese saving the Copenhagen meet. “And then everybody else will have to scramble to catch up.”

And why would China do it? First of all, they need a calling card on the global diplomatic stage. Second, they are more insecure than other major economies from climate change. “Lastly, they have got the technology and the capital. They can win.”