14 December 2015, Energy Post, Paris emission cuts aren’t enough – we’ll have to put carbon back in the ground. With the Paris climate deal, the world has created the mother of all take-back schemes, writes Myles Allen, Professor of Geosystem Science at the University of Oxford. According to Allen, fossil fuel companies don’t necessarily have to stop producing CO2 – they just need to be required to ensure it doesn’t end up in the atmosphere. #takebackCO2 – start tweeting it now! Courtesy of The Conversation. I wonder how many of the delegates in Paris realise that they have just created the mother of all “take-back schemes”. As a consumer, you may have already come across this sort of deal: if you don’t want to dispose of the packaging of your new sofa, you can take it back to IKEA and it’s their problem. In many places, you can even take back the sofa itself when your kids have wrecked it. For the Paris climate deal to succeed something similar will have to happen, where companies that rely on fossil fuels will be obliged to “take back” their emissions. The agreement reaffirms a commitment to stabilising temperature rises well below 2℃, and even retains the option of limiting warming to 1.5℃ if possible. But it also confirms national targets that do little more than stabilise global emissions between now and 2030. Given those emissions, sticking to within 2℃ will require us to take lots of carbon out of the atmosphere and store it in the ground. The parties to the agreement are, in effect, saying “we’re going to sell this stuff, and we’re going to dispose of it later”. How do I know? Well, peak warming is overwhelmingly determined bycumulative carbon dioxide emissions. To stabilise temperatures at any level, be it 1.5℃, 2℃ or even 3℃, net carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced to zero. Most governments, environmental groups and business leaders now understand this. And it is acknowledged, albeit implicitly, in Article 4 of the Paris agreement, which calls for greenhouse emissions to be “balanced” by carbon sinks some time after mid-century. But we’re unlikely to hit “net zero” emissions before temperatures reach 2℃, and even less likely before they reach 1.5℃. Warming is currently at about 1℃ and rising by 0.1℃ every five to ten years. We could slow the warming by reducing emissions, of course. But if we fail to reduce at the required rate – and the inadequate emissions targets indicate this is the intention – then we will be left with no option but to scrub the excess CO2 back out of the atmosphere in future. Read More here
Tag Archives: Emissions
13 December 2015, Renew Economy, Lomborg legacy: Why Turnbull Coalition still doesn’t get it. In the final, frantic, virtually sleepless hours in Paris before the global climate deal was finalised on Saturday, Australia found itself on the outer of a powerful international movement. Canada, once joined at the hip with Australia as one of the developed world’s two “climate dunces”,signed up to the Coalition for High Ambition – a 100-strong grouping of countries pushing for an ambitious climate treaty that sought to limit global warming to 1.5°C. Then came Brazil, breaking away from its traditional allies India and China to declare that “if you want to tackle climate change, you need ambition and political will.” It was not a formal voting block, but its influence in the final days of the talks was critical. This was acknowledged by the cheers in the plenary session on the final day of the Paris talks when Marshall Islands foreign minister Tony de Brum walked in at the head of his coalition colleagues. Australia was not among them. It had found itself marginalised as we explained on Friday, by the lingering impact of Tony Abbott’s war on climate policies and renewable energy. Foreign minister Julie Bishop then made a last minute bid to sign Australia up. But it wasn’t until the Coalition had arrived on the floor of the plenary session where France announced – to general acclimation – that the finalised text would be soon released, that Bishop managed to secure her “pin”. By then, it was all but over. Read More here
9 December 2015, Renew Economy, Paris, COP21: Australia digs in on fossil fuels, sees coal as solution to hunger. One of the big themes of the Paris climate talks has been the focus on renewable energy – wind and solar in particular – as a means to reach emission reduction pledges, and cut pollution in the cities. Australia’s Coalition government, however, is sticking to a familiar theme: it has invested heavily in fossil fuels with long-life assets it is keen to retain and, anyway, coal is still good for humanity. Foreign minister Julie Bishop used a forum hosted by Indonesia called “Pathways to a Sustainable Low Carbon and Climate Resilient Economy” to push the case for Australian fossil fuels. “Right now we are in a transition phase,” Bishop said. “Traditional energy sources, fossil fuels like coal, will remain a significant part of the global energy mix for the foreseeable future. “Barring some technological breakthrough fossil fuels will remain critical to promoting prosperity, growing economies and alleviating hunger for years to come.” Hunger? It seems a variation of the “coal is good for humanity” theme, despite repeated estimates by the likes of the IEA, the World Bank and others that suggest the needs of poor countries are probably best served by renewable energy. The comments yet again underline the disconnect between Australia’s apparent support for a global target of “well below 2°C” and its lack of policies to get its economy beyond the fossil fuel age – few renewables are being built and none of the major coal generators are being closed. Bishop suggested this would be the status quo. “It is a fact that energy is the mainstay of our respective countries’ export markets and underpins economic growth,” she said. “The capital stock and infrastructure we have in stock to create and supply energy, both fossil fuels and renewables, have long life spans.” So no early closures then. Read more here
9 December 2015, Energy Post, New: renewables can now play important role in industrial development. Thanks to massive cost reduction, renewable energy can now be used by developing countries in their industrial growth strategies, which was unthinkable until recently, writes John Mathews of Macquarie University in Australia in a new publication from UNIDO, “Promoting Climate Resilient Industry“. Mathews notes that renewables can help countries expand manufacturing and create jobs, reduce local pollution, increase energy security and reduce import costs from fossil fuels. Oh, yes – and they reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The necessity to align industrial development strategies with climate change mitigation provides a chance to bring a fresh perspective to both issues. Energy has not been a central concern in industrial development strategies in the past. This was for the simple reason that it was always assumed that countries would industrialize using fossil fuels – in the same way that Western countries had relied on fossil fuels in the 19th and early 20th centuries, followed by East Asian countries as they likewise depended on coal, oil and gas in the second half of the 20th century. Renewable sources are now within reach of almost all industrializing countries, or will be so within a few short years. This changes everything. But a coal-driven industrial pathway does not look so attractive in the 21st century, especially when being pursued at the scale envisaged by China, India and other industrializing giants. One fresh perspective is that renewable energy sources can now be factored into development strategies. This was not even feasible just a few years ago because of concerns that costs were greater than those associated with consuming fossil fuels. But as China and other emerging giants have placed more and more emphasis on renewable sources – with a focus on water, wind and sun – so they have driven down the costs, with global repercussions. Renewable sources are now within reach of almost all industrializing countries, or will be so within a few short years. This changes everything. Read More here